The Role of Land Tenure in Strategies to Reduce
Vulnerability to Droughts in Northeastern Brazil
Fabiano Toni
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
Abstract
The objective of this research is to determine the effects of land tenure rights on the vulnerability of
subsistence farmers to climate change in the Brazilian semi-arid zone. The semi-arid comprises
approximately two thirds of Brazil’s Northeast region, which is the poorest region in the country. Annual
rainfall is as low as 400 mm in some zones and there is a sharp interannual variation. The local population
is permanently exposed to droughts and its associated consequences, such as crop failure, famine, and
out-migration. The occurrence of common-property pasturelands, known as Fundos de Pasto, is frequent.
In this research we conduct a comparative analysis of two distinct farming systems – those that use Fundo
de Pasto, and those that are based solely on private properties, in the North portion of the state of Bahia.
Results show that there are no significant differences between the two groups concerning total income.
However, farmers using Fundo de Pasto have more diversified systems and invest more on small-animals
husbandry, particularly goats, which are well adapted to the harsh environmental conditions. Moreover,
investing in a larger number of animals (as opposed to fewer bovines) spreads the risk of loss due to
droughts. An evidence of the advantages of such system is the observed higher consumption of animal
meat among families that have Fundo de Pasto.
Introduction
In vast areas of the Brazilian semi-arid zone, the occurrence of common property pasturelands, locally
known as fundos de pasto or fechos de pasto is frequent. Those areas are adjacent to private plots,
wherein smallholders live, grow annual crops, some perennials, and breed small animals. The commons
are mainly native vegetation, comprised of bushes and native grasses. Besides pastures, they are also an
important source of medicines, firewood, and fruits. Usually the term fecho de pasto refers to areas where
bovine cattle are predominant, whereas in the fundos de pasto, caprine and ovine cattle is predominant.
Usually the latter is more frequent in drier areas than the former. Goats are particularly important in the
fundo de pasto system, due to their resistance against droughts. In some cases, the farmers grow some
fodder in their private plots, however, for many others, the common pasturelands are the only source of
food for their animals.
Those common property pasturelands came into being as a consequence of the abandonment of old cattle
ranches along the São Francisco River, which in turn occurred due to the decline of the sugar cane industry
on the coast of the State of Pernambuco, during the 19 th Century. From the 16th Century on, extensive
cattle ranching had occupied the backlands of the Northeast, along the river. The cattle was shipped the
main markets in Olinda, Recife, and other cities along the coast, in the sugar cane production zones known
as Zona da Mata. The beef market plunged as the sugar industry declined, and many ranches were
abandoned and latter occupied by local rural workers, freed slaves and migrants. Land was abundant, in
spite of lack of tenure security, but the climate conditions were harsh. As a consequence, farmers grabbed
small individual land plots to grow their crops and let their animals freely graze around their properties. As
the rural population grew, farmers gathered around large traits of pasturelands. In many cases, those who
occupy neighboring plots share some sort of kinship, and regulate access to the commons. Besides
pasture, the common areas are an important source of fibers used in crafts and house building, honey,
fruits, medicines and game.
Recently, the State of Bahia started issuing land individual land titles to farmers. The most organized
communities have also been fighting for their right to obtain collective titles of the common property areas.
Just a few have succeeded so far (NEED TO ADD NUMBERS HERE). Titling has become very important,
because the escalation of conflicts. A few communities have problems with smallholders who migrate to the
area and want access to the common property pasturelands; other, face treats from professional land
grabbers, mining companies, and ranchers who claim to be the legitimate owners of the lands.
Another important problem is the lack of official support for the economic activities developed in those
areas. In general farmers need legal title to their lands in order to have access to rural credit. Also, they
lack technical assistance and scientific and technological input to their activities. In part this neglect is a
consequence of a misconceived and prejudicial view of the fundo de pasto system by politicians,
government officials, and researchers, according to which this is a backward and economically
unsustainable system.
The main objective of this paper is to discuss the importance and limits of the fundo de pasto system, in a
context of high vulnerability to climate change. In order to do that, we present a comparative study of two
groups of smallholders: those who use common property pasturelands, and those who rely solely on private
lands. In the next section of the text we present some background information on the climate conditions
that impinge on the population of the Brazilian semi-arid zone and lay the basic elements of an analytical
framework to study the effects of land tenure on the vulnerability of smallholders to droughts. In the
2
following section we present the main research hypotheses and questions. Part 3 is a short summary of the
methodological procedures deployed to achieve the proposed objectives. In the following section we
present the main findings. Finally, in the last section we draw our main conclusions and make a few policy
recommendations.
1. Climate and Vulnerability: Background and a Framework of Analysis
The Brazilian Northeast region is located between 4o and 16o S and 33o and 46o W, just east of the
Amazonian rainforest, with an area of 1.5 million km2. Approximately 15 million Northeasterners live in rural
areas, which represent 32% of the regional population and 46% of the Brazilian rural population. Besides
this low urbanization rate, it is worth noting that 50.6% of the local population lives in municipalities that
have less than 50.000 inhabitants1, in which there are few job opportunities and where most of the
population’s livelihoods depend directly or indirectly on agriculture (Wanderley, 2002). The regional
economic and social indicators are below the national average, and there is a strong interregional
unevenness. Most of the industrial activities, services, and research and higher education institutions are
concentrated in the metropolitan areas around the capital cities of the states of Bahia, Pernambuco, and
Ceará.
The rainfall in the region is typically concentrated between February and March. Although some costal
zones, particularly in the east, receive as much as 1.600 mm of rainfall, some zones in the backlands have
an annual average of less than 400 mm. The semi-arid zone (known as the Droughts Polygon) has 950.000
Km2, which represents 58% of the Northeastern territory. The temporal and spatial variability of rainfall are
very high, as in other semi-arid zones of the world. The interannual rainfall variation is usually around +/40% from the long term annual average (Alves, 1997); however, in extreme years deviation can be much
higher, ranging from to 200% to – 100% of the standard deviation (Nobre et al 1992). The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers this region one of the most vulnerable to the
effects of climate change (Schneider and Sarukhan, 2001; Parry et al, 1988, cited in Gasques, 1992).
One of the causes of such variation is the Southern Oscillation Phenomenon – the abnormal temperatures
of the Southern Tropical Pacific Ocean. The Oscillation – also known as El Niño during its warm phase and
La Niña during its cold phase – has a worldwide impact on the climate, and rainfall variation is one of its
main effects. During El Niño seasons, rainfall tends to decrease in Northeast Brazil and to increase in the
South. The effects of La Niña are the opposite. However, climate change is a very complex phenomenon
and the Southern Oscillation is not the only responsible for rainfall variation changes in the Brazilian semiarid. Some authors argue that it may even be a variable of secondary importance. Nonetheless, Alves
(1997) studied the correlation between the Southern Oscillation and agricultural output in the state of Ceará
between 1947 and 1990 to conclude that beans and maize crops (the main staples in the region, along with
cassava) were 10 – 20% above the historical mean during La Niña years, and 30 – 50% bellow average
during El Niño years. In contrast, many studies have shown that in southeastern South America, maize and
soybean yields tend to be higher than normal during the warm phase of the Southern Oscillation and lower
during the cold phase (Berlato and Fontana, 1997; Grondona et al., 1997; Magrin et al., 1998; Baethgen
and Romero, 2000). In a scenario of global warming, subsistence agriculture in semi-arid lands is at high
risk. The global agricultural model of Rosenzweig et al. (1993) identifies northeastern Brazil as suffering
1
In the richest state of the federation – São Paulo – less than 20% of the population lives in towns this size.
3
yield impacts that are among the most severe in the world (see Reilly et al., 1996; Canziani et al., 1998;
Rosenzweig and Hillel, 1998).
Severe climate conditions are not the only stressors that impinge on the local population. Other
endogenous and exogenous factors operate along with climate to increase vulnerability. Low rainfall, when
coupled with high temperatures and anthropic factors, such as overgrazing, deforestation, removal of
natural vegetation cover, and poor soil management increases the risk of land degradation and
desertification2. According to the IPCC, the regions most vulnerable to desertification in Latin America are
located in northeast Brazil, in the zone along the Caribbean coasts of Venezuela and Colombia, and in the
semi-arid Chacoan of northern Argentina (Schneider and Sarukhan, 2001).
Land degradation is a stressor partially caused by its very victims. When better options are not available,
due to economic or technological constraints, farmers may need to remove land cover and let their livestock
overgraze to cope with the short-term effects of droughts. As shown in figure 1, there is a feedback
mechanism that involves stressors, land-use decisions and outcomes. Within certain contexts,
environmental stressors forces decision-makers to rationally overexploit their resources, causing land
degradation, which, in turn exacerbates the environmental stressors. Similarly, other coping mechanisms
are effective in the short run but reinforce chronic social stressors.
In the case of Northeast Brazil, political patronage and clientelism are notorious socio-political stressors. As
the local population depends on governmental assistance to make ends meet during the periods of
hardship, local political leaders seize control of public resources and exchange them for votes and political
support. A historical perspective shows that the manipulation of state policies and funds by such power
brokers has shaped vulnerability and pulled the poor “down the rainfall gradient into more an more
marginalized lands” (Ribot, 1995,p. 121, quoting Glantz, 1995). Nevertheless, patronage may be
considered an entitlement that helps decrease vulnerability. We will take this approach in this study and will
treat clientelism as part of the structure of entitlements, rather than a stressor (see Figure 1). One of our
objectives is, therefore, to analyze the role of patronage in the coping strategies of the population exposed
to the risk of severe droughts.
In this research, we use Adger and Kelly’s definition of vulnerability as “the state of individuals, of groups, of
communities, defined in terms of their ability to cope with and adapt to any external stress placed on their
livelihoods and well-being” (1999: 253). This definition acknowledges the importance of the degree of
exposure to stressors, as well as the nature and the intensity of external stressors. On the other hand, it
makes explicit that vulnerability is a social construct, inherently linked to people’s capacity to act and to
react. The vulnerability of individuals and collectivities is therefore dependent on the availability of
resources and on their entitlements to call on these resources.
The concept of entitlements in the analysis of vulnerability comes from the work of Amartya Sen (1981,
1989) on hunger and famine. According to Sen, a household’s entitlements consist of the food that a
household can obtain through production exchange, or extra-legal legitimate conventions – such as
reciprocal relations or kinship obligations (Drèze and Sen, 1989, cited by Ribot, 1995). A household’s
assets and endowments include investments in productive activities, stores of food, cash, and livestock; and
Desertification is defined as land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors,
including climactic variations and human activities (conclusion from Earth Summit of Rio de Janeiro in 1992—UNCED, 1992).
Evaluation of desertification around the world is controversial, for there is no unique measure of aridity.
2
4
claims on other households, patrons, chiefs, and government, among others. Assets are normally used in
moments of distress to obtain food, health care, and other emergent contingences. As Swift (1989, p. 11)
puts it, “Assets create a buffer between production, exchange, and consumption.”
Three main strategies can be deployed to increase assets and endowments. The first two relates
particularly to endowments and basically consist of developing social relations, although in very distinctive
ways: vertically or horizontally. Vertical social relations are socially hierarchical and asymmetrical, in the
sense that they imply an unequal balance of power between the higher and the lower levels of the social
hierarchy. In such relations, peasants usually exchange votes and political allegiance for public and private
goods and services, which is the basis of clientelism. Although in the long run this strategy contributes to
keep the less powerful in a vulnerable position, in the short term it is very cost effective, for peasants do not
have to sell or trade part of their assets, if they have any, to get what they need – usually food and water.
Horizontal social relations are the social fabric of safety nets. In times of hardship, those who have
developed such relations may rely on neighbors, family, and community members to cope with the stressors
that they face. Support may come in form of money and food loans, water, labor, shelter, transportation and
many others. The more community members use this kind of support, and reciprocate, the strongest their
safety net. In other words, they enhance their social capital by using it (Putnam, 1993).
A third way to increase assets and endowments is by means of accumulation. This is a very important
strategy for it does not entail dependence on outsiders. However, it does require a relatively efficient
productive system that generates surplus. Usually, small farmers make some profit with agriculture and
invest the surplus in livestock, particularly in cattle, due to its liquidity and other comparative advantages
(Smith et al. 1995; Durning and Brough, 1991). Cattle can easily be sold to cover expected and unexpected
financial needs. Using Swift’s words, one can argue that cattle probably represent the most effective “buffer
between production, exchange, and consumption” (Swift1989: 11).
Figure 1 represents the structure of vulnerability of small farmers to climate change in the Brazilian semiarid zone. The exposure unities are households and communities. They are exposed to very clear external
environmental stressors, which are low precipitation and sharp rainfall variation; in other words, droughts.
Droughts are aggravated by land degradation, which is at the same time a stressor and an outcome of
inadequate land management. The households and communities deploy three main strategies: patronage,
use of assets and collective action to cope with the effects of the social and environmental stressors that
impinge on them. An important argument made here is that patronage may be a very efficient coping
strategy in the short term, particularly because it is more cost-effective in terms of labor and loss of assets.
Nevertheless, in the long run, it reinforces the existing social stressors. The outcomes of the interaction
between the stressors are usually crop failure, livestock losses, out migration, malnutrition, land degradation
and further impoverishment of the local population. Of course those outcomes depend on the efficacy of
the coping mechanisms and the architecture of entitlements of the exposed unities.
5
Figure 1 Structure of Vulnerability in the Brazilian semi-arid zone.
Stressors
Exposure Unity
Outcomes
Households
Community
Environmental


Low/variable Rainfall
Desertification
Coping mechanisms
 Patronage
 Use of Assets
 Collective action
 Overexploitation of
natural resources
(overgrazing, removal
of natural vegetation
 Crop Failure
 Livestock
losses
 Out migration
 Malnutrition
 Land
Degradation
Land tenure and land property rights are particularly relevant within this framework. Property rights have an
important impact on land use and on decision-making concerning investments by farmers. Therefore, it
affects the structure of assets, entitlements and endowments and shapes the vulnerability of the local
population to the stressors that they face. Also, communal land management entails social organization
and collective action, which may be important components of local coping strategies.
Some authors claim that land titling may significantly promote more sustainable forms of land use (Wachter,
1992; World Bank, 1992). According to this perspective, the security that is provided by well-defined
property rights allows for longer-term planning horizons because landowners have the assurance that their
decisions will be implemented, and that they will capture the returns from their investments. Recognized
title also promotes investment by providing collateral, and by providing landholders access to credit and
capital markets (Alston, Libecap and Mueller, 1999). The lack of secure property rights, on the other hand,
implies that land owners will not be sure if they will benefit from their investments and natural resource
conservation measures that they eventually adopt (see Alchian e Demsetz, 1973; Alessi, 1987; Alston,
Libecap e Schneider, 1994; Beaumont e Walker, 1994).
In situations wherein users of open access resources lack title and secure private ownership, economic
rationality may induce them to deplete these resources (Hardin, 1968). However, this view does not
consider that title and private ownership are not necessarily the only forms of property right that grant
security to land owners. Communal property rights, collective action, and local institutions may in fact
provide even more security under certain circumstances. Communal land use in poorer areas, contrary to
what a significant body of literature would predict, may have been detaining environmental degradation
rather than promoting it (Ostrom, 1991). At this point, it is necessary to make a distinction between “openaccess” and “common property resources”. The former refers to unregulated and unmanaged resources
6
that can be freely used without distinction or hindrance and, hence, are prone to the overexploitation based
on economic rationality as predicted by Ostrom. Common property resources, on the other hand refer to
those commons that are governed by some sort of managerial rules, or institutions, writ large.
2. Research Questions and Hypotheses
The main research question in this research relates to the correlation between different land tenure rights
and the vulnerability of subsistence farmers to droughts. A central hypothesis of the study is that
communities that have communal rights are significantly less vulnerable to exposure to droughts and other
social stressors than communities that operate within individual and private land right regimes. This is so
because those communities are able to breed larger cattle herds, particularly caprine and ovine. Cattle, is
the main asset that subsistence farmers use to cope with droughts, for it represents a hedge that can be
used to buy food, to gain access to water, to buy medicines, and to avoid migration, among other benefits.
Goats in general, and some breeds of sheep are particularly well adapted to arid and semi-arid zones.
Communal management of pasturelands, in comparison with individual management, allows farmers to
increase cattle herds. This occurs mainly because common property pasturelands give cattle further
mobility, which is crucial for the survival of the herds during dry periods. Also, smallholders can invest in
animals rather than in fences, increasing tradable (and edible) assets that can be easily mobilized during
harsh times.
The main question asked in this paper, therefore is: are there significant differences in terms of assets and
income between smallholders who use common pasturelands and those who use only private pasturelands
in the semi-arid zone?
3. Methods
To test our hypothesis, we used data collected by the Brazilian National Institute for Agricultural Research –
EMBRAPA, in 2002. The data was obtained by means of a random survey in 12 municipalities in
Northeastern Bahia, in which a questionnaire was applied to 549 smallholders. The questionnaire had 678
questions, which can be roughly divided in six main categories: 1) general information on the family (e.g.
number of members, age structure) 2) general information on the property (location, size, titling status; land
use); 3) Land use (area of annual and perennial crops, pasture, herds size); 4) investments (tools, buildings,
machinery); 5) agricultural income (sales and consumption of crops, animals, milk, honey, crafts, etc.) and;
6) non-farm income (pensions, wage labor, remittances).
The questionnaires were coded and fed into a SPSS database. In the statistical analysis, the use of
common pasturelands was the independent variable. Due to the complexity and length of the
questionnaire, we selected a few dependent variables and built a series o dummy variables to test the main
hypotheses. Then we run a bivariate analysis to compare the two groups.
7
4. Results
The analysis shows that, among the 25 selected variables there are significant differences between the two
groups concerning: A) total area of subsistence crops (variable 3 presented on Table 1); B) total area of
cash crops (variable 4); C) pastureland area (variable 5), D) goat herds (variable 8); E) income generated
by cattle (bovine) ranching (variable 16); and F) per capita consumption of meet.
In average, smallholders who use common pasturelands (from now on, group 1) have 1.83 hectares of
subsistence crops; those who do not use common pasturelands (group 2), have 1.20 hectares. Goat herds
are significantly larger in group 1: 8.91 animal units, against 6.6 animals in group 2. The size of private
pasturelands is larger in farms in group 2 (10.1 hectares) than in group 1 ( 3.9 hectares). Accordingly, the
difference in the income generated by cattle ranching significantly varies between the two groups (USD
279.2 / year against 146.36 / year for group 1).
Although there are few differences, those two groups have different farming systems. Group 1 is more
focused on subsistence, whereas group 2 tends to be more market-oriented. Although farmers in group 2
do not have significantly larger cattle herds, they earn more cash income from ranching. Considering that
they have larger pasture areas, we can deduct that they practice a more intensive ranching, i.e., they deploy
more capital and labor in this activity. Although they also tend to focus on cash crops, rather than on
subsistence crops, the income they get from that activity is not significantly higher than what farmers in
group 1 get.
Group 1
Group 2
Farmers use common property
pasturelands
Farmers do not use common
property pasturelands
Focus on goats
Focus on cattle (more intensive)
Larger area with subsistence crops
Larger area with cash crops
Similar Income
These findings suggest that farmers who do not use common property pasturelands tend to invest more
capital and labor in cattle and pasturelands, which is probably why they have relatively smaller areas of
subsistence crops. On the other hand those who use common pasturelands do not need to invest their
resources in pastures, for their animals (typically goats) rely on the native vegetation to graze. At this point,
the analysis shows that farmers in group 2 may indeed adopt “more modern” farming systems, in which a
higher level of inputs also yields higher outputs. However, this conclusion is still premature. If we look at the
total income of the families in both groups (variable 14) there is no significant difference whatsoever. This f
The most important finding in our analysis is related to the per capita annual meet consumption (variable
26), which is significant higher among farmers in group 1 than in group 2 (52.54 kg against 36.86kg/family
member/year). This is particularly important in a dry region such as the Brazilian Northeast, where
malnutrition is rampant. The explanation for this seems straightforward: as farmers who use common
8
property pasturelands invest more in small animals, they have larger herds and can afford slaughtering an
animal every now and then. A goat or a sheep can be eaten in a few days by a family, shared with
neighbors, or salted. Cows, on the other hand, must be taken to the market for a family cannot possibly
storage or consume all the beef that one animal yields, even when those families have refrigerators.
Accordingly, investing in goats instead of cattle is an effective strategy to decrease the vulnerability to
draughts. With the same capital, a farmer can purchase a larger number of goats than cows, therefore,
during dry periods, he spreads the risks of loss amongst a larger herd. Moreover, goats are more adapted
to dry conditions and can graze on a larger number of species. In addition, cattle ranching demands more
pasture and fodder, diverting capital and labor from other activities, particularly subsistence crops. Simply
put, under a farming system that relies solely on private lands, farmers tend to work harder to feed cattle,
not themselves and their families.
Table 01. Means and standard deviation for selected variables
Common Pasturelands
Yes
Variable
441
44,16
1,83
1,06
3,92
0,37
27,34
8,91
5,47
4,98
5,45
1,39
677,02
1673,21
1236,70
146,28
212,77
124,70
222,64
113,32
461,65
7,56
50,50
12,83
436,52
52,54
63,80
Mean
1. Number of farms
2. Total area (ha)
3. Subsistence crops area (ha)
4. Commercial crops area(ha)
5. Private Pastureland area (ha)
6. Fodder area (ha)
7. Natural vegetation (caatinga) area (ha)
8. Caprines – Animal Unity
9. Ovines – Animal Unity
10. Bovines – Animal Unity
11. Family size
12. Number of migrants
13. Investment mach./equipment (USD)
14. Total income (USD/year)
15. Cash income (USD/year)
16. Income bovines (USD/year)
17. Income caprines (USD/year)
18. Income ovines (USD/year)
19. Agricultural income (USD/year)
20. Other animals (USD/year)
21. Pensions (USD/year)
22. Remittances (USD/year)
23. Wage labor (USD/year)
24. Other (USD/year)
25. In farm consumption (USD/year)
26. Meet consumption (Kg/family
member/year)
No
Standard
Deviation
71,09
2,66
2,32
7,54
1,53
49,04
9,91
7,46
10,25
2,79
2,33
1503,37
1783,49
1655,13
498,88
521,77
573,64
650,37
678,50
764,35
42,27
186,30
95,22
372,56
9
T test
108
45,19
1,20
1,68
10,13
0,55
23,94
6,59
5,18
6,31
5,29
1,63
653,64
775,43
719,62
216,90
226,85
249,41
282,77
295,00
332,33
18,38
81,00
41,40
161,98
Standard
Deviation
63,01
2,65
5,24
17,48
2,20
40,62
10,79
9,60
14,99
3,01
2,89
1608,21
2945,86
2872,24
879,50
343,29
430,87
1535,03
119,52
832,77
25,48
164,57
73,26
436,04
ns
p<0,05
p<0,10
p<0,05
ns
ns
p<0,05
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
p< 0,05
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
36,86
43,12
P< 0,05
Mean
5. Conclusions
The results contradict the caims that the fundo de pasto is a backward farming system. Although private
farming systems tend to be a little more technology intensive, they do not provide a higher income to
smallholders. Moreover, the fundo the pasto system has a clear advantage in terms of food security, for it
provides a higher protein intake to farmers and their families.
It is important to stress, howerer, that there is no reliable data on the ecological sustainability of the fundo
de pasto system. This is, in part, a consequence of the predominat view that the system is anachronic and
should be substituted by private property. Little research effort has been made to understand the system
and its environmental impact. In many cases, goats could be overgrazing the native vegetation and causing
serious degradation. It is crucial to develop further research on the feeding habits of goats, as well as on
the regrowth of the natural vegetation, in order to develop sustainable systems of pasture management.
This can contribute not only to increase livestock outputs, but also to the conservation of the rich and
complex semi-arid landscape (caatinga). Accordingly, there are several non-timber forest products – fibers,
fruits, barks, roots - that can be harvested from the caatinga to increase farm income. However, there is
little scientific input to develop forest management in those areas.
Sound research is important to support public policies designed to protect the caatinga and its population.
Also, there are important experiences of collective land management elsewhere in Brazil, such as the
Extractivist Reserves and Agroforestry Land Reform Settlements in Amazonia, which should be considered
by policy makers and, specially, by the local population and the social organizations that represent them.
Developing appropriate land and forest management systems is crucial for the population to cope with
vulnerability to droughts, however, the greatest challenge tha they face is building social institutions that
secure access to natural resources.
10
6. References
Adger, N. and P.M. Kelly. 1999. Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and the Architecture of Entitlements.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4: 245 - 266.
Alchian, A. and H. Demsetz. 1973 The property rights paradigm. Journal of Economic History 33:16-27.
Alessi, Louis De. 1987 "Property rights and privatization." In Stephen H. Hanke (ed.), Prospects for Privatization:
Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 26(3).
Alston, Lee J., Gary Libecap, and Robert Schneider. 1994 "An analysis of property rights, land rents, and agricultural
investment on two frontiers in Brazil." Unpublished paper.
Alston, Lee J., Gary D. Libecap, and Bernardo Mueller. 1999. Titles, Conflict, and Land Use: The Development of
Property Rights and Land Reform on the Brazilian Amazon Frontier. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press.
Alves, J.M.B. 1997. Aspectos Climatológicos do Nordeste Brasileiro com Ênfase na Região Semi-Árida: Principais
causas da Variedade Pluviométrica Interanual. 1st Brazilian Rainwater Catchment Systems Conference.
Proceedings, Petrolina, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária.
Baethgen, W.E. and R. Romero. 2000. Sea Surface Temperature in the El Niño region and crop yield in Uruguay. In:
Comisión Nacional sobre el Cambio Global (CNCG). Climate Variability and Agriculture in Argentina and
Uruguay: Assessment of ENSO Effects and Perspectives for the Use of Climate Forecast: Final Report to the
Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research. Montevideo, Uruguay, Comisión Nacional sobre el Cambio
Global .
Beaumont, P. M. and R. Walker. 1994. "Land degradation and property regimes." Ecological Economics 18:55-66.
Beebe, James 1987 Rapid appraisal: the evolution of the concept and the definition of issues. Pp. 47-68 in Kohn
Kaen University, 1985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Proceedings. Khon Kaen, Thailand:
University of Kohn Kaen.
Berlato, M.A. and D.C. Fontana. 1997. El Niño Oscilaçao Sul e a agricultura da regiao sul do Brasil. In: Efectos de El
Niño sobre la Variabilidad Climática, Agricultura y Recursos Hídricos en el Sudeste de Sudamérica (Impacts and
Potential Applications of Climate Predictions in Southeastern South America), Workshop and Conference on the
1997-98 El Niño: 10-12 December, 1997, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Bernard, H. Russell. 2000. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
London: Alta Mira Press.
Canziani, O.F., S. Díaz, E. Calvo, M. Campos, R. Carcavallo, C.C. Cerri, C. Gay-García, L.J. Mata, A. Saizar, P.
Aceituno, R. Andressen, V. Barros, M. Cabido, H. Fuenzalida-Ponce, G. Funes, C. Galvão, A.R. Moreno, W.M.
Vargas, E.F. Viglizao, and M. de Zuviría. 1998. In Watson, R.T.; M.C. Zinyowera,, R.H. Moss (eds.) The
Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability. Special Report of IPCC Working Group II
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,Cambridge
University Press: pp. 187-230.
Chambers, R. 1987. Shortcut methods in social information gathering for rural development projects. in Kohn Kaen
University, 1985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal, Proceedings . Khon Kaen, Thailand:
University of Kohn Kaen.
Chambers, Robert. (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22(7):953969.
Drèze, J. and A. Sen 1989. Hunger and Public Action. Oxford, Claredon Press.
11
Durning, A. and H. Brough. 1991. Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment. Worldwatch Paper
103. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute.
Gasques, J.G.; C.H. M.Coelho; M.B. Almeida; F.A. Soares; L.A.C. Silva; M.J. Nogueira; J.G.B. Oliveira; R.C. Lins.
1992. A Case-Study – Overall Scenery of the Brazilian Northeast. International Conference on Impacts of
Climatic Variations and Sustainable Development in Semi-Arid Regions. Proceeedings. Fortaleza, Governo do
Estado do Ceará.
Glaser, B. and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Grandstaff, Terry B. and Somluckrat W. Grandstaff. 1987. “A conceptual basis for methodological development in
rapid rural appraisal.” Pp. 69-88 in Kohn Kaen University, 1985 International Conference on Rapid Rural
Appraisal, Proceedings . Khon Kaen, Thailand, University of Kohn Kaen.
Gransdstaff, S. W., T. B. Grandstaff and G. W. Lovelace. 1987. Summary report. Pp. 3-30 in Kohn Kaen University,
Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal. Khon Kaen, Thailand: University of
Kohn Kaen.
Grondona, M.O., G.O. Magrin, M.I. Travasso, R.C. Moschini, G.R. Rodríguez, C. Messina, D.R. Boullón, G. Podestá,
and J.W. Jones. 1997. Impacto del fenómeno El Niño sobre la producción de trigo y maíz en la región
Pampeana Argentina. In Berry, G.J. (ed.) . Efectos de El Niño sobre la Variabilidad Climática, Agricultura y
Recursos Hídricos en el Sudeste de Sudamérica . Workshop and Conference on the 1997-98 El Niño: 10-12
December, 1997, Montevideo, Uruguay pp. 13-18.
Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162: 1243-1248.
Holstein, J.A. and J. F. Gubrium. 1995. The Active Interview. Qualitative Research Methods, Volume 37.
London: Sage Publications.
Magrin, G.O., M.O. Grondona, M.I. Travasso, D.R. Boullón, C.D. Rodriguez, and C.D. Messina. 1998. Impacto del
Fenómeno "El Niño" sobre la Producción de Cultivos en la Región Pampeana. INTA-Boletín de divulgación,.
Nobre, C.A.; O.Massambini. W.T. Liu 1992. Climatic Variability in the Semi-Arid Region of Brazil and Drought
Monitoring from Satellite. International Conference on Impacts of Climatic Variations and Sustainable
Development in Semi-Arid Regions. Proceeedings. Fortaleza, Governo do Estado do Ceará.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Parry, M.L., T.R. Carter, and N.T. Konjin, (eds) 1988. The Impact of Climatic Variations on Agriculture: Volume 1:
Assessments in Cool Temperate and Cold Regions, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 876 pp.
Putnam, R. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative
Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Reilly, J., W. Baethgen, F.E. Chege, S.C. van de Geijn, L. Erda, A. Iglesias, G. Kenny, D. Patterson, J. Rogasik, R.
Rotter, C. Rosenzweig, W. Sombroek, J. Westbrook, D. Bachelet, M. Brklacich, U. Dammgen, M. Howden, R.J.V.
Joyce, P.D. Lingren, D. Schimmelpfennig, U. Singh, O. Sirotenko, and E. Wheaton 1996. Agriculture in a
changing climate: impacts and adaptation. In Watson, R.T., M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss (eds.) Climate
Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 427-467.
Ribot, J.1995. The Causal Structure of Vulnerability: Its Application to Climate Impact Analysis. Geojournal 35 2:
119-122.
12
Rosenzweig, C., M.L. Parry, G. Fischer, and K. Frohberg. 1993. Climate Change and World Food Supply. Research
Report No. 3, Environmental Change Unit, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Rosenzweig, C. and D. Hillel 1998. Climate Change and the Global Harvest: Potential Impacts of the Greenhouse
Effect on Agriculture. Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press.
Schneider, S. and J. Sarukhan. 2001. Overview of Impacts, Adaptation,and Vulnerability to Climate
Change. In Mc Carty, J.J.; O.F. Canziani; N.A. Leary; D.J. Dokken; K.S. White (Eds.)
Impacts,Adpatation and Vulnerability. Report of Working Group 2, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 13-16 February 2002. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization (WMO)/United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP).
Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and Famines: an Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. 1989. Research for Action: Hunger and Entitlements. World Institute for Development Economics Research.
Helsinky, United Nations University.
Smith, Nigel, E. A. Serrão, P. T. Alvim and I. Falesi. 1995. Amazonia: Resiliency and Dynamism of the
Land and its People. New York: United Nations Press.
Swift, J. 1989. Why are Rural People Vulnerable to Famine? IDS Bulletin, 20 2: 8-15.
Wood, C.H., R. Walker e F. Toni. 2001. Os Efeitos de Título da Terra sobre o Usos do Solo e Investimentos entre
Pequenos Agricultores na Amazônia Brasileira. Cadernos de Ciência e Tecnologia. Brasília, Empresa Brasileira
de Pesquisa Agropecuária: 95 – 111.
Wachter, Daniel. 1992. Farmland Degradation in Developing Countries: The Role of Property Rights and an
Assessment of Land Titling as a Policy Intervention. Land Tenure Center Paper 145.Madison: University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Wanderley, M.N.D. 2002. Territorialidade e Ruralidade no Nordeste: Por um Pacto Social pelo Desenvolvimento
Rural. In Sabourin, E. e O.A. Teixeira (eds) Planejamento e Desenvolvimento dos Territórios Rurais: Conceitos,
Controvérsias e Experiências. Campina Grande, EMBRAPA,CIRAD, UFPB.
World Bank. 1992 Brazil: An Analysis of Environmental Problems in the Amazon. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
13