Intraregional Migration, Direct Action Land ... - Wiley Online Library

Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 459–476, 2010

Intraregional Migration, Direct Action Land Reform, and New Land Settlements in the Brazilian Amazon STEPHEN G. PERZ AND FLAVIA LEITE University of Florida, USA

CYNTHIA SIMMONS, ROBERT WALKER AND STEPHEN ALDRICH Michigan State University, USA

MARCELLUS CALDAS Kansas State University, Kansas, USA

This article analyses migration histories of residents in rural settlements of the Brazilian Amazon that resulted from direct action land reform (DALR), which involves organised land occupations. Our analysis evaluates two hypotheses. The ‘urban migration’ expectation asserts that urban experience is important for DALR participation, which links rural and urban areas via migration for land occupations. The ‘DALR efficacy’ hypothesis argues that migration and DALR are complementary livelihood strategies, such that participation in DALR obviates the need for further migration. Our findings support both hypotheses and bear implications for regional development and environmental change in the Amazon. Keywords: Brazil, Amazon, migration, land, social movement.

Introduction In the 1970s and 1980s, migration to roadside settlement frontiers of the Brazilian ´ and Mougeot, 1986; Perz, 2002; Oliveira Amazon proceeded at a rapid pace (Aragon ˜ and Simoes, 2004). Most such migration was spontaneous, and the demographic flood in many road corridors overwhelmed state agencies and resulted in land conflicts. A large literature on the Amazon has documented cases of fraudulent land titles as well as threats and violence as means of securing land claims (Branford and Glock, 1985; Schmink and Wood, 1992; Wagner de Almeida, 1995; Alston, Libecap and Mueller, 1999; Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007). © 2010 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2010 Society for Latin American Studies. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

459

Stephen G. Perz et al. By the 1990s, interest in Amazonia expanded beyond questions of frontier expansion and land conflicts as deforestation and related environmental themes became preeminent (Wood and Porro, 2002; Becker, Alves and Costa, 2007; Malhi, Betts and Roberts, 2008). Migration and land settlement in the Amazon were consequently sidelined to focus the spotlight on public policies to reconcile the triple bottom lines of economic development, social equity and environmental sustainability. While migration into the Amazon has slowed, migration within the region has continued, and it has proceeded hand-in-glove with new tactics to achieve land settlement. Indeed, migratory circulation within the Amazon helps explain the continued expansion of roads and rural settlements in the region, which in turn constitute key determinants of deforestation (Simmons, Perz, Pedlowski and Teixeira Silva, 2002; Caldas, 2008). The upshot is that we need to know more about contemporary migration patterns in the Brazilian Amazon because they are related to land settlements important for understanding environmental change. In this article we present an empirical analysis of migration histories and participation in DALR, a set of tactics adopted by landless groups to constitute new rural land settlements. We distinguish DALR from state-led agrarian reform (SLAR) because DALR is initiated by non-state actors, often as a form of contentious politics to contest SLAR as inadequate to meet popular demand for land (Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007). We focus on the state of Para´ in the eastern Brazilian Amazon, a heavily studied area, in part because of two prominent settlement frontier zones that we take up as our study cases, namely the Transamazon highway and ´ We document migration histories of families in various types of DALR southern Para. settlements to address hypotheses about (a) migration histories and residence in DALR settlements; and (b) the relative timing of migration and DALR activity. Concerning migration history and residence in DALR settlements, we argue that urban experience and rural–urban–rural circulation are facilitators of participation in DALR. The first part of our analysis therefore focuses on the importance of urban experience and circular migration among residents in rural DALR settlements. Regarding the second question, we view migration and DALR as competing strategies to secure livelihoods, and suggest that DALR can halt chronic migration. Consequently, among those in DALR settlements, most migration comes first, as participation in DALR obviates the need for continued migration. The second part of the analysis therefore focuses on the relative timing of migration and DALR involvement. We find support for our hypotheses, and conclude by setting the findings in the larger context of contemporary urbanisation and environmental problems in the Brazilian Amazon.

Background Frontier Expansion, Population Growth and Land Settlement in the Amazon The 1960s bore witness to the onset of regional development projects to integrate ¨ the Amazon into Brazil’s economy (Cardoso and Muller, 1977; Mahar, 1979). Paired with infrastructure projects came state-directed colonisation projects in the 1970s that attracted rural families from many regions of Brazil (Costa, 1992; Ozorio de Almeida, 1992). By the 1980s, large-scale mining and dam projects provided additional targets for

460

© 2010 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2010 Society for Latin American Studies Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 29, No. 4

Intraregional Migration in the Brazilian Amazon populations moving into the Amazon (Castro and Hebette, 1989; Hall, 1989; Wagner de Almeida, 1995). One key consequence of these initiatives was rapid interregional migration to ˆ settlement frontiers. Total population in Brazil’s North region (the states of Rondonia, ´ Amapa, ´ and Tocantins, which encompass most of Acre, Amazonas, Roraima, Para, Amazonia in Brazil) grew from roughly four million in 1970 to over 10 million by ˜ 2004). Interregional migration to the North region summed 1991 (Oliveira and Simoes, to nearly 750,000 during the 1970s and roughly 1 million persons during the 1980s (Carvalho Brasil, 1997). Analyses of migration during the 1970s and 1980s in the Amazon emphasise rapid urban growth (Lavinas, 1987; Browder and Godfrey, 1997). From the 1970s onward, urban migration and urban population growth in the Amazon have generally been more rapid than in rural areas (Carvalho Brasil, 1997; Perz, 2002). The result has been urbanisation of settlement frontiers, as roadside towns sprang up, forming a network of urban centers (Browder and Godfrey, 1997). Urbanisation of the Amazon frontier has been explained in different ways, though available explanations are not mutually incommensurate. One explanation is that urbanisation was a planned process, complete with state design of roadside settlements (Becker, 1995). This reflects an older view of urban-based regional development in Brazil, which proceeds by incorporating settlement frontiers via establishment of urban distribution points (Katzman, 1977) to facilitate extraction of regional surplus for ¨ industrial areas (Cardoso and Muller, 1977). However, other processes suggest additional explanations for frontier urbanisation in the Amazon. Rapid population growth along the roadsides also led to intense competition to establish land claims, often among unequal groups, resulting in the expulsion of the rural population (Branford and Glock, 1985; Schmink and Wood, 1992; Wagner de Almeida, 1995; Simmons, Perz, Pedlowski and Teixeira Silva, 2002). Rural expulsion in turn resulted in intraregional circulation of population, sometimes to other sites along rural roadsides (Schmink and Wood, 1992), but most often to towns (Mitschein, Miranda and Paraense, 1989; Simmons, Perz, Pedlowski and Teixeira Silva, 2002). By the 1980s, there was a ‘rural exodus’ in many parts of the Brazilian Amazon (Perz, 2000). By the 1990s, several changes had taken hold in the Brazilian Amazon. Economic recession beginning in the early 1980s led to cuts in state spending on road building, directed colonisation, fiscal incentives and other state-led initiatives for frontier expansion. The economic downturn also undermined the legitimacy of the military dictatorship, which resulted in a shift from authoritarian rule to democratisation and a more open polity in Brazil in the mid-1980s. By the late 1980s, price fluctuations for key commercial crops, gold strikes, the expansion of cattle ranching and other economic shifts were occurring in settlement frontiers of the Amazon. This context led to two changes on which we focus in this article. First, migration patterns shifted, from interregional movements into the Amazon to intraregional circulation within the region. Such circulation involves moves between rural and urban areas, often within the same state or even the same municipality. Circulation is tied to flexible livelihood strategies involving not only rural struggles for land but also participation in the urban informal sector (Roberts, 1992; MacMillan, 1995; Browder and Godfrey, 1997; Simmons, Perz, Pedlowski and Teixeira Silva, 2002). Second, state withdrawal and democratisation ceded space for the emergence of local politics in Amazon settlement frontiers. Given the precarious circumstances they © 2010 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2010 Society for Latin American Studies Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 29, No. 4

461

Stephen G. Perz et al. faced, popular groups in settlement frontiers began to organise politically (Allegretti, 1994; Adriance, 1995; Hall, 1997). Mobilisation proceeded with various strategic ends as foci, but in many cases, it was a response to political pressures to expel rural populations from land and other resource claims. Thus, state-led frontier expansion in Brazil stimulated considerable in-migration and population growth, especially in urban areas, in part due to rural land conflicts, which in turn motivated social mobilisation to retain land claims.

Collective Mobilisation and Direct Action for Land Reform in the Amazon Despite challenges such as threats and violence concerning land claims, difficulties with sustaining land productivity, and geographic disadvantages in marketing produce, rural as well as urban populations in the Amazon continue to seek rural land (Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007; Caldas, 2008). Social mobilisation for land amounts to a political strategy that involves collective tactics for establishing land claims in the face of obstacles that individual families are unable to overcome. Brazilian law outlines procedures required to establish land claims (Alston, Libecap and Mueller, 1999; Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007; Caldas, 2008). Unused public land in Brazil legally belongs to the state (terra devoluta), but citizens may claim such land as their own if they can demonstrate productive use for over one ˜ year (usocapiao). Land laws also recognise claims to private land by squatters if they can demonstrate occupation and productive use, without contestation by the owner, for five years and a day. During that time, squatters pay taxes and initiate the process of registering their claim in order to receive a land title. In Brazil, the National Institute for Colonisation and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) was charged with oversight of directed colonisation in the Amazon in the 1970s. After state withdrawal and the onset of land conflicts and social mobilisation for land in the Amazon, INCRA’s focus shifted. By the mid-1990s, INCRA focused on processing land title applications in order to identify legitimate land claims. This shift in focus was a response to the mounting number of contested claims that necessitated investigation into whether landholders were meeting the ‘social function’ of land productivity as stipulated by law (Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007; Caldas, 2008). Landless groups seeking land in the Amazon seized on Brazilian land law and INCRA titling activities by engaging in various forms of direct action land reform (DALR). One DALR tactic resulted from social mobilisation elsewhere in Brazil, where landholdings are highly consolidated (Branford and Rocha, 2002). In such circumstances, social movement organisations (SMOs) such as the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) (Landless Workers’ Movement) orchestrate land occupations (Branford and Rocha, 2002; Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007). SMO-led DALR involves considerable planning, beginning with articulation of a justice-based critique of unequal access to land, highlighting state failures to meet popular demand for expropriation of unproductive lands. DALR SMOs then identify ‘unproductive’ properties, recruit landless people from the countryside as well as urban areas, and conduct organised land occupations, complete with materials for temporary housing, plans for allocation of land among occupation participants and contingency plans in case of violence (ANCA, 2002). Alternatively, DALR may occur ‘spontaneously’ or ‘organically’ without the leadership and planning of an SMO (Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007; Caldas, 2008). Spontaneous DALR draws on kin ties or shared experiences by local families who have insufficient land, especially for grown

462


Intraregional Migration in the Brazilian Amazon children seeking to begin their own families. Individual families gradually populate an area, informally demarcating property boundaries as new families arrive. Once enough families are present, they collectively mobilise to demand INCRA recognition to regularise their land claims.1 In the Amazon, DALR SMOs arrived from outside the region by the end of the 1980s (Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007), which was also the moment when pioneer families who settled along the roadsides in the 1970s began to seek land for their children (Caldas, 2008). Demand for rural land thus found expression in land occupations beginning in the 1990s, whether via SMO-led or spontaneous DALR. Thus, despite challenges to land settlement and a largely urban population, popular groups in the Amazon took advantage of Brazilian land law and INCRA titling to engage in DALR to gain access to land.

Migration and Direct Action Land Reform Having discussed migration and DALR in the Amazon, we now focus on the relationship between the two. By the 1990s, migration in the Amazon had become largely intraregional, involving local circulation among rural and urban areas as a livelihood strategy. DALR also provided a means of securing a livelihood that potentially obviated the need for chronic migration, since collective mobilisation reduced the risks of securing land as a basis for productive activities. We therefore offer hypotheses concerning migration experience and participation in DALR, shown in Table 1. One hypothesis concerns types of migration experience that may facilitate participation in DALR settlements (H-Mig). Of particular importance is experience in urban areas (Simmons, Perz, Pedlowski and Teixeira Silva, 2002). Rural land conflicts, expulsion from land claims, and rural exodus yield an urban population with a rural background that does not necessarily prefer the informal economy over landownership. Further, DALR SMOs recruit in urban areas, which makes urban residence instrumental for participation in SMO-led DALR. We therefore expect that among residents in rural DALR settlements, most have lived in at least one urban area previously (H-Mig-1). In addition, whether participating in SMO-led or spontaneous DALR, families should also be likely to have engaged in circular (rural–urban–rural) migration, where the last urban–rural move is made in order to participate in DALR. This reflects circulation by families seeking land but expelled to urban areas, only to return to the countryside again via DALR. We therefore anticipate that most residents in DALR settlements have experienced at least one circular migration cycle (H-Mig-2). We also entertain the alternate hypotheses that most residents in DALR settlements do not have urban or circular migration experience (H-Alt-1 and H-Alt-2). In addition, we view migration and DALR participation as competing strategies to secure livelihoods. This motivates additional expectations regarding migration and DALR. Specifically, the ‘efficacy’ hypothesis (H-Eff) is that DALR renders further migration unnecessary because DALR provides an efficacious alternative to chronic

1 Other forms of DALR are also possible (Simmons et al., 2010), such as state-facilitated DALR where INCRA or other state agents advise local peoples seeking to make land claims; there is also the possibility of endogenous DALR that resembles a hybrid of spontaneous and SMO-led DALR in that it is organized by local people without SMO support but still involves a coordinated land occupation. © 2010 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2010 Society for Latin American Studies Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 29, No. 4

463

Stephen G. Perz et al. Table 1.

Hypotheses Regarding Migration and Direct-Action Land Reform (DALR)

Number

Hypothesis

Urban migration hypotheses (H-Mig): urban experience as a precursor of DALR participation H-Mig-1 Most respondents in rural DALR settlements have lived in at least one urban area H-Mig-2 Most respondents in DALR settlements have engaged in circular (rural–urban–rural) migration Efficacy hypotheses (H-Eff): DALR as a livelihood strategy to avoid further migration H-Eff-1 H-Eff-2

Most moves come before DALR participation After DALR experience, there are few subsequent moves

migration as a means of securing a livelihood. One implication is that most moves in a family’s migration history come before participation in DALR (H-Eff-1); another is that among families with DALR experience, there are very few subsequent moves (H-Eff-2). An alternative hypothesis (H-Alt) is that DALR is not an effective alternative to migration. In that case, families will make just as many moves after DALR activity as before (H-Alt-3), and among families with DALR experience, there are numerous subsequent moves (H-Alt-4).

Study Sites, Methods and Data For an analysis of migration and DALR in the Brazilian Amazon, there are few more ´ Both areas appropriate locations than the Transamazon corridor and southern Para. were opened by new highways in the 1960s and 1970s. Both thereupon incurred rapid population growth because of in-migration. Both later experienced economic changes, often including difficulties such as price declines in key crops, as well as new opportunities such as development projects or gold strikes. Both have exhibited rural out-migration and urban population growth. Consequently, both exhibit continued land settlement, involving various forms of collective mobilisation for DALR. Consequently, both serve as useful case studies of migration and DALR. The Transamazon became famous as a key east–west corridor through the Amazon that would facilitate westward expansion and integrate Brazil’s coast with its northern interior. During the 1970s, the state invested in road construction and supported directed colonisation along the corridor (Tavares, Considera and Castro e Silva, 1979; Moran, 1981). Transamazon settlements followed a pre-planned property grid organised around the familiar ‘fishbone’ road network, and featured nucleated settlements that would constitute communities of small farm families. The fanfare of the 1970s gave way to disillusionment in the 1980s with economic crisis and withdrawal of state support for colonisation. But in the mid-1980s, price increases in key local crops attracted more migrants (Nascimento and Drummond, 2003). Price declines in the 1990s led to further problems, but by then local producers had greater capacity to shift livelihood strategies, and cattle and other activities became more prevalent. By the 1990s, local organisations had emerged or arrived, and they helped constitute new interest groups (Nascimento and Drummond, 2003; Toni and Kaimowitz, 2003). That in turn facilitated the creation and (later) official recognition of new settlements beyond the original INCRA property grid, constituting a much larger area in agricultural production (Caldas, 2008). New settlement formation along the Transamazon was accomplished largely via spontaneous DALR based on kin and church ties (Caldas, 2008).

464


Intraregional Migration in the Brazilian Amazon Southern Para´ refers to the municipalities in Para´ south of the Transamazon highway and east of the Xingu´ river (Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007). The area was opened via construction of several state and federal roads, and because of its relative proximity to other regions of Brazil, in-migration was rapid (Schmink and Wood, 1992). Southern Para´ was not, however, a remote area in which to showcase directed colonisation; rather, it already had several riverside settlements and some large ranches, and became a key target not only for farm families but also for corporations and investors (Branford and Glock, 1985). By the 1980s, southern Para´ comprised a mosaic of land claims by interest groups with unequal political clout (Schmink and Wood, 1992). The result was a tumultuous period of contested land settlement involving rural violence, including hundreds of assassinations and thousands of families displaced from their land claims (Wagner de Almeida, 1995; Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007). One consequence was a greater state presence via emergency land titling, which only motivated further land occupations and contestation (Schmink and Wood, 1992). Another consequence was widespread mobilisation of smallholders, supported by unions, churches and DALR SMOs, contesting large private landholdings (Branford and Rocha, 2002; Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007). As a result, land occupations, mostly SMO-led, have proceeded in many parts of southern Para´ (Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007). During the summer field season of 2006, Brazilian and North American researchers ´ We from several universities visited 13 DALR settlements (assentamentos) in Para. selected settlements formed after initial road openings and pioneer settlement in order to focus on the more recent period of settlement expansion. We also sought settlements in different locations with distinct histories. Table 2 shows the five settlements we visited along the Transamazon highway where spontaneous DALR predominates, along with ´ where SMO-led DALR predominates. the eight settlements visited in southern Para, We present basic information about each settlement, noting its location, year when regularised by INCRA, and an INCRA estimate of the number of families settled (Caldas, 2008). Table 2.

´ Brazil, 2006 DALR Settlements included in analysis, Para,

Settlement Transamazon Rio do Peixe Surubim ˜ Trairao Tutuí Norte Uirapuru´ Southern Para´ 1 de Março 17 de Abril Alegria Cabanos Canudos Castanhal Araras Palmares II Santa Maria do Pontal

Municipality

Year INCRA recognised

Families settled

Uruara´ ˆ Médicilandia Uruara´ Uruara´ Uruara´

1995 1988 1997 1999 1997

241 1527 160 341 262

˜ Joao ˜ do Araguaia Sao ´ Eldorado dos Carajas Maraba´ ´ Eldorado dos Carajas ´ Eldorado dos Carajas ˜ Joao ˜ do Araguaia Sao Parauapebas ´ Eldorado dos Carajas

1998 1997 1999 2003 2004 1987 2001 1997

350 688 95 81 58 128 286 67

Source: Caldas, 2008. © 2010 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2010 Society for Latin American Studies Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 29, No. 4

465

Stephen G. Perz et al. In each settlement, we sampled households. Because these settlements had been regularised by INCRA, they had lists of residents, so we sought to sample based on equal probability. Random sampling, however, proved impossible because some property owners no longer lived in the settlement or could not be found, and some houses were not visible from the road. We therefore sampled as systematically as possible to incorporate variation in terms of distance to market by including residents with land claims spread throughout each settlement. While the samples are not entirely random, they are representative insofar as respondents held land in different parts of the settlements visited.2 For each household interviewed, we applied a structured questionnaire including items to obtain a complete migration history as well as information about DALR participation. The migration questions included items on place of birth, and for each move, the year, location (state and municipality) and type of location (rural or urban). This allows construction of more detailed migration histories than those possible with census data and most previous surveys of settlement frontiers in the Amazon. With this information we derived migration indicators for respondents including the total number ´ moves within the municipality of current residence, moves of moves, moves within Para, to urban and rural areas, and number of rural–urban–rural circular movements. In addition, we derived indicators of DALR experience, including whether the respondent had participated in SMO-led DALR activities, and whether anyone in the respondent’s family of origin had participated in DALR activities. DALR activities refer to actions for agrarian reform, including protest marches, camp-outs in front of INCRA buildings and occupations of contested land. Participants may have been involved in several DALR events related to a given DALR settlement, or perhaps none if they arrived after the settlement was recognised by INCRA. DALR data include information about year of action, which allows historical organisation of events over time. Our analysis proceeds in two parts. The first part focuses on the migration histories and evaluates the ‘urban migration’ hypotheses that most respondents in DALR settlements have previous urban experience (H-Mig-1) and have engaged in circular migration (H-Mig-2). The second part of the analysis features the relative timing of migration and DALR to test the efficacy hypotheses that most migration occurs before DALR (H-Eff-1) and DALR is followed by little subsequent migration (H-Eff-2).

Findings Part 1: Urban Migration Analysis We begin with an analysis of our migration history data as a means of evaluating the urban migration hypotheses (H-Mig-1, 2). We first characterise the geographic origins of the respondents, followed by discussion of their migration history in terms of total ´ moves to reach the municipality of residence at the time of moves, moves to reach Para,

2 Comparisons of our sample sizes to the INCRA estimates of populations in the settlements revealed differences in the ratio of sample sizes to populations. To ensure that our analysis reflects the size distribution of populations among the settlements sampled, we weighted the sampled cases by settlement. After weighting, we arrived at 235 respondents (families) ´ along the Transamazon and 161 in southern Para.

466


Intraregional Migration in the Brazilian Amazon interview, and moves within a given municipality. We then focus on previous rural and urban residences to evaluate our ‘urban migration’ expectations. For geographic origin, we consider respondent state of birth. Given what is known ´ we should expect about populations in the Transamazon corridor and southern Para, most respondents to have been born in other regions of Brazil. Table 3 presents a series of migration indicators for respondents in the sample, beginning with information on place of birth. Table 3 confirms our expectation: roughly 11 per cent of respondents ´ somewhat less in southern Para´ than along the Transamazon. were born in Para, Table 3 also indicates that roughly 3 per cent more came from other states in Brazil’s North (Amazon) region, where Para´ is located. This confirms that residents in DALR settlements in the two study areas largely came from other regions of Brazil. Given that most respondents were born outside the Amazon, and based on prior literature, we should expect several moves to be normative in the sample. We therefore counted the total number of moves, defined as a change in residence between rural and urban areas of the same municipality and/or between Brazilian municipalities or states or regions. Table 3 confirms that respondents had moved multiple times. The overall average was roughly three moves, somewhat more in southern Para´ than along the Transamazon. We also call attention to the standard deviations, which indicate variation among respondents; a handful in both study areas had moved seven or more times. ´ We The foregoing findings raise questions about the number of moves to reach Para. expect that initial moves among the respondents were interregional, but later moves were intraregional. We calculated the percentage in Para´ after each move (first, second, etc.) out of the number of respondents with that many moves (or more) to see how Table 3. Comparative Analysis of Migration, Transamazon and Southern Para´ DALR Settlements, Brazil, 2006 Migration indicator State of birth Percentage born in Para´ Percentage born in other states, north region Percentage born in other regions of Brazil n

Transamazon Southern Para´ Total

13.2 1.8 85.0 227

7.6 3.2 89.2 158

10.9 2.3 86.8 385

X2 /F-test

X2 = 77.63 p < 0.001

Number of total moves Mean Standard deviation

2.90 1.54

3.71 1.69

3.23 F = 24.45 1.65 p < 0.001

Moves within municipality of residence Mean Standard deviation

1.42 0.84

1.16 0.54

1.31 F = 11.96 0.74 p < 0.001

Moves to urban areas Percentage with zero urban moves Percentage with 1+ urban moves n

60.4 39.6 235

31.9 68.1 160

48.9 51.1 395

X2 = 47.69 p < 0.001

Circular (Rural–Urban–Rural) migrations Percentage with zero circular migrations Percentage with 1+ circular migrations n

58.1 41.9 222

31.9 68.1 160

47.1 52.9 382

X2 = 33.76 p < 0.001


467

Stephen G. Perz et al. 100.00

Percentage in Pará State

80.00

60.00 Transamazon 40.00

Southern Pará Total

20.00

0.00 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

Ordinal Number of Move ´ by Ordinal Number of Figure 1. Percentage of Respondents Migrating to the State of Para, Move, Transamazon and Southern Para´ DALR Settlements, Brazil, 2006

´ many moves were required before half of the respondents in the sample were in Para. Figure 1 shows how these percentages vary by number of moves. In both study areas, only 30–40 per cent of respondents had arrived in Para´ after the first move, but this jumped to roughly 70 per cent after the second move. Compared to the values for total moves, these figures imply that most respondents had made at least one move (if not ´ several) within Para. We also examined the number of moves required for respondents to reach their ´ we municipality of residence at the time of the 2006 survey. As with moves to Para, calculated the percentage of respondents who were in their municipality of current residence by number of moves. Figure 2 shows the results. After the first move, only 10–20 per cent of respondents had reached their municipality of residence. This rose, more slowly among respondents in southern Para´ than the Transamazon, such that majorities had reached their municipality of residence after four moves. After that, there are relatively few respondents who continued to move, so estimates become somewhat ´ the data for moves to reach the unstable. Compared to the data for moves to reach Para, municipality of current residence suggest one or more moves within Para´ after reaching the state before coming to the municipality of current residence. Together, the data on moves to Para´ and moves to municipality of current residence indicate that the earliest moves are interregional, and later moves are more local. We also examined moves within the municipality of current residence. We counted the number of times a respondent indicated a rural–urban or urban–rural move but no change in municipality. We found that 91 per cent of respondents had made one or more intra-municipal moves. This confirms the importance of localised circulation among rural and urban areas in the study sites. Table 3 presents means for intramunicipal moves. Respondents along the Transamazon reported 1.4 intra-municipal moves, whereas those in southern Para´ reported 1.2. Whereas mobility among states ´ intra-municipal and municipalities appears greater among respondents in southern Para, mobility is greater along the Transamazon.

468


Intraregional Migration in the Brazilian Amazon

Percentage in Municipality of Current Residence

100.00

80.00



20.00

0.00 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

Ordinal Number of Move Figure 2. Percentage of Respondents Migrating to Municipality of Current Residence, by Ordinal Number of Move, Transamazon and Southern Para´ DALR Settlements, Brazil, 2006

The data on intra-municipal moves beg questions about rural and urban movement, which brings us to the question of the ‘urban migration’ expectation among residents of DALR settlements. At first glance, our data indicate that rural residences predominate in the migration histories in our sample. Figure 3 shows percentages migrating to urban areas by number of move. For first moves, 34 per cent were to urban areas, and this declined among later moves to 28 per cent of respondents making a second move, 21 per cent who made a third move, and 17 per cent who made a fourth move. Estimates

Percentage Moving to Urban Areas

50.00

40.00



10.00

0.00 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

Ordinal Number of Move Figure 3. Percentage of Respondents Migrating to Urban Areas, by Ordinal Number of Move, Transamazon and Southern Para´ DALR Settlements, Brazil, 2006 © 2010 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2010 Society for Latin American Studies Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 29, No. 4

469

Stephen G. Perz et al. become less stable after the fourth move because of relatively few respondents with five or more moves. Figure 3 also shows that these values differed among the two study areas, with urban movement less common among respondents along the Transamazon ´ than in southern Para. It is nonetheless the case that most respondents had lived in at least one urban area. Table 3 shows that a slight majority (51 per cent) had lived in one or more urban areas prior to settling in a DALR settlement. This confirms the ‘urban migration’ expectation and supports H-Mig-1. However, there are significant differences among the two study areas, for a large majority in southern Para´ (68 per cent) had resided in one or more urban areas, compared to a minority along the Transamazon (40 per cent). Thus, we ´ where SMO-led DALR predominates. confirm H-Mig-1, but only for southern Para, This likely reflects the fact that urban recruitment is instrumental to SMO-led DALR. Findings for number of moves, intra-municipal moves, and rural and urban migration also raise questions about circular migration. Whereas the vast literature on internal migration in Latin America has emphasised rural–urban movement, DALR tactics provide a mechanism for urban–rural returns. We identified circular migration as any rural–urban–rural migratory sequence, whether within or between municipalities, and whether there is one or more urban residences involved in the middle part of the cycle. Table 3 presents data for circular migrations made by respondents. Most respondents (53 per cent) had made one or more such circuits, which supports H-Mig-2 that most respondents had made at least one circular migration. However, as with urban migration, significant differences in circular migration appeared among the two ´ a large majority (68 per cent) had made at least one study areas. In southern Para, rural–urban–rural circulation, but along the Transamazon, only a minority (42 per cent) had made one or more circular migrations.3 Consequently, we only support ´ This finding reflects the greater migration experience of H-Mig-2 for southern Para. ´ in turn a reflection of more difficult conditions for access respondents in southern Para, to land, which motivates participation in SMO-led DALR.

Part 2: Timing Analysis We now turn to the second part of our analysis and focus on the efficacy hypothesis, which argues that migration and DALR are competing livelihood strategies, such that participation in DALR may halt further moves and thereby stem chronic migration. We therefore pursue an analysis of the relative timing of migration and DALR activity. We consider the timing of migration, then that of DALR activity, and then intersect the two by analysing the number of moves before and after DALR. Figure 4 shows the average year of moves among respondents in the two study areas. First moves on average occurred around 1970; second moves in the early 1980s; third moves in the late 1980s; and fourth, fifth, and sixth moves during the early 1990s. We do not present moves after the fifth because sample sizes become small and

3 The percentage for circular migrations among Transamazon respondents should not be but is higher than the percentage of the Transamazon respondents with urban experience. This is because of the loss of a few cases as a result of missing data when calculating circular migration, where the lost cases were among those who did not have urban experience, which raised the relative importance of those who did, resulting in an apparently higher percentage with circular migrations.

470


Intraregional Migration in the Brazilian Amazon 2000 1995 1990 Year of Move

1985 1980 1975

Transamazon

1970

SouthPA

1965

Total

1960 1955 1950 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

Ordinal Number of Moves Figure 4. Year of Migration, by Ordinal Number of Move, Transamazon and Southern Para´ DALR Settlements, Brazil, 2006

estimates become unstable. Migration among respondents thus began during the period of frontier expansion in the Amazon (the 1970s and 1980s), when our respondents also ´ afterwards, migration made interregional moves (from other regions of Brazil to Para); intervals shortened as moves became increasingly more localised. Because the nature of DALR participation differs along the Transamazon and in ´ we analyse the timing of DALR in the two study sites in distinct ways. We southern Para, first consider the Transamazon and compare migration histories to the year when the settlement where respondents resided at the time of interview was officially recognised by INCRA. This separates migration from arrival in the settlement of residence at the time of interview, leaving open the possibility of migration after initial arrival in the settlement. This is still valid as regards the process of spontaneous DALR along the Transamazon because, there, DALR activity comes after informal settlement, when there are enough families to go to INCRA and demand regularisation. Such collective mobilisation defines DALR activity and is instrumental for INCRA recognition, making INCRA regularisation a useful marker for dating DALR activity in the context of spontaneous DALR. Table 2 indicates that four of the five Transamazon settlements were regularised during the late 1990s; only Surubim officially existed before 1995. Figure 4 indicates that, on average, first, second and in many cases third moves had already occurred by the time of DALR among Transamazon respondents, which supports H-Eff-1 for that study area. ´ we consider participation in DALR activities. This is important in In southern Para, the context of SMO-led DALR, which may involve a series of DALR actions to occupy previously claimed lands and lobby INCRA to recognise the new occupation. It is worth noting that only a subset of respondents in southern Para´ actively participated in DALR protests, land occupations, and so forth (n = 106); some arrived in DALR settlements after they were established (n = 55), in some cases after INCRA regularisation. In ´ respondents averaged 1.2 DALR experiences, with a range of 0 to 4 southern Para, experiences. We focus on the timing of the first reported DALR experience among the © 2010 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2010 Society for Latin American Studies Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 29, No. 4

471

Stephen G. Perz et al. subset of respondents in southern Para´ who reported participation in one or more DALR activities. This provides a more conservative test of the timing of DALR participation with which to compare to migration histories, because first DALR participation comes earliest in time. The average year of first DALR experience among respondents in southern Para´ is 1995. This is also substantially later than the average year of first, ´ which supports H-Eff-1 second, and third moves among respondents in southern Para, for that study area. Based on the timing analysis thus far, one might be tempted to conclude that H-Eff-1 is correct, that most migration comes before DALR participation, and also that H-Eff-2 is supported, that is, there is little migration following DALR participation. However, the data presented so far only compare average times of migration and DALR experience for the two study areas, and make no comparisons for individual respondents. It could still be that there is considerable migration following DALR, hidden in the averages for the study areas. Therefore, for the Transamazon, we directly compared the timing ´ we of respondent moves to settlement regularisation dates, and for southern Para, compared the timing of respondent moves to their first DALR participation. For the Transamazon, we focus on respondents who made at least one move and had valid data for dates of their moves (n = 222 out of 235 cases). Table 4 presents the results up to the fifth move. For the first move, over 90 per cent of respondents moved prior to DALR; for the second move, this was 76 per cent; for the third move, this figure was 58 per cent. The mean difference in the timing of migration and DALR was nineteen years before for first moves; nine years prior for second moves; almost five years prior for third moves; and still nearly a year prior for fourth moves. Meanwhile, DALR regularisation first as a percentage of the Transamazon respondents rose from roughly 8 per cent for the first move to 24 per cent for the second to 40 per cent for the third. It is only with the fourth move that DALR comes first more often (41 per cent) compared to migration (38 per cent). Nonetheless, these findings provide further support of H-Eff-1 that migration largely occurs before DALR, because few respondents made four or more moves. Based on these comparisons, we calculated that Transamazon respondents reported on average 1.99 moves at least one year before DALR, compared to 0.08 moves in the same years as DALR and 0.71 moves at least one year after DALR. These findings support both H-Eff-1 and H-Eff-2 for the Transamazon study area. ´ using the year of Table 5 compares migration and DALR timing for southern Para, first DALR experience as the benchmark. We again focus on the subset of respondents who reported participation in DALR activities. Among those, we focus on respondents who made at least one move and had valid data on dates for both migration and

Table 4. Timing Analysis of Migration and DALR as Settlement Regularisation, Transamazon ´ Brazil, 2006 DALR Settlements, Para, Ordinal number of move First Second Third Fourth Fifth

472

Percentages DALR first

Same year

Migration first

Mean difference (years)

n

7.64 23.82 39.77 41.04 64.35

0.26 0.61 2.30 20.49 0.00

92.09 75.57 57.93 38.48 35.65

19.43 9.50 4.78 0.78 0.43

200 186 138 73 21


Intraregional Migration in the Brazilian Amazon Table 5. Timing Analysis of Migration and First DALR Experience, Southern Para´ DALR ´ Brazil, 2006 Settlements, Para, Ordinal number of move First Second Third Fourth Fifth

Percentages DALR first

Same year

Migration first

Mean difference (years)

n

0.99 6.04 12.50 16.22 25.39

1.25 11.24 17.46 23.07 29.59

97.76 82.72 70.04 60.71 45.01

28.12 13.58 10.27 5.86 3.34

89 88 68 48 28

DALR participation (n = 89 out of 106 cases). Table 5 shows that for the first move, migration came before DALR for 98 per cent of respondents; for the second, migration came first 83 per cent of the time; for the third move, the same figure was 70 per cent; and for the fourth move, it was still nearly 61 per cent. Only with the fifth move did this drop below 50 per cent, though migration still came first 45 per cent of the time, compared to DALR first 25 per cent. Increasingly, migration and DALR occurred in the same year, perhaps a reflection of urban recruitment and moves to the countryside as part and parcel of land occupations. Nonetheless, the mean difference in years between migration and DALR was 28 for first moves, almost 14 for second moves, ten for third moves, and almost six for fourth moves. Further calculations indicated that in southern ´ respondents made 2.6 moves prior to first DALR experience, 0.45 in the same Para, year as DALR and 0.31 moves after DALR. These findings support both H-Eff-1 and H-Eff-2 for the southern Para´ study area.

Discussion Intraregional migration and DALR both serve as useful tactics for securing livelihoods by landless populations in the Amazon. Both tactics are well suited to an Amazonian landscape now defined by a network of regional highways connecting numerous towns and cities, which have their own local road networks that integrate the countryside. Para´ is not the only state in the Brazilian Amazon with highways that now define corridors with urban nuclei from which secondary roads emanate where land consolidation, economic dynamism and an urban informal sector can be found. Consequently, ´ notably in the migration and DALR activities also prevail outside the state of Para, ˆ Brazilian Amazonian state of Rondonia, a comparison we consider elsewhere (Simmons et al., 2010). The findings suggest that DALR can be an efficacious alternative to chronic migration. This conclusion needs to be tempered, however, because there remain important challenges to rural settlements, even if DALR could entirely resolve the question of land concentration and rural violence. On the one hand, there is the issue of the social and economic viability of DALR settlements. INCRA regularisation makes possible some forms of state assistance, but there remains the issue of sustaining the solidarity that is crucial to land occupations themselves. Related to this broad question are specific issues of securing definitive titles, adequate credit, market access and enduring community organisation. Beyond the socio-economic questions are the environmental issues. Relatively little is known about land management in recently formed DALR © 2010 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2010 Society for Latin American Studies Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 29, No. 4

473

Stephen G. Perz et al. settlements. Forested land continues to be defined as unproductive and is therefore targeted for DALR occupations, and such occupations continue to exhibit forest clearing (Simmons, Walker, Arima, Aldrich and Caldas, 2007). Prior work on Amazon frontier settlements indicated a mixed record of sustainability in land management ˜ and Homma, 1993). If clearing leads to unsustainable land use, then DALR (Serrao settlements may indeed generate out-migration. This implies that, on an aggregate level, migration will not necessarily decline over time even if more DALR settlements appear. On a larger scale, DALR bears implications for public policy and regional development as a latter-day rural-led development strategy. Even as the Amazon’s urban population grows larger than its rural counterpart, the increasingly service-oriented regional economy nonetheless relies in part on rural productive activities to generate local income that does not rely on state transfer payments and the like. In that light, DALR occupations provide a means of impelling agrarian reform and thereby intensifying rural land use by forcing the state to expropriate unproductive rural properties, which in turn may beget economic growth. This raises additional issues about policies concerning credit and extension support to farm families in DALR settlements as well as others in the Amazon (Toni and Kaimowitz, 2003). That said, DALR must also face up to other regional development initiatives that also recognise opportunities implicit in intensification and expansion of rural production. Perhaps ironically, the past several years have been witness to major new infrastructure projects in the Amazon, part of national integration plans within Brazil as well as continental integration strategies for South America as a whole (IIRSA, 2008). Infrastructure upgrades are intended to facilitate access of agribusiness to many portions of the basin in order to expand mechanised production for export (CEPEI, 2002). It is far from clear whether DALR settlements will remain in areas being opened for mechanised production, notably in roadsides with low-productivity cattle ranches. With expanding agribusiness activity, questions would be re-opened concerning rural expulsion, chronic migration and urban circulation of population in the Amazon.

Conclusions In sum, the first part of the analysis examined migration histories among DALR settlement residents and confirmed the urban migration expectation that most respondents had previously resided in urban areas (H-Mig-1) and had engaged in circular ´ though not the Transama(rural–urban–rural) migration (H-Mig-2) for southern Para, zon. The second part of the analysis confirmed the efficacy hypotheses concerning migration and DALR by showing that migration largely occurs before first DALR participation (H-Eff-1), with relatively little migration occurring after first DALR participation (H-Eff-2).

Acknowledgements This research was supported by NSF grants #0521794 and #0522062. The authors thank the Universidade Federal da Bahia and the Universidade Federal do Para´ in Brazil for in-country logistical support and field team members for conducting interviews during fieldwork. Errors of interpretation are the responsibility of the authors.

474


Intraregional Migration in the Brazilian Amazon

References Adriance, M. C. (1995) Promised Land: Base Christian Communities and the Struggle for the Amazon. State University of New York Press: Albany. ˆ Allegretti, M. H. (1994) ‘Reservas Extrativistas: Parametros Para Uma Política de Desen´ ˆ volvimento Sustentavel na Amazonia’ in R. Arnt (ed.) O Destino da Floresta: Reservas ´ ´ Curitiba, Extrativistas e Desenvolvimento Sustentavel na Amazonia. Relume – Dumara: ˆ 17–47. Alston, L. J., Libecap, G. D. and Mueller, C. C. (1999) Titles, Conflict and Land Use: The Development of Property Rights and Land Reform on the Brazilian Frontier. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. ˜ Nacional de Cooperaçao ˜ Agricola (ANCA). (2002) O Que Levar em Conta Associaçao ˜ do Assentamento: A Discussao ˜ no Acampamento. ANCA/MMA: Para Organizaçao ˜ Paulo. Sao ´ Aragon, L. E. and Mougeot, L. J. A. (eds.) (1986) Migraçoes Internas na Amazonia: ˜ ˆ Contribuiçoes e Metodologicas. UFPa/NAEA: Belém. ˜ Teoricas ´ ´ ¨ Becker, B. K. (1995) ‘Undoing Myths: The Amazon – An Urbanized Forest’ in M. ClusenerGodt and I. Sachs (eds.) Brazilian Perspectives on Sustainable Development of the Amazon Region. UNESCO/Parthenon: Paris, 53–89. Becker, B. K., Alves, D. and Costa, W. (eds.) (2007) Dimensoes Humanas da Biosfera˜ ˜ Paulo: Sao ˜ Paulo. Atmosfera na Amazonia. Editora da Universidade de Sao ˆ Branford, S. and Glock, O. (1985) The Last Frontier: Fighting Over Land in the Amazon. Zed: London. Branford, S. and Rocha, J. (2002) Cutting the Wire: The Story of the Landless Movement in Brazil. Latin American Bureau: London. Browder, J. O. and Godfrey, B. (1997) Rainforest Cities: Urbanization, Development and Globalization of the Brazilian Amazon. Columbia University Press: New York. Caldas, M. M. (2008) Settlement Formation and Land Use and Land Cover Change: A Case Study in the Brazilian Amazon. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA. ˜ do Capitalismo. Brasiliense: Sao ¨ ˜ Cardoso, F. H. and Muller, G. (1977) Amazonia: Expansao ˆ Paulo. ˜ Norte Nas Décadas de 70 e Carvalho Brasil, M. (1997) ‘Os Fluxos Migratorios na Regiao 80: Uma Analise Exploratoria’. Caderno de Estudos Sociais 13(1): 61–84. ˜ Castro, E. M. R. and Hebette, J. (eds.) (1989) Na Trilha dos Grandes Projetos: Modernizaçao e Conflito na Amazonia. Cadernos do NAEA: Belém. ˆ ´ and S. Santa Centro Peruano de Estudios Internacionales (CEPEI) (2002) in A. Wagner Tizon Gadea Duarte (eds.) La Integracion ´ Regional Entre Bolivia, Brasil y Peru. ´ CEPEI: Lima. Costa, J. M. M. (ed.) (1992) Amazonia: Desenvolvimento ou Retrocesso. Editores CEJUP: ˆ Belém. Hall, A. L. (1989) Developing Amazonia: Deforestation and Social Conflict in Brazil’s ´ Programme. Manchester University Press: Manchester. Carajas Hall, A. L. (1997) Sustaining Amazonia: Grassroots Action for Productive Conservation. Manchester University Press: Manchester. ´ de la Infraestructura Regional Suramericana (IIRSA) (2008) Iniciativa para la Integracion [WWW document]. URL http://www.iirsa.org [accessed 1 June 2008]. Katzman, M. T. (1977) Cities and Frontiers in Brazil. Harvard University Press: Cambridge. ˜ da Fronteira. PUBLIPUR/UFRJ: Rio de Janeiro. Lavinas, L. (ed.) (1987) A Urbanizaçao MacMillan, G. (1995) At the End of the Rainbow? Gold, Land and People in the Brazilian Amazon. Columbia University Press: New York. Mahar, D. J. (1979) Frontier Development Policy in Brazil: A Study of Amazonia. Praeger: New York. © 2010 The Authors. Bulletin of Latin American Research © 2010 Society for Latin American Studies Bulletin of Latin American Research Vol. 29, No. 4

475

Stephen G. Perz et al. Malhi, Y., Betts, R. and Roberts, T. (eds.) (2008) ‘Climate Change and the Fate of the Amazon’. Theme Issue. Philosophical Transacions of the Royal Society B 363(1498): 1725–1932. ˜ Selvagem e Mitschein, T. A., Miranda, H. R. and Paraense, M. C. (1989) Urbanizaçao ˜ Passiva na Amazonia: ˜ CEJUP: Belém. Proletarianizaçao o Caso de Belém. Ediçoes ˆ Moran, E. F. (1981) Developing the Amazon. Indiana University Press: Bloomington. Nascimento, E. P. and Drummond, J. A. (eds.) (2003) Amazonia: Dinamismo Economico e ˆ ˆ ˜ Ambiental. Garamond: Rio de Janeiro. Conservaçao ˜ Oliveira, A. D. and Simoes, A. G., (2004) Deslocamentos populacionais no Brasil: uma ´ ´ analise dos censos demograficos de 1991 e 2000 [WWW document]. URL http://www. abep.org.br. [accessed 1 June 2008]. Ozorio de Almeida, A. L. (1992) The Colonization of the Amazon. University of Texas Press: Austin. Perz, S. G. (2000) ‘The Rural Exodus in the Context of Economic Globalization, Crisis and Reform in Brazil’. International Migration Review 34(3): 841–880. Perz, S. G. (2002) ‘Population Growth and Net Migration in the Brazilian Legal Amazon, 1970-1996’ in C. H. Wood and R. Porro (eds.) Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon. University of Florida Press: Gainesville, 107–129. Roberts, J. T. (1992) ‘Squatters and Urban Growth in Amazonia’. Geographical Review 82(4): 441–457. Schmink, M. and Wood, C. H. (1992) Contested Frontiers in Amazonia. Columbia University Press: New York. ˜ E. A. S. and Homma, A. K. O. (1993) ‘Brazil’ in Sustainable Agriculture and the Serrao, Environment in the Humid Tropics. National Academy Press: Washington, 265–351. Simmons, C. S., Perz, S. G., Pedlowski, M. A. and Teixeira Silva, L. G. (2002) ‘The Changing Dynamics of Land Conflict in the Brazilian Amazon: The Rural-urban Complex and Its Environmental Implications’. Urban Ecosystems 6: 99–121. Simmons, C. S., Walker, R. T., Arima, E. Y., Aldrich, S. P. and Caldas, M. M. (2007) ‘The ´ Annals of the Association of American Amazon Land War in the South of Para’. Geographers 97(3): 567–592. Simmons, C. S., Walker, R. T., Perz, S. G., Aldrich, S., Caldas, M., Pereira, R., Leite, F. and Fernandes, L. C. (2010) ‘Doing it for Themselves: Direct Action Land Reform in the Brazilian Amazon’. World Development 38(3): 429–444. ˜ Dirigida Tavares, V. P., Considera, C. M. and Castro e Silva, M. T. L. L. (1979) Colonizaçao no Brasil. 2nd edn. IPEA/IUPES: Rio de Janeiro. ˜ Florestal na Amazonia. Toni, F. and Kaimowitz, D. (eds.) (2003) Municípios e Gestao A. S. ˆ Editores: Natal. ´ a Guerra dos Mapas. 2nd edn. Editora Supercores: Wagner de Almeida, A. B. (1995) Carajas: Belém. Wood, C. H. and Porro, R. (eds.) (2002) Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon. University of Florida Press: Gainesville.

476
