# Public policies for adapting agriculture to climate change in semi-arid Northeast Brazil

Eric Sabourin, Lucia Marisy Ribeiro Oliveira, Frédéric Goulet, Eduardo Sávio Martins

► To cite this version:

Eric Sabourin, Lucia Marisy Ribeiro Oliveira, Frédéric Goulet, Eduardo Sávio Martins. Public policies for adapting agriculture to climate change in semi-arid Northeast Brazil. Red PP-AL et ReFBN. E-papers Serviços Editoriais, 1 (1), pp.236, 2022, 978-65-87065-37-3. 10.48207/9786587065373 . hal-04428996

HAL Id: hal-04428996

https://hal.science/hal-04428996v1

Submitted on 31 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
Public policies for adapting
agriculture to climate change in
semi-arid Northeast Brazil

organizers

ERIC SABOURIN | LUCIA MARISY RIBEIRO OLIVEIRA

FRÉDÉRIC GOULET | EDUARDO SÁVIO MARTINS

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

RED POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS
Y DESARROLLO RURAL EN
AMÉRICA LATINA

Rio de Janeiro, 2022

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

e-papers
© Eric Sabourin, Lucia Marisy Ribeiro Oliveira, Frédéric Goulet e Eduardo Sávio Martins/E-papers Serviços Editoriais Ltda., 2022.

Todos os direitos reservados a Eric Sabourin, Lucia Marisy Ribeiro Oliveira, Frédéric Goulet e Eduardo Sávio Martins/E-papers Serviços Editoriais Ltda.

ISBN 978-65-87065-37-3

Rede Franco-Brasileira pelo Desenvolvimento Sustentável no Semiárido do Nordeste (ReFBN)

Rede Políticas Públicas e Desenvolvimento Rural na América Latina (PP-AL)

Ministério Francês de Relações Exteriores – Instituto Francês no Brasil

Revisão de Inglês

Editage

Diagramação

Michelly Batista

Foto de capa

Patricia Mesquita/UnB-CDS

Uma publicação da Editora E-papers

http://www.e-papers.com.br

E-papers Serviços Editoriais Ltda.

Av. das Américas, 3200, bl. 1, sala 138

Barra da Tijuca – Rio de Janeiro

CEP 22640-102

Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

CIP-Brasil. Catalogação na fonte
Sindicato Nacional dos Editores de Livros, RJ

P97

Public policies for adapting agriculture to climate change in semi-arid northeast Brazil /
organização Eric Sabourin ... [et al.] ; [tradução Editage]. - 1. ed. - Rio de Janeiro : E-papers, 2022.
238 p. : il. ; 23 cm.

Tradução de: A ação pública de adaptação da agricultura à mudança climática no nordeste semiárido brasileiro.

Inclui bibliografia

ISBN 978-65-87065-37-3

1. Agricultura de regiões áridas - Brasil, Nordeste. 2. Mudanças climáticas - Aspectos ambientais. 3. Climatologia agrícola - Brasil. 4. Agricultura e Estado - Brasil. 5. Desenvolvimento rural - Brasil. I. Sabourin, Eric. II. Editage (Firma).

22-77737

CDD: 338.18813

CDU: 338.43.02(812/813)
# Sumário

**5 Preface**

Lucia Marisy Ribeiro de Oliveira, Julien Burte, Eduardo Martins, Jean Luc Battini

**CHAPTER 1**

**7 Implementing public policies and public action for adapting to droughts in the semi-arid Northeast**

Eric Sabourin

**CHAPTER 2**

**27 Drought or just a Dry season? Describing two meanings for the same climate phenomenon**

Luis Claudio Mattos, Ana Paula Ferreira and Peter Herman May

**CHAPTER 3**

**45 Agroecology and family farming: vulnerabilities, resilience, and adaptation to climate change in the Brazilian semi-arid region**

Allan Milhomens, Mário Lúcio Ávila, Eduardo de Lima Caldas

**CHAPTER 4**

**61 Sustainable agriculture as an adaptation measure for Araripe Plaster Pole**

Francislene Angelotti, Anderson Ramos de Oliveira, Vanderlise Giongo, Juliane Rafaele Alves Barros, Miguel Júlio Machado Guimarães

**CHAPTER 5**

**77 Public policies for adaptation to prolonged drought in the Northeast: The role of PRONAF and the Crop-Insurance Program**

Joacir Rufino de Aquino, Maria de Fátima Vidal, Maria Odete Alves

**CHAPTER 6**

**99 The role of street-level bureaucrats in implementing cross-sectoral policies: combining social and water access strategies in Brazil's semi-arid region**

Patricia S. Mesquita, Carolina Milhorance, Louise Cavalcante

**CHAPTER 7**

**117 Cross-views at the relationship between gender, water security, and adaptation: the case of cisterns for rainwater harvesting in the semi-arid regions of Paraiba and Pernambuco**

Daniela Nogueira, Carlos Hiroo Saito

**CHAPTER 8**

**135 Challenges of constructing and implementing the Agroecology and Organic Production Policy in the State of Sergipe**

Flaviane Canavesi, Edson Diogo Tavares, Mário Lúcio Ávila
CHAPTER 9

151 **On seeds, land, water, and public policies: stories, translations, and practices in the constitution of Casas de Sementes in Ceará**
Helena Rodrigues Lopes, Claudia Job Schmitt

CHAPTER 10

167 **Agroecological transition in the Mandacaru settlement, Petrolina/Pernambuco, and Brazilian semi-arid region: collective action, organic production, and socio-technical networks**
Helder Ribeiro Freitas, Lúcia Marisy Souza Ribeiro de Oliveira, Rita de Cássia Rodrigues Gonçalves-Gervásio, Cristiane Moraes Marinho, Denes Dantas Vieira, Elson de Oliveira, Lucas Ricardo Souza Almeida

CHAPTER 11

183 **Fartura tem de montão: Public policies and socio-ecological resilience in traditional communities of pastureland in the Sertão do São Francisco, Bahia**
Denis Monteiro, Luciano Silveira, Paulo Petersen

CHAPTER 12

211 **Peasants, agroecology, and territorial policy in the "dry diagonal" of the semi-arid region of Paraíba: encounters, processes, and challenges**
Márcio Caniello, Mireya Valencia Perafán

229 **About the authors**
# Preface

Lucia Marisy Ribeiro de Oliveira, Julien Burte, Eduardo Martins, Jean Luc Battini

Analyzing public policies for agriculture and rural territories and their adaptation to the semi-arid Northeast conditions is a necessity and methodological challenge. For the French-Brazilian Network for Sustainable Development in the Northeast Semi-arid (ReFBN), studies in this area are particularly relevant.

This collection brings together contributions that fall within the framework of the first specific objective of ReFBN: "to promote scientific and technical cooperation between Brazil and France for the resilience of semi-arid socio-ecosystems in the face of climate change."

This book addresses the theme through a series of case studies that illustrate the complexity of the framework of public action for adaptation to climate change and its diversity in the agricultural sector.

These case studies, therefore, bring a double enrichment.

First, regarding knowledge, the analyses offer insights on different aspects of public policies for adapting agriculture to climate change and drought by analyzing their construction, the role of institutional actors, and their first effects.

Second, regarding methodological, various approaches from the human and social sciences are mobilized. They draw on various theoretical frameworks from agronomy, anthropology, political science, economics, geography, and sociology. These approaches show and illustrate various critical analysis processes and monitoring of the instruments and mechanisms of public action.

The richness of the analyses presented here reflects the work of a group of authors from different countries and academic specialties. Most have coordinated their research in the framework of the Public Policies and Rural Development Network in Latin America, associated with the publication of this collection.

The Franco-Brazilian Network for Sustainable Development in the Northeast Semi-arid (ReFBN) and the Embassy of France in Brazil are very pleased to support this work. We are sure it will significantly contribute to the reflective dynamics and the interdisciplinary cross-fertilization of views on the role of policies to build sustainable rural territories in the semi-arid North-East.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
# CHAPTER 1

## Implementing public policies and public action for adapting to droughts in the semi-arid Northeast<fnref n="1" />

Eric Sabourin

### Introduction

Several extreme climate events observed in recent years have attracted the public's attention in Latin America on the need to adapt to increasing climate variability. The theme entered the agenda of most governments in the region. In Brazil, climate policies have been influenced by the evolution of the international debate since the 1990s (RODRIGUES-FILHO et al., 2016). The clean development mechanisms and, more recently, reducing deforestation and promoting more sustainable production systems were some of the objectives of these efforts. Notably, the rural sector is among the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the country and the sectors most impacted by climate change. Climate projections foresee important changes in temperature and precipitation patterns for Brazilian biomes (MARENGO et al., 2017).

The semi-arid region of the Northeast represents a strategic case in the context of climate change. Although droughts are chronic events in this region, climate variability is expected to increase, generating a series of socio-economic impacts. Increasingly extreme climate events may compromise the resources and response capacity of societies. This scenario highlights the need to implement public policies that consider the increase in climate variability and promote the capacity to minimize, prepare, and recover from potential effects (BOCKEL; SMIT, 2009; CAMPOS, 2014).

<footnote n="1">¹ This chapter mobilizes results from the projects ARTIMIX (Articulating policy mixes across scales & sectors to address adaptation to climate change challenges in vulnerable tropical agricultural landscapes - ANR-17-CE03-0005), TYPOCLIM (Typology and assessment of policy instruments to promote agricultural adaptation to climate change -MUSE-ANR-16 IDEX-0006) and INCT Odisseia (Observatorio das dinâmicas socioambientais - CNPq). This text mobilize results from ATTER Project which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 101007755.</footnote>
Brazil, within its National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), also considers more specific instruments that contribute to climate change adaptation and, among other sectors, the case of agriculture (Milhorance et al., 2020).

In this context, this chapter proposes a crosscutting analysis of the different contributions in this book. The text examines various public policy instruments and public action initiatives on adaptation in agriculture given increased climate variability and, in particular, drought. It proposes a characterization of these policies and the governance arrangements of collective action and public adaptation instruments. The chapter has two parts. The first introduces the institutional context and presents the theoretical and methodological framework. The second develops the main characteristics of the adaptation actions and public policies studied based on the transversal analysis of the cases in this book.

# Climate and institutional context

## Adaptation policies

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC, 2014) defines adaptation as “any adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects that moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.”

Examples of adaptation measures in the case of agriculture include several practices: using scarce water resources more efficiently, building flood defenses and raising levee levels; developing drought-tolerant crops, choosing tree species and forestry practices less vulnerable to fire, and separating terrestrial corridors to help species migrate.

The National Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change (NPA, PNA in Portuguese), launched in Brazil in 2016, defined 11 sectoral strategies and national priorities: agriculture, biodiversity and ecosystems, cities, natural disasters, industry and mining, infrastructure, vulnerable populations, water resources, health, food security and nutrition, and coastal areas (MMA, 2016).

Milhorance et al. (2019) mention that most of the NPA/PNA's guidelines are based on existing programs and measures to support agriculture: expansion of storage capacity, inclusive rural production, access to water through rainwater catchment and storage cisterns, and developing agroecological systems.

These authors recall that the National Policy for Food and Nutritional Security (PNSAN) incorporated the motion of universal access to water as one of its guidelines in 2010 and defined the articulation of programs and actions of various sectors that promote the human right to adequate food as a goal.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Political map of the semi-arid region in Brazil</figcaption></figure>

Source: National Semi Arid Institute - INSA, Campina Grande, Brazil

In the context of the Northeast region, the paradigms of *living with the semi-arid region* and *agroecology* are priorities for adapting rural populations in the region to climate change (MMA, 2016). Table 1 presents a typology of the main adaptation policies for the rural sector in the semi-arid region.
<table><caption>Table 1. Main instruments on adaptation in the rural sector of the semi-arid region.</caption><thead><tr><th>Plan</th><th>Program</th><th>Instrument</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ABC<br>Plan</td><td><ul><li>ABC credit line;</li><li>Pronaf Eco</li></ul></td><td>Credit to transform<br>productive systems</td></tr><tr><td>NAP<br>Plan</td><td><ul><li>One Million Rural Cisterns Programme (P1MC);</li><li>One Land Two Waters (P1+2)</li><li>Water infrastructure state programs (ProRural, Bahia Produtiva, ProSemiarido)</li><li>Desertification control program</li><li>The Harvest Guarantee Programme (over 50% of harvest failure);</li><li>The Family Farming Insurance (SEAF);</li><li>Regional development clusters (goat farming and bee keeping)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Decentralized water<br>infrastructure</li><li>Technical assistance to<br>restore native vegetation</li><li>Climate-related insurance</li><li>Climate resilient productive<br>clusters</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><ul><li>Family farming credit line (Pronaf, Agroamigo)</li><li>The Food Acquisition Programme (PAA);</li><li>The School Feeding Programme (PNAE)</li><li>The Development Programme (Programa Fomento);</li><li>The Green Grant Programme (Bolsa Verde);</li><li>The Family Grant Programme (Bolsa Familia)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Rural credit</li><li>Food public procurement<br>(commercialization)</li><li>Cash transfer (social<br>protection)</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

## Theoretical and methodological background

This contribution examines the various instruments and devices developed in case studies from a classical framework of sociological analysis of public action based on the five main elements adapted from Lascoumes and Le Galès (2012): the types of instruments, actors involved, ideas or concepts mobilized based on adapting agriculture to drought, the modalities of implementation governance, and the main outcomes. Obviously, regarding a *posteriori* reading, this analysis does not have any systemic or statistical character, but it may allow for extracting lessons learned and trends at the regional scale from the contributions examined.

An instrument of public action constitutes a technical and social device that organizes specific social relations between the public power and its recipients, according to the representations and meanings it carries (LASCOUMES; LE GALÈS, 2010, p. 1). To categorize the instruments, we adopted the typology proposed by Hoods and Margetts (2007): direct intervention of the public budget (*Treasury*), institutional/governance (*Organization*), regulatory (*Authority*), and information system (*Nodality*).

These distinctions can be enriched by introducing more institutional elements regarding the role of public and private actors in the institutional arrangements. The place of institutions is indeed essential to understanding the design and governance of instruments (HOOD, 1983). Concepts mobilized in public
policies and actions can be imported from the international level and climate
change adaptation negotiations (e.g., adaptation, risk, and resilience) (AYKUT;
DAHAN, 2014). They can also be incorporated into national or regional pro-
posals, such as “living with the semi-arid,” those more specific to the agricultural
sector (BERTRAND; AMALRIC, 2017), or alternative paradigms, such as those
linked to the concept of agroecology (ALTIERI et al., 2015).

Governance can be more horizontal (vertical) and participatory (hierar-
chical), with intermediate situations of a mixed nature. Governance can also be
integrated, articulated, or coordinated between different instruments or policies
at the intersectoral level (Sabourin, 2017). Contrarily, it can be sectoral and seg-
mented. Milhorance et al. (2020) analyze the combinations of instruments (*policy
mix*) for adapting agriculture to climate change in the semi-arid area of Bahia and
Pernambuco.

Combining the literature (KOOIMAN, 1993; TCU, 2014) with the con-
tributions of this book, we identified four dimensions of governance of public
policies, all dynamic, though expressed with somewhat presence and intensity in
the modalities of formulation and implementation of the public policies studied.
The dimensions are decentralization (vs. centralization), intersectoriality (vs. sec-
toriality), participation (vs. hierarchy), and governance in networks. The level of
implementation, considering actions and activities at the local scale, can come
from executing municipal, state, federal, or territorial policies that integrate the
dimension of articulation between multiple levels (SABOURIN, 2018).

Cross-cutting analysis of some tools for
adaptation of agriculture to drought

This book integrates 11 contributions. Ten public action instruments or devices for adapting agriculture to droughts are considered, some treated in several chapters.

These public actions and policies, developed from local state or federal levels,
are: Adapta Araripe, National Family Farming Support Program (PRONAF) and
Agroamigo credit for family farming, harvest insurance Garantia-Safra; Water
productive cisterns 2a Água, Local Seed Programs in Ceará, agroecology exten-
sion by Federal University of Pernambuco, State Policy on Agroecology and
Organic Production (PEAPO) in the state of Sergipe, Pró-Semiárido in Bahia,
and the National Territorial Development Program, in the State of Paraíba.

Table 2 at the end of this section summarizes their main characteristics based
on the proposed analysis grid.
# The instruments

## Direct intervention by the public budget (Treasury)

We can distinguish three major subcategories of direct intervention instruments or measures. The first comprises subsidies (e.g., for equipment such as cisterns, dams, or small irrigation kits). The second comprises loans in the form of rural credit, following the example of the PRONAF (particularly Semi-Arid, Women, Youth, and Agroecology) and Agroamigo (Aquino et al.). The third compensatory modality of the Crop Guarantee and other crop guarantee policies (Bolsa Estiagem, Seguro Agricultura Familiar) offers partial payment of the losses to the most vulnerable producers given prolonged droughts.

## Regulatory instruments (Authority)

We observed a few main regulatory cases. Generally, they are regulatory instruments or measures within a more global public policy: An example includes the requirement of the Access Document to PRONAF (DAP), which allows access to the different modalities of family farming policy, in addition to credit from the PRONAF, analyzed by Aquino et al.

## Institutional instruments (Organization)

The rural territorial development policy of the former Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA) (CANIELLO; VALENCIA) and the policies of public purchases of food from family farmers, mentioned in several chapters, fall into this category.

It is also the case of the Ecoforte program, developed by the National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production (PNAPO), to support the structuring of organizational networks and strengthen agroecological knowledge management. It is mentioned in the chapters by Canaviesi et al., Milhomens et al., and Monteiro et al.

The organizational dimension (e.g., of the Productive Cisterns program, the Seed Banks in Ceará, or the Pasture Funds in Bahia articulated by Articulação Semiárido Brasileiro [ASA]) also refers to this category of instrument.

## Information communication tools (Nodality)

All rural extension instruments or university extension courses, as in the Mandacaru Settlement of Petrolina-PE, mentioned by Freitas et al. in this book, promote information, capacity-building, and organizational actions that correspond to this type.

The Productive Cisterns Program is based on inclusive small investments associated with training and extension. It is also the case with the Agroecology
policy (PEAPO) in the state of Sergipe or the network of Community Seed Houses
in Ceará (LOPES; SCHMITT).

*Instrument mix*

Finally, the local state agroecology and organic production policies analyzed by Canaviesi et al., Monteiro et al., and Milhomens et al. constitute combinations of several policy tools or the *policy mix* associating various instruments that converge toward the same objectives through coordination. It is also the case of the rural territorial development policy in the State of Paraíba analyzed by Caniedo and Valencia Perafán in this book.

The actors

All policies analyzed address the activities of a public institution regarding fam-
ily farmers. Today, however, in most cases addressed in this book, various other
actors are also active, ranging from farmers’ organizations, civil society NGOs,
universities, banks, rural extension entities, or even federated state or municipal
secretariats.

The configurations are diverse, but the classic policy executed entirely by
a single public institution (ministry, state secretariat, federal, or state public
enterprise) is increasingly rare. Even instruments of public-rural extension today
involve calls open to private or civil society institutions, as in the case of the
former MDA and PRONAF or the Ministry of Social Development (MDS) with
productive cisterns or public food purchases.

Even the extension project of the Federal University of São Francisco Valley (UNIVASF) in the Mandacaru Settlement promotes the construction and operation of a socio-technical network that integrates public (research, extension, funding, teaching), private (commerce), and producer institutions and organizations (FREITAS ET AL.).

Over 15 years ago, federal or state rural territorial development policies began mainly based on family farmers’ participation through their organizations, as Caniedo and Valencia Perafán note in this book. This participatory governance has been extended to Social Development policies, particularly in the cistern construction programs, in coordination with Articulação Semiárido, ASA Brazil, which federates 3,000 grassroots producer and civil society organizations.

It is very significant that strategies for adapting agriculture to climate change, in particular to droughts, involve the mobilization of different categories of diversified actors to provide a service and decision-making as close as possible to reality and identity of the beneficiaries, territories, and local conditions.
# Concepts mobilized in public action on adaptation to drought

## Global concepts

Agroecosystems: this concept defines the specific ecosystem of an agricultural production unit in two reference universes: sustainable agriculture (CONWAY, 1985) for Embrapa's research and agroecology, which refers to a more radical alternative paradigm, presented in the chapters by Monteiro et al. and Milhomens et al. An agroecosystem is an ecosystem with, at least, an agricultural population (HART, 1980). Therefore, it can be understood as a unity of work in the case of agricultural systems, differing fundamentally from natural ecosystems by being regulated by human intervention for a particular purpose (MARTEN, 1988).

In the Adapta Araripe project, the notion of agro-ecosystem is associated with the proposal of consortia and crops or agroforestry systems. Moreover, “to achieve sustainability, the proposal of agro-ecosystems is based on the limited use of energy and external resources, seeking to re-establish food chains, keeping bio-geochemical cycles closed as much as possible [and], hence, [keeping] the interest in integrated systems through crop consortia” (ANGELO-TTI et al.).

For agroecology promoters, the agroecosystem is defined as a cultivated, socially managed ecosystem; “it is the material anchorage of the processes of matter and energy exchange between the natural and the social sphere” (PETERSEN et al., 2017).

The concepts of vulnerability and resilience are typical of notions originating in the global agenda and associated with the idea of adaptation to climate change (BOCKEL; TINLOT, 2009; PELLING, 2011). Milhomens et al. talk about “climate resilience” and associate it with resistance and resilience of agroecosystems in agroecological transition.

## Water security

According to the United Nations (UN/d), ensuring water security means “ensuring sustainable access to quality water in adequate quantity to sustain livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic development; ensuring protection from water pollution and water-related disasters; [and] preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability.”

This concept is mobilized for access to domestic water and productive water, particularly regarding the productive cisterns program, One land and Two Waters program, or the Water for All plan (NOGUEIRA; SAITO). Thus, contributing to water security by decentralizing sources and small reservoirs comprises the
adaptation strategies of agriculture to reduce the impact of drought on the poorest people of the semi-arid region (NOGUEIRA, 2017).

The concepts of social technologies and resilience are mentioned in only one case. The notion of social technology for the productive cisterns corresponds to a technical and social adaptation dimension of the self-construction component of these tanks. Following the Institute of Social Technology, Brazil (ITS, 2004), it represents “a set of techniques and transformative methodologies developed [and] applied in interaction with and appropriation by the population, representing solutions for social inclusion and improvement of living conditions.”

## Local/Regional concepts

Among the concepts of regional origin, “Coexistence with the semi-arid” “Con- vivência com o semárido” (CSA) is the most referenced in this book through a *mix of* agroecology policy instruments and public action by civil society organizations.

CSA is typical of a concept based on adapting (of people, communities, agri- cultural production, and resource management) to the reality of a biome charac- terized by drought. “Learning to live with the semi-arid region, instead of fighting droughts, means reinterpreting how people deal with their natural environment and reviewing the mechanisms and instruments of public intervention. Instead of seeking to transform the region into what it is not, coexistence implies seeking technological alternatives that allow for [valorizing] potentialities and vocations compatible with its real natural conditions and its social context” (BURSZTYN, 2016).

Two chapters mention local crop consortia that refer to the more global notion of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry systems are “productive systems that can be based on ecological succession, analogous to natural ecosystems, in which exotic or native trees are intercropped with agricultural crops, vines, forage crops, [and] shrubs, according to a pre-established spatial and temporal arrangement, with [a] high diversity of species and interactions among them” (EMBRAPA, undated). They are mobilized through environmental recovery strategies and adaptation to climate change (SCHEMBERGUE et al., 2017).

## Alternative paradigms

The concept of agroecology, as an ecological practice, science, and social move- ment (ALTIERI et al., 2015), is also proposed as an alternative paradigm to tra- ditional agriculture, particularly irrigated agribusiness in the PEAPO study in the State of Sergipe, Monteiro et al.’s study in the semi-arid region of Bahia, and Milhomens et al.’s study. For these proposals for public action, agroecology seeks to radically transform agricultural and food systems. It opposes the conventional
export-oriented model, considering that this transformation is necessary to
address environmental and social challenges.

Agroecology advocates greater autonomy for producers regarding input markets and oligopolies selling raw materials and promotes the priority use of production unit resources (SABOURIN et al., 2018). Milhomens et al. present agroecology “as an adaptation strategy to reduce vulnerability and increase the resilience of agriculture in the semi-arid region.”

Milhorance et al. and Milhomens et al. remind us that the adoption of the agroecological approach is among the initiatives of the sectoral strategy for agriculture in the PNA; however, it belongs to a minority and marginal coalition in the face of agribusiness coalitions that justify the “climatization” of its proposals. These authors state that “without changes in the dominant forms of agricultural policy and production, the agroecological approach will hardly surpass the current stage of isolated and socially invisible experiences” (MILHOMENS et al.).

Modalities of governance of adaptation policies

Centralization/decentralization

Although decentralization (e.g., of state policies [ARRETCHE, 1999]) has pro-
gressed significantly in Brazil, particularly in social policies over the last 20 years,
it is not a process established in a natural and generalized manner. In addition to
the adoption of new practices and rules, the main problem lies in the transfer of
resources (financial and human) and decentralized norms, including structural
ones. The former MDA has experienced tensions between instruments of the Sec-
retariat of Family Agriculture and those of the Secretariat of Territorial Develop-
ment. It can be verified in the implementation norms of PRONAF (Aquino et al.).
Another example is mentioned in the chapters for the National agroecological
technical assistance and rural extension policy (ATER agroecology) methodology,
which was considered too bureaucratic and centralized. Certain policies can
be decentralized to the municipalities, as with the Garantia-Safra, and maintain
hierarchical governance (Aquino et al.).

The most notable decentralization efforts for the climate change adaptation strategy were those of social policies (various categories of grants) noted by Mattos et al. and water policies, particularly the MDS programs for the construction of cisterns and underground dams, as evidenced by Cavalcante et al. and Nogueira and Saito.

The policy of recognition and support of grassland communities (*Fundo de pasto*) in Bahia is a successful decentralization and deconcentration of agrarian or land reform, even in its implementation through producer associations (Monteiro
et al.). The same can be observed in the case of community seed banks (LOPEZ; SCHMITT). The application of the notion of multi-level governance completes the decentralization and deconcentration of the State insofar as the articulation between the different levels is planned, anticipated, regulated, and coordinated. It was the case of the territorial development policy, even creating a new level of state action and territory while functioning and supporting autonomous organizational processes of family farmers, as in the case reported by Caniello and Perafán in Paraíba.

## Intersectoral governance

Without a doubt, another merit of the former MDA's territorial policy was the attempt to introduce an intersectoral dimension to rural development actions, opening a dialog with the education, health, social development, tourism, and infrastructure sectors.

Embrapa's intervention in Serra do Araripe is in the actions of the Araripe Plaster Industry Hub, a Local Productive Arrangement that associates 16 municipalities in Pernambuco and brings together various public and private actors (ANGELOTTI et al.).

Milhorance et al. analyze the forms of interaction between policies that contribute to climate change adaptation in the states of Bahia and Pernambuco, illustrating how a minimum of coordination and articulation is essential for the success of adaptive strategies. They find that the PNA juxtaposes prior policies without integration. They mention only one case of articulation in the MDS productive cisterns program with ASA member organizations and one space for coordination by discussing state policy actions in Bahia and Pernambuco in the reminiscent territorial council (collegia) of the São Francisco river valley.

## Participation vs. hierarchization

Another characteristic of the articulated or territorial policies is that they are participatory and rely on consultation with local organizations and authorities or municipal rural development and environment councils and territorial collegiate bodies. The MDS cisterns program and the former MDA with PRONAF have also transferred resources to municipalities, NGOs, and producer organizations to implement the policy, similar to the management units of the Cisterns Program.

The state policies on agroecology and organic production in Bahia and Sergipe, which supported the *Fundos de Pasto* (community managed collective pasture) in Bahia or the community seed banks in Ceará, were also built and governed by participatory commissions or committees, bringing together public institutions and representatives of civil society or users.
The descriptions of the processes in the different cases in this book show dif-
ferent participation degrees. In the Mandacaru Settlement, this interlocution was
long reserved for a single charismatic leader, and the UNIVASF university aimed
to train new leaders (Freitas et al.).

In the Adapta Araripe project, farmers’ participation is indispensable for experiments in real environments. However, the level of choice or decision on the design or experimentation content can be differentiated per farmers’ capacities and resources.

In this book, Nogueira and Saito propose a gender-specific analysis of par-
ticipation in the case of the productive cisterns program. The fact that the policy
of promoting cisterns has been directly based on women has guaranteed produc-
tive results insofar as they are responsible for fruit and vegetable gardens in the
backyards around their homes. This gender dimension has also been verified in
the Mandacaru Settlement (Freitas et al.), Borborema territory in Paraíba (CANI-
ELLO; PERA-FÁN), and the Middle São Francisco (Monteiro et al.).

Network governance

The reports of attempts at network governance in various chapters (Freitas et al.; Monteiro et al.; CANIAVESI et al.; MILHOMENS et al.; CANIELLO and PER-AFÁN; LOPES and SCHMITT) also show the great diversity of composition, size, and density of the networks.

In some cases, such as PEAPO in Sergipe or PRONAT in Borborema, the
network of local actors pre-exists the policy formulation and promotes its con-
struction, contributing to its implementation. In other cases, the construction
or strengthening of a socio-technical network (e.g., around water management,
grasslands, or agroecology) is an objective of the intervention. Regarding the seed
houses in Ceará, instruments and policies, that favor and others that hinder the
dynamics of the network are identified.

Effects and implications

Public actions and policies in this book show four main categories of results regarding adaptation to drought and climate change.

Technical implications

First, there are elements such as positive technical results on species adaptation,
cultivated varieties, breeds of small ruminants that are drought-tolerant, more
ecological cultivation techniques such as agroecology, organic production and
crop consortia or agroforestry systems, and management of the dry forest called
*caatinga*. These results are generally associated with rain-dependent agricultural
production or only supported by occasional small irrigation of vegetables, fruits,
and forage crops.

Second, there are technical alternatives for local and decentralized water
collection and storage, particularly productive cisterns and underground dams.
Third, programs such as Prosemi-arido in Bahia, ProRural in Pernambuco,

Seed Banks in Ceará, PRONAT in Paraíba, Water for All, and Agrarian
Reform in Petrolina have allowed for constructing collective infrastructure for
processing, storage, and commercialization of agricultural raw materials, food,
fibers, and handicrafts. However, above all, they have managed to train local
human resources to manage and maintain them.

However, the most significant factor in adaptation impacts was the capacity
to widely disseminate the technical elements or social technologies as cisterns,
fodder palm, fodder silage, or the valorization of *caatinga* resources.

Social effects

One can distinguish social effects in compensation and transfer and social out-
comes in population organization. In their contribution, Mattos et al. compare
climate data from three drought periods: 1980–1983, 1990–1993, and 2012–
2016 and their social impacts. Despite being more prolonged (lasting until 2018
in several areas), the last period did not have severe agricultural and socio-eco-
nomic consequences. The authors attribute this difference to the greater organiza-
tion and resilience of farmers to social public policies (Bolsa Família, Rural retire-
ment, Bolsa Estiagem, Garantia-Safra) and instruments for adapting agriculture
to drought. Regarding the latter, they highlight those brought together in the
proposal for living with the semi-arid, water decentralization, networked Techni-
cal Assistance and Rural Extension, and agroecological practices. They consider
it a “combination of policies of permanent action, social, environmental, [and]
infrastructure [...] that made the drought of 2012–2016 seem much milder than
its predecessors.”
<table><caption>Table 1. Characteristics of the adaptation instruments analyzed</caption><thead><tr><td>Instrument</td><td>Type</td><td>Concepts</td><td>Actors</td><td>Governance</td><td>Effects</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PNA + Cred</td><td>Policy mix</td><td>CSA</td><td>Multiple</td><td>Mixed, poorly integrated</td><td>Relevance and coherence of C with semi-arid</td></tr><tr><td>Adapta Araripe</td><td>Information</td><td>Sustainable Agri AESS</td><td>Embrapa+ IPA, ITEP</td><td>Participatory Experimental</td><td>Adapts crop and livestock farming techniques</td></tr><tr><td>PRONAF -Agroamigo</td><td>Treasure</td><td>Family farming</td><td>Audience,</td><td>Hierarchical decentralized</td><td>Consolidation of cattle ranching and drought-tolerant agriculture</td></tr><tr><td>Garantia-Safra</td><td>Treasure</td><td>Risks</td><td>Family farming</td><td>Hierarchical decentralized</td><td>Support consumption and purchase inputs</td></tr><tr><td>Cisterns 2nd water MDS</td><td>Treasure + Information</td><td>Social technology/ water security</td><td>Multiple</td><td>Participatory + NGO + gender</td><td>Women productive autonomy</td></tr><tr><td>PNBI Bioinsumes</td><td>Regulation Authority</td><td>Sustainable Agri</td><td>Public</td><td>Sectoral</td><td>Not yet</td></tr><tr><td>ATER ext Univ Mandacaru</td><td>Information</td><td>TAE and AE</td><td>Multiple</td><td>Participatory networks</td><td>Capacity-building, leadership training</td></tr><tr><td>PEAPO Sergipe</td><td>Information and organization</td><td>AE and PO</td><td>Multiple</td><td>Participative Networks</td><td>Institutionalization of the EA by the actors</td></tr><tr><td>PSA Bahia</td><td>Information and Regulation</td><td>AE, AESS resilience</td><td>Multiple</td><td>Participation + NGO, Org. prod.</td><td>Autonomy, endogenous income, recovery of the caatinga</td></tr><tr><td>Territorial Development</td><td>Organization and treasure</td><td>AE, CSA</td><td>Multiple</td><td>Intersectoral participatory</td><td>Collective infrastructures, capacities in favor AE</td></tr><tr><td>Ceará Seeds</td><td>Organization and information</td><td>CSA</td><td>Civil society, O. P.</td><td>Participatory, networked</td><td>Org. and gender reinforcement, backyard revitalization</td></tr><tr><td>AE NSA</td><td>Organization and information</td><td>AE, CSA, AESS, Resilience</td><td>Multiple</td><td>Participatory and networked</td><td>TAE support, Strengthening socio-technical networks and resilience AF</td></tr></tbody></table>

Legends: AE: Agroecology; FA: Family farming; AESS: Agroecosystems; CSA: Convivência com o semárido; PO: Organic production; TAE: Agroecological transition.

Source: Authors, from the chapters of this book.
Several chapters indicate the role of social or conditional transfer policies in adapting rural populations to the last prolonged droughts. Even the crop insurance *Seguro-Safra* ended up being institutionalized by the drought permanence into an almost perennial instrument, enabling it at the level of beneficiaries as a social and food security policy and not just a productive support to buy new inputs.

Strengthening the organizational and representative capacities of family farmers, particularly women and youth, has been essential for drought adaptation as it has delivered three complementary types of results:

i) The access to public policies and services (non-access remains but is reduced);

ii) The capacity to manage inputs and equipment accessible through rural credit or collective infrastructures obtained from public subsidies;

iii) The capacity for building local organization and territorial or regional articulation in larger organizations or networks.

## Political and institutional effects

Regarding ideas and political resources, the success and consolidation of the paradigm of “living with the semi-arid” for family farming in the Northeast of Brazil is a step forward for an increasingly broad coalition of actors originating came from the social movement and state articulations.

Regarding agricultural and rural development strategy, this proposal, associated with water decentralization and agroecological transition (including bio-inputs, organic production, crop consortia, agroforestry systems, management of the *caatinga*, and local seeds), is based on labor intensification as an alternative to capital intensification.

Part of public policies at the federal level that contributes to adapting agriculture to climate change has suffered a major dismantling since the Temer government (2016 for family farming policy and territorial development) or from the Bolsonaro government (2019 for federal councils, environmental, and agroecology policies) (SABOURIN et al., 2020). However, several federated state rural development programs in the Northeast, such as Pró-Semiárido, the Dom Helder Camara Project, or São José Project, linked to loans from international organizations (e.g., World Bank and IFAD), are threatened with closure by the opposition of the federal government's guarantee.

In this context of reduced federal resources, there was an attempt to progressively institutionalize state agroecology policies and food public purchases of family farming products, following the states of Bahia, Sergipe, Ceará, and Maranhão (SABOURIN et al., 2019). However, the processes remain fragile and dependent on ministerial orders and relatively “weak” institutional instruments.
Final considerations

The above results show the attempts to consolidate a strategy of adaptation of agricultural production to climate change given the characteristics and specificities of the resources of the *caatinga* biome. The idea of climate adaptation comes stems from an international agenda but has existed at the territorial level, particularly in the semi-arid Northeast, as per a previous in-depth reflection and experience.

The technological and socio-technical content results from an accumulation of experimentation by research and extension centers and management and horizontal dissemination of adaptive practices of local populations. Rural social movements with academic centers, civil society organizations, and international funding have promoted this strategy. In certain cases, they have integrated more articulated and sufficiently strong coalitions to construct municipal, state, and even federal public policies on family farming, seeds, cisterns, traditional peoples and communities, and agroecology.

Despite the current unfavorable federal political and administrative context, this strategy constitutes a framework and a programmatic basis. It represents a series of advances that seem difficult to be completely broken or dismantled, even in the current context of dismantling federal policies. Several components of the adaptation strategy are not easily reversed such that its implementation does not depend solely on resources linked to federal public policies.

Moreover, most contributions in this book do not always show a critical reading of the policies studied, particularly of innovation or implementation limits or challenges (HOWLETT, 2014). In some cases, these policies are very recent, such as the Agroecology policy in Sergipe. Further, given that there are no results yet, it was only possible to identify the challenges or mechanisms in their construction.

Some chapters describe alternative technical proposals or analyze socio-economic data at the scale of the production units and focus on the progress achieved relative to prior practices or situations. It may also represent the expression of a certain technological, methodological or militant bias in favor of the object of study. However, two chapters do not spare criticism to the policies analyzed: The chapter by Aquino et al. on the limits of content and implementation of PRONAF and *Garantia-Safra* crop insurance, and that where Mesquita et al. show the great lack of articulation and coordination between the different adaptation instruments, particularly through dialog spaces as the municipal and territorial councils.

Most of the chapters present a series of specific recommendations for the maintenance, expansion, or evolution of instruments of adaptation policy
studied. Nevertheless, the first recommendation is coordination or integration
between various sectoral policies and the different implementation scales.

Given the intersectoral nature of the climate challenge, more integrated
approaches are key to reducing vulnerability to these events (AHMAD, 2009).
Indeed, integration is a political process, not just an administrative one. It
depends on the coordination of actors, confrontation of ideas, and sometimes
mediation (Mesquita et al.).

Different systems have different sensitivities to disturbances and an unequal potential to resist and adapt to these changes. In this context, regionalized analyses of climate policy formulation and implementation are needed, including the different instruments combinations that materialize in each territory, interactions between actors at different levels, and mobilizing distinct adaptation visions and discourses.

## References

ADELLE, C.; RUSSEL, D. Climate Policy Integration: a Case of Déjà Vu? **Environmental Policy and Governance**, v. 23, n. 1, p. 1-12, jan. 2013.

AHMAD, I. H. **Climate Policy Integration**: Towards Operationalization DESA Working Paper No 73ST/ESA/2009/DWP/73 March 2009.

ALTIERI, M. A.; NICHOLLS, C. I.; HENAO, A. et al. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. **Agron. Sustain. Dev.**, v. 35, p. 869-890, 2015. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2.

ARRETCHE, M. T. S. Políticas sociais no Brasil: descentralização em um Estado federativo. **Rev. Bras. Cien. Soc.**, São Paulo, v. 14, n. 40, p. 111-141, jun. 1999.

AYKUT, S. C.; DAHAN, A. **La Gouvernance du Changement Climatique**: Anatomie d'un schisme de réalité. Gouverner le Progrès et ses Dégâts, Paris : Éditions La Découverte, p. 97-132, 2014. Available at : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01403103/document.

BERTRAND, F.; AMALRIC, M. L'élaboration des politiques climatiques locales: usage et portée d'un dispositif de concertation. **Développement Durable et Territoires** v. 8, n. 2, jul. 2017. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.11715 2017.

BOCKEL, L.; SMIT, B. **Climate Change and Agriculture Policies**. Roma: FAO, Easypol draft of Policy Guidelines, 2009

BOCKEL, L.; TINLOT, M. **Introduction and concepts of adaptation, resilience and mitigation**. How to mainstream climate change adaptation and mitigation into agriculture policies? Roma: TCSP, FAO, 2009.

BRASIL. Tribunal de Contas da União. **Referencial para avaliação de governança em políticas públicas**. Brasília: TCU, 2014. 91 p.

BURSZTYN, M. **Convivência com o semiárido** in 2o Seminário e curso internacional de convivên-cia com o semiárido. Adelia Alencar Brasil e Daniquele Pinho Andrade (organizadoras). Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento e Sustentabilidade – IABS / Editora IABS, Brasília-DF, Brasil - 2016.
CAMPOS, J. N. B. Secas e políticas públicas no Semiárido: ideias, pensadores e períodos. **Estudos Avançados**, v. 28, n. 82, São Paulo, out.-dez. 2014, p. 65-88. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142014000300005.

CONWAY, G. R. The properties of Agroecosystems. **Agricultural Systems**, n. 24, p. 95-117, 1987.

EMBRAPA. Sistemas Agroflorestais e recuperação ambiental. Available at: https://www.embrapa.br/codigo-florestal/sistemas-agroflorestais-safs.

HART, R. D. **Agrosistemas**: Conceptos básicos. Turrialba, CATIE, 1980, 211p.

HOOD, C. **The tools of government**. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1986.

HOOD, C. C.; MARGETTS, H. Z. *Looking Ahead: The Tools of Government in the Digital Age*. In: HOOD, C. C.; MARGETTS, H. Z. (Eds.). *The Tools of Government in the Digital Age*. London: Macmillan Education UK, 2007. p. 184-203.

HOWLETT, M. Why are policy innovation rare and so often negative? Blame avoidance and problem denial in climate change policy-making. **Global Environnemental Change**, v. 29, p. 395-403, 2014.

IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneve: Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, 2014.

ITS BRASIL. Tecnologia Social no Brasil. **Caderno de Debate**. São Paulo: ITS, 2004, p. 26.

KOOIMAN, J. Modern Governance. New Government, Society Interaction, London, Sage, 1993.

LASCOUMES, P. ; LE GALÈS, P. «Instruments». In: BOUSSAGUET, L. (Éd.). Dictionnaire des Politiques Publiques. 3e éd. Paris : Presses de Sciences Po, 2010, p. 325-335. Avalaible at : https://www.cairn.info/dictionnaire-des-politiques-publiques--9782724611755-page-325.htm.

LASCOUMES, P.; LE GALÈS, P. *Sociologia da Ação Pública*. Maceió: EDUFAL, 2012. 244 p.

MARENGO, J. A.; TORRES, R. R.; ALVES, L. M. *Drought in Northeast Brazil* – past, present, and future. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, v. 129, n. 3-4, p. 1189-1200, ago. 2017.

MARTEN, G. G. Productivity, Stability, Sustainability, Equitability and Autonomy as Properties for Agroecossystem Assessment. **Agricultural Systems**, n. 26, p. 291-316, 1988.

MICKWITZ, P.; AIX, F.; BECK, S.; CARSS, D.; FERRAND, N. Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Governance. Montpellier: Irstea 2009, p. 96. Avalaible at: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02598475.

MILHORANCE, C.; SABOURIN, E.; CHECHI, L. **Adaptação às mudanças climáticas e integração de políticas públicas no semiárido pernambucano**. Projeto Artimix, Projeto INCT Odisseia, Série Working Papers n. 2, 2019. 39p. Disponível em: http://inct-odisseia.i3gs.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/WP2.pdf.

MILHORANCE, C.; SABOURIN, E.; LE COQ, J. F.; MENDES, P. Unpacking the policy mix of adaptation to climate change in Brazil's semiarid region: Enabling instruments and coordination mechanisms. **Climate Policy**, v. 20, n. 5, p. 593-608, 2020.

MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE. **Plano Nacional de Adaptação à Mudança do Clima-Estratégias Setoriais e Temáticas, Volume II. Brasília: MMA, 2016.**
NOGUEIRA, D. Segurança hídrica, adaptação e gênero: o caso das cisternas para captação de água de chuva no semiárido brasileiro. *Sustentabilidade em Debate*, v. 8, n. 3, p. 22-36, 2017. Avalaible at: https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v8n3.2017.26544.

OBERMAIER, M.; PINGUELLI, R. L. Mudança climática e adaptação no Brasil: uma análise crítica. *Estudos Avançados*, v. 27, n. 78, p. 155-176, 2013.

ONU. Water Security and the Global Water Agenda Policy and Analytical Briefs 8 May, 2013. Available at: https://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-global-water-agenda/.

PETERSEN, P.; SILVEIRA, M. M.; FERNANDES, G.; ALMEIDA, S. Articulação Nacional de Agroecologia (Brasil). *Método de análise econômico-ecológica de Agroecossistemas*. Rio de Janeiro: AS-PTA, 2017. 246 p.

PELLING, M. *Adaptation to Climate Change*: From resilience to transformation. Abingdon, Oxon (USA): Routledge, 2011.

RODRIGUES FILHO, S.; LINDOSO, D. P.; BURSZTYN, M.; NASCIMENTO, C. G. O clima em transe: políticas de mitigação e adaptação no Brasil. *Revista Brasileira de Climatologia*, v. 19, n.0, 2016.

SABOURIN, E. Governança multinível no desenvolvimento rural: intermunicipalidade e territórios. In: *RP3 – Revista de Pesquisa em Políticas Públicas*, n. 2, p. 78-102, 2018. Avalaible at: http://dx.doi.org/10.18829/rp3.v11i2.

SABOURIN, E.; GRISA, C.; NIEDERLE, P.; PEREIRA LEITE, S.; MILHORANCE, C.; DAMASCENO FERREIRA, A.; SAUER, S.; ANDRIGUETTO-FILHO, J. M. Le démantèlement des politiques publiques rurales et environnementales au Brésil. *Cahiers Agricultures*, v. 29, n.21, 2020. Avalaible at: https://www.cahiersagricultures.fr/articles/cagri/full_html/2020/01/cagri200104/cagri200104.html.

SABOURIN, E.; LE COQ, J.-F.; FRÉGUIN-GRESH, S.; MARZIN, J.; BONIN, M.; PATROUILLEAU, M. M.; VÁZQUEZ, L.; NIEDERLE, P. Public policies to support agroecology in Latin America and the Caribbean, CIRAD, Montpellier, *Perspective* 45, 2018. https://doi.org/10.19182/agritrop/00020.

SABOURIN, E.; GUÉNEAU, S.; COLONNA, J.; SILVA, L. R. T. (Orgs.). *Construção de políticas estaduais de agroecologia e produção orgânica no Brasil: avanços, obstáculos e efeitos das dinâmicas subnacionais*. Curitiba: CRV Editora e Red PP-AL, 2019, 272p.

SCHEMBERGUE, A.; CUNHA, D. A.; CARLOS, S. M.; PIRES, M. V.; FARIA, R. M. Sistemas Agroflorestais como Estratégia de Adaptação aos Desafios das Mudanças Climáticas no Brasil. *Rev. Econ. Sociol. Rural*, v. 55, n. 1, p. 9-30, 2017.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
# Drought or just a Dry season?
Describing two meanings for the
same climate phenomenon

Luis Claudio Mattos, Ana Paula Ferreira and Peter Herman May

Introduction

In the second decade of the 20th century, Brazil's semiarid region experienced successive long periods of drought, locally known as "secas," a concept that evokes calamity, despair and hopelessness for a large portion of the Brazilian population.

The modernization process that marked the country's development after World War II began to treat the abundant poverty in the semiarid region as a "natural" consequence of its biome. As a result, ephemeral, periodic and palliative programs were applied in response to the state of periodic public calamity.

In the second decade of the 21st century, a new millennium, something new has happened. A long-term drought marked the region, without, however, being accompanied by social calamities common in other times. And this was not by chance.

It has never been clearly demonstrated that the long-term dry season is a climatic phenomenon. The drought is only its social consequence, and therefore a social phenomenon. Despite their common origins, they have different meanings. If we analyze separately the climatic phenomenon (dry season) from the social phenomena (drought), we found a better path to promoting the development of the region, designing more appropriate public policies that could consider the regional characteristics. This article presents some elements that support this hypothesis and can serve as references for public management and civil society reaction.
Social relations in the Semiarid Region

One of the best-known characteristics of the semiarid climate is its rainfall irregu-
larity. The long-term dry seasons cause water shortages in rural villages, which, in
more critical times, also reach the urban towns located in the region. In addition,
irregular rainfall and long periods of no rain causes losses in agricultural crops
often lost after the failure of the rainy season to occur.

Given that in their rural households the small farmers produce their own
food, this scenario presents a permanent risk to food and nutritional security.

On the other hand, due to social and historical reasons, the level of invest-
ment in the region has been low. As a result, there is little added value to agricul-
tural products. Even though agriculture and livestock are the dominant economic
activities in the region, they do not necessarily represent the main income-gen-
erating activity.

In the semiarid region, environmental issues are at the center of economic and social relations, influencing the agrarian occupation and family habits. This is a coercive power that silently determines the society behavior and structure (DURKHEIM, 2007). The Portuguese word “seca” to refer to "drought" has become widely accepted, in popular terms, as something necessarily negative, inferring meanings that go beyond the climatic phenomena per se. In fact, because of this, the semiarid inhabitants have developed a popular knowledge to resist and overcome the most severe and long-term droughts, generating an important social capital in dealing with critical situations and short water supplies. It was sharing this knowledge that small farmers and peasants established factors that became decisive to achieve a better conviviality with the semiarid. It is in the context of social relations, therefore, that this capital flourishes and reproduces itself.

An important consideration here is the role of women. They have been socially
responsible for managing and maintaining the food security stocks, including
water for domestic consumptions and food for the entire family. Because of this,
the women have developed an accurate notion of food security. Women have,
hold, share and thus perpetuate knowledge about food production, often grown
in sophisticated backyard systems. The domestic work, historically assigned to the
women, has been the result of an unequal and unfair distribution of family work.
Furthermore, notably in rural conditions the women play an additional third
domestic role not only by mixing reproductive and productive work, but having
also to produce the food for attending the family requirements. In the backyards,
different productive systems supply the family and the market.
The women have developed strong skills in natural resource management and biodiversity conservation, selecting and preserving seed varieties and small animal breeds that are more adapted for living under semiarid conditions.

When, in long periods of drought, the nearest reservoirs dry up, it is necessary to travel gradually longer distances to supply the family's water needs, a role also played by women. Thus, women in family farming work an average of 58 hours per week, being 23 hours dedicated to so-called "social reproduction", compared to men's 41 hours and 09 hours respectively (FERREIRA, 2008). The invisibility of these numbers in society is perhaps the most perverse aspect of this situation. Often, this work is even invisible to women themselves. They tend to not consider productive work the majority of the effort for producing food for self-consumption that they carry out in their backyards (DI SABBATO, MELO, et al., 2009; MELO; LOMBARDI; FARIA; BUTTO, 2009). For all these reasons, although women represent approximately 50% of the population, they can reach more than 70% of the rural labor force in the semiarid region (FERREIRA, 2008).

## The stigmas of the semiarid region - hunger and lack of development

Josué de Castro was one of the pioneers in describing hunger as a social phenomenon. When hunger is collective, it gains a broader dimension, bringing famine and malnutrition to significant portions of the population. In such cases, it differs from circumstantial hunger when it is restricted to small proportions of the population. As social phenomena, Josué de Castro distinguished endemic hunger, when it is more persistent, from epidemic hunger, when its causes are seasonal, transitory or conjunctural. This last category is normally referred to as a crisis or catastrophe (CASTRO, 1984).

Therefore, social calamity during the drought serves as a determinant in the national stereotype of the semiarid region, making it peculiar and distinctive from the rest of the country.

These periods of long-term drought severely test the capacity of farming families to resist and adapt their systems to a continuous process of stock depletion. Being a social phenomenon, the drought is not as a mere economic issue, but rather is a matter of survival. The point is that drought does not have a clear beginning and end. The population only realizes the intensity of drought when it has already caused damage. It begins with the exhaustion of water stocks, but also seeds and food. In attempting to plant successively in the hope of producing, farmers come to use food stocks as seeds without stock replacement. With the deepening of the drought, it reaches the animals and begins to erode the family's
savings. This cycle effectively destroys their ability to plant in a timely fashion, using the entire rainy season, if rainfall is re-established. If families have no means to start again, they will depend on donations, political favors, and assistance from palliative public policies.

The more structured the farm, the better the conditions for overcoming drought (resistance) and restructuring livelihoods afterward (resilience). But to be effective, investments need to be made over years with regular rainfall.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Comparison of the intensity and extent of drought in three distinct periods 1980-1983, 1990-1993 and 2012-2016 in Northeast Brazil. (CPTEC/INPE, 2016)</figcaption></figure>
Three different analogous periods:
1980-83, 1990-93 e 2012-16

In practical terms, droughts are recognized much more by their visible and socially perceived impacts than by the climatological characteristic of some period in question. Some periods, generally long-term droughts, still remain in the popular imaginary of local society. That was the case of 1980-1983 and 1990-1993, to mention just the most recent of the last century. Between 2012 and 2016, despite its higher intensity and longer duration, could be climatically analogous with its predecessors. However, it was not perceived as a drought as a social phenomenon, which made this period different from other historical droughts.

The Standard Precipitation Index (SPI) allows monitoring the discrepancies, namely lack or excess of rains. Using this parameter, it is possible to compare different climate periods and mark some of them as droughts or flooding (CPTEC/INPE, 2016). The data shown in Figure 1 present the SPI for the first six months of the year, or SPI-06-JUNE which represents the rainy season in most of the semiarid region of the Northeast.

The comparison between the three periods clearly indicates that, from the climatic point of view, between 2012 and 2016 the drought was more intense and broader, not only than the two predecessors, but also of the entire history of the records. And yet, the social impacts were far less than those observed in the other two periods cited. In social terms, the period between 1980 and 1983 was one of the most severe in history, with millions of deaths recorded (VILLA, 2000).

This more recent drought began in 2010, without being fully perceived locally. This is explained in part by the more favorable situation in which the affected families found themselves. Except for the crop failure in the first year, no one referred to drought until 2012 (MATTOS, 2017). This “unnoticed dry season” was already an indicator that its impacts would be different from drought. With the same level of rain, previous droughts had already been felt, through exhaustion of food, fodder and water stocks, and consequently, social calamity.

First hypotheses discarded

The data presented above indicate that those analyzed periods were climatically analogous. The variations perceived in terms of magnitude, intensity and longevity weighed even more heavily for the latter. If the heavier drought has almost no social impacts, it is because there is a disconnection between the climatic phenomenon and the social disaster. Definitively, there are some factors that make a lack of rain remain just a dry season, avoiding the drought, with its social calamities.
Another explanation could be demographic. The emigration of the popu-
lation, especially the rural exodus, which has always been a characteristic of the
semiarid region, could help to reduce the demographic density, mitigating the
impacts of the droughts or reducing their visible social effects. It is true that
the region still exports laborers. However, the last years of the twentieth century
presented some trends in changes in the labor market, resulting in a decline in
emigration rates. From the demographic point of view, there was no exodus from
the region. On the contrary, the population in the region has continuously grown
(IBGE, 2006; LEITE; SOUZA, 2012). There was however a change in trend, from
exponential expansion to a linear growth. In fact, between 2000 and 2010 the
population in all microregions of the Northeast that compose the Brazilian semi-
arid region increased by more than 8% (MEDEIROS et al., 2012; LEITE; SOUZA,
2012).

Thus, it was a combination of permanent public policies - social, environ-
mental, infrastructure etc. - that made the long-term dry season between 2012-
2016 seem much milder than its predecessors' similar periods.

Drivers of change: Conviviality with the semiarid conditions and the decentralization of water supply

Until the 1990s, the predominant idea in public sectors was to combat droughts by expanding the number of dams and other major water infrastructures. Because the investments were generally concentrated in building large reservoirs, this policy was also known as the hydraulic solution (CAMPELLO NETTO, 1994). From that same time on, climate modeling studies have made droughts increasingly predictable (IBGE, 2006; LEITE; SOUZA, 2012) (ARAGÃO, 1986; HARZAL-LAH; ROCHA DE ARAGÃO; SADOURNY, 1996). The technologies allowed better investments in preparedness and reacting in advance, to avoid social crises.

As a result, it became increasingly evident in society that the drought was
historically manipulated by elites whose political capital was built from the dom-
ination of the poorest population.

In this sense, the change could only come about through political mobiliza-
tion in searching for answers. In 1993, faced with the ineffectiveness of this type
of policy in mitigating drought and containing social calamity, a combined action
of different segments of civil society, led by the National Federation of Peasants
and Small Farmers (CONTAG), occupied the Headquarters of the Superinten-
dency for Northeast Development (SUDENE) demanding government commit-
ments to change the policies of drought confrontation (Northern Forum, 1993).
Several water harvesting and storage technologies for decentralized management at household level had already been implemented since the 1990s. However, from the 2000s onwards, they gained strength with their expansion through partnerships between civil society entities and state governments in the Northeast Region, with special support from the Federal Government. The Plaque Cisterns Program became the symbol of this strategy and served as a reference for other subsequent programs of water harvesting and storage, as well as the composition of stocks of seeds, fodder and food.

However, the efficiency of these initiatives in conviviality with the semiarid conditions had never been tested under pressure of long-term droughts. This was only possible in the following decade, with the drought observed between 2012 and 2016.

## The peasantry and the semiarid

The pathway for the conviviality with the semiarid climate lies in the relationship between farmers and nature, especially within peasant family agriculture. This relationship is facilitated by the characteristics of peasant agriculture and its division of labor in a particular type of internal equilibrium (CHAYANOV, 1966). From the 1990s on, peasant family farming became a central issue in civil society's demands for public policies. And, it took years before policies could be changed and ideas gained expression as mass policies. Even so, their effectiveness would have to be demonstrated during another long-term period of lack of water.

The proposals were slowly and progressively developed through the innovative capacity of peasant families in the region. They share various services and information, creating a socio-ecological system with great resilience (BAUMGÄRTNER; TIKUBET; GILIOLI, 2010). The combination of alternatives, developed and tested in the context of family farming, has been ordered on the basis of environmental conditions, typical of a noncapitalist economic system. The agricultural farm space was organized according to its environmental characteristics, in order to achieve, therefore, more sustainability.

However, the role of women within the peasant unit should be highlighted. Women are responsible for practically all the systems related to food security, managing resources and investments, with rational choices that resulted in the reduction of damage and social disasters.

In this sense, it could be predicted that the more balanced labor relations are among family members, especially the suppression of the gender division of labor, the better are the productivity and efficiency in the struggle for water, food and nutritional security. By doing this, there will be less effort needed to face adverse conditions. On the other hand, the emancipation of women
represents an important additional source of income for the household economy (SILIPRANDI; CINTRÃO, 2011).

## Other factors leading to safety in times of drought

In addition to the aforementioned elements, other factors also helped to build an environment of security during long-term droughts:

* The diversification of economic activities to increase the sources for income generation and stability of livelihoods during droughts.

* Access to social security programs - these guarantee additional income that is invested in their productive and surveillance systems of better conviviality with semiarid climate.

* Building new stocks to withstand longer and increasingly uncertain periods of drought.

* Community interactivity and social relations of proximity - enhance labor savings and the exchange of successful experiences and lessons learned.

* Value addition and market - values the efforts of family members and increases labor productivity.

## Results on public policies

The strengthening of social organization has improved the conditions for the governance of public policies, in a favorable context for debating sustainable development prospects in rural territories. The multifunctionality of family farming has made it possible to strengthen policies for social and economic stability. The concept of conviviality with the semiarid conditions was in the base of the programs created and managed by The Civil Society Network for the Semiarid (ASA) and The Sustainable Development Project for Agrarian Reform Settlements in the Semiarid (Dom Helder Câmara Project - PDHC) (SIDERSKY; JALFIM; ARAUJO, 2020).

The valorization of family farming in rural public policies design was not restricted to the semiarid region. But perhaps it was on the semiarid region that this movement had its greatest impact in Brazil. Approximately 50% of the entire country's small farms are still located in the Northeast region, although this corresponds to only 35% of the area such small farmers cultivate nationwide (EMBRAPA, 2014). Their presence in the semiarid region, in addition to being significant, is associated with extreme poverty, making their results and impacts proportionally more intense.
During the critical period between 2012 and 2016, other government programs and policies were created and expanded, amplifying direct impacts on the income composition of families, and providing stronger food and nutritional security systems for the rural population. The perception of the rural population about its guarantees has changed. Despite the severity of the dry season, they feel themselves assured by the set of investments made through public policies.

The main programs that were active between 2012 and 2016 with relevance for social security were:

**Family Grants (Bolsa Família)** - Practically all families living in rural areas in the semiarid region had access to the program (100% of those interviewed in the field) between 2010 and 2016. The fact that the resources were primarily managed by women ended up optimizing their use in the family unit to meet a security strategy. In addition to the women empowered in the domestic sphere, the benefits to the family as a whole, especially in terms of food security, were evident.

**Rural Retirement** - This is the old-age retirement for workers in rural areas, including artisanal fishermen and fisherwomen who worked individually or with the help of their families. All of them have rights to receive from the State a permanent transfer. After 1991 the urban and rural retirement systems were unified, assuring the minimum wage for both. However, since the first decade of century, the Federal Government has promoted the purchasing power of the minimum wage, readjusting it constantly above the inflation rate. In ten years, the value of the retirement payment was elevated from below $100 to more than $200 dollars/mo. Its purchasing power, that was of 1.02 basic food baskets in 1993, passed to more than 2.00 basic baskets, remaining at this level until at least 2016 (DIEESE, 2016).

**Maternity Allowance** - It is a benefit paid to women rural workers or family farmers, corresponding to the social security category of “special insured”, who became mothers either through childbirth or adoption (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 2016). Even though it is a temporary benefit, it has become strategic for the household economy, notably in the semiarid zone. Women’s double workload is aggravated during the postpartum period. As a result, the women who receive the benefit have more financial autonomy to attend to their health and food needs.

**Drought Grant** - aid made available between 2012 and 2014 to tackle drought. The Ministry of National Integration was responsible for its distribution. It was intended for municipalities that did not adhere to the Crop Guarantee Scheme (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 2015) in areas affected by drought, and for families with a monthly income of less than the minimum wage. The monthly
value of the grant was R$80.00 (around US$32) until the end of the program in 2014. Even though it had a low value and temporary characteristic, it played an important role in breaking the old clientelist relations that fed the drought industry in the past.

Harvesting Guarantee Grant (Garantia Safra) - aimed at family farmers located in the semiarid region who have suffered crop losses due to drought or excessive rainfall (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 2016), with contributions from the states and municipalities. It was created in 2002 by the Federal Government and ensures minimum survival conditions for family farmers in municipalities systematically subject to crop loss due to drought or excessive rainfall. In 2016, the total amount paid by this grant was R$ 850.00 (eight hundred and fifty reais) per family, distributed in five monthly installments.

Crediamigo (Small business credits) - was a credit program managed by Banco do Nordeste to stimulate micro-entrepreneurship (individual microentrepreneur, individual entrepreneur, self-employed or business partnership). It was not exclusive to the semiarid region but had repercussions on the region's economy by supporting informal or formal economic sectors. The facilitated bureaucracy - with services provided locally to the enterprise – including rapid release of the loan and renewable loans, gave to the program great reach and integrated it into the semiarid region (BNB, 2017). The relationship between non-agricultural activities, family income and conviviality with the semiarid was perceived, in which part of the income generated thereby was reinvested in the production systems.

Water Trucks Program (Operação Carro-pipa) - water delivery by water trucks managed by the Ministry of Integration in partnership with the Army. The program was recreated in 2010. In 2016 there were almost 6,800 water trucks throughout the semiarid region in the service of the federal program (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 2016). Owning a cistern was a basic condition for being a beneficiary of the program. But the order and scale of water delivery are defined jointly between the army and local authorities. Differently from previous aid, grants and benefits, in which cash resources were transferred through a personal and non-transferable card, in this case the benefit was water, distributed from house to house. Its distribution depends on a local operator and the criteria established by the program's local operators. There was no cost or counterpart for the benefited families. As a result, the water tended to be used for many purposes far beyond what the cistern water would have had if it had come just from rain. With the deepening of the drought from 2012 onwards, the distribution of water in water trucks instead of being a complementary water supply, became the rule, with the resurgence of political purposes. Certain politicians asked for
electoral commitments from the families to be beneficiary of the program. The
same clientelist practices were used in selection of the drivers of water trucks and
the “owners” of water sources. This whole network was constituted by political
appointment. These government actions were incorporated into the daily lives of
rural families and their food security strategies. The policies shifted from assis-
tance to clientelism. However, most of them incorporated elements of greater
autonomy for families, when compared to the old emergency policies, that had
been focused on distribution of basic food baskets and enlistment of workers in
emergency front services. Income transfers were carried out with more imper-
sonality, with less local mediation and weakening the bonds of commitment
and obligation towards political groups. The most visible exception was that of
the Water Trucks Program, whose local coordination, through fragile municipal
committees, allowed politicians and local elites to control deliveries with private
interests.

The dynamics of a semiarid rural
farm in three moments

The different policies and actions operate in an integrated system and will be
briefly described in the following items considering three situations: (i) normal
rainy year, before the interventions; (ii) drought, before the interventions; (iii)
Dry season after the interventions and their impacts on social security.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 - Functioning of the Family Production Unit - Normal Situation</figcaption></figure>

## Situation 1: 'normal' year, before interventions

In a conventional situation, rural households fundamentally depend on the interaction between natural factors and their means of production (Figure 2). Ecological inputs 1 become the basis of the system, feeding the productive systems. For graphical representation they were simplified into four subsystems: dryland systems of production, backyards, protected areas and animal husbandry. They interact with storage systems, mainly rainwater in reservoirs and groundwater in wells. In turn, they feed the food stocks that will serve as a basis for the family's livelihood 2 or can be destined for the market 3. Stocks stabilize production during droughts. The family production unit maintains relations with its surroundings that allow new monetary incomes, either through the sale of products, or through the involvement of part of its members in non-agricultural activities 4. This feeds back into the economic incomes 4.1.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 - Functioning of the Family Production Unit - Under impacts of drought.</figcaption></figure>

## Situation 2: dry year, before interventions

The crisis generated by a long-term drought begins with crop failure in Dryland Agriculture Systems 5, which are more dependent on rainfall (Figure 3).

There is also a reduction in the contributions to water storage systems 6. Without replenishment and with the reduction of rainfall in production systems, stocks are exhausted more quickly 7 both due to the greater demand for lifesaving irrigation and the consumption of grain reserves as human or animal food, threatening seed stocks.

With the deepening of the drought, the family nucleus is threatened by migration in searching for work and income opportunities 8. This increases the risk of disruption of the social family structure 8a, reducing income from nonagricultural activities, with an impact on the restructuring of productive systems 9.
Thus, it is the stock itself that is transformed into a sale product to compensate for harvest losses 10, a factor that further increases the pressure on stocks and weakens the potential for recovery of systems after the crisis (resilience).

The circumstances of situation 2 do not occur without public policies. But the results of ineffective policies resemble their own non-existence. In addition, stockpiling policies in large construction projects create an additional attraction for the outflow of labor from region 8a and make the population more dependent on clientelist actions.

## Situation 3: after the interventions and their impacts on social security

Observations made in the field show that the aforementioned policies differed from the traditional emergency actions, which have a limited and clientelist nature.

Looking at Figure 4 from the bottom up, we initially see investments in the composition and structure of stocks 11. With the general expansion of decentralized and near-household rainwater harvesting, such as cisterns, new possibilities for better use of rainwater were created. This concept, based on agroecological principles, starts with the strengthening of stocks to resist longer dry seasons and to rehabilitate productive systems after they have ended (resilience). In addition to water, seed and fodder stocks for animal husbandry systems were crucial. The formation of stocks should be in line with the protection of agrobiodiversity, and therefore the maintenance of genetic patterns of plants and animals adapted to the conditions of the semiarid region.

Thus, in crisis conditions caused by drought, stocks are better able to withstand the pressure of demand 12 and keep productive systems that support household demand running for longer. Backyard systems are particularly strengthened by the expansion of water stocks. By maintaining backyard activities, there is continuity in the distribution of products to the market 13, thus maintaining economic income for the family. In addition, backyard systems are strongly related to the family's food security.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. Functioning of the Family Production Unit under the impact of public policies on food security and living with the semiarid region.</figcaption></figure>

This process is combined with a second field of public policies, focused on access to local agroecological markets and institutional markets such as Program of Food Acquisition (PAA) and National Program of Escolar Food Supply (PNAE) 14. Thus, the first synergy between public policies is created, combining the strengthening of storage with increased access to markets. The way of implementing cash transfer programs neutralized the foundations of the “drought industry”, which kept families in critical situations that limited their growth capacities, generating cycles of political dependency. The various social security programs have had the effect of breaking the vicious cycle of poverty production and reproduction 15, and have also provided important economic inputs for the family, used as alternative investments to strengthen the replenishment of stocks and
productive systems. Finally, the persistence and importance of non-agricultural activities in family life must be taken into consideration. In this sense, the search for new work opportunities outside the small farm continues to be a reality. Two aspects must be taken into account.

The first one is the local and regional economic dynamism generated by the aforementioned policies. They create conditions to open work opportunities closer to the farm, reducing the impact of migration to other regions 16.

The second one is the national policy of valorization of the minimum wage 17, which made both the job opportunities and the security policies linked to the minimum wage, helping to better compose the families' income, bringing more monetary? incomes 17b. Thus, there is a clear effect on the stability of the family nucleus, with increased benefits for staying in the region, which has increased the opportunity cost of emigration.

## Conclusions

The long history of peasant agriculture and civil society in the region has made it possible to affirm their crucial role in the development of public policies. Ideas have been developed and tested locally and have been disseminated and adapted in local and regional social networks, relying also on major mobilizations and demands. These policies have gradually incorporated the concepts of conviviality with the semiarid region on a sustainable basis.

The decentralization of water supply, stockpiling and adoption of lowcost technologies represented key elements for the sustainability of rural development on agroecological bases. These innovations consolidated the concept of conviviality, making coping with long-term dry seasons more efficient. It proves that dry season and drought are not the same.

However, there is also the visible effect of external factors on the stability of family farming systems, particularly the recovery in the value of the minimum wage, the overall economic recovery and cash transfer programs. The latter were in fact partly influenced by civil society's critical approach to the historical emergency programs.

It is not possible to affirm that the actions and policies toward conviviality with the semiarid region on an agroecological basis have been assimilated by the local peasants in a linear fashion and with the same intensity. But today the peasants of the Semiarid have alternatives for the agroecological intensification of their production systems, as opposed to conventional intensification models. The success of this set of alternatives and policies in coping with the longest and most intense dry season on record (2010-2016) allowed families to make the best decisions regarding their own destiny, without suffering drought effects.
## References

ARAGÃO, J. O. **A general circulation model investigation of the response to El Niño.** Colorado: NCAR/CT. Colorado, 1986. PhD Thesis. p. 144.

BAUMGÄRTNER, J.; TIKUBET, G.; GILIOLI, G. Towards Adaptive Governance of Common- Pool Mountainous Agropastoral Systems. **Sustainability**, v. 2, p. 1448-1471, 2010. ISSN 2071-1050.

BNB. **Crediamigo**, 2017. Available at: https://www.bnb.gov.br/crediamigo. Accessed in: jun.2017.

CAMPELLO NETTO, M. S. C. Prefácio - Sobre a ação pública e as secas no Nordeste. In: MOLLE, F. **Marcos históricos e reflexões sobre a açudagem e seu aproveitamento**. Recife: SUDENE/ORS-TOM, 1994. ISBN Série Hidrologia 30. p. 190.

CASTRO, J. D. **Geografia da Fome**. 10. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Edições Antares, 1984.

CHAYANOV, A. On the Theory of Non-Capitalist Economic Systems. In: CHAYANOV, A. **The Theory of Peasant Economy**. Homewood, Illinois: The American Economic Association, 1966. Chap. 1, p. 1-28.

CPTEC/INPE. Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI). **Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais - Centro de Previsão de Tempo e Estudos Climáticos**, 2016. Available at: http://clima1.cptec.inpe.br/spi spi or www.cptec.inpe.br. Accessed on: 8 Jul. 2016.

DI SABBATO, A. et al. **Rural Statistics and the Feminist Economy**: a look at women's work. Brasília: NEAD/MDA, 2009. 169 p.

DIEESE. **Technical Note No. 153 - Minimum Wage Appreciation Policy: value for 2016 is fixed at R$ 880.00**. Technical team: Ilmar Ferreira Silva José and Silvestre Prado de Oliveira (technical review). Intersindical Department of Statistics and Socioeconomic Studies. São Paulo, 2016. p. 2.

DURKHEIM, E. What is a social fact? In: DURKHEIM, E. **As regras do método sociológico**. 3. ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2007. Chap. 1, p. 1-14:165.

EMBRAPA. AIAF 14 - Family Farming in Brazil. **International Year of Family Farming**, 2014. Available at: https://www.embrapa.br/aiaf-14-agricultura-familiar-no-brasil. Accessed in: jun.2017.

FERREIRA, A. P. L. **La importancia de la perspectiva feminista en el empoderamiento de las mujeres campesinas**. Universidad de Córdoba and Universidad Internacional de Andalucía. Córdoba, 2008. Master in Agroecology under the direction of Emma Siliprandi and Angel Calle.

NORDESTE FORUM. **Ações Permanentes para o Desenvolvimento do Nordeste Semiárido Brasileiro**. Recife: CONTAG/ASSOCENE, 1993. 40 p. (with support from CESE, FASE, OXFAM, SACTES (GIZ), SUDENE, CRS and Cáritas Brasileira).

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Auxílio Emergencial Financeiro. **Ministry of Social and Agrarian Development**, 2015. Available at: http://mds.gov.br/assuntos/cadastro-unico/o-que-e-e-para-que-serve/emergency-financial-aid. Acesso em: 30 nov. 2016.

GOVERNO FEDERAL. Garantia-Safra. **Secretaria Especial de Agricultura Familiar e Desenvolvimento Agrário**, 2016. Available at: http://www.mda.gov.br/sitemda/secretaria/saf-garantia/sobre-o-programa. Accessed on: 4 dez. 2016.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Ministry of Regional Integration. **Operação Carro-pipa**, 2016. Dispo- level at: https://www.brasil.gov.br/imagens-banners-em-geral/carro-pipa.png/view. Acesso em: 1 nov. 2016.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Valor do Salário-maternidade. **Social Security**, 2016. Available at: http://www.previdencia.gov.br/servicos-ao-cidadao/todos-os-servicos/salario-maternidade/val-or--salario-maternidade/. Accessed in: 30 nov. 2016.

HARZALLAH, A.; ROCHA DE ARAGÃO, J. O.; SADOURNY, R. Interannual rainfall variability in northeast Brazil: Observation and model simulation. **International Journal of Climatology**, Boston, v. 16, p. 861-878, 1996.

IBGE. Continuation of the Agricultural Census Published in the “0” millenniums as part of the General Census of Brazil and in the “5” millenniums as part of the Economic Census. [S. l.]. 2006.

LEITE, J. C. F.; SOUZA, K. L. D. **O Novo Perfil do Nordeste Brasileiro no Censo Demográfico 2010**. Bando do Nordeste do Brasil - BNB. Fortaleza, p. 106. 2012.

MATTOS, L. C. **Um tempo entre secas: Superação de calamidades sociais provocadas pela seca através das ações em defesa da convivência com o semiárido**. Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro - Graduate Course in Development, Agriculture and Society (UFRRJ/CPDA). Doctoral thesis. Available at: http://r1.ufrrj.br/cpda/. Rio de Janeiro, 2017. p.265.

MEDEIROS, S. D. S. et al. **Synopsis of the Demographic Census for the Brazilian Semiarid**. Instituto Nacional do Semiárido - INSA. Campina Grande, 2012. p. 103.

SIDERSKY, P.; JALFIM, F.; ARAUJO, E. **A Estratégia de Assessoria Técnica Permanente do Projeto Dom Helder Câmara**. 2. ed. Recife: Ed. PDHC, 2010.

SILIPRANDI, E.; CINTRÃO, R. As mulheres agricultoras e sua participação no Programa de Aqui- sição de Alimentos (PAA). In: BUTTO, A.; DANTAS, I. **Autonomia e Cidadania: Política de Orga- nização Produtiva para as Mulheres no Meio Rural**. 1. ed. Brasília: MDA, 2011.

VILLA, M. A. **Vida e morte no sertão**: história das secas no Nordeste nos séculos XIX e XX. 1. ed. São Paulo: Editora Ática/Instituto Teotônio Vilela, 2000. 269 p.
CHAPTER 3

Agroecology and family farming:
vulnerabilities, resilience, and
adaptation to climate change in
the Brazilian semi-arid region

Allan Milhomens, Mário Lúcio Ávila, Eduardo de Lima Caldas

Introduction

This article presents agroecology as an adaptation strategy to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience in the semi-arid region and discusses the role of socio-technical networks and policy instruments for adapting to climate phenomena in the region. It employs a literature review and findings of the systematization of experiences.

Climate change is directly associated with the unusual rate of increase in the average temperature of the earth's surface and the greater frequency and intensity of extreme climatic events. According to Marengo (2007, p. 76), this change is “affecting ecosystems, causing the destruction or degradation of habitat and the permanent loss of productivity, threatening both biodiversity and human well-being.” The scientific community maintains that such changes have as their main cause the increasing volume of Greenhouse Effect Gases (GHG) concentration in the atmosphere from anthropogenic actions related to changes in land use and the use of fossil fuels, mainly by industrialized countries.

From the social perspective, the predictability of climate change indicates a
possible worsening of the socio-economic vulnerability of family farmers in the
region, with direct effects on their means of subsistence, predominantly focused
on rainfed agriculture (ANGELOTTI et al., 2012).

Among the semi-arid regions worldwide, that of Brazil is the most popu-
lous (MARENGO, 2008), covering 1,262 Brazilian municipalities in ten states
of the federation, with 1.03 million km² and about 27 million inhabitants with
low social indicators (ASA BRASIL, 2020). Approximately 1.4 million farming
families live there, most of whom produce for subsistence (BRASIL, 2019), where, alongside the North Region, the country's highest rates of food insecurity are concentrated (BRASIL, 2020).

To strengthen socio-ecological resilience in the face of current and future climatic events, implementation strategies for coexistence with the semi-arid region are fundamental and stem mainly from the organizational maturing of social movements in the countryside. The Articulation of the Brazilian Semi-arid, known as ASA, created in 1999, is the protagonist and bearer of the narratives of this project, whose objectives should promote the sustainable use and conservation of Caatinga, reinforcing the conceptions and practices of agroecology as one of its principles and the basis for the regional sustainable development (ASA BRASIL, 2002, p. 4).

It is in this context that the family farming movements of the semi-arid region produce, reconstruct, and resume a legacy of experiences where “traditional knowledge and its experiments in the management of nature came to be valued and improved in dialogue with scientific knowledge” (DUQUE, 2008, p. 136), involving public research through universities, Embrapa Semiárido, and various advisory and technical assistance networks of civil society. Converging with the adaptation references, the programs for capturing and storing water for human consumption and agricultural production are strategies for improving the living conditions of rural populations in the Brazilian semi-arid region (AMORIM; GRISA, 2018). The agroecological approach as a strategy to combat poverty and hunger through public state action contributes to this new framework of decentralized management of public policies with the participation of civil society (SIDERSKY et al., 2008). Agroecological production systems can provide a double response to climate change in the context of mitigation strategies and adaptation initiatives (PETERSEN et al., 2009).

By the end of the century, the regional temperature in the Brazilian semi-arid region may increase between 1.5°C and 2.5°C (3°C and 5.5°C) in a more optimistic (pessimistic) scenario, resulting in a higher or lower level of GHG emissions. Family farmers, poorer champions, and traditional peoples, whose livelihoods are linked to rainfed agriculture, will be quite vulnerable to water deficits, further aggravating their living conditions, food insecurity, and the consequent migration from their lands to urban areas (MARENGO, 2008; MARENGO et al., 2011; ANGELOTTI et al., 2012).

According to Marengo et al. (2011, p. 385), in the semi-arid region, “even though drought is a chronic and continuous situation, the population has not yet adapted to the phenomenon.” In the caatinga region, an exclusively Brazilian biome (BRASIL, 2019a), approximately 1.45 million farming families (about
37% of all brazilian family farming) (BRASIL, 2019b) occupy only 4.2% of arable land, with more than half of the population living in extreme poverty (ASA, 2020).

## Adaptation to climate change in the context of the development debate

Adaptation cannot be seen only as an adjustment to climate change resulting from anthropogenic causes (EAKIN AND PATT, 2011). According to Lindoso et al. (2013, p. 304), such adjustment is based on the so-called principle of addi-tionality adopted in the basic text of the Convention, which considers adaptation as a response to climate change caused by human activities. Thus, “the adaptive deficit that already exists in the management of natural climate variability, espe-cially in developing countries periodically affected by climate disasters,” remains uncovered. In addition to addressing this deficit, adaptive measures should be undertaken in response to the climate vector and context of actions to promote sustainable development to combat the vulnerability of the most susceptible social groups.

Following Pielke et al. (2007), adaptive strategies can and should be priori-tized in different initiatives to reduce vulnerability and improve societal resilience to future impacts of climate change, whatever their causes. Thus, unlike an adap-tation strategy, this type of marginal adaptation, in the case of the Northeast-ern semi-arid region, would be insufficient to strengthen the adaptive capacity of family farmers of that region, whose vulnerability to climate change derives mostly from a set of other non-climatic factors.

Adaptation must converge with capacity-building goals necessary to reduce climate vulnerability. Thus, adaptive capacity-building should be considered a dynamic process involving learning and interactive processes of experimentation among social and organizational actors at all levels and geographic scales, from local to global (EAKIN AND PATT, 2011).

Brazil has already instituted its National Policy on Climate Change (NPCC) (BRASIL, 2016), aligned with the normative concept of the Convention (BRASIL, 2020), in which mitigation and adaptation are recognized as pillars in elaborating sectoral plans, including that on agricultural. As Obermeier and Rosa (2013, p. 167) discussed, though regarding policy implementation plans, the debates on adaptation have covered topics such as vulnerabilities and social inequalities. Moreover, the lack of a systemic and integrated vision of adaptation and inter-sectoral is an indicator of low transversality, “which can have fundamental consequences for the most vulnerable groups.”
Therefore, the issue is the challenge of overcoming a vision that presents
adaptation as a marginal response to GHG emissions, creating anomalous distor-
tions in public policies and affecting societal ability, especially that of the poorest,
to defend themselves from climate impacts (PIELKE et al., 2007). Addressing
poverty and inequality to strengthen the adaptive capacity of the most socially
vulnerable populations does not always influence political decision making
regarding the priority of adaptation and relevant redistribution needs of resources,
technologies, land, and water; it does not always improve access to governance
systems (ADGER et al., 2003).

Farming and the challenges of
climate change adaptation

FAO (2018) estimates that 83% of all losses and damages to agriculture world-
wide were caused by droughts in 2017. The IPCC Technical Summary 2019 esti-
mates that 23% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (2007–2016) are
from agriculture, forestry, and other land uses. According to Smith et al. (2008),
agricultural land occupies approximately 37% of the Earth’s land surface, and
agriculture is responsible for 52% to 84% of global emissions of anthropogenic
methane and nitrous oxide, which are even more damaging than CO2. Besides
using 70% of global water resources, modern agriculture is a fossil-energy-in-
tensive industry (Altieri; KOOFHAFKAN, 2008). Thus, considering all links in
the chain of activities of the food system (from production to consumption and
disposal), GHG emissions reach approximately 33% of global emissions (NILES
et al., 2017, p. 5).

As one of the global leaders in food production, Brazil is also the sixth-largest emitter of GHGs worldwide, with 3.2% of the world total. Since 2010, Brazil has increased its yearly GHG emission rates by 28.2%. The increasing trajectory of this indicator reflects a reversal of the trend in the Brazilian economy, with the aggravating factor that *per capita emissions* are higher than the world average, a distortion resulting from high rates of deforestation* (SEEG, 2020, p. 8).

According to Altieri and Koofhafkan (2008, p. 4), the alternative is to “pro-
duce more with less” and employ all efforts to reduce risks to production factors.
It is essential to drastically reorient monoculture systems (Altieri et al., 2015).

The literature notes strategies for drastically reducing these emissions by
adopting measures such as investments in the substitution of fossil energy, recov-
ery of pastures and degraded areas, implementation of agroforestry, direct plant-
ing, biological fixation of NO2, reforestation, and treatment of animal waste
(SMITH et al., 2008). However, mitigation alone will not solve climate change.
Adaptation measures should be intensified to protect agriculture from increasing droughts, make water use more efficient (PARRY et al., 2009) and, contain or reduce the expected impacts on productivity decline. For Altieri et al. (2015), adaptation is the key factor determining the level of future risk of climate change on food production.

## Coexistence with the Semi-arid and new directions for recovering the adaptive deficit: between the past and future

Adaptation to climate variability and development strategies should be treated in an integrated way as convergent and inseparable processes. As per Eakin and Patt (2011), adaptation to climate variability in the semi-arid region can be understood within a spectrum of long-adopted initiatives, with advantages, benefits, and distinct perspectives for social actors of the rural world of the Brazil Northeast Region (specifically the Sertão).

Over the decades, the trajectory of hegemonic public policies was marked by strategies to combat drought at the service of the agrarian elite, the capitalist modernization of agribusiness, and power relations orchestrated by institutional bodies created under the political control and interests of the region's rural oligarchies. The same vicious cycle of the national model of land concentration and low-income distribution, made possible with the support of the State, was reproduced in the semi-arid region of the Northeast. Access to water was almost always guaranteed by public works of water infrastructure, especially as medium and small dams within private properties (DUQUE, 2015). For family farmers, on the margins of most investments in adaptive structures, the climatic variability of the region carries the chronic problem of water scarcity, limiting their capacity for development and adaptation. According to Lindoso et al. (2013), in areas of enclaves favored by the irrigation of agricultural production for extra-regional consumption, finding traditional farmers who coexist periodically with rainfall shortages is possible. The São Francisco Valley Development Company (Companhia de Desenvolvimento do Vale São Francisco – CODEVASF) reports that only 1% of the irrigators are currently family farmers or settlers (MILHORANCE et al., 2019).

Therefore, the technical solutions are chosen mostly to benefit agro-export capital.

The debates on sustainable development in the context of the severe droughts that devastated the region in the 1990s induced a political environment of confrontation with the paradigm of the “drought industry.” The family farming
coalition union movements, under the leadership of ASA, brought a proposed paradigm for living with the semi-arid to the political decision-making agenda, bringing together institutional actors from research, technical assistance and rural extension, and civil society organizations (SILVA, 2003; AMORIM; GRISA, 2018).

ASA's political charter establishes that “agroecological conceptions and practices constitute the basis for sustainable development in the countryside.” Moreover, the Semi-Arid Declaration highlights the sustainable use of the natural resources of the Caatinga, the breaking of the monopoly of access to water, land, and other means of production, the use of adapted technologies and methodologies, and the strengthening of family farming and food security as premises (ASABRASIL, 2002, p. 4). From 2003, the state-society relationship created new spaces for articulation and participation based on social issues, producing greater fluidity to the demands of the Semi-arid (AMORIM; GRISA, 2018). Thus, before any national public policy to confront climate change, there was an alternative proposed by civil society.

Implementing measures and instruments to combat poverty are pillars in adaptation strategies to the effects of climate variability, especially for the most impoverished rural populations (EAKIN; PATT, 2011; LIN- DOSO et al., 2013). Examples in the semi-arid region include the Cisterns Program, Bolsa Família (Family Grant), the Food Acquisition Program (PAA), and the National School Feeding Program (PNAE). Such initiatives, in addition to the rescue of traditional knowledge with an agroecological focus, articulating innovative forms of planning public action in the Semi-arid, such as the National Policy on Agroecology and Organic Production and different state regulations, have also had a recognized positive impact on the strategies for strengthening agroecology as an adaptation strategy (GUYOT et al., 2015).

## Vulnerability and socio-ecological resilience in the adaptive context of the Semi-arid

Adaptation, vulnerability, and resilience are interdependent factors in development approaches and are even more relevant as studies on climate change challenges evolve. Vulnerability is associated with adaptation processes and is generally related to social inequities and environmentally unsustainable development practices (OBERMEIER; ROSA, 2013, p. 156). Studies argue that measures based on climate adaptation research, stricto sensu, that do not consider the socio-economic and environmental vulnerabilities of communities do not indicate the “paths to [achieve] a systemic socio-environmental resilience in the future.” Causes and effects of vulnerability are associated with unequal access
conditions to development opportunities influenced by political, institutional,
and economic dynamics. They include approaches to equity, justice, and social
marginalization from historical patterns of domination, which undermine the
right of individuals to choices and opportunities (ADGER et al., 2003).

For Duque (2015), the issue of the vulnerability of the people of the Semi-arid is more political-economic than climatic, and land concentration is the root of poverty in the region, which demands urgent measures for agrarian reform. Within one of the most rigid agrarian structures worldwide, the fragmentation of properties is increasing given the intergenerational evolution of farming families, and the size of properties is a restrictive factor for the best performance of family production in the adaptive contexts of living with the Semi-arid (SIDERSKY et al., 2008). The areas of cultivation, especially rainfed crops, and the size of the herd of animals are very small, occupying an average of 3 ha (NASUTI; LIN-DOSO, 2015).

The transition from vulnerability to resilience is a central challenge to living
with the Semi-arid, as advocated by the ASA Program. From the perspective of
climate adaptation, overcoming accumulated adaptive deficits depends on con-
texts and development opportunities (HUQ; REIDE, 2009) linked to reducing
social inequities and distributional issues that affect rights of access to resources
and policies. For Obermeier and Rosa (2013), socio-economic vulnerabilities
must be addressed beyond addressing uncertain climate futures and simplistic
debates of vulnerabilities and challenges to making rural systems resilient.

Resilience is the capacity of a system to buffer or absorb disturbances without reducing its adaptive capacity (ADGER, 2000). In the context of agroecosystems, it represents the ability of a system to maintain its functional structure without losing its productivity after an impact suffered, thus maintaining food production when challenged by severe droughts or intense rains (ALTIERI, 2013; ALTIERI et al. 2015). Resilience increases the ability to react to impacts, unlike vulnerability (ADGERr, 2000). The higher the resilience, the lower the vulnerability.

In agroecological contexts such as the Caatinga, social and ecological resilience are interdependent and associated with agroecosystems’ resilience mechanisms. The relationship between the two concepts is fundamental, especially in the case of social groups that depend on natural resources for their subsistence. The “resilience of social systems is related [...] in some way to the resilience of the ecological systems on which social systems depend” (ADGER et al., 2003, p. 351).

Social and natural systems interact positively in agroecology. Nicholls (2013) notes that social-ecological resilience enables agricultural systems to withstand and recover from climatic events while helping agri-cultivators develop social
organization strategies involving solidarity-based exchange networks capable of
coping with harsh climate externalities.

Following Thompkins and Adger (2004), extending and consolidating social
networks as organizational processes of social groups constitute strategies for
mobilizing collective interest to reduce social vulnerability and promote ecosys-
tem resilience. Thus, community engagement and the influence of interactive
learning exchanges based on successful traditional knowledge management exper-
iences are important tools in building resilience that also contribute to increas-
ing the leadership capacity of social groups. Accordingly, building the adaptive
capacity of Sertanejos accords with the rights and security of individuals; it is not
exclusively about avoiding possible harm from climate change but the impetus
it can provide to strengthen and institutionalize sustainable development goals.

Agroecology and climate change

Agroecology

Agroecology has the scientific, technological, and practical conditions to “develop agroecosystems with minimal dependence on agrochemicals and external energy” (ALTIERI, 2012, p. 15). It is based on the secular experience accumulated by peasants interacting with their environments and locally available resources, including diversification into polycultures with high capacity and resilience to maintain agrobiodiversity and manage possible climate risks on small farms (ALTIERI; KOOHAFKAN, 2008). Regarding mitigation, agroecological agroeco-systems radically reduce dependence on fossil energy, eliminate the use of nitrous oxide, reduce GHG emissions, and sequester carbon (PETERSEN et al., 2009).

The readiness of agroecology for the adaptive challenge to climate change
worldwide would not affect the productive capacity to supply the population. Its
challenges lie at the political level, arising from power relations that define and
guide development policies (PETERSEN et al., 2009). This perspective converges
with the explanation of Adger et al. (2003) that decision-making on climate
change adaptation involves relationships between the state, individuals and their
networks, coalitions, capacities, and social capital of the actors, reinforcing the
hypothesis of Caldas and Massardier (2020) that, despite innovations, the most
important variables to explain the predominance of public policy instruments
linked to conventional agriculture over any other alternative are the coalitions of
organized social groups and their brokers with the state actors.

In Brazil, the perspective is no different. The adoption of the agroecolog-
ical approach is among the initiatives of the sectoral strategy for agriculture in
the National Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change (BRASIL, 2016), despite belonging to a minority and marginal coalition in the face of agribusiness coalitions that have become “climatized.” Without operating changes in the dominant forms of politics and agricultural production, the agroecological approach hardly overcome “the current stage of isolated and [few] socially [...] visible experiences to expand its scales of social and geographical coverage to territories across the country” (CAPORAL; PETERSEN, 2012, p. 10).

Thus, the expansion of agroecology to the approximately 1.45 million family farmers in the semi-arid Northeast is related to two challenges (ROSSET and ALTIERI, 2017): public policies to support agroecology, with emphasis on education, research, rural extension, training, credit, and social and institutional construction of markets; and gains of scale, with increased production, productivity, and the number of farming families practicing agroecology.

Social organization through local networks of family farmers in various territories, based on learning, exchange, and collective experimentation, is essential to reconfigure current power relations.

## Approaches, experiences, and potentialities of agroecology in adaptation strategies to climate variability in the semi-arid region

The agroecological experiences developed in the semi-arid region show significant achievements in coping with climate variability conditions in the region (GUYOT et al., 2015). They reflect socially constructed adaptive processes, focusing on goals, values, culture, knowledge (not necessarily associated with future climate change), and the perception of risks and social choices (ADGER et al., 2003). They involve ancestral technologies for coping with drought applied as management strategies, conservation, and maintenance of soil moisture, such as rock ridges, underground dams, among others, integrating productive alternatives traditionally recommended in the implementation of agroecosystems adapted to the characteristics of the semi-arid region (GUYOT et al., 2015).

In the semi-arid region, the territorialization of agroecology is a process forged in the construction and work of networks supported by various project fronts and public action instruments (NIEDERLE et al., 2019). Social networks increase the adaptive capacity of different vulnerable social groups toward socio-environmental resilience. They connect actors, institutions, and organizations (family farmers, technicians, and researchers); strengthen critical dialogical processes in rural development contexts; and articulate the production and dissemination of
knowledge and practices on the agroecological management of agroecosystems (CHARÃO-MARQUES et al., 2017), thereby creating spaces for innovation.

The territorial dynamics of the agroecology networks, evaluated in the Eco-
forte-Networks Program, as per Cortines (2019), create relational flows that
interconnect with other networks at different scales (local, national, and inter-
national). In the municipalities, they interact with educational and research
institutions, strengthen participation in spaces of social control in the scope of
public action, experience dissemination, learning, and innovation development.
Experiences monitored by this Program testify to the vigor of the agroecology
territorialization in at least five networks in the semi-arid region, inducing the
implementation of various local experiences.

Among these experiences, the Rede RIS Sobral in Ceará stands out for its mobilization of family farmers in the rescue and conservation of agrobiodiversity, implementing seed banks of native varieties adapted to the climatic conditions of the semi-arid region and developing new forms of relationships between producers and consumers strongly marked by links to the solidarity economy (CORTINES, 2019). According to Canci and Canci (2007, p. 225), “most cultivated local species and creole varieties have resisted extinction thanks to informal seed exchanges,” implying the perpetuation of varieties and the importance of providing food security and strengthening cultural ties among family farmers.

Guyot et al. (2015) highlight such strategies to strengthen the socio-environ-
mental resilience of groups in initiatives developed by the Popular Organizations
Advisory Service (SASOP) in the semi-arid region of Bahia. They are also guided
by crop diversification, management, and storage in native seed banks, soil con-
servation, and water capture and storage, among other adaptive strategies that
confer socio-environmental resilience to farmers and their agroecosystems.

According to Altieri and Koofhofkan (2008), the richness of diversification meets social and economic needs, helps farmers, and wards against future climate change. These processes are based on generation knowledge in agroecology, which, according to Altieri (2012, p. 16), involves multiple actors in innovation, research, and participatory experimentation, “using extension tools based on more horizontal relationships between actors.”

The experience of Projeto Dom Helder Camara

In the semi-arid region, the work developed in agrarian reform settlements by Projeto Dom Helder Câmara (PDHC) adopts a pedagogical process of experimentation, dissemination, and replication of experiences that integrates organizational, educational, and technological aspects, giving rise to implementing training strategies focused on groups with common interests. Thus, it brings
technicians and family farmers together within their communities, articulates the participatory confrontation of common problems, and improves their capacities to access public policies (SIDERSKY et al., 2008). In PDHC, the agroecological transition required new methodological approaches that replaced “the notion of technology transfer to adopt a participatory knowledge generation approach.” The continuous and permanent technical advisory action is guided by the demand of social groups and families involved.

The pedagogical effects of this initiative reflect the implementation of at least 372 family Demonstrative Units (DUs) with adopted and successful adaptive practices and experiments used in processes of dissemination and multiplication of experiences and knowledge exchange (SIDERSKY et al., 2008).

Among the PDHC adaptive experiences, the reintroduction of agroecological cotton, extinguished in the 1970s by the plague of the cotton bollworm, stands out. Developed together with family farmers, consortium strategies for diversification of rainfed production restored cotton production to acceptable coexistence parameters, with integrated soil and biodiversity management and recovery. In 2013, the production of agrological cotton benefited approximately 1,000 families (ibid, 2008).

Constructing adaptive capacities in these experiences breaks the diffusionist model of public and private technical assistance. As per Caporal (2004), it focuses on endogenous development and the use of locally available means (socio-economic, cultural, and natural) to promote food security conditions and introduce greater social equity and environmental sustainability into agricultural systems.

The social or appropriate technologies for water use, capture, and storage developed in the Cisterns Programs (listed as adaptation strategies) (P1MC and P1+2MC) are strongly emphasized as driving factors for living with the Semi-arid by Amorim and Grisa (2018). For Milhorance et al. (2018, p. 29), these programs were the “gateways to [promoting] agroecological practices, even if these were not their initial objectives.” In the context of the agroecological experiences supported by the Ecoforte-Networks Program, such initiatives reduce vulnerability to drought, enabling complementary diversification of productive backyards and forests and rearing animals, especially goats and sheep (CORTINES, 2019).

In some territories, other arrangements for consolidating agroecological agroecosystems complement these initiatives, integrating an artificial front of networks, many of them through projects linked to international donors, universities, or research, extension, and technical cooperation institutions. Access to markets is generally made possible with the support of public policies such as PAA, PNAE, and the National Family Farming Program (PRONAF) (CORTINES, 2019). The introduction of agroforestry systems (SAFs), also associated with
mitigating greenhouse gases, may be a viable alternative for different ecosystems of the Brazilian semi-arid tropics (AGUIAR et al., 2006).

SAFs contain the impacts of climate variability and possible climate change by their capacity to sequester carbon. Studies (ALTIERI; KOOFHAFKAN, 2008) show that these systems also reduce production loss the levels related to water scarcity. Implementing SAFs in recomposing the Caatinga is a strategy to strengthen agroecosystems that involve native tree, shrub, and grass species in the recovery and forage production or productive management (CORTINES, 2019). Adapted and recommended as a strategy for recovering the Caatinga biome, this production system allows for managing native vegetation in consortium with cultivated species and balances ecological and social functions, food production, and soil conservation (MICCOLIS et al., 2016). Gonçalves (2016) documents SAFs with more than 150 tons per ha of vegetal biomass using tree species from the region. This perspective indicates ecologically-based practices to increase the resilience of agroecosystems given climatic extremes and promote carbon reduction in the atmosphere. Thus, if well managed, the Caatinga biome produces forage for grazing and soil protection and maintains and creates reserves of apicultural pasture for beekeeping, an activity highly dependent on biodiversity conservation (SIDERSKY et al., 2008). Beekeeping is a source of additional income for farmers.

Notably, polyculture in the semi-arid North-eastern region, combining trees that produce drought-resistant biomass with food crops, produces diversified foods that increase new consumption habits (FREITAS, 2009). The agroecosystems depend less on water, resulting from the increase in humidity and the diversity of plants densely planted in the same place, thereby ensuring animal fodder throughout the dry season.

As in many other agroecological experiments developed in the semi-arid region, the experience of the Permaculture Institute of the State of Bahia (IPB) involved the training of young people and farmers as community agents and monitors, ensuring the maintenance and transfer of alternatives and practices built in a participatory manner (FREITAS, 2009) that brought together traditional knowledge, technicians and farmers with a focus on efficiency in the use of available resources and reducing economic risks. Non-conventional forms of extension based on horizontal pedagogical mechanisms strengthen the protagognism of farmers and are important tools for exchange and collective experimentation, capable of giving scale to agroecology and promoting the construction of local markets (ROSSET; ALTIERI, 2017).
## Final considerations

From the literature review and experiences of agroecology in its most integral sense, articulating cultural, natural, political, social, economic, and technological aspects, this form of producing agriculture is the most favored adaptation to climate change. Accordingly, the strategy of living with the Brazilian semi-arid region is more fruitful than combating drought, and the discourse of combating rather than living with the region serves primarily to feed the drought industry rather than emancipate social movements and organized family farmers.

Despite the advantages of agroecology as a strategy for adapting agriculture to climate change, the political variable of alliances and coalitions of organized sectors with state actors favor implementing more conventional instruments and neglect agroecology and instruments linked to it.

The political and institutional situation reinforces the significant challenges facing federal public policies.

The relationship between the climate issue and agroecology remains a challenge for scholars. In agroecology, advances seem to be less valued in the hegemonic circuits of research. Even given consistent research on the potential of agroecosystems to reduce climate vulnerability, the theme has not mobilized resources from research and teaching centers for academic training, especially in the agricultural sciences, applied humanities, and social sciences.

The innumerable lessons of living with the semi-arid region through agroecology provide a reasonable collection of successful experiences and practices. Their dissemination, however, is a public policy challenge, especially regarding technical assistance and reorienting its purposes and methods to universalize its services to the largest contingent of family farmers in the region.

Scaling up the agroecological approach as an adaptive tool requires support tools to enable productive transitions and reduce the vulnerabilities of different social actors participating in agriculture in the semi-arid region.

## References

* ADGER, W. N. Social end ecological resilience: are they related? **Progress in Human Geography**, 2000: 24. Available at: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abasract/24/3/347.

* Accessed on: 22

* Mar. 2020.

* ADGER, W. N; HUQ, S.; BROWN, K.; CONWAY, D.; HULME, M. Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. **Progress in Development Studies**, v. 3, n. 3, p.179-195, 2003.

* ALTIERI, M. A.; NICHOLLS, C. I.; HENAO, A.; LANA, M. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farms. **Agronomy for Sustainable Development**, v. 35, p. 869-890, 2015.
ALTIERI, M. A.. Introdução. In: **Agroecologia: Bases científicas para uma agricultura sustentável**. 3. Ed. revista e ampliada - São Paulo/Rio de Janeiro: Expressão Popular, AS- PTA, 2012.

ALTIERI, M. A.; KOOFHAFKAN, P. Enduring farms: climate change, smallholders and traditional farm communities. **Environment & Development Series**, v. 6, 2008, 63 p.

AMORIM, L. O.; GRISA, C. Combater a seca ou conviver com o semiárido? Public policy forums and arenas in the Brazilian semiarid region. **Raízes**, v. 38, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2018.

ANGELOTTI, F.; FERNANDES JÚNIOR, P. I.; SÁ, I. B. Mudanças climáticas no semiárido brasileiro: medidas de mitigação e adaptação. **Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física**, Recife, v. 4, n. 6, p. 1097-1111, 2011.

ANGELOTTI, F.; SIGNOR, D.; GIONGO, V. Mudanças climáticas no semiárido brasileiro: expe riências e oportunidades para o desenvolvimento. **Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física**, v. 8, p. 484-495, 2015.

ASA BRASIL, 2002. Carta Política - II ECONASA. Available at: https://www.asabrasil.org.br/ images/UserFiles/File/CARTA-POLITICA-III-ENCONASA.pdf. Accessed on: 18 feb. 2020.

ASA BRASIL. 2020. Declaração do Semiárido. Available at: https://www.asabrasil.org.br/imagges/UserFiles/File/DECLARACAO_DO_SEMI-ARIDO.pdf. Accessed on: 18 feb. 2020.

BRAZIL, 2016. **National Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change**, v. 2: sectoral and thematic strategies/Ministry of Environment. Brasília: MMA, 2016.

BRAZIL, 2019a. **Delimitação do Semiárido**. Available at: http://www.sudene.gov.br/delimita-cao-do-semiarido. Accessed on: 28 Oct. 2019 and 21 Feb. 2020.

BRAZIL. 2019b. **Censo Agropecuário 2017**. Available at: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/6778#result. Accessed on: 18 feb. 2020.

BRAZIL, 2020. **Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares 2017-2018**: análise da segurança alimentar no Brasil. IBGE, Coordenação de Trabalho e Rendimento. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE, 2020.

CALDAS, E. L.; MASSARDIER, G. La climatisation des politiques dans un contexte de fragmentation et sectorialisation des agendas et de la mise en œuvre des instruments. **Confins** [En ligne], 46, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/confins.31691.

CANCI, A.; CANCI, I. J. Resgate, uso e produção de sementes crioulas de milho em Anchieta. In: **Biodiversidade e agricultores**: fortalecendo o manejo comunitário. Porto Alegre, RS: L&PM, 2007. pp. 219-226.

CAPORAL, F. R. As bases para a extensão rural do futuro: caminhos possíveis no Rio Grande do Sul. In: CAPORAL, F. R.; COSTABEBER, J. A. **Agroecologia e Extensão Rural**: contribuições para a promoção do desenvolvimento rural sustentável. Brasília: MDA/SAF/DATER/IICA, 2004. p. 49-78.

CHARRÃO-MARQUES, F.; SCHMITT, C. J.; OLIVIERA, D. Agencias e associações nas redes de agorecologia: práticas e dinâmicas de interação na serra gaúcha e zona da mata mineira. Século XXI, **Revista de Ciências Sociais**, v. 7, n. 1, p. 15-42, jan.-jun. 2017.

CORTINES, A. C. **Sumário Executivo**: redes de agroecologia para o desenvolvimento dos territórios: aprendizados do Programa Ecoforte. Rio de Janeiro: Articulação Nacional de Agroecologia
- ANA, 2019.
DUQUE, G. Água para o desenvolvimento rural: ASA e os Programas P1MC e P1+2 - Desafios da participação sociedade civil - governo. In: GRISA, C.; SCHNEIDER, S. (Orgs.). **Políticas Públicas de Desenvolvimento Rural no Brasil**. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS, 2015. p. 201-2016.

DUQUE, G. Conviver com a seca: contribuição da Articulação do Semiárido/ASA para o desenvolvimento sustentável. **Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente**, n. 17, p. 133-140, Editora UFPR, jan.-jun.

EAKIN, H. C.; PATT, A. Are adaptation studies effective, and what can enhance their practical impact? **WIREs Climate Change**, v. 2, p. 141-153, March/April 2011.

FREITAS, P. H. Um novo olhar do sertão: avaliação participativa do projeto policultura no semiárido. **Rev. Bras. de Agroecologia**, v. 4, n. 2, p. 2951-2955, 2009.

GONÇALVES, A. L. R. **Sistemas agroflorestais no Semiárido brasileiro**: estratégias para combate à desertificação e enfrentamento às mudanças climáticas. Recife: Centro Sabiá/ Caatinga, 2016. 136p.

GUYOT, M. S. D.; FALEIROS, K. S.; GANDARA, F. B. **Agroecologia e resiliência às mudanças climáticas na agricultura familiar**. Piracicaba, SP, nov. 2015. 134p.

HUQ, S.; REID, H. Mainstreaming adaptation in development. **IDS Bulletin**, v. 35, n. 3, p. 15-21, 2009.

LINDOSO, D.; EIRÓ, F.; ROCHA, J. D. Desenvolvimento sustentável, adaptação e vulnerabilidade à mudança climática no semiárido nordestino: um estudo de caso no Sertão do São Francisco. **Rev. Econ. NE**, Fortaleza, v. 41 n. especial, p. 301-332, jun. 2013.

MARENGO, J. A. Vulnerabilidade, impactos e adaptação à mudança do clima no semiárido do Brasil. **Strategic Partnerships**, v. 13, n. 27, p. 7-18, 2008.

MARENGO, J. A., ALVES, L. M., BESERRA, E. A., LACERDA, F. F. Variabilidade e Mudanças

Climáticas no Semiárido Brasileiro. In: **Recursos hídricos em regiões áridas e semi-áridas**.

INSA- MCT, Campina Grande, p. 383-422, 2011.

MICCOLIS, A.; KESTREL, F.; MARQUES, H.; VIEIRA, D.; VERDE, M.; HOFFMANN, M.; REH-

DER, T.; PEREIRA, A. **Restauração Ecológica com Sistemas Agroflorestais**: como conciliar conservação com produção. Options for Cerrado and Caatinga. Brasília: ISPN/ICRAF, 2016.

MILHORANCE, C.; SABOURIN, E.; CHECHI, L. Adaptação às mudanças climáticas e integração de políticas públicas no semiárido pernambucano. **Texto para discussão**. Working Papers Series, v. 2, Brasília: INCT Odisseia, 2018.

MILHORANCE, C.; MENDES, P.; MESQUITA, P.; MORIMURA, M.; REIS, R.; RODRIGUES FILHO, S.; BURSZTYN, M. O desafio da integração de políticas públicas para a adaptação às mudanças climáticas no Semiárido brasileiro. **Revista Brasileira de Climatologia**, Ano 15, v. 24, p.165-185, 2019.

NASUTI, S.; LINDOSO, D. Percepção, vulnerabilidade e adaptação aos desafios climáticos: Estudo de caso na Bahia, Ceará, Piauí e Rio Grande do Norte. **Caminhos para uma Agricultura Familiar sob bases Ecológicas**: produzindo com Baixa Emissão de Carbono. In: AZEVEDO, A. A; CAMPA-NILI, M.; PEREIRA, C. (Org.). 1. ed. revised and current. Brasília, DF: IPAM, 2015. p. 149-162.
NICHOLLS, C. I. Enfoques agroecológicos para incrementar la resiliencia de los sistemas agrícolas al cambio climático. In: **Agroecología y resiliencia socioecológica**: adaptándose al cambio climático. Editors: Nicholls, C. I. E.; RIOS, L. A.; ALTIERI, M. Medellín: Redeagres-CYTED, 2013. p. 18-29.

NIELDERLE, P. A.; SABOURIN, E.; SCHMITT, C. J.; ÁVILA, M. L.; PETERSEN, P.; ASSIS, W. S. A

A trajetória brasileira de construção de políticas públicas para a agroecologia. **Redes** (Santa Cruz do Sul. Online), v. 24, n. 1, January-April, 2019

NILES, M. T.; AHUJA, R.; ESQUIVEL, J.; MANGO, N.; DUNCAN, M.; HELLER, M.; TIRADO, C.

**Climate change & food systems:** assessing impacts and opportunities. Meridian Institute, 2017.
Available at: https://bit.ly/2oFucpe.

OBERMEIER, M.; ROSA, L. P. Mudança climática e adaptação no Brasil: uma análise crítica. **Estudos Avançados**, v. 27, n. 78. p. 155-176, 2013.

UN, 2016. Paris Agreement. Available at: https://nacoesunidas.org/acordodeparis/. Accessed on: 17 Feb. 2020.

PARRY, M.; LOWE, J.; HANSON, C. Overshoot, adapt and recover. **Nature**, v. 458, n. 30, p. 1101-1103, April 2009.

PETERSEN, P. F.; WEID, J. M. V. D.; FERNANDES G. B. Agroecologia: reconciliando agricultura e natureza. **Informe Agropecuário**. Belo Horizonte, v. 30, n. 252, p. 7-15, 2009.

PIELKE SR, R.; PRINS, G.; RAYNER, S.; SAREWITZ, D. Lifting the Taboo on Adaptation. **Nature**, v. 445, p. 597-8, Feb. 2007.

ROSSET, P.; ALTIERI, M. A. **Agroecology**: science and politics (Agrarian change and peasant studies series). Practical Action Publishing, 2017.

SEEG – SISTEMA DE ESTIMATIVAS DE EMISSÕES DE GASES DE EFEITO ESTUFA. **Análise das emissões brasileiras de gases de efeito estufa e suas implicações para as metas do Brasil**. 2020.
Available at: http://plataforma.seeg.eco.br/total_emission. Accessed on: 22 Oct. 2020.

SIDERSKY, P.; JALFIM, F.; RUFINO, E. Combate à pobreza rural e sustentabilidade no semiárido nordestino: a experiência do Projeto Dom Helder Câmara. **Agriculturas**, v. 5, n. 4, p. 23-28, dez. 2008.

SILVA, R. M. A. Entre dois paradigmas: combate à seca e convivência com o Semiárido. **Sociedade e Estado**, Brasília, v. 18, n. 1/2, p. 361-385, jan.-dez. 2003.

SMITH, P.; MARTINO, D.; CAI, Z.; GWARY, D.; JANZEN, H.; KUMAR, P.; MCCARL, B.; OGLE, S.; O'MARA, F.; RICE, C.; SCHOLES, B.; SIROTENKO, O.; HOWDEN, M.; MCALLISTER, T. PAN, G.; ROMANENKOV, V.; SCHNEIDER, U.; TOWPRAYOON, S.; WATTENBACH, M.; SMITH, J. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical transaction of the Royal Society of London. **Biological Science**, v. 363, p. 789-813, 2008.

TOMPKINS, E. L.; ADGER, W. N. Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? **Ecology and Society**, v. 9, n. 2, p. 10, 2004. Available at: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10/.
CHAPTER 4

Sustainable agriculture as
an adaptation measure for
Araripe Plaster Pole

Francislene Angelotti, Anderson Ramos de Oliveira, Vanderlise Giongo, Juliane Rafaele Alves Barros, Miguel Júlio Machado Guimarães

Introduction

The Araripe Plaster Pole, located in the Brazilian semi-arid region, is responsible for producing 97% of the gypsum consumed in Brazil, which is considered the best quality gypsum worldwide given its high purity (Barbosa et al., 2014). However, the energy matrix of the factories involved in the gypsum production process in the Araripe region is characterized by firewood use from the Caatinga, most often the result of illegal deforestation. Moreover, monoculture systems, commonly practiced by traditional agriculture in the region, are characterized by predatory extraction of natural resources of soil and vegetation and the consequent oversimplification of the food web, losing the resilience or environmental plasticity of the ecosystem.

The family farmer in the Plaster Pole whose land area is small must produce food on his property (agricultural or livestock) to ensure his food security. The lack of technologies compatible with environmental conservation and adverse climate conditions contribute to the intensifying land use to levels beyond recovery capacity, compromising the socio-economic sustainability of Araripe. Thus, combined with the fragility of the energy matrix, food production through traditional crops can exert negative impacts in the face of climate change scenarios. Models of intercropping and resilient to climate change could ensure food and energy security for the Araripe Plaster Pole. Thus, cropping systems with a multiple and integrated approach can reduce rural system vulnerability and contribute to the social, economic, and environmental development of the Plaster Pole.
## Araripe Plaster Pole

The agricultural base of the semi-arid region is family-based, with small establishments. In this region is the Local Productive Arrangement of Gypsum, called the Araripe Plaster Pole (BRASIL, 2018a, AD DIPER, 2020). It comprises the municipalities of Araripina, Bodocó, Cedro, Dormentes, Exu, Granito, Ipubi, Moreilândia, Ouricuri, Parnamirim, Santa Cruz, Santa Filomena, Serrita, Terra Nova, and Trindade (Figure 1).

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Municipalities that make up the Araripe Region in the Brazilian semi-arid region.</figcaption></figure>

According to Barbosa et al. (2014), the gypsum from the Araripe Plaster Pole is highly pure (80% to 95%) of outstanding worldwide quality. Its importance, apart from the production relevance, is demonstrated by the number of direct and indirect jobs and production chain movement. In the Araripe Plaster Pole, about 40 thousand jobs are generated, resulting from 150 calcination industries, 35 mining companies, and 400 enterprises that manufacture precast gypsum products (BRASIL, 2018a; SITÔNIO, 2019; AD DIPER, 2020). The extraction and processing of gypsum are the most relevant economic activities in the Araripe backlands, generating more than R$70 million per year-1 (AD DIPER, 2020). The entire production chain generates approximately R$ 1.4 billion per year-1
(SINDUSGESSO, 2014). In 2017, the Plaster Pole produced 1.68 million gross tons of gypsum, processing 741 thousand tons (BRASIL, 2018b).

The energy matrix of the factories involved in the gypsum production process in the Araripe region is firewood from the native forest (Caatinga), obtained largely without due observation of the current legislation. In a Webinar held by the Brazilian Service of Support to Micro and Small Enterprises (Sebrae) of Pernambuco in August 2020, the president of the Union of the Gypsum Industry of the State of Pernambuco (Sindusgesso) reinforced the need for determining a more appropriate energy matrix in calcination kilns and implementing environmental projects for regional sustainability (SEBRAE-PE, 2020). According to Sindusgesso (2014), the industries have an energy demand of 54,390 m³ of firewood per month.

Alternatives to meet this demand have already been presented, including the sustainable forest planning of Caatinga. However, considering that the average production of exploited areas under management is 46.5 m³ ha-1, after 15 years of rotation, it is necessary to exploit 14,036 ha per year-1 with plans for sustainable vegetation management to meet the demand for firewood fuel of the Araripe industrial park. It implies a total area of 219,541.94 ha of native vegetation under the management regime (SINDUSGESSO, 2014). Thus, the pressure on the native forest is very high, inducing the process of deforestation and desertification of areas, since the edaphic and climatic conditions do not favor a rapid regeneration of vegetation (CAMPELLO, 2013) and cannot meet the demand of the plaster companies (GRANJA et al., 2017).

However, when analyzing the food security of farmers in the Plaster Pole, the main crops grown in the region are beans (*Phaseolus vulgaris* L. and *Vigna unguiculata* L.), cassava (*Manihot esculenta* Crantz), and maize (*Zea mays* L). These three crops account for more than 90% of all agricultural production in the region of the Araripe Plaster Pole (IBGE, 2021), with the municipality of Exu being the largest producer of beans and maize, where Araripina is responsible for the largest production of cassava (Table 1).
<table><caption>Table 1. Main agricultural crops of the municipalities of the Araripe Region.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Municipality</th><th colspan="3">Beans</th><th colspan="3">Cassava</th><th colspan="3">Corn</th></tr><tr><th>Planted area (ha)</th><th>Production (ton)</th><th>Average yield (kg/ ha)</th><th>R$ (Thousand)</th><th>Planted area (ha)</th><th>Production (ton)</th><th>Average yield (kg/ ha)</th><th>R$ (Thousand)</th><th>Planted area (ha)</th><th>Production (ton)</th><th>Average yield (kg/ ha)</th><th>R$ (Thousand)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Araripina (PE)</td><td>6.000</td><td>756</td><td>180</td><td>1.512</td><td>11.000</td><td>98.000</td><td>8.909</td><td>15.680</td><td>10.000</td><td>630</td><td>180</td><td>523</td></tr><tr><td>Bodocó (PE)</td><td>2.500</td><td>500</td><td>250</td><td>1.500</td><td>3.100</td><td>24.800</td><td>11.810</td><td>3.546</td><td>5.000</td><td>660</td><td>300</td><td>330</td></tr><tr><td>Cedro (PE)</td><td>400</td><td>130</td><td>1.111</td><td>325</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1.150</td><td>438</td><td>1.485</td><td>913</td></tr><tr><td>Dormentes (PE)</td><td>3.000</td><td>96</td><td>160</td><td>255</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>4.500</td><td>36</td><td>80</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Exu (PE)</td><td>6.000</td><td>2.400</td><td>4.00</td><td>4.800</td><td>3.600</td><td>41.600</td><td>11.556</td><td>6.656</td><td>7.500</td><td>4.440</td><td>600</td><td>3129</td></tr><tr><td>Granite (PE)</td><td>200</td><td>28</td><td>280</td><td>84</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>600</td><td>75</td><td>300</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Ipubi (PE)</td><td>5.000</td><td>480</td><td>200</td><td>1.440</td><td>3.700</td><td>21.500</td><td>7.167</td><td>6.450</td><td>6.500</td><td>1.120</td><td>400</td><td>963</td></tr><tr><td>Ouricuri (PE)</td><td>8.000</td><td>288</td><td>180</td><td>893</td><td>250</td><td>1.625</td><td>6.500</td><td>231</td><td>12.000</td><td>360</td><td>180</td><td>310</td></tr><tr><td>Parnamirim (PE)</td><td>1.200</td><td>29</td><td>242</td><td>78</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1.200</td><td>18</td><td>300</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Santa Cruz (PE)</td><td>3.000</td><td>252</td><td>180</td><td>504</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>4.000</td><td>96</td><td>120</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Santa Filomena (PE)</td><td>3.500</td><td>72</td><td>60</td><td>180</td><td>3.000</td><td>6.250</td><td>2.500</td><td>944</td><td>5.000</td><td>120</td><td>60</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>Serrita (PE)</td><td>1.200</td><td>29</td><td>121</td><td>81</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1.600</td><td>13</td><td>102</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Moreilândia (PE)</td><td>640</td><td>12</td><td>98</td><td>30</td><td>100</td><td>860</td><td>8.600</td><td>172</td><td>800</td><td>130</td><td>542</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>Terra Nova (PE)</td><td>300</td><td>4</td><td>133</td><td>11</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>300</td><td>5</td><td>333</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Trindade (PE)</td><td>1.600</td><td>60</td><td>125</td><td>177</td><td>100</td><td>250</td><td>5.000</td><td>41</td><td>1.200</td><td>48</td><td>400</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>42.540</td><td>5.136</td><td>3.720</td><td>11.870</td><td>24.850</td><td>194.885</td><td>62.042</td><td>33.720</td><td>61.350</td><td>8.189</td><td>5.382</td><td>6.557</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: IBGE, 2021.
Impacts of climate change on Araripe Plaster pole

Global projections indicate that the demand for freshwater, energy, and food increases significantly in the coming decades under pressure from factors such as population growth, economic development, and climate change. Therefore, technologies that promote sustainable development and food security using clean energy and water efficiency while guaranteeing the production of basic foodstuffs are imperative for the Araripe Plaster Pole. According to the Brazilian Panel on Climate Change (PBMC), the climate scenarios for the semi-arid region point to an increase in the average temperature of up to 4.5 °C and a decrease in the distribution of rainfall by up to 50%, considering the last decades of this century, thus inducing an increase in the occurrence of extreme events, such as droughts and prolonged droughts (AMBRIZZI; ARAÚJO, 2013). Regionalized scenarios confirm the trends of increasing air temperature for the municipality of Araripina (LACERDA et al., 2016).

As noted, beans, cassava, and corn are the main crops grown in the region of the Araripe Plaster Pole, with great importance for food and economic security (Table 1). They have socio-economic importance, especially for small producers, and are used for human and animal food. Moreover, they represent important sources of raw material for agro-industrialized products (ARAÚJO; ARRUDA JÚNIOR, 2013; EMBRAPA, 2011; SILVA et al., 2016).

Given the direct relationship of climate and agricultural production, impacts on their cultivation may be diagnosed in climatic scenarios. The increase in temperature can prolong the growing cycle of some cowpea cultivars, apart from promoting a significant increase in the percentage of aborted flowers, reducing the final production of the crop (ANGE-LOTTI et al., 2020; BARROS et al., 2021a). Beyond temperature, changes in rainfall patterns can negatively affect the production of this grain (BARROS et al., 2021b).

For maize, night temperatures above 24 °C increase the respiration rate, reducing photo-assimilates and causing a fall in production (SANS et al., 2001). Regarding water deficit, like cowpea, maize is also sensitive to stress during the reproductive phase of the crop, preventing it from reaching its growth and production potential (BERGAMASCHI; MATZENAUER, 2014).

The cassava, in turn, is a species adapted to tropical climate regions and can be grown in places with a temperature range between 18 °C and 35 °C (JARVIS et al., 2012; NWAIWU et al., 2014). However, the range between 25 °C and 27°C is considered optimal for plant vegetative activities (JARVIS et al., 2012; NWAIWU et al., 2014). For this crop, prolonged water deficit leads the cassava plant into a dormant or resting period (ALVES, 2006), and temperatures above
37 °C paralyze bud sprouting in the manioc (GABRIEL et al., 2014), resulting in reduced production.

Thus, the real problem faced by producers/agriculturalists in the region of the Araripe Plaster Pole is the current energy fragility (energy matrix) and food fragility (traditional crops), aggravated by climate change scenarios.

## Adaptation measures for sustainable agriculture in Araripe Plaster Pole

The family farmer of the Plaster Pole must produce food on his rural property, whether food crops or animal husbandry, especially sheep and goats, to ensure their food security. Moreover, he uses firewood from the Caatinga to serve the plaster industry and as a primary energy source for burning (JALIL et al., 2017; BARROS JÚNIOR et al., 2018; GIODA, 2019).

Given this problem, intercropping models emerge as an alternative to ensure energy and food security in the region. In this context, cropping systems include economic efficiency, resources, and improved livelihoods to develop the Araripe region.

We highlight some important initial steps, such as the *screening of* cultivars tolerant to the increase in temperature and water deficit to indicate intercrops. The use of tolerant materials enables an increase in the adaptive capacity and resilience of crops, ensuring sustainable development and food security. Based on the diagnosis of tolerant cultivars, the proposed crops should be based on intercropping (human and animal) food and energy crops. Hence, to address the energy aspect, the alternative would be to invest efforts in the use of crops that show resilience and high productivity and can be used by the plaster industry, as in sorghum biomass (*Sorghum bicolor* (L.) Moench). Accordingly, it is expected to offer options that ensure food, energy, and water security (Figure 2) for the region, given that such crops should not be selected based on their adaptive characteristics to the semi-arid region. To ensure water security, besides genotypes with tolerance to water deficit, management alternatives that promote efficient water use and rainwater capture and storage must be implemented (RIBEIRO; OLIVEIRA, 2019). Other technologies, such as using nitrogen-fixing bacteria, mulching, and agroforestry systems, can integrate the cropping systems (Figure 2).
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Strategies for sustainable development of agriculture in the Araripe Plaster Pole, Brazil.</figcaption></figure>

Implementing monocultures is characterized by oversimplifying the cultivation system, compromising the natural renewal and maintenance of soil fertility. Thus, external means are sought to replace nutrients to crops through artificial fertilizers, almost always from non-renewable sources. This leads to a reduction in the resilience or plasticity of the system, comprising the capacity of organisms to address climatic adversity, adapt to change, or resist the pressure of adverse situations, thereby reducing their stability to variations in environmental factors.

It then increases vulnerability given ecological imbalances and the need for external intervention for adequate production levels. All factors compromise the production system's sustainability.

Thus, to achieve sustainability, the proposal of agroecosystems is based on the limited use of energy and external resources to re-establish the food chains and keep biogeochemical cycles closed as much as possible, hence inducing interest in
integrated systems through intercropping. Adopting intercropping minimizes the fragility of traditional production systems and the effect of total removal of areas in the region, increasing resilience. Using agroforestry systems, where the biomass from periodic pruning can be incorporated into the soil, transfers nutrients from the trees to annual crops (NAIR, 1993), reducing competition for light, water, and nutrients within the system (MARTINS et al., 2013). The interactions of soil, animal, and plant species in all directions and different magnitudes are notable in the agroecosystems, representing the potential for economic and environmental benefits for producers and society. They are multifunctional systems with the possibility of intensifying production through the integrated management of natural resources, avoiding degradation, and promoting the recovery of productive capacity (SILVA, 2004) beyond being a measure of mitigation and adaptation to climate change impacts, hence attributing greater resilience to food, energy, and water security. Thus, developing multifunctional agroecosystems is a highly viable option for the Araripe region. Within these systems, selecting traditional food crops of the semi-arid region, such as cowpea and cassava, has fundamental importance given their socio-economic value for the Northeast, mainly because they constitute a basic food component of the populations and are sources of protein and carbohydrates, rich in minerals and fibers (FUKUDA, 2001; FREIRE et al., 2011). Further, cowpea and cassava can be used as forage, hay, silage, flour for animal feed, and green manure and for soil protection. According to Freire Filho et al. (2011), cowpea has a short cycle and low water requirements and rusticity. It also fixes nitrogen through bacteria symbiosis, which gives it the advantage of developing in low fertility soils. In tropical environments, such as the semi-arid region, biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) is vital because soils have low fertility, and nitrogen availability is poor given nutrient losses in the soil-plant system (MARINHO et al., 2014). Thus, cassava is extensively used by humans for its important social role as a source of carbohydrates, wide adaptation to different ecological conditions, and productive potential.

Alternatively, one can opt for intercropping with maniocba (Manihot
pseudoglaziovii Pax & K. Hoffm). Maniocba is a native species of the Caat-
inga, ecologically adapted to the semi-arid region and with drought-tolerant
characteristics.

The cultivation of native species of the Caatinga is an important alternative to increase the supply of forage, valuing the regional biodiversity. These plants stand out as forage, given their high degree of palatability. Further, maniocba has a good protein content and digestibility (SANTANA et al., 2008), meeting the dietary needs of livestock. As an option for intercropping, biomass sorghum is a viable alternative for expanding energy sources for farmers in the Araripe
region, as it produces high-quality biomass. Moreover, sorghum has an efficient photosynthetic process, similar or even superior to that of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) and elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.). The ability to adapt to tropical and temperate climates, its high water use efficiency, its tolerance to drought, and its potential capacity to produce large quantities of lignocellulosic biomass are some of the numerous strengths of this species (PARRELLA, 2013). Biomass sorghum is a more promising technology than grass and even eucalyptus, given that the species can reach yields of 150 t ha⁻¹ of fresh mass (50 t ha⁻¹ of dry matter) in a cycle of only five months. Additionally, biomass sorghum can be propagated via seeds, generating a lower operational cost.

Another positive aspect of biomass sorghum is the chemical characteristics of the raw material, desirable in combustion processes in calorific value, fixed and volatile carbon content, ash content, and alkali metal content. As deforestation has intensified in recent years in the Araripe region, an energy alternative can positively impact the sustainability of the region, generating income for family farmers and avoiding deforestation. Notably, sorghum biomass is another energy component that primarily reduces the use of firewood from Caatinga because the sorghum dry matter has a lower density than firewood, addressed using densified products such as briquettes and *pellets* (SIMEONE et al., 2018).

Research on biomass sorghum began in the states of Minas Gerais and São Paulo, given the location of Embrapa Maize and Sorghum. However, research on using this grass as a primary energy source has garnered the attention of producers in Mato Grosso and other states in the Midwest and Southeast. The possibility of its adoption in the semi-arid region, notably in the Araripe region, is significant when considering conservation issues in the Caatinga Biome.

Another alternative would be BNF, where bacteria fix atmospheric nitrogen into organic compounds used by plants, reducing the need for nitrogen fertilizers and improving the uptake of water and nutrients. Thus, this technique allows for greater plant production and an increase in the ability to withstand environmental stresses, which can be an additional tool in integrating family farming technologies, increasing the productive potential of agricultural activity. Prior studies indicate the potential use of this association for legumes (SUAREZ et al., 2008; NEUMANN; GEORGE, 2009). For cowpea, four *Bradyrhizobium* sp. strains are currently authorized to produce inoculants in Brazil (BRASIL, 2011), the most widespread being strain BR 3267, originating from soils of Petrolina (MARTINS et al., 2003), thus demonstrating the potential of the region as a source of efficient microorganisms. Furthermore, the plant genotypes cultivated in the semi-arid region show variable responsiveness to the inoculation of bacteria used in commercial inoculants (MARI-NHO et al., 2014), reinforcing the need
for constant prospecting of new rhizobium isolates. Thus, selecting new isolates of rhizobia for cowpea is an important objective cultivated under conditions of environmental stress and may be an important initiative to obtain new bacteria for this crop, given that studies to select new bacteria in the Brazilian semi-arid region remain scarce, and data on bacterial selection from combined conditions of high temperature and water deficit are non-existent.

Table 2 presents the systematized information about the main impacts of climate change in the Araripe region. Notably, given this diagnosis, adaptation measures can be adopted to reduce the negative effects foreseen in future scenarios (Table 2). Assertive public choices should be sought to promote sustainable development effectively. Thus, the proposition of public policies that support the adoption of adaptation measures should be developed per the local reality, allowing for the exploitation of economic opportunities and social (ROMERO; ZUGMAN, 2010). Implementing viable measures, economically and managerially, is of paramount importance, given that producers must be willing to adopt them for their effective use (MAGALHÃES, 2017).

<table><caption>Table 2. Options for adaptation measures in the face of impacts caused by climate change.</caption><thead><tr><td></td><td>Impacts</td><td>Adaptation measures</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Increase in air temperature</td><td>Crop cycle extension; Increase in flower abortion; Paralyzes bud sprouting; deviation of photo-assimilates; seriously compromising the grain yield; Increases the severity of water deficit; Loss of biodiversity; reduction in agricultural production</td><td>Selection of tolerant cultivars; Change of planting time; No-tillage system in straw; Use of plant cocktail; Polyculture; Conservation and use of genetic resources of cultivated and native species; Crop integration; Public policies</td><td>ANGELOTTI et al. 2012; GIONGO, 2019; BARROS et al., 2021a; PAUL et al., 2017 MAGALHÃES, 2017 SANS et al., 2001</td></tr><tr><td>Changes in precipitation patterns</td><td>Reduced stomatal aperture; drop in photosynthesis; Increased leaf temperature, thus affecting respiration; Drop in production; Reduced growth and dry matter</td><td>Rainwater harvesting technologies (cisterns, underground dams); Biological nitrogen fixation; Growth-promoting rhizobacteria in plants public policy</td><td>CESANO et al., 2012; BRITO et al., 2012; MARINHO et al., 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Energy Matrix</td><td>Deforestation; Desertification; Loss of biodiversity</td><td>Alternative energy sources for burning; Energy forests; Public policies</td><td>PARRELA, 2013; OLIVEIRA et al., 2018</td></tr></tbody></table>
The adaptation measures stem from the observation that production systems for family farmers should be much more structured and complex, seeking the integration of technologies to meet food, water, and energy demands, where the survival of farmers and quality of life are considered. However, all actions should be based on sustainable systems and conserving and preserving the Caatinga Biome. Actions of this type are guided via multidisciplinarity to visualize the necessary transversality in complex systems such that the whole is considered when proposing an intervention or productive system model to the producer. Thus, it is simultaneously a great opportunity and a challenge, being fundamental to consolidate the structuring of production units and promote sustainable development for family farming in the Araripe Plaster Pole.

## Final considerations

The socio-economic role of gypsum in the communities living in the semi-arid Araripe region will be maintained in the coming decades. Efforts should be intensified to improve the energy performance of the gypsum production chain and develop simple and cost-effective options to promote the sustainability of a diverse farming base. Desertification, drought, and global warming justify the need for serious reflection on establishing new strategies for gypsum production and agriculture to improve food production and income generation without detrimental environmental effects. Therefore, the region's development objectives should move toward conservation and sustainable management of natural resources while concentrating efforts to optimize gypsum production and agricultural products sustainably, including livestock. However, strategies should also be designed for the broad transfer and adoption of options to entities such as local communities, farmers' associations, and NGOs. Equipping policymakers with technical data and forward-looking scenarios is also a strategy to boost the region's sustainable development.

The projection of multifunctional agroecosystems should be the focus of the proposal of resilient systems incorporating technologies developed over the years, with emphasis on selecting plant species tolerant to salt, water, and thermal stress, the use of rhizobial inoculants for the economic and environmental benefit of legumes and intercropped crops, adopting no-tillage farming systems, planting native tree species and technologies for collection, and storage and use of rainfall with high efficiency and productivity.

The models of functional, sustainable, intensive agroecosystems use increasing levels of complexity in the inter- and intra-relationships of their multiple components as strategies to increase resilience and water, food, and energy security. Thus, implementing cropping systems that integrate food and energy crops
using water-efficient materials can be the basis for formulating public policies that contribute to the diffusion and incorporation of such strategies in other regions, communities, and governmental organizations. The cropping system proposals support energy and nutritional security policies to address climate change, strengthening sustainable agriculture.

## References

AD DIPER. **Pernambuco Economic Development Agency**. Relatório de atividades 1o trimestre de 2020. Recife: AD DIPER, 2020.

ALVES, A. A. C. Fisiologia da manioca. In: **Aspectos socioeconômicos e agronômicos da manioca**. Cruz das Almas: Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura Tropical, 2006. p.138-169.

AMBRIZZI, T.; ARAÚJO, M. **Executive summary: scientific basis of climate change**. Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Panel on Climate Change, 2013. p. 23.

ANGELOTTI, F.; BARROS, J. R.; BARBOSA, L. G.; SANTOS, C. A. F. Cowpea development under different temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations. **Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical**, v. 50, n. 1, p. 1-7, 2020.

ANGELOTTI, F.; GIONGO, V. Ações de mitigação e adaptação frente às mudanças climáticas. In: MELO, R. F.; VOLTOLINI, T. V. (Orgs.). **Rain-dependent family agriculture in the semi-arid region**, 2019. p. 445-467.

ARAÚJO, R. M.; ARRUDA JUNIOR, S. Cassava culture: case study in the agreste potiguar in the light of relationships Inter actors. **Holos**, v. 6, n. 1, p. 52-72, 2013.

BARBOSA, A. A.; FERRAZ, A. V.; SANTOS, G. A. Caracterização química, mecânica e morfológica do gesso obtido do pólo do Araripe. **Cerâmica**, v. 60, n. 356, p. 501-508, 2014.

BARROS JÚNIOR, A. P.; SOUZA, W. M.; ARAÚJO, M. S. B. Vulnerabilities, workers and flour houses: scenario of risks in the agreste of Pernambuco. **Gaia Scientia**, v. 12, n. 3, p. 94-108, 2018.

BARROS, J. R. A.; GUIMARÃES, M. J. M.; SILVA, R. M.; RÊGO, M. T. C.; MELO, N. F.; CHAVES, A. R. M.; ANGELOTTI, F. Selection of cowpea cultivars for high temperature tolerance: physiological, biochemical and yield aspects. **Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants**, v. 27, n. 1, p. 1-10, 2021a.

BARROS, J. R. A.; GUIMARÃES, M. J. M.; SIMÕES, W. L.; MELO, N. F.; ANGELOTTI, F. Water restriction in different phenological stages and increased temperature affect cowpea production. **Ciência e Agrotecnologia**, v. 45, n. 1, p. 1-12, 2021b.

BERGAMASCHI, H.; MATZENAUER, R. **O milho e o clima**. Porto Alegre: Emater/RSAscar, 2014. p. 85.

**BRAZIL. Ministry of Mines and Energy. Statistical Yearbook of the Nonmetallic Transformation Sector: 2018.** Brasília: Ministry of Mines and Energy - Secretariat of Geology, Mining and Mineral Transformation, Department of Mineral Transformation and Technology, 2018a. p. 86.

**BRASIL. Departamento Nacional de Produção Mineral. Anuário mineral estadual – Pernambuco: 2018.** Brasília: DNPM, 2018b, p. 18.
BRASIL. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Instrução Normativa Nº 13, de 24 de março de 2011. Aprovar as normas sobre especificações, garantias, registro, embalagem e rotulagem dos inoculantes destinados à agricultura, bem como as relações dos micro-organismos autorizados e recomendados para produção de inoculantes no Brasil, na forma dos Anexos I, II e III, desta Instrução, 2011, p.3-7.

BRITO, L. T. de L.; CAVALCANTI, N. de B.; SILVA, A. de S.; PEREIRA, L. A. Produtividade de água de chuva em culturas de subsistência no semiárido pernambucano. **Engenharia Agrícola** 32(1) 2012: 102-109.

CAMILO, J. A.; ANDRADE, C. L.T.; AMARAL, T. A.; CHOU, S. C.; TIGGES, C. H. P.; MELO, M. L. A.; GARCIA, A. G. Mudanças Climáticas Futuras Afetaráo a Produtividade de Milho em Minas Gerais. Embrapa Milho e Sorgo: Boletim de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, 2018, p.180.

CAMPELLO, F. C. B. O consumo específico de lenha como índice técnico para o ordenamento florestal no Araripe em Pernambuco. **Revista dos Mestrados Profissionais**, v. 2, n. 1, p. 23-43, 2013.

CESANO, D.; ROVERE, E. L. L.; MARTIN, O.; CORRAL, T.; SANTOS, L.; COELHO, N. S.; NEVES, C. G. As experiências da coalizão adapt Sertão na disseminação de tecnologias e estratégias de adaptação à mudança climática para o agricultor familiar do Semiárido Brasileiro. **Revista Brasieira de Geografia Física**, v. 6, n. 1, p. 1336-1350, 2012.

EMBRAPA. Corn Production in Family Agriculture. Circular técnica. Sete Lagoas: Embrapa Maize and Sorghum, 2011. p. 42.

FREIRE FILHO, F. R.; RIBEIRO, V. Q.; ROCHA, M. de M.; SILVA, K. J. D.; NOGUEIRA, M. S. R.; RODRIGUES, E. V. **Feijão-caupi no Brasil: produção, melhoramento genético, avanços e desafios.** Teresina: Embrapa Meio-Norte, 2011. p. 84.

FUKUDA, W. M. G.; SAAD, N. Pesquisa participativa em melhoramento de mandioca com agricultores do Nordeste do Brasil. Cruz das Almas: Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura, 2001. p. 48.

GABRIEL, L. F.; STRECK, N. A.; OHLMANN, L. O.; SILVA, M. R.; SILVA, S. D. Climate change e seus efeitos na cultura da mandioca. **Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental**, v. 18, n. 1, p. 90-98, 2014.

GIODA, A. Characteristics and provenance of firewood used in cooking in Brazil. **Estudos Avançados**, v. 33, n. 95, p. 133-150, 2019.

GRANJA, C. V. A.; CAVALCANTE, E. P.; CAFFÉ FILHO, H. P.; SIQUEIRA, M. S.; NASCIMENTO, W. Environmental degradation: exploration of gypsum in the Araripe Gypsum Complex. Id On Line. **Journal of Psychology**, v. 11, n. 36, p. 1-29, 2017.

IBGE - IBGE Automatic Recovery System - SIDRA. Produção Agrícola Municipal. Available at: https://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br. Accessed on: 20 jan, 2021.

JALIL, L.; CAVALCANTE, M. C.; VEJA, G. C.; XENOFONTE, G.; MARTINS, G. Território SertSo do Araripe. In: LONDRES, F.; PETERSEN, P.; MARTINS, G. Olhares agroecológicos: análise econômico-ecológica de agroecossistemas em sete territórios brasileiros. 1. ed. Rio de Janeiro: AS-PTA, 2017. Chap. 3, p. 60-91.

JARVIS, A.; RAMIREZ-VILLEGAS, J.; HERRERA CAMPO, B. V.; NAVARRO-RACINES, C. E. Is Cas-sava the Answer to African Climate Change Adaptation? **Tropical Plant Biology**, v. 5, n. 1, p. 9-29, 2012.
LACERDA, F. F.; NOBRA, P.; SOBRAL, M. C.; MAGELLA, G.; ASSAD, E. Tendência do clima do Semiarid facing the prospects of global climate change: the case of Araripina, Pernambuco. **Journal of the Department of Geography**, v. 31, n. 1, p. 132-141, 2016

LINDOSO, D.; EIRÓ, F.; ROCHA, J. D. Desenvolvimento Sustentável, Adaptação e Vulnerabilidade à Mudança Climática no Semiárido Nordestino: Um estudo de caso no Sertão do São Francisco. **Revista Econômica do Nordeste**, v., n. 1, p. 301-332, 2013.

MAGALHÃES, B. G. **Simulação de estratégias de manejo da cultura do milho para mitigar efeitos de mudanças climáticas.** Master's dissertation. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências. Universidade Federal de São João de Rei, 2017.

MARINHO, R. C. N.; NÓBREGA, R. S. A.; ZILLI, J. E.; XAVIER, G. R.; SANTOS, C. A. F.; AIDAR, S. T.; MARTINS, L. M. V.; FERNANDES JÚNIOR, P. I. Field performance of new cowpea cultivars inoculated with efficient nitrogen-fixing rhizobial strains in the Brazilian Semiarid. **Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira**, v. 49, n. 1, p. 395-402, 2014.

MARTINS, L. M. V.; XAVIER, G. R.; RANGEL, F. W.; RIBEIRO, J. R. A.; NEVES, M. C. P.; MORGADO, L. B.; RUMJANEK, N. G. Contribution of biological nitrogen fixation to cowpea: a strategy for improving grain yield in the semi-arid region of Brazil. **Biology and Fertility of Soils**, v. 38, n. 1, p. 333-339, 2003.

MARTINS, J. C. R; MENEZES, R. S C.; SAMPAIO, E. V. S. B.; SANTOS, A. F.; NAGAI, M. A. Productivity of biomass in agroforestry and traditional systems in Cariri Paraibano. **Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental**, v. 17, n. 6, p. 581-587, 2013.

MAY, A.; SILVA, D. D.; SANTOS, F. C.. (Eds.). **Cultivo do sorgo biomassa para a cogeração de energia elétrica.** Embrapa Milho e Sorgo, 2013. p. 65.

NAIR, P. K. R. **Introduction to agroforestry**. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993. p. 499.

NWAIWU, I. U. O.; OREBIYI, J. S.; OHAJIANYA, D. O.; IBEKWE, U. C.; ONYEAGOCHA, S. U. O.; HENRI-UKOHA, A.; OSUJI, M. N.; TASIE, C. M. The Effects of Climate Change on Agricultural Sustainability in Southeast Nigeria - Implications for Food Security. **Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology**, v. 3, n. 1, p. 23-36, 2014.

OLIVEIRA, A. F.; PELLEGRINO, G. Q.; CUADRA, S. V.; BARIONI, L. G.;

VICTORIA, D. C. National policies, plans and strategies to combat climate change. In: CUADRA, S. V.; HEINEMANN, A. B.; BARIONI, L. G.; MOZZER, G. B.; BERGIER, I. (Eds.). **Action against global climate change: Embrapa's contributions**. Brasília, DF: Embrapa, 2018. Chap. 4. p. 49-58.

PARRELLA, R. A. C. Cultivars. In: MAY, A.; SILVA, D. D.; SANTOS, F. C. **Cultivo do sorgo biomassa para cogeração de energia elétrica.** Embrapa Milho e Sorgo, 2013. p. 65.

PAUL, C.; WEBER, M.; KNOKE, T. Agroforestry versus farm mosaic systems - Comparing land-use efficiency, economic returns and risks under climate change effects. **Science of The Total Environment**, v. 587-588, n. 1, p. 22-35, 2017.

RIBEIRO, C. S.; OLIVEIRA, G. G. A questão hídrica no semiárido baiano: conflitos pelo uso da água e as tecnologias sociais de aproveitamento de água de chuva. **Del CESLA. International Latin American Studies Review**, v. 23, n. 1, p. 355-381, 2019.
ROMERO, V.; ZUGMAN, F. Princípios, metas e governança nas políticas públicas de mudança climáticas no Brasil. In: RAMOS, D. P.; LÁZARO, L. L. B. *Public Policies for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change: Financing the Transition to a Low Carbon Economy*, 2010. p. 166.

SANS, L. M. A.; ASSAD, E. D.; GUIMARÃES, D. P.; AVELLAR, G. Zoneamento de riscos climáticos para a cultura de milho na Região Centro Oeste do Brasil e para o Estado de Minas Gerais. *Revista Brasileira de Agrometeorologia*, v. 9, n. 3, p. 527-535, 2001.

SANTANA, A. F.; LIMA, M. C.; SOUZA, E. C. A. Valor nutritivo da mandioca brava (Manihot sp.). *PUBVET*, v. 2, n. 13, p. 1-8, 2008.

SEBRAE-PE. Webinar: *Dialogues with the mineral sector: environmental solutions for the sustainability of the energy matrix of mineral-based APL*. 2020. Available at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R58S1HcVB0&feature=youtu.be. Accessed on: 8 Oct. 2020.

SILVA, V. P. *Sistemas Silvipastoris Embrapa Florestas*. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Flores-tas. Colombo, PR, Brazil, 2004. Available at: www.cnpf.embrapa.br/pesquisa/safs/index.htm. Accessed on: 15 Sep. 2017.

SILVA, K. J. D.; ROCHA, M. M.; MENEZEZ JÚNIOR, J. A. N. Socioeconomia. In: BASTOS (Coord.). *The culture of cowpea*. Embrapa Meio Norte, 2016. p. 71.

SIMEONE, M. L. F.; PARRELLA, R. A. C.; MAY, A.; SCHAFFERT, R. E. Production and characterization of sorghum biomass pellets. *Brazilian Applied Science Review*, v. 2, n. 5, p. 1682-1695, 2018.

**SINDUSGESSO.** *Potencialidades do Polo Gesseiro do Araripe: Simpósio Polo Gesseiro do Araripe: potencialidades, problemas e soluções*. Recife: Agronomic Institute of Pernambuco, 2014. p. 22.

SITÔNIO, R. MPT e OIT apresentam no TRT projeto para a promoção do trabalho decente no Polo Gesseiro. 2019. Available at: http://www.prt6.mpt.mp.br/informe-se/noticias-do-mpt-go/1426-mpt-e-oit-apresentam-no-trt-projecto-para-promocao-do-trabalho-decente-no-polo-plasterer. Acesso em: 15 jul. 2019.

SUAREZ, R.; WONG, A.; RAMIREZ, M.; BARRAZA. A.; OROZCOMDEL, C.; CEVALLOS, M. A.; LARA, M.; HERNANDEZ, G.; ITURRIAGA, G. Improvement of drought tolerance and grain yield in common bean by overexpressing trehalose-6-phosphate synthase in rhizobia. *Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions Journal*, v. 21, n. 1, p. 958-966, 2008.
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
CHAPTER 5

Public policies for adaptation
to prolonged drought in the
Northeast: The role of PRONAF
and the Crop-Insurance Program

Joacir Rufino de Aquino, Maria de Fátima Vidal, Maria Odete Alves

Introduction

In the second decade of the 21st century, the Brazilian Northeast was hit by a devastating drought in recent history. The “Great Drought” lasted for five uninterrupted years (2012–2017), somewhat impacting all states of the Brazilian Northeast region. It was another climatic episode of which such intensity had only been registered in the mid-eighteenth century (LIMA; MAGALHÃES, 2018). However, despite its severity, no scenario of exacerbated social crisis existed, and family farming resisted the water shortage, which currently remains in the region.

The greater resilience of family farming in the Northeast is explained by the improved water infrastructure network developed in the region and the social protection network composed of social security policies and conditional cash transfers for the poor and extremely poor. Moreover, the several public policies to support production and mitigate the risks of agricultural activities that have been strengthened or implemented since the 2000s were crucial (AQUINO; ALVES; VIDAL, 2020; GRISA; SCHNEIDER, 2015; NUNES et al., 2014; MELLO, 2015; MIRANDA; TORRENS; MATTEI, 2017; SILVEIRA et al., 2016).

Accordingly, this chapter analyzes the evolution between 2010 and 2019 of two of the main policies of productive support to the segment, the National Program for the Strengthening of Family Farming (PRONAF) and the Crop-Insurance Program (CIP). It demonstrates that the volume of resources applied by credit and rural insurance instruments was vital to adapting family farming to drought, although these public policies must be scaled up and improved to enhance their results.
Hence, we reviewed relevant literature on the topic and systematized offi-
cial statistics on the government programs analyzed in this paper. We also col-
lected data on family farmers from the IBGE's 2017 Agricultural Census. We
follow the normative criteria of the Law nº. 11.326/2006 regulated by Decree
nº. 9.064/2017, where family farmers are all producers that: i) have land areas of
up to 4 (four) fiscal modules; ii) use at least half of the family labor force in the
productive process and income generation; iii) obtain at least half of the family
income from economic activities on their site; and iv) run the establishment or
enterprise strictly with their family (DEL GROSSI, 2019; IBGE, 2019).

Excluded farmers were typified by IBGE as non-family or employers. That is, they had areas larger than four fiscal modules and produced predominantly using wage labor. Further, their farm management was conducted by hired administrators or foremen.

The structure of the paper is organized into three main sections, in addition to the Introduction and the Final Considerations. The first section discusses aspects of family farming in the Brazilian Northeast in the context of the Great Drought that struck the region in the second decade of the 21st century. The next section presents the budgetary performance of PRONAF and Crop-Insurance in the 2010-2019 period. The third section analyzes and discusses the importance of the credit and rural insurance instruments for adapting family farming in the Northeast during the prolonged drought.

Northeastern family farming in the context
of the Great Drought (2012–2017)

The Northeast Region of Brazil, the focus of this study, occupies an area of 1.6 million km² (over 18% of the national territory) and is home to about 57.4 million inhabitants (IBGE, 2018; 2019). From the political-administrative perspective, it comprises nine states: Alagoas (AL), Bahia (BA), Ceará (CE), Maranhão (MA), Paraíba (PB), Piauí (PI), Pernambuco (PE), Rio Grande do Norte (RN), and Sergipe (SE).

In physical terms, Andrade (2005) highlights that the northeastern territory is divided into four natural sub-regions: Mid-north, Sertão, Agreste, and Zona da Mata. The largest portion of the regional space (64,8%) is in the Brazilian semi-arid region.

Sheltering a population of 26.2 million inhabitants (IBGE, 2019), the North-
eastern semi-arid encompasses two municipalities of the State of Maranhão and
other states of the Region, of which four have more than 80% of their territories
located in this specific natural environment. As per the institutional delimitation
currently in force (BRASIL. MIN, 2018), they are: CE (98.7%), RN (93.0%), PB (90.9%), and PE (87.8%).

Among the characteristics that describe the predominant edaphoclimatic picture in most of the rural areas of the Northeast, the following stand out (ANDRADE, 2005; MAIA GOMES, 2001): low and irregular rainfall, with periodic droughts; high temperatures, with high rates of evapotranspiration; poorly permeable soils subject to erosion; and the predominance of caatinga vegetation.

The socio-economic changes in recent decades have positively impacted the well-being of the rural population of the Northeast (BACELAR, 2014; CARVALHO, 2014). However, droughts continue to occur, and their magnitude has increased. Chart 1 shows that the region was hit by one of the greatest droughts in its recent history, whether for its duration (2012–2017) or its effects in increasing regional water shortages, warranting the designation, “Great Drought.”

The Great Drought strongly affected regional agriculture and livestock, especially family farming, predominantly in rain-fed areas. The segment lost part of its cattle herd, and traditional food crops were severely impacted (MARTINS; MAGALHÃES, 2015; SANTANA; SANTOS, 2020; VERNER, 2016). However, several public policies maintained the sector, despite losses suffered and the historical shortcomings faced by most producers, such as limited access to land.

Indeed, Table 1 shows 2,322,719 rural establishments in the Northeast in 2017, of which 1,838,846 (79.2%) were family farmers. That is, of every 100 rural farms registered in the region, at least 79 were small and predominantly family-run, covering 47.2% of the total category in the country. The same relevance is observed regarding occupied people, considering that family units absorb the labor force of over 4.7 million people (73.8% of the regional total).

Regarding the ratio of producers in the area occupied by their farms, the data show an inversion of representation because the large quantity of family farmers in the Northeast holds only 36.6% of the area of over 70 million ha occupied by farms. Meanwhile, the non-family farmers sector, represented by only 20.8% of surveyed producers, occupies 63.4% of the total area, indicating the persistence of a marked inequality in the distribution of natural resources associated with land ownership.
<table><caption>Chart 1. Drought years recorded in Northeastern Brazil in the 16th to 21st centuries</caption><thead><tr><th>XVI Century</th><th>XVII Century</th><th>XVIII Century</th><th>XIX Century</th><th>XX Century</th><th>XXI Century</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1553</td><td>1603</td><td>1709-1711</td><td>1803-1804</td><td>1900</td><td>2001-2002</td></tr><tr><td>1559</td><td>1606</td><td>1720-1727</td><td>1808-1810</td><td>1903-1904</td><td>2005</td></tr><tr><td>1583</td><td>1614-1615</td><td>1730</td><td>1816-1817</td><td>1907</td><td>2007-2008</td></tr><tr><td>1587</td><td>1645</td><td>1732</td><td>1824-1825</td><td>1909-1910</td><td>2010</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>1652</td><td>1734-1737</td><td>1827</td><td>1914-1915</td><td>2012-2017</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>1692-1693</td><td>1744-1748</td><td>1830-1833</td><td>1917</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>1751</td><td>1835-1837</td><td>1919</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>1754</td><td>1842</td><td>1921-1922</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>1760</td><td>1844-1847</td><td>1930</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>1766</td><td>1877-1879</td><td>1932-1937</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>1771-1772</td><td>1888-1889</td><td>1941-1945</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>1776-1778</td><td>1891</td><td>1951-1954</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>1782-1784</td><td>1898</td><td>1958-1959</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>1790-1794</td><td></td><td>1962-1964</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1966</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1970</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1976</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1979-1983</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1986-1987</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1992-1993</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1997-1999</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Lima and Magalhães (2018, p. 203). Adapted by the authors.

<table><caption>Table 1. Number of establishments, total area, and occupied personnel in the different types of agriculture in the Northeast region - 2017</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Farmer Types</th><th colspan="2">Establishments (*)</th><th colspan="2">Total Area (ha)</th><th colspan="2">Staff Occupied</th></tr><tr><th>Number</th><th>%</th><th>Hectares</th><th>%</th><th>Number</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Family</td><td>1.838.846</td><td>79,2</td><td>25.925.743</td><td>36,6</td><td>4.708.670</td><td>73,8</td></tr><tr><td>Non-family</td><td>483.873</td><td>20,8</td><td>44.968.122</td><td>63,4</td><td>1.668.094</td><td>26,2</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>2.322.719</td><td>100,0</td><td>70.893.865</td><td>100,0</td><td>6.376.764</td><td>100,0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Agricultural Census 2017 (IBGE/SIDRA, 2019).

(*) Each agricultural establishment is equivalent to a family or non-family unit.
From the above, it is clear that family farming in the Brazilian Northeast is quite representative in the last year of the prolonged drought. The result stems from the resistance and daily struggle of producers and their families, the collective effort of their class organizations, and the institutions and public policies created in the last 25 years to support the group and guarantee coexistence with the regional physical environment. Among the policies are programs for rural security, creating agrarian reform settlements, credit, income transfer, water storage, government purchases, and rural insurance (GRISA; SCHNEIDER, 2015; MELLO, 2015; MIRANDA et al., 2017; SILVEIRA et al., 2016).

The financial resources from these policies and emergency actions adopted during the period are fundamental to reproducing family farming in the North-east during the Great Drought. However, as noted, from the productive perspective, two policies deserve special emphasis for their scope and strategic content: the PRONAF and CIP. Thus, the next sections are dedicated to an in-depth study of the programs to analyze their evolution, limits, and importance in the regional context.

# Budget performance of rural credit and crop-insurance policies for regional family farming

## Evolution and scope of PRONAF's applications (2010–2019)

The PRONAF was officially established via Presidential Decree Nº. 1,946, of June 28 of 1996 to support rural development, strengthen family farming as a generator of employment and income, and “establish a new pattern of sustainable development that aims to achieve levels of satisfaction and welfare of farmers and consumers, regarding economic, social and environmental issues, producing a new national agricultural model” (BRASIL, 1996, p. 11).

The potential audience of PRONAF comprises settlers in agrarian reform programs and all family forms of production and work in the Brazilian countryside. Farmers must prove that they fit into the generic category of “family farming” through a PRONAF Aptitude Declaration (DAP) to access its resources. The DAP format classifies family farmers into beneficiary groups: B and V. Group B comprises the poorest and most vulnerable segment. However, Group V integrates producers in the intermediate range of the category.

Since its creation, PRONAF has become the main public policy of productive support to family farming in operation in Brazil and among the main government actions of this kind in Latin America. Currently, it operates in all the municipalities via agricultural funding for costing and investment in special payment terms
(AQUINO; SCHNEIDER, 2015). According to Wesz Jr. (2021), from 1996 to 2018, the program performed 30.9 million credit contracts and applied R$ 350.7 billion (in constant 2018 values).

In the specific case of the Northeast, between 2010 and 2019, PRONAF's budget performance was also quite representative. As shown in Table 2, even with the advent of the Great Drought, there were no interruptions in applying this special modality of financing in the region. During prolonged drought, the contracts increased relative to 2011, despite being a regular rainfall year. More than 7.9 million contracts accumulated over time were signed in the region's nine states.

Still in Table 2, it is observed that the volume of resources applied has been increasing, reaching an accumulated total of R$ 36.5 billion at the end of the series, with variations. During the drought, the loan amounts ranged from R$ 3.5 to R$ 4.5 billion, representing a positive result given the scenario of uncertainty during the climate crisis. Notably, the credit operations were distributed in low average value contracts, given, in part, the profile of the PRONAF public in the Northeast.

<table><caption>Table 2. Evolution of contracts and resources applied by PRONAF in the Northeast (2010–2019)</caption><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td>Contracts (A)</td><td>Value in R$ (B)*</td><td>Average Value in R$ (B/A)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>643.163</td><td>2.627.587.510</td><td>4.085</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>650.984</td><td>2.662.081.591</td><td>4.089</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>826.616</td><td>3.561.098.534</td><td>4.308</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>923.874</td><td>4.158.501.503</td><td>4.501</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>806.772</td><td>4.557.177.964</td><td>5.649</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>848.779</td><td>3.809.098.019</td><td>4.488</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>836.854</td><td>3.454.121.692</td><td>4.128</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>850.920</td><td>3.882.986.249</td><td>4.563</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>798.586</td><td>4.038.119.138</td><td>5.057</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>723.101</td><td>3.793.000.490</td><td>5.245</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>7.909.649</td><td>36.543.772.690</td><td>4.620</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: BCB (2020).
*Values in R$ updated by the IGP-DI for 2019.

Indeed, most family farmers in the Northeast are poor or extremely poor, with low debt capacity with the banks. A special microcredit line called PRONAF B was created for them in the 1999–2000 period (AQUINO; BASTOS, 2015).
Since 2005, this line of financing began to be operated by the AGROAMIGO Program of the Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (BNB). This program has the differentiated service of a team of microcredit advisors and has substantially increased its participation in PRONAF operations (Graph 1), being a factor responsible for its expansion in the region.

The numbers were made possible, mainly, by the successive renegotiations and forgiveness of part of the debts incurred by producers before and during droughts. Such measures were included as priorities in the scope of the emergency actions of the Federal Government and comprised the demands of the rural union movement. Practically, implementing such measures was strategic because it allowed insolvent producers, given the losses from the drought, to pay off their debts and take out new loans with subsidized interest rates.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Graph 1. Percentage of contracts and value contracted by AGROAMIGO under PRONAF in the Northeast, 2010-2019</figcaption></figure>

Source: BNB (2020a).

However, despite the performance presented, the Northeast maintained its historical marginal position in distributing PRONAF resources. Since the program was created, it has presented a very strong concentrating bias by region, producer type, and product (AQUINO; SCHNEIDER, 2015; SOUZA; BARBÉ, 2014; TROIAN; MACHADO, 2020). This trend remained in the period analyzed (Table 3): family farmers in the Northeast, representing almost half the national total (47.2%), obtained only 14.2% of the resources applied.
<table><caption>Table 3. Distribution of the number of family establishments and resources applied by PRONAF in the regions of Brazil (2010–2019)</caption><thead><tr><td>Regions</td><td>Family establishments (2017)</td><td>%</td><td>PRONAF Value (R$)*</td><td>%</td><td>Average PRONAF value (R$)*</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>North</td><td>480.575</td><td>12,3</td><td>18.051.193.051</td><td>7,0</td><td>24.988</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast</td><td>1.838.846</td><td>47,2</td><td>36.543.772.690</td><td>14,2</td><td>4.620</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td>688.945</td><td>17,7</td><td>50.614.651.966</td><td>19,7</td><td>20.988</td></tr><tr><td>South</td><td>665.767</td><td>17,1</td><td>133.647.793.024</td><td>52,0</td><td>26.997</td></tr><tr><td>Midwest</td><td>223.275</td><td>5,7</td><td>18.120.488.417</td><td>7,1</td><td>36.147</td></tr><tr><td>Brazil</td><td>3.897.408</td><td>100,0</td><td>256.977.899.149</td><td>100,0</td><td>15.579</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: BCB (2020) and IBGE/SIDRA (2019).
*Values in R$ updated by the IGP-DI for 2019.

Notably, PRONAF's operations in the Northeastern territory vis-à-vis the Brazilian average and other regions have low values. In the Northeast, where producers need more resources to structure their properties, the average value of the operations (R$ 2.5 million) is R$ 4,620.00, representing 17.1% of the average contracts of the pranafianos in the South Region (R$ 26,997.00), which received more than half the resources of the program in the 2010–2019 period.

Regarding the profile of financed activities, the Northeast follows a trend reversed in Brazil because most PRONAF loans are dedicated to costing operations of agricultural production and livestock in the country (SILVEIRA et al., 2016; WESZ JR., 2021). Among family farmers in the Northeast, Table 4 shows that the contracts and amounts applied are concentrated in the investment mode, especially livestock. Most of the financing in the region does not have official protection since only costing operations are compulsorily linked to Family Farming Insurance (SEAF).

<table><caption>Table 4. Distribution of modalities and types of activities financed by PRONAF in the Northeast (2010–2019)</caption><thead><tr><td>Modality/Activity</td><td>Contracts</td><td>%</td><td>Value (R$)*</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Agricultural costs</td><td>280.968</td><td>3,6</td><td>3.029.939.327</td><td>8,3</td></tr><tr><td>Livestock costs</td><td>351.081</td><td>4,4</td><td>3.158.224.803</td><td>8,6</td></tr><tr><td>Agricultural Investment</td><td>1.644.830</td><td>20,8</td><td>7.378.249.006</td><td>20,2</td></tr><tr><td>Livestock Investment</td><td>5.632.770</td><td>71,2</td><td>22.977.359.553</td><td>62,9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>7.909.649</td><td>100,0</td><td>36.543.772.690</td><td>100,0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: BCB (2020).
*Values in R$ updated by the IGP-DI for 2019.
A wide variety of activities exist among the agricultural and livestock seg-
ments supported by PRONAF in the Northeastern countryside. However, over
time, the program has concentrated its operations on cattle farming. From Graph
2, the percentage of financing for this activity by the BNB, the main operating
agent of this credit line in the region, has always remained at high levels, close to
half the contracts before and after the Great Drought. Even so, there has been a
slight growth in operations focused on the financing of small animals, especially
loans for goat and sheep farming, which increased their participation from 2010
to 2019.

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Graph 2. Distribution of the types of activities contracted by PRONAF via BNB, with FNE resources, in the Northeast, 2010-2019 (In %)</figcaption></figure>

Source: BNB (2020b).

The PRONAF strategy in the Northeast, focusing on cattle ranching, has been questioned as to its effectiveness as an instrument to adapt family farming to prolonged droughts. Notably, as Andrade (2005) posits, animal husbandry is part of the local culture, and expanding herds is an important strategy. However, the main issue is that investments are mostly not accompanied by integrated actions aimed at providing rural properties with the minimum infrastructure conditions to ensure the maintenance of animals during periods of drought, which makes investments in the sector quite risky (AQUINO; BASTOS, 2015; FREITAS, 2019; FREITAS; CASTRO, 2020).

The noted problem could be circumvented, at least partially, by expanding
alternative credit lines of the program to improve productive infrastructure and
disseminate environmentally sustainable productive systems, such as semi-arid
and agroecology PRONAF. These credit modalities, however, have shown low
performance in the region. For example, from 2013 to 2019, only 148,259 semi-
arid PRONAF and 1,530 Agroecology PRONAF contracts were signed (BCB,