1

2

The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the

international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). Eight

departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary

Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development

lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and

assignments.

The Noragric Master theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the

requirements under the Noragric Master programme “International Environmental Studies”,

“Development Studies” and other Master programmes.

The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this

publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition

that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric.

© Christina Kolsrud Larsen, May 2009

christinakolsrudlarsen@gmail.com

Noragric

Department of International Environment and Development Studies

P.O. Box 5003

N-1432 Ås

Norway

Tel.: +47 64 96 52 00

Fax: +47 64 96 52 01

Internet: http://www.umb.no/noragric

http://www.umb.no/noragric

3

Declaration

I, Christina Kolsrud Larsen, declare that this thesis is a result of my research investigations

and findings. Sources of information other than my own have been acknowledged and a

reference list has been appended. This work has not been previously submitted to any other

university for award of any type of academic degree.

Signature……………………………….. Date………………………………

4

DEDICATION:

This thesis is dedicated to Hans-Erik, whose encouragement, patience,

love and support has made this piece of work possible.

5

ABSTRACT:

The dynamics of the Brazilian agricultural frontier may change considering the expansion of

agribusiness in general and soybean plantations in particular.

The following study was conducted in the municipalities of Canarana and Querencia in Mato

Grosso, Brazil, with the purposes of understanding the dynamics of agribusiness in the area

and its possible impacts on marginalized groups.

In the municipalities of Querencia and Canarana in Mato Grosso, Brazil, the Kĩsêdjê and

Xavante indigenous groups express that they have experienced various forms of

environmental degradation, such as alterations in fish stocks and worsening of water quality,

having great impacts on their traditions and culture. Small-scale farmers in the same

municipalities feel that they are shut out from the agribusiness adventure, and claims that

there is no more available land and resources for small-scale producers.

In the region there are various power actors in agribusiness present, whose dynamics and

relations is influenced and controlled by local, regional, national and international forces.

Political ecology and discourse analysis was used as theoretical background for the analysis of

the above-mentioned issues, to help underline the important role politics and economy play in

ecological change and environmental problems.

Research for this thesis was conducted by doing fieldwork in Mato Grosso, Brazil, from the

beginning of October until the end of December 2008, as well as extensive literature search

and review between January 2008 and May 2009.

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without academic and personal

support and encouragement from several persons. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to

my supervisor, Darley Jose Kjosavik for her constructive and valuable comments, her

patience and encouragement throughout the entire process of planning and writing the thesis. I

would also like to thank Simon Pahle for encouraging me to apply for the exchange

opportunity with ISA, and for all his help in the initial stage of this process. Thanks to Natalie

Unterstell for her assistance with the outline of my fieldwork and for being an excellent

contact person between myself and ISA both before and during my stay in Brazil.

I would also like to thank all the wonderful ISA staff I met and worked with in Brazil. Special

thanks go to Rafael (Viva! Oioioi!), Luciano, Rosanna, Angelise, Luciana, Rodrigo, Cristina,

Renata, Edu, Heber, Nicola, Oswaldinho, Sadi, Fernando and Adriana, for being both my

friends and of great help to me while doing fieldwork- Valeu!

Warm thanks go to ATIX, Cida and the Xavante, to the Kĩsêdjê and all the small-scale

farmers for sharing their time, experiences and friendship with me.

Very special thanks to my dearest Kjersti Thorkildsen, thank you for your professional and

personal guidance, but more importantly for always being there for me throughout my stay in

Brazil.

The work leading to this report has been supported by a research grant from Noragric, and this

financial support is gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to acknowledge the help from

the librarians Liv T. Ellingsen and Ingeborg Brandtzæg at Noragric, and of course all my

fellow students for making my time at Noragric memorable.

Thank you, my “Vestby-mom”, Kristin Holtermann, for introducing me to the possibility of

taking a master in Development studies at Noragric, and for cheering me on.

Finally; my deepest, most heartfelt thanks go to all the Kolsrud’s, the Larsen’s, and the

Eriksen’s, to Sista and Hansemann, and to my wonderful friends. Thank you so much for

your support, encouragement and involvement during my studies, my fieldwork and the

writing process

Thank you all so much- Muita Obrigada!

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION……………………………………………………………………………. 3

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………. 4

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………. 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………… 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………. 7

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………..… 12

GLOSSARY OF TERMS………………………………………………….………………. 12

LIST OF TABLES, IMAGES AND MAPS………………………………………………. 13

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 14

1.1. Agrofuels and Agribusiness ........................................................................................ 14

1.1.1. Impacts of agribusiness .......................................................................................... 15

1.1.2. Deforestation……………………………………………………………………………… 16

1.1.3. Food security; the food vs. fuel dilemma ……………………………………………… 17

1.1.4 Health Impacts …………………………………………………………………………….. 17

1.1.5 Livelihood Impacts ……………………………………………………………………….. 18

1.2. Problem Statement ………………………………………………………………… 19

1.3. Justifications ……………………………………………………………………….. 20

1.4. Aims and Objectives ……………………………………………………………….. 20

1.5. Objectives and Research Questions ………………………………………………. 20

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ………………………………………. 22

2.1. Political Ecology …………………………………………………………………… 22

2.1.1. Understanding political ecology ……………………………………………………. 22

2.1.2. The political ecology of deforestation ……………………………………………… 24

2.1.3. Methodological challenges ………………………………………………………….. 25

2.1.3.1. Degradation and marginalization …………………………………………….. 26

8

2.2. Discourse Analysis ………………………………………………………………… 27

2.2.1. Discourse analysis and its relevance for this thesis ……………………………… 27

2.2.2. Theory on discourse analysis of deforestation…………………………………… 27

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS AND STUDY AREA ……………………… 29

3.1. Fieldwork in General ……………………………………………………………. 29

3.1.1 Location and time period ………………………………………………………........ 29

3.1.2. Pre- and post-fieldwork preparations ……………………………………………. 30

3.2. Methods of Data Collection……………………………………………………… 30

3.2.1. Interviews ……………………………………………………………………………… 30

3.2.2. Sample groups and techniques ……………………………………………………… 31

3.2.3. Focus group discussion ……………………………………………………………… 31

3.3. Presentation of Study Area……………………………………………………… 32

3.3.1. Mato Grosso …………………………………………………………….............…..... 32

3.3.2. Xingu …………………………………………………………...............…………….... 33

3.3.3. Canarana ….…....………………………………………………………….................. 34

3.3.4. Querencia ….....……………………………………………………………….............. 35

3.4. Limitations of the Study …………………………..……………………………… 36

3.4.1. Time frame ………………………………………………………………………………. 36

3.4.2. Fieldwork challenges ……………………………………………………………......... 36

3.4.3. Working with indigenous people …………………………………………………….. 37

3.4.4. Ethical considerations ………………………………………………………………… 38

3.4.5. A comment on information from NGO’s ……………………………………………. 38

CHAPTER 4: THE KĨSÊDJÊ AND THE XAVANTE …………………………………. 39

4.1. The Kĩsêdjê ………………………………………………………………………... 39

4.1.1. Kĩsêdjê family life ……………………………………………………………………… 39

4.1.2. Livelihood foundation and surrounding challenges ………………………………. 40

4.1.3. Feature: Nhonkoberi Kĩsêdjê………………………………………………………….. 42

9

4.2. The Xavante ……………………………………………………………………..… 44

4.2.1. Livelihood foundation and challenges ………………………………………………. 44

4.3. ATIX; Associação Terra Indígena Xingu............................................................... 46

CHAPTER 5: THE SMALL-SCALE FARMERS.............................................................. 47

5.1. INCRA; Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária ......................... 47

5.2. Small-Scale Farmers in Canarana and Querencia ……………………………... 47

5.3. Making Soy Work for Small-Scale Farmers ……………………………………. 49

5.3.1. Feature: The school for family agriculture in Querencia ………………………… 50

CHAPTER 6: MAIN FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION …………………………………. 52

6.1. Impacts of Agribusiness on Indigenous People and Small-Scale Farmers in the

Municipalities of Querencia and Canarana ……………………………………………… 53

6.1.1. Impacts of agribusiness on indigenous people ……………………………………... 53

6.1.2. Focus group discussion ……………………………………………………………….. 54

6.1.3. Analysis of impacts on the Kĩsêdjê …………………………………………………… 57

6.1.4. Analysis of impacts on the Xavante ………………………………………………….. 59

6.1.5. Feature; Paulo Cipassé Xavante …………………………………………………….. 61

6.1.6. Impacts of agribusiness on small-scale farmers …………………………………… 63

6.1.6.1 An interesting paradox; the soy dreams of small-scale farmers ……………… 64

6.2. Discussion: Agribusiness, Indigenous Peoples and Small-Scale Farmers …….. 65

6.2.1 Agribusiness and agrofuel activity in the study area ………………………………. 65

6.2.2 The impacts of agribusiness on livelihoods of indigenous people and small-scale

farmers in the study area ……………………………………………………………………………. 67

6.2.3 Land use changes and its consequences …………………………………………….. 67

6.2.4 Degradation and marginalization in and of study area…………………………… 69

6.2.4.1. Definition of degradation in study area ………………………………………… 70

10

6.3. Dominant Discourses and the Stakeholder’s Perception on their Situation with

Regard to Agribusiness …………………………………………………………………… 71

6.3.1. Indigenous people and small-scale farmers’ perception on consequences of

agribusiness …………………………………………………………………………………………… 71

6.3.2. Other resource persons’ perception on consequences of agribusiness …………. 72

6.3.3. Dominant vs. Populist Discourse.......................................................................... 73

6.3.4. Social impacts and policy outcomes of discourse................................................. 74

6.4. The Political Economy of Agribusiness in the Study Area …………………….. 75

6.4.1. Political forces driving Brazilian agribusiness.................................................... 76

6.4.2. Land reform and land policies …………………………………..…………………… 76

6.4.3. Population pressure and income …………………………………………………….. 77

6.4.4. Beneficiaries of the agribusiness production in the region ……………………… 77

6.4.5. Feature; Ten Katen............................................................................................... 79

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………. 81

7.1. Future Challenges ………………………………………………………………… 82

7.2. Second Generation Agrofuels ……………………………………………………. 83

7.3 Concluding Remarks ……………………………………………………………… 83

7.4. Future Research …………………………………………………………………... 84

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………. 85

LIST OF APPENDICES………………………………………………………………….. 89

Appendix 1: Questionnaires………….………………………………………………... 89

1.1. Interview model for indigenous people.................................................................... 89

1.2. Interview model for small-scale farmers.................................................................. 92

1.3. Questionnaire for NGOs, government officials and other resource persons............ 96

11

Appendix 2: List of Tables Used in Analysis................................................................ 100

2.1 Impacts of agribusiness on indigenous people, example version............................ 100

2.2. Impacts of agribusiness on the Xavante.................................................................. 101

2.3. Impacts of agribusiness on the Kĩsêdjê................................................................... 102

2.4. Impacts of agribusiness on small-scale farmers, example version......................... 103

2.5. Impacts of agribusiness on small-scale farmers..................................................... 104

2.6. Other tables on impacts of agribusiness on small-scale farmers........................... 105

12

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

ATIX Associação Terra Indígena Xingu (The Xingu Indigenous Territory Organization)

EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (The Brazilian Agricultural

Research Corporation)

EU The European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FBOMS Fórum Brasileiro de ONGs e Movimentos Sociais para o Meio Ambiente e o

Desenvovimento (The Brazilian Forum for NGOs and Social Movements for Environment

and Development)

FUNAI Fundação Nacional do Índio (The Department Of Indian Affairs)

FUNASA Fundação Nacional de Saúde (The National Health Department)

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Greenhouse Gases

IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (The Brazilian Institute for Geography

and Statistics)

INCRA Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (The National Institute for

Agrarian Colonization and Reform)

ISA Instituto Socioambiental (The Social-Environmental Institute)

MST Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (The Landless Workers Movement)

MT Mato Grosso

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PIX Parque Indígena do Xingu (The Xingu Indigenous Park)

PNPB Programa Nacional de Produção e Uso do Biodiesel (The National Program for

Production and Use of Biodiesel)

SEMA Secretaria do Meio Ambiente (The Secretariat for Agriculture and Environment)

UN United Nations

WFP World Food Program

GLOSSARY OF TERMS:

Fazenda – Farm/Ranch/Plantation/Estate

Cerrado – Savannah Forest

Favela – Slum/Shantytown

Casique – Chief

13

LISTS OF TABLES, IMAGES AND MAPS

List of tables

Table 1. Table over Brazil’s share of world export and production of major

agricultural products 2006/2007 ………………………................................................ 15

List of Images

Image no.1: From Xingu Indigenous Park (own photo) ……………………………….. 33

Image no.2: From the farm of a small-scale farmer in Querencia (own photo)…….. 35

Image no. 3: Nhonkoberi Kĩsêdjê (own photo) ………………………………………….. 42

Image no. 4: Overview of the Pimentel Barbosa indigenous territory (own photo)… 46

Image no. 5: Gilmar Hollunder in the “reforestation forest” at the School for Family

Agriculture in Querencia (own photo) ……………………………………………………. 50

Image no. 6: Cultivation of salads in the hydro-house at the School for Family

Agriculture in Querencia (own photo) ……………………………………………………. 51

Image no.7: Overview of soy-fields and indigenous territory in Querencia. (Courtesy

of Luciano Langmantel Eichholz/ISA/ Y Ikatu Xingu, 2008) ……………………… 55

Image no.8: Paulo Cipasse Xavante (own photo) ....................................................... 61

Image no. 9: Soy mill in Querencia, MT (own photo) ………………………………….. 65

Image no.10: The Ten Katen’s (own photo) ……………………………………………… 79

List of Maps

Map no.1: Map of Brazil, Mato Grosso highlighted.................................................... 32

Map no.2: Map of Mato Grosso, showing Canarana, Querencia and PIX................. 34

14

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to understand the impacts of agribusiness on the livelihoods of

indigenous people and small-scale farmers in the municipalities of Canarana and Querencia in

Mato Grosso, Brazil. Four main livelihood categories are included in the study; economic

impacts, health impacts, environmental impacts and impacts on access to land. In addition, the

study includes the various stakeholders’ perceptions of their livelihood situation. The study

draws on political ecology and discourse analysis to provide the theoretical grounding for

analysis and discussion.

1.1. Agrofuels and Agribusiness

The word “bio” means “life” in Greek, and when put together with “fuel” it bears a promise

of a better alternative; a green, clean and sustainable alternative. Whether or not this kind of

fuel provides such an alternative remains to be discussed in this thesis. Thus, I prefer to use

the more neutral term “agrofuels”, a term more and more literature on the matter seem to be

inclined to use, and a term that does not “hide” the link between energy and agricultural

industry. I hope this will not create confusion.

The last few years’ immense focus on climate change has lead to an increase in global

consciousness when it comes to greenhouse gas-emissions (GHG), particularly in the Western

world. Ten of the world’s richest countries consume nearly 80 percent of the energy produced

in the world (Mendonça et al., 2007). In relation to this; whether or not one should seek to

replace the usage of traditional fossil fuels with agrofuels, has become one of the most

important issues of the day.

Brazil is the 4th

biggest producer of GHG-emissions, mainly due to deforestation processes,

which amounts to almost 80 percent of Brazil’s carbon emissions (Mendonça et al, 2007).

Brazil is close to being self-sufficient in energy provisions, mainly due to agro-ethanol

production. Even though agribusiness has been a threat to forest biomes in Brazil for decades,

past years climate change worries added to rising oil prices have promoted a worldwide

agrofuel drive that generates an opportunity for profitable exports of such produce, putting an

even greater strain and pressure on the environment as well as on the Amazon and Cerrado

(Savannah forest) biomes.

15

The agrofuel industry has recently gained a lot of international socio-political focus, due to

the strain put on land normally used for food crop production, that besides driving up world

food prices, also spurs even more clearing of land in order to be able to replace the food crop

areas going into fuel production. Brazil provides for about 50 percent of international agrofuel

exports (Bailey, 2007), and is simultaneously “host” to a larger part of the Amazon as well as

the Cerrado forests, and thus responsible for the larger part of deforestation of them. The

potential for agribusiness in these areas are somewhat made “paradoxical by the possible

ecological consequences of their deforestation” (Schmink and Wood, 1984, in Robbins,

2004).

1.1.1. Impacts of agribusiness

Brazil is indeed becoming an agricultural force to be reckoned with; in the last few years

Brazil has become the world’s largest exporter of beef, chicken, sugar, coffee and orange

juice, and is currently the world’s second largest producer of soy (Greenpeace, 2006). In

2008, Brazil produced almost 60 million tons of soy (IBGE, 2009).

Agribusiness in Brazil accounted for 26.7 percent of total GDP in 2006, and for

approximately 37 percent and 43 percent of Brazil’s total exports (Agrenco, 2008). Brazil’s

share of world export and production of major agricultural products is shown below:

Table 1: Brazilian world exports and world production of major agricultural products

Product Share of World Exports

(percent)

Share of World Production

(percent)

2006/2007(percent) Ranking 2006/2007(percent) Ranking

Grains/Other

Soybean-

Grain

34.92 2nd 24.99 2nd

Soybean-Meal 23.79 2nd 15.01 4th

Soybean-Oil 23.52 2nd 15.77 4th

Corn 6.87 3rd 7.13 5th

Source: Agrenco, 2008

16

1.1.2. Deforestation

Regarding deforestation, the Brazilian government has historically been influenced and

pressured by the global society and international NGOs on one side, and multinational

companies whose profit depends on existing political structures on the other. The

deforestation issue has certainly received a lot of international attention over the years. A lot

of concern has also been expressed about deforesting for agrofuel production. The possible

food security risks deriving from such industry is, as mentioned, one. Another regards the

issue of land being cleared in the larger Brazil for agrofuel crops, forcing more land to be

cleared in the Amazon and Cerrado areas for other agricultural businesses and activities.

The process of deforestation is also a major contributor to the very emissions (GHG)

agrofuels seek to reduce. First of all; global agriculture accounts for about one fifth of the

total amount of yearly GHG-emissions (McMichael et al., 2007). Although this level is not as

high as GHG-emissions deriving from industrial activities; the numbers are actually higher

than GHG-emissions caused by transport (McMichael et al., 2007). GHG-emissions are today

considered to be the main contributor to a changing climate, thus; so is agriculture. When

calculating the gains of switching from fossil fuels to agrofuels, one cannot solely base the

measurement of GHG-emissions from the usage of such fuels, but also on emissions deriving

from both growing and cultivating crops, as well as the industrial process of producing a

finished fuel product. When including all levels in the production process, we might just find

that agrofuels may actually increase rather than reduce GHG emissions (FAO, 2006). This

argument especially holds if one includes land clearing processes such as deforestation, seeing

as forests hold great amounts of carbon that will be released with burning and clearing of

forests. In addition, evidence suggests that the soil itself holds a lot of carbon that is bound to

be released with the removal of forests (FAO, 2006). It is estimated that roughly 80 percent of

Brazils GHG-emissions result from deforestation, mainly due to clearing and burning the

Amazon Rainforest (Diaz and Schwartzman, 2005). In the article “Policies for accelerating

access to clean energy, improving health, advancing development, and mitigating climate

change” Andy Haines and his co-writers suggest that it is possible for agrofuels to reduce

GHG-emissions, but only if no deforestation or destruction of land is included in the

production chain. Regretfully, they see this as virtually impossible, as they calculate that

covering only 20 percent of the estimated agrofuel-demand in 2020 (only for transport use)

would require up to 250 million hectares of land (!) (Haines et al., 2007).

17

1.1.3. Food security: the food vs. fuel –dilemma:

Agrofuels are fuels that are also important food crops, such as soybeans and/or maize.

Therefore a main concern regarding an aggressive expansion of the agrofuel industry is that it

will promote serious social impacts, such as impacts on health and food security.

According to Brown et al (2007) in “Biofuels, Energy and Agriculture; Powering Towards or

Away from Food Security”, some developing countries now spend up to six times more on

fuel than they do on health. But even if agrofuels may contribute to more secure energy

provisions for the global poor, what would be the costs? Agrofuels compete for the same land

that is used for food production, and FAO estimates that there are already 854 million

undernourished people in the world (FAO in Brown et al, 2007). The increased demand for

agrofuels will thus have at least two very serious socio-climatic consequences; (1) The

increased demand for agrofuel crops will, in addition to possibly creating a shortage of these

crops, raise the prices of the crops in question, and (2) if one wants to avoid a shortage of such

crops, one needs to clear more land for an increased production of the crops in question. Corn

prices are already estimated to have increased by 55 percent between 2006 and 2007, and it is

expected that they will continue to rise and stay at very high levels (Garrett, 2008) for years to

come.

1.1.4. Health impacts

Concern is expressed over how increased deforestation for agribusiness and monoculture can

lead to changes in temperature, increasing both mosquito populations and consequently the

risk of contracting malaria or other vector-borne diseases. There is also health concerns

related to labor standards on agrofuel plantations; Oxfam reports that working conditions on

such plantations can be outright horrific (Bailey, 2007). In addition, the territories, livelihoods

and cultures of numerous indigenous groups and forest dwellers are continuously threatened

by expansion of large plantations; not only territorial-wise, but also due to the general impacts

on environment and climate, and because of the rather large amount of pesticides, fertilizers

and agrotoxins needed for the type of agriculture in question.

18

1.1.5. Livelihoods impacts for indigenous people and small-scale farmers

One of the main concerns about the ever expanding soy-industry in Mato Grosso is the

impacts it has on the Amazon and Cerrado biomes, which in this area is host to a variety of

indigenous groups. There is also a great deal of concern related to the expanding global

agrofuel market in general, as it drives further clearing of land. Agro-ethanol has been big

business in Brazil for decades already, and there is a real possibility that this industry also will

seek to expand to the Amazon and Cerrado biomes, and that this will not take over soy-land,

but that additional land will be cleared for this purpose. Even though the soybean production

in my study area is first and foremost connected to food crop production, the expansion in this

sector and region is also believed to be a result of the general, global agrofuel expansion

(Own fieldwork, 2008). As soy is used more and more for agro-diesel production, even more

soy needs to be produced in order respond to the food crop demand.

The increase in soybean production in the Cerrado areas in and around Mato Grosso is an

emblematic example of both the increase in agrofuel production and the food vs. fuel-

dilemma, as well as how this affects local indigenous groups and small-scale farmers.

Brazilian small- and medium-sized farmers are responsible for 70 percent of the food

production for the internal market (Mendonça et al, 2007). To really profit from soy,

production needs to be performed at a large scale. Because relatively little oil can actually be

processed from the soybean, you need quite a large amount of land, as well as capital, to

invest in required resources, in order to be able to make a profit from soy. Thus, at least in

Brazil, soy farming is not really an option for income for small-scale farmers.

Several multinational companies such as Bunge and Cargill have established themselves in

my study area, as well as in the Amazon region. These companies provide local mid- and

large-scale farmers with seeds, agrochemicals and equipment, as well as transport, storage and

access to global markets.

Together with the governor of Mato Grosso, Blairo Maggi, such companies are amongst the

drivers for pushing the production of soy even further into the Cerrado and Amazon areas

(Greenpeace, 2006), consequently affecting indigenous livelihoods, and at the same time

excluding small-scale farmers from the business.

According to Greenpeace, the abovementioned 3 actors are responsible for about 60 percent

of the total financing of soy production in Brazil (Greenpeace, 2006). The soy industry in

19

Brazil employs fewer people per hectare than any other crop grown across the country

(Greenpeace, 2006). “Soy farms reach up to 10000 hectares in size but employ only one

worker per 170–200 hectares” (Greenpeace, 2006).

The Agrenco group is a multinational agribusiness and agrofuel company that provides

financial support to soy farmers, in exchange for the right to sell the farmers produce.

Agrenco supplies the Brazilian markets, and they also export oil and grains to markets in Asia

and Europe, including Norway (e.g. to Denofa1). Agrenco justify and explain the importance

of expanding the agribusiness sector in this way;

“Rising demand for agricultural products is largely driven by growth in world population

and income levels and the growth of the biofuel industry, which includes ethanol and

biodiesel. Brazil and Argentina are uniquely positioned to benefit from this increased demand

because they have available arable land, abundant fresh water and a temperate climate”

(Agrenco, 2009).

Agrenco estimates that the soybean production in Brazil will expand from 54 million tons in

2005, to 105 million tons in 2019 (Agrenco, 2009). Traditionally, soy has been planted on

land that has already been deforested for cattle ranching, but in large areas in Mato Grosso,

forests have recently been converted directly to soy monoculture land (Greenpeace, 2006).

1.2. Problem Statement

This thesis sets out to investigate the impacts of agribusiness on access to land, natural

resources and livelihoods of Indigenous peoples and Small-scale farmers in Mato Grosso,

Brazil. In the thesis I will try to demonstrate how the dynamics of the agricultural frontier in

one region of Mato Grosso may change considering the expansion of agribusiness in general

and soybean plantations in particular, and how the impacts of agribusiness may or may not

affect indigenous livelihoods in the Xingu Indigenous Park (PIX) and small-scale farmers in

the municipalities of Querencia and Canarana. I will also touch upon power dynamics

revolving agribusiness and the protection of indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers, from

a local, regional, national and international perspective, in addition to providing an overview

of the discourses and perceptions regarding the above mentioned issues.

1 Denofa bought 70 percent of their total soy supply from Mato Grosso in 2008 (Own fieldwork, 2008)

20

1.3. Justifications

“A commitment to bio-fuels (agrofuels) should be based on a careful assessment of their

prospective benefits and costs, not a blind leap of faith” (Dickson, 2007)

Countries are shifting to agrofuels in response to climate change and rising oil prices. But

agrofuel production and agribusiness in general may pose challenges for poor people (in this

case; indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers); such as food security risks, health issues

and environmental degradation. While developing and using agrofuels is high on the global

political agenda, I believe it is important that the consequences for the poorest of the poor

need to be investigated and understood.

I would like my study to be accessible, also for those who are not trained or experienced in

this field, and hope that I can contribute to generating awareness on the consequences of

intensive agribusiness. Furthermore my work could be of use in capacity building and

strengthening of indigenous organizations and small-scale farmers’ collectives.

1.4. Aims and Objectives

My aim with this research is to investigate and analyze socio-economic and environmental

impacts of agribusiness on the livelihoods of indigenous people and small-scale farmers in the

municipalities of Canarana and Querencia, with regard to food security, access to land and

natural resources. An analysis of the two stakeholder groups and how they relate to each

other will also be undertaken.

1.5. Objectives and Research Questions:

1. To study the impacts of agribusiness on the livelihoods of indigenous groups and

small-scale farmers in Mato Grosso, Brazil.

A) What kind of agribusiness and agrofuel activity exists in the study area?

B) How does this affect the sources of livelihoods for the indigenous people and/or small-

scale farmers in the study area?

C) What land use changes can be identified, and what are the consequences of these?

21

2. To study the stakeholders perception on their situation with regard to agribusiness

A) How do indigenous people and small-scale farmers perceive and express what is

happening to their surroundings due to agribusiness, and the possible consequences eventual

changes have for them?

B) How do other people involved in the business express their perceptions on the stakeholder

groups, agribusiness and its possible impacts?

3. To study the political economy of agribusiness in the region

A) Who are the interest groups in the study area?

B) What are the relations between these groups and the before-mentioned stakeholders?

C) Who benefits from the agribusiness production in the region?

22

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. Political Ecology

In this thesis political ecology theory will first and foremost be linked to the concept of

deforestation, and all the impacts, processes and mechanisms that can be linked to that

concept. My justification for choosing political ecology theory is that it is my belief that the

way ecological change and environmental problems is portrayed today, largely overlook the

important role politics and economy play in these processes.

2.1.1 Understanding political ecology

“The difference between a contextual approach and the more traditional way of viewing

problems like this is the difference between a political and an apolitical ecology. This is the

difference between identifying broader systems rather than blaming proximate and local

forces, between viewing ecological systems as power-laden rather than politically inert; and

between taking an explicitly normative approach rather than one that claims the objectivity of

disinterest.” (Robbins, 2004: p. 5)

Political ecology, as I understand, denotes a way of performing critical research that seeks to

place social and environmental changes as parts of a holistic system where the interplay

between variables like politics, economy and nature itself is not one of pure causality, but

rather made up by intentional decisions made by powerful forces in global political economy.

The researchers that work within the field of political ecology come from various

backgrounds, and they want to explore the underlying causes of problems, instead of only

looking at the symptoms, as well as discovering alternatives to traditional ways of both

looking at problems and solving them. Amongst their main concerns are how one can best

manage nature and the rights of people at the same time, especially in a rural and third world

context (Robbins, 2004).

The term” Political Ecology” has been defined by many in various ways, but the one that is

most widely used is the one by Blaikie and Brookfield from “Land degradation and Society”

(1987); “Political ecology combines the concerns of ecology and a broadly defined political

economy. Together this encompasses the constantly shifting dialectic between society and

land-based resources, and also within classes and groups within society itself” (Blaikie and

Brookfield, 1987 in Robbins, 2004: p. 6).

23

In contrast to political ecology stand the so-called apolitical ecologies, ecologies that tend to

be preferred by governments and international political and economic actors. An apolitical

ecology explanation would typically be Neo-Malthusian explanations on how overpopulation

causes the shortage of resources in modern societies, whereas political ecologists would

consider the significant role played by economic and political forces, and argue that a lack of

resources is rather related to unequal distribution and unfair management, and that such

shortages are politically constructed. An apolitical ecology explanation related to this thesis

could for instance be arguing that the rising demand for agricultural products is largely driven

by growth in world population, income levels and the growth of the agrofuel industry. A

political ecology explanation for the same problems would be that there is in fact enough food

in the world, and food shortage is rather a matter of distribution than of scarcity, and

furthermore; the drive for agrofuels and income levels are all related to political economy

matters, not independent from them.

Within political ecology there are four central theses (Robbins, 2004):

1. The degradation and marginalization thesis

2. The environmental conflict thesis

3. The conservation and control thesis

4. The environmental identity and social movement thesis.

Amongst these, the degradation and marginalization thesis is the most relevant for my study; I

will focus on this thesis in this chapter and also apply it to my analysis in section 6.

The degradation and marginalization thesis tries to explain why and how environment change

and sees land degradation, which has for long been blamed on marginal people, in a larger

political and economic context (Robbins, 2004). The thesis explains how traditional and local

management of resources often escalate and turn into overexploitation and degradation when

short-term profit seeking governments and multinational companies intervene. The apolitical

way of explaining a lot of deforestation issues (overpopulation and overexploitation by self-

interested, ignorant indigenous and local people), is the very target of the political ecology

way of explaining deforestation.

24

2.1.2. The political ecology of deforestation

FAO defines deforestation as “the conversion of forest to other land uses that have a tree

cover of less than 10 percent” (FAO in Cleuren, 2001). However, this definition does not

consider that there exist the so-called “unproblematic” deforestation; areas that are only

temporarily deforested. According to the Norwegian Rainforest Foundation, the FAO

definition that states that forests are forests also with 10 percent tree cover, does not consider

that when it comes to tropical forests this percentage of coverage means that the forest is more

or less completely destroyed (Regnskogfondet, 2005). Both the fact that some deforestation is

unproblematic and the fact that forests with 10 percent tree cover basically aren’t forests

means that there is a risk that the FAO definition does not cover the factual numbers of

deforestation. Perhaps using the term forest degradation when describing the process of

removing forest would be more accurate, as it includes also consequences caused by for

example logging or fuel wood collection. Likewise, forest clearing would perhaps be a better

term to describe complete removal of forest vegetation (Cleuren, 2001).

There are both direct and indirect causes of deforestation. The direct causes include

agriculture, cattle-ranching, timber extraction; a result of human colonization performed by

small-scale producers, private companies, and government incentives. Indirect causes often

refer to mechanisms in the local and/or national/international socio-economic and political

environment (Cleuren, 2001).

Due to the variety in size, usage and management, it can be difficult to apply one single set of

theory to a unit like forests, and there exists various hypotheses linking deforestation to

population growth, poverty, income growth, external debt, infrastructure/construction of

roads, and the, sometimes complex, interactions between these “causes” (Cleuren, 2001). For

instance; in Brazil, a considerable part of the Amazon Rainforest and the Cerrado forest has

been converted into land for cattle ranching during the last three decades. But this conversion

of land has also been joined by government initiatives for various infrastructure projects, like

building new roads, expanding towns/cities and establishing agribusiness sectors.

In my political ecology analysis I wish to examine the role of both local/national government

and national and multinational companies, as well as the work of various NGOs in my study

area, and how interconnected social, economic and political processes affect the way natural

resources are exploited, and what impacts derive from such processes.

25

Paul Robbins claims that the overestimating of short-term effects of human impact have laid

somewhat of a smokescreen on the actual ecological processes in the forests, and that the

examination of structural forces involving events and players in other places is insufficient

(Robbins, 2004). He states that even though land cover changes became a subject of academic

and popular analyses, they wrongfully, yet effectively, blamed small scale farmers, cattle

barons, corrupt politicians and/or multinational fast food chains (Robbins, 2004). In my

analysis, I wish to enlighten other possible underlying causes and structures revolving

deforestation processes.

2.1.3. Methodological challenges

There are certain aspects of doing research within political ecology theory that need particular

attention; seeing as it involves a complex interplay between environmental changes and socio-

political/political economy factors. For instance, according to Robbins (2004) it is necessary

that researchers assess the full extent and impact of the environmental change(s) in question,

and in which environmental context it/they occurred. It is also very important that one

identifies the promoters and the underlying forces of the transformation. Furthermore,

researchers should be able to estimate and evaluate the impacts of the different kinds of

practices and policies in the environment in question, but also how the environment has

recovered and what is the carrying capacity of the area in question post-intervention (Robbins,

2004). It is important that it is assured that the impacts on local ecology really can be

attributed to human cause and that it would not have occurred if change in land use did not

happen. Because research is bound by carefully assessing the abovementioned events,

researching environmental destruction presents analytical and methodological challenges. In

each case of degradation it is for instance important to define exactly what one means with

degradation; whether it refers to decline in productivity, usefulness or diversity (Robbins,

2004). ”Original” bio-diversity and land quality can be seriously damaged by land cover

transformations, as have occurred where Brazilian tropical forests have been converted into

soybean-land with large-scale production. Transformation in biodiversity can lead to new

species being included in the biome, both creating opportunities as well as difficulties. But, it

is anyhow important to remember that not all clearing of forest will have irreversible

consequences.

26

2.1.3.1. Degradation and marginalization

It is often assumed that degradation can be difficult to reverse, and that with a declining

economy under pressure from liberal, global market forces, the pressure is moved downwards

and will lead to local people over-extracting resources to compensate (Robbins, 2004). This

doesn’t mean that over-extraction never happened before, neither can one derive from it that

over-extraction is always the outcome of a failing economy. However; it does suggest that:

…”under conditions of increasing marginality and disruptive social change, especially where

sustained economic exploitation is allowed, undesirable regional-scale ecological

transformation or degradation tends to increase and become difficult to reverse.” (Robbins,

2004: p.132)

A lot of mistakes seem to have been committed in the Amazon and Cerrado areas due to

misunderstandings based on the accounts of the possible devastating short-term consequences

of deforestation, while the long-term ecological changes largely have been ignored. Following

this focus of attention, attributing “blame” has been based on apolitical Neo-Malthusian

theories of overpopulation, the “Tragedy of the Commons” (a theory based on how

individuals will always end up seeking one’s own profit at the expense of the collective

good), as well as targeting multinational burger chains, ignorant small-scale farmers, forest

dwellers and corrupt politicians, to name but a few, while there has been a lack of research on

structural forces at local, regional, national and international levels (Robbins, 2004). These

are theories that political ecology would seek to avoid; they would rather start from an

outward perspective, locating forces outside the forest and expand the looking-glass from a

local to a global level (Robbins, 2004).

A classic example of political ecology of degradation of forest happens when forest dwellers

and small-scale farmers get tied up with broader political economy market forces, and they

and their sustainable manners of managing the forest, eventually get driven away by market

actors, often resulting in further clearing of forest and more intensive extraction of resources,

all backed by government incentives (Schmink and Wood, 1984, in Robbins, 2004). However,

it is important to remember that this doesn’t necessarily mean that everything was “better

before”, and that indigenous and local management can also have serious consequences for

land quality.

27

2.2. Discourse Analysis

2.2.1 Discourse analysis and its relevance for this thesis

When we are talking about discourses we generally mean a set of truth regimes, meaning a

certain set of knowledge that is held to be true about a concept, for instance that the shortage

of food in the world is due to overpopulation. Different discourses refer to different subjects,

and we set out to analyze the discourse related to a concept to learn what the dominant

thinking about the concept in question is, and whether or not this ”mind frame” is correct or

not.

I will, in my discourse analysis, set out to analyze formulations, and try to find out whether or

not there is a regularity in formulations in each stakeholder group, and whether or not this

influence knowledge, perceptions and policymaking decisions. During my fieldwork I noticed

that a lot of the NGO employees used the same kind of rhetoric in describing challenges for

indigenous people and small-scale farmers, whilst the ones who were positive to expansion of

agribusiness in the area in question (mainly people working for the government) seemed to

use the very same rhetoric against the NGOs, claiming that these were false ideas that NGOs

planted in indigenous peoples/small-scale farmers heads. My analysis will also reveal how

concerns and perceptions regarding deforestation and expansion of agribusiness are

expressed.

2.2.2. Theory on discourse analysis of deforestation

Discourses on deforestation are closely related to other discourses regarding environmental

management, where the problems often centre on the North exploiting the South (Adger et al.,

2000). The deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is perhaps the most emblematic example of

such exploitation. But various kinds of causes to deforestation exist; population pressure, land

policies, national and international trade, development of infrastructure and expansion of

agricultural frontiers, to name but a few. The discourse of deforestation can be “preset”, as

one today almost immediately identifies deforestation as something negative, often even

illegal, even though some deforestation, also in tropical forests, is unproblematic. According

to Adger et al. (2000), there are two main deforestation discourses that stand out: One is

holding “slash and burn”-farmers as the main cause of clearing forests in a destructive

manner.

28

“This perspective links, in various ways, poverty, environmental degradation, government

and market failures and environmental security to changes in forest cover. It sees

deforestation as a global environmental problem and uses a range of metaphors and crisis

narratives to propel global (read Northern) action to stem deforestation and the

environmental catastrophe associated with it.”(Adger et al, 2000: p.6)

The second deforestation discourse is a populist discourse (often implemented by NGOs), that

sees deforestation as a very serious environmental problem and that holds big multinational

companies and short-term profit seeking governments (the villains) responsible for the

degradation and destruction of forests, violently throwing out indigenous people and taking

land from small-scale farmers (the victims/heroes), claiming that these resources are best and

most sustainably managed by local, traditional forces. “It presents small farmers and land

managers not as the active agents of change but rather as victims, driven, through no choice

of their own, to destructive practices” (Adger et al. 2000: p.7).

29

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS AND STUDY AREA

3.1. Fieldwork in General

3.1.1. Location and time period

I conducted my fieldwork in Mato Grosso, Brazil, from the beginning of October until the end

of December 2008. I was mainly conducting my research in and from the town of Canarana,

an agricultural town that is also the base of several NGOs working with indigenous people

(the massive Xingu Indigenous Park (PIX) is situated only a few hours’ drive away), and with

small-scale farmers and family agriculture. I also visited the town of Querencia, a town

situated even closer to the Xingu Park. Both towns have several large-scale companies

working with soy. I also spent time within the Xingu Park itself. The region in which

Canarana, Querencia and PIX is situated is one of great complexity, both in terms of nature,

biodiversity and ecology, and also when it comes to indigenous groups. The deforestation of

the Amazon and the Cerrado in the previous years has been highest in the state of Mato

Grosso.

While doing fieldwork in Xingu I lived and worked for a shorter period of time with the

Kisêjdê people in their main village; Ngôjhwêrê. I also spent some time in Brasilia, as I

conducted my fieldwork in cooperation with a Brazilian NGO called Instituto

Socioambiental2 (ISA). ISA has branches both in Canarana and Brasilia, as well as other cities

throughout Brazil. ISA has recently started a research project with UMB, and my thesis is

meant to be a preliminary study for this project.

ISA was established in 1994 and it is a well-regarded NGO and research institution that works

with social and environmental issues. ISA’s Xingu program was initiated in 1995, and in

cooperation with ATIX; the Xingu Indigenous Territory Association, this ISA program covers

different sub-programs and projects, such as: Coordination & Development, Sustainable

Management of Natural Resources and Development of Economic Alternatives, Education

and Culture, Capacity-building in Administration and Institutional Strengthening of

Indigenous Associations, and finally; Territorial Management and Border Surveillance (ISA

1). I also spent some time with the Xavante Indigenous group that lives outside the Xingu

Park. They have no cooperation with ISA, something I will explain in chapter 6.

2 Instituto Socioambiental; Socio-Environmental Institute

30

3.1.2. Pre- and post-fieldwork preparations

The preparations for my fieldwork were conducted in Norway from February 2008 up until

arrival in Brazil in October 2008. It consisted mainly of literature review, establishing

contacts in Brazil and developing questionnaires. After returning from Brazil I made some

additional interviews via e-mail and/or Skype, but as I had time to transcribe and proofread

interviews while I was in Brazil, I have mainly worked with additional literature and of

course; analyzing data and writing my thesis, after returning from Brazil.

3.2. Methods of Data Collection

3.2.1. Interviews

I conducted my research based on qualitative method, mainly by performing interviews and

conversations. The interviews did not follow a structured pattern, but were rather informal, in

order to be able to modify and follow up the various questions, as a way to access a wider

range of information. I made three sets of interview guides, one for each group I set out to

interview; small-scale famers, indigenous people and NGO staff/other resource personnel

(government officials, teachers, etc.). The interview guides are all included in the appendix.

Qualitative research is based on taking an inductive approach to theory and research that

emphasizes understanding of the social world trough examining how the actors in that world

interpret their reality (Bryman, 2004). In this specific context, I didn’t see quantitative

research methods concerned with measurements and numbers equally useful as a qualitative

approach. A qualitative approach, I felt, would better reveal human aspects; an, to me,

important factor in making this research accessible; I wanted the readers of my thesis to relate

to people and their stories, rather than mere figures and numbers. I tried to broaden personal

perspectives and develop an understanding of culture trough participant observation (Bryman,

2004). My justification for using qualitative interviews rather than structured questionnaires is

that I felt that the latter would more likely create a distance between me as a researcher and

the respondents, perhaps hindering the collection of a broader set of data (Bryman, 2004). In

this research I felt that it was important that it was the interviewee’s point of view that was

significant, rather than that of the researcher, as often expressed trough quantitative methods

(Bryman, 2004). Moreover, in this research, it was important that I had the opportunity to

reach a broader perspective rather than a fixed conclusion (Bryman, 2004).

31

My aim was to take an actor-oriented approach, in order to be able to develop a more in-depth

understanding of culture. It was also fairly difficult to interview indigenous people with a set

of academic questions, as they have their own ideas and perspectives on society and the

world, not necessarily compatible with ours. I therefore had to modify my questions as I went

along, and used the questionnaires more or less as a guide. Thus, my interviews were marked

by flexibility, and a lot of the data was collected based on more informal conversations.

3.2.2. Sample groups and techniques

I conducted a total of 35 interviews; 13 with indigenous people, 12 with NGO staff and other

resource persons and 10 with small-scale farmers, 1 of the interviews from each group is a

key informant interview. I will explain the number of interviews later on, in section 6.2. I

tried to make the sample groups as representative as possible, thus I have interviewed both

men and women of various ages and backgrounds; however it was difficult to maintain

representative sampling as a consistent sampling technique throughout the fieldwork. For

instance, within the indigenous communities, I had a lot of trouble interviewing women. In

the end therefore I had to decide on using convenience sampling and snowball sampling as the

most adequate techniques for my fieldwork (Bryman, 2004). I would also like to mention that

I sent out e-mails to numerous large-scale producers and companies working with soy in the

region, both Brazilian and multinational. However, none of them answered me back.

3.2.3. Focus group discussions

When preparing for fieldwork, I saw it as very useful to include focus group discussions, in

part due to the time limit of my fieldwork, but also because I thought it would be interesting

to look at how the people in subject discussed a topic between themselves. I wanted to see

how they collectively made sense of their situation, and hoped that this would give me a

comprehension of their understanding of relevant issues and what aspects of these they

understood as important (Bryman, 2004). Although there is a danger of people not daring to

speak their minds in such discussions, due to power relations, gender etc., I believe it can also

be the other way around; that some may actually perceive it as “safer” to discuss in a group.

Unfortunately, I was only able to arrange one focus group discussion, due to challenges

mentioned in the chapter on “Limitations of the Study”, section 3.4. The focus group

discussion was conducted with the men of the Kisêjde tribe. To be able to do this, all the men

had to be present, but all in all only 7 out of 43 men participated in the discussion. A few

women were present, but none of them spoke.

32

3.3. Presentation of Study Area

3.3.1 Mato Grosso

Map no.1: Map of Brazil, Mato Grosso highlighted.

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Mato Grosso (MT) is a federal state, situated in the central west region of Brazil. The state has

some 2, 5 million inhabitants, 80 percent living in urban areas, and the remaining 20 percent

living in rural areas and forests (Slagsvold, 2007). MT hosts a large part of the Amazon

rainforest, but also a great deal of the important transition forest; the Cerrado. Cerrado forest

covers ¼ of the total area of Brazil (Slagsvold, 2007) and is believed to be one of the most

bio-diverse ecologies in the world. However, this ecosystem is often ignored by governments

and NGOs that traditionally focus more on the Amazon. The central west region has two main

seasons; summer, known as the wet season, lasts from November until March, with

occasional periods of flooding from December, and winter/dry season that lasts from April

until October. In the past couple of years there have been considerable changes in the seasons.

For instance, during my stay it was several degrees warmer than normal for

November/December, and a lot less rain (Own fieldwork, 2008).

33

The state of Mato Grosso’s main income is from agriculture, especially agribusiness and

monoculture, such as soy cultivations. According to ISA, planted area of soy crops in the area

have increased by 40 percent the last 10 years (FBOMS/ISA, 2007). Until 2006 an area of

172000 km2 of forest and 149000km2 of Cerrado was deforested in Mato Grosso (Micol et al,

2008). Of this area, 92 percent was deforested on “private” property, and only six percent was

deforested due to land reform (Micol et al, 2008). Land prices in the region have increased a

lot; and cases where small-scale farmers sell their land to buy cheaper land in more remote

and still forested areas have increased (Own fieldwork, 2008).

3.3.2. Xingu

The Xingu Indigenous Park was created by the Brazilian government in 1961 with the

purpose of securing various indigenous groups access to land and a possibility to preserve

their culture (ISA, 2007). It is the second largest national park in Brazil and stretches over 2.8

million hectares. The park is home to more than 5000 Indians of 14 different indigenous

groups. Xingu is also the name of a great river whose headwaters occupy an area of almost 18

million hectares that is under constant threat of deforestation and agrotoxins from

agribusiness (Own fieldwork, 2008). Due to this threat, the indigenous people inhabiting PIX

have, from the 1980’s onwards, had to engage in more and more contact and activities with

the “outside” world. The ecological and social consequences of the expanding deforestation

and agribusiness sector in Brazil are severe, and do not only consist of the need for more land,

but also of the pollution of the Xingu River and the rivers deriving from it.

Image no.1 From Xingu Indigenous Park (own photo):

34

3.3.3. Canarana

Canarana is a relatively small, agricultural municipality of almost 18000 inhabitants (Own

fieldwork, 2008). Canarana is a result of a governmental colonization project from the 1970’s

that started with 80 families that were flown in from the south of Brazil, where resources were

starting to get scarce. In 1981 the municipality was formally established (Own fieldwork,

2008). Vegetation-wise, about 55 percent of the municipality consists of Cerrado, 40 percent

of forest and 5 percent of various other kinds of vegetation. Agribusiness is the main

economic activity, and Canarana consist of 86000 hectares of cultivated land, where 81000

hectares are cultivated with soy, and around 5000 with rice. There are 142 soy producers in

Canarana, and both Bunge and Cargill have branches in the municipality. In 2005, Canarana

was ranked as the 19th largest producer of soy in Brazil, with a produced quantity of 304000

tons (Slagsvold, 2007).

Map no.2: Map of Mato Grosso, showing Canarana, Querencia and PIX.

(Source: Araguaia)

35

3.3.4. Querencia

Querencia is an even smaller and younger town than Canarana with a population of about

10500. The first settlers came here in 1986, also from the south of Brazil. The municipality of

Querencia started producing soy in 1993, and today almost 75 percent of Querencia’s forests

are converted into cropland, excluding the areas belonging to PIX (Micol et al, 2008).

According to the Agricultural secretary in Querencia, 60 percent of the soy planted in MT is

planted on illegally deforested areas. The municipality ranked as the 17th

largest producer of

soy in Brazil in 2005 (Slagsvold, 2007).

According to the Federal Law one may in Canarana deforest 65 percent of total forest

vegetation. This is due to the fact that most of the forest is Cerrado, which, as mentioned, is

generally not viewed upon as important as the rainforest. In Querencia you are only allowed

to deforest 20 percent, due to the fact that the town is situated closer to PIX and the Amazon,

and there is a need for forest protection of important rivers from the headwaters of Xingu

flowing through the municipality (Agricultural secretary in Canarana, own fieldwork, 2008).

Image no.2: From the farm of a small-scale farmer in Querencia (own photo):

36

3.4. Limitations of the Study

3.4.1. Time frame

I spent a total of 11 weeks in Brazil, due to time and resource constraints. Ideally I would

have liked to have maybe 3 more weeks doing fieldwork, due to issues listed below. With that

said, I feel that I was able to get as much as possible out of my stay in Brazil, and due to the

wonders of the internet I was even able to continue my “fieldwork” a couple of weeks after

returning to Norway, doing interviews via both MSN, e-mail and Skype. I’ve heard

somewhere that almost all research projects end with “if more time and resources had been

available, we would have been able to …….”, although in a way I feel that this could be an

ending of this thesis as well, I am, all in all, happy with the data I was able to collect doing

fieldwork in Brazil.

3.4.2. Fieldwork challenges

I conducted most of my fieldwork in cooperation with Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) in

Brasilia and Canarana. ISA assisted me in finding proper respondents and provided me with a

lot of useful information and resources.

I had some challenges working with such a big and influential NGO. ISA staff is

knowledgeable, kind and warm. However, ISA had some difficulties with finding time to

assist me in establishing contacts with indigenous people and small-scale farmers, due to the

fact that them helping me had to come in addition to their regular work at ISA. I would have

very much liked to spend more time inside Xingu, and done several more interviews with the

farmers. To go to Xingu, you need to be accompanied by someone who knows both the area

and the people well, in order to be invited by the indigenous people; otherwise they will not

speak to you. This is something I deeply respect, and the last thing I wanted to do was to

rudely invade on a people as an outsider. However, I managed to find some other contact

persons, rented a car and drove alone around in the Cerrado to talk to farmers and indigenous

people (The Xavante, outside Xingu). This was indeed a rewarding experience.

37

3.4.3. Working with Indigenous People

Indigenous people in Brazil are in general, and rightly so, skeptical toward “white” people.

Several of them also expressed that they were somewhat tired of well-meaning researchers

that visited them, interviewed them and studied them, without them ever benefiting from their

work or hearing from them again. In addition, indigenous people have a different way of

viewing the world; they are very influenced by myths, nature, stars, etc., and it doesn’t fall

natural to them to adapt to other worldviews. Thus, in my opinion, one needs to spend a great

deal of time with indigenous people in order to be able to understand them, and also in order

to be able to communicate in a way that both parties fully understand. One of the NGO staff I

interviewed that has worked and lived in Xingu for over 10 years said that she still doesn’t

fully grasp their way of viewing the world. There is also the issue of language; Portuguese is

not the mother tongue of me or the indigenous people of Xingu. However, this, strangely

enough, made it a bit easier for me to communicate with them, as we both used a simple form

of Portuguese. In addition, the Xinguanians have a different culture, with their own sets of

moral codes and rules that it takes time to get to know. At first I felt that they were almost a

bit “hostile” towards me and my presence there, but I later learned that this was part of their

strategy to make the “white man” realize the crimes he had committed against indigenous

people, and after a couple of days they were nothing but the most friendly people you could

imagine. It was especially difficult to work with the indigenous women, as they often didn’t

speak Portuguese and thus needed a male relative to translate for them. Often the man, eager

to help, would then just “answer” for the woman, without translating. The Xingu women also

in general appeared to be very timid. The Xavante were a bit different to work with, as they

are not part of Xingu and do not work with ISA. The Xavante are traditionally warrior

Indians, but they have lived close to cities for some time now and have been very marked by

the “capitalist” world. You therefore have to bring gift to speak to them, and I was told that

they would want me to pay for their time. They were very happy for the gifts, but did not

actually want my money, which I was told was rather seldom, and quite an honor. The main

challenge in working with the indigenous people in my study area was thus much related to

time. I did not feel I had enough time with neither the Xavante, nor the Kisêjde, and at times I

felt like an “Indian-tourist”, which was something I really wanted to avoid. Even if I didn’t

get to spend much time inside Xingu or in the Xavante villages, I often met with indigenous

people in the ISA house in Canarana, and felt that I made some good friends amongst the

Xinguanians and the Xavante.

38

3.4.4. Ethical considerations

It was of upmost importance to me to make careful and sensitive considerations with regard to

society, culture and politics during my fieldwork. All of my interviews were based on the

principle of informed consent, and all my respondents were given a full explanation of the

work I was doing and how their information would be used, and they were also given the

choice of being anonymous (Bryman, 2004). No respondent was pressured into responding, of

course, and if I was in doubt on whether or not they had understood all the information I

provided, I would not got trough with the interview/ or it is not used in the analysis. All the

people whose name is stated or whose picture is shown in this thesis have given their full

consent for me to publish such details.

3.4.5. A comment on information from NGOs

I would like to state that the information used from NGOs in this paper is based on research of

high quality. I know that some educational institutions do not acknowledge information from

NGOs as scientifically adequate, however the Brazilian NGOs that I worked with during my

fieldwork have tight bonds to universities and academia, and their work should by no means

be dismissed.

39

CHAPTER 4: THE KISÊJDE AND THE XAVANTE

4.1. The Kisêjdê:

After living in other areas within and around Xingu for several years , the Kisêjdê came back

to live in the Ngôjhwêre area in 2000. Ngôjhwêre is situated to the east of PIX , in the Wawi

Indigenous Territory. This is traditional and sacred Kĩsêdjê land, where parts of the group

lived before deforestation commenced. After a long and hard struggle where the Kisêjdê and

FUNAI (the department of Indian affairs) formed one part and major landowners the other ,

the Kisêjde were granted back this land . The area is now divided in 3 areas/villages, the

biggest being Ngôjhwêrê , where 250 of a total of 450 Kisêjdê within Xingu live . Ngôjhwêre

is still surrounded by agribusiness fazendas, and the area is today in fact a reforested land .

The Kisêjde was set to move back to Ngôjhwêre in 1998, but found that their forest had been

cut down and that what was once holy ground was now used for cattle. After a reforestation

process they finally moved back in 2001/2002.

4.1.1. Kisêjde family life:

The Kisêjdê villages are of circular shapes, and the houses are placed around an open square

with a “Men’s House” situated in the middle. This “Casa do Homens” is host to village

meetings, in addition to the nightly “men’s meetings” where the men in the village gather to

discuss common worries and concerns.

A husband will only go to live with the wife’s family after the arrival of their first child. The

Kĩsêdjê are a loving people, and they are caring and tolerant towards their children and

family, intra-household violence is extremely seldom. Traditionally, only married couples,

lovers or groups of the same sex eat together, but I witnessed several exceptions to this rule

during my stay in Ngôjhwêrê . The women’s activities are mainly performed within the

nearest family, and consist of duties like housekeeping, taking care of children and/or small

animals, cooking, small-scale farming, etc. The men’s activities are related to their roles as

providers, thus they typically hunt, fish, build canoes and houses. Some might also work as

teachers. However, children are raised by both parents, as well as other members of the

family. Women may participate in fishing activities, but they do not hunt. The casique can

have more than one wife if he pleases.

Leadership follows a patrilineal system, but sons-in-law and daughters of a chief will also

have a high status.

40

There are in general more ceremonies regarding boys and men, especially when it comes to

celebrations of puberty and the transition from child to adult. But there are also a lot of

ceremonies celebrating the relationship between man and woman, not only with regard to life

partnership, but also in celebrations of mothers, sisters, etc.

4.1.2. Livelihood foundation and surrounding challenges

The Kisêjdê base their subsistence mainly on traditional farming, hunting and gathering.

Living off nature; they typically eat fish, monkey, tapir, fruits, manioc, but also some rice and

beans which they often trade or get from NGOs, and sometimes chicken and meat from

supermarkets in towns. The Kisêjdê themselves express that they traditionally don’t need

money for anything, but that the increasing contact with the outside world has forced them to

be part of a capitalistic system in which money is a necessity. An example of this is that all

the bigger houses in the community have TV and DVD-players, even though they only

sporadically get electricity from an aggregate.

The Kisêjde own and run honey houses from which they produce honey that they sell t o the

biggest supermarket chain in Brazil, “Pão de Açúcar”, and to visitors, local markets, etc. They

also sell artifacts at various campaigns and in some shops in nearby cities. Neither the Kisêjde

themselves nor ATIX or FUNAI were able to tell me just how much income was generated

from this commerce, other than that it was nothing “to get rich from”. Both men and women

go to town, but never women alone. Some of the men in the group work as teachers in the

local school and are paid by the municipality. So are those who are appointed to positions of

being official spokespersons and negotiators by FUNAI. The Kisêjde receive a great deal of

support from various NGOs. These do not, however, assist economically in the form of cash,

but with other forms of help, such as providing equipment, seeds, training teachers,

supporting and supplying healthcare, agriculture, fuels, etc.

The Kisêjde also have their own piece of land, a small fazenda, called Ronkô, where they

have some cattle, but where they mainly work with cultivation of fruits, such as Pecui, a

tropical and very nutritious fruit that is an important contribution to the Kisêjde diet. The

cattle are mainly used to supply the Kisêjde during the rainy season , when murky waters

make it difficult to catch fish. The purpose of the fazenda is to combine cultivation of various

species, reforestation projects and educational projects. They hope that the reforestation

projects will encourage species of animals to return to the area.

41

The fazenda is situated more or less in between the main 3 communities of the Kisêjde. This

is the Kisêjde’s own project and the land is part of the land they won back in 1998. It is a

“projeto de recuperacao”; a recuperating project. All the Kisêjde people contribute in

running the fazenda.

The Kisêjde territory is situated rather close to the town of Querencia , and is surrounded by

agribusiness fazendas that are mainly soy producers. Earlier it was common to deforest the

land for cattle ranching, but today it is common to start cultivating a type of small corn or rice

to prepare the soil, and then plant soy. In the Mato Gross-area the soy growing season mainly

starts in November, as the rainy season starts late November/beginning of December.

The Kĩsêdjê is a very engaged and active people, that have not only involved themselves in

land rights issues, but also other issues concerning environment, especially regarding their

forest and water resources. Their main water source; the Suiá-missu River and rivers deriving

from it, comes from the Xingu River headwaters and is affected by the expanding soy-

industry outside the indigenous territories.

42

4.1.3. Feature Nhonkoberi Kĩsêdjê

Nhonkoberi Kĩsêdjê

Image no. 3: Nhonkoberi Kĩsêdjê (own photo)

Nhonkoberi is a 44 year old Kĩsêdjê Indian living in Ngôjhwêre . He is the son in law of the

casique, married to two sisters, and a father of 8.

Nhonkoberi does a lot of work at the Kĩsêdjê farm, Ronkô, where they, amongst others, grow

different fruits and vegetables for the community, and some for selling/trading. Nhonkoberi is

also an official representative for the Kĩsêdjê people, and he works as the community’s

translator. He is employed by FUNAI (since 1984), and receive wages. His main work with

FUNAI regards land rights and social matters.

“My wish is that life

and our culture shall

continue as before, in

pact with the forest and

the river. We all have

to fight to secure these

resources! Soy is not

for us- it is for you, so

why should we bear the

consequences?”

43

Nhonkoberi has many tales about how the Kĩsêdjê life has changed due to deforestation and

agribusiness. Because the land they now live in was once deforested, the forest that is there is

relatively new, which means that a lot of species that originally were here have disappeared.

Thus, they nowadays have to go quite far to hunt animals, and often they need a car or a boat.

Their culture has also been changing due to the influence from outside. This creates a lot of

concern, especially with regard to the river and the fish, the soil, the forest and the animals

living in it. “Life was easier before, calmer, and we used to perform more rituals and held

more parties. Our culture is fading, faster and faster every day. I’m very worried about our

youngsters, things happen so fast, and I sense that the young Kĩsêdjê sometimes dream about

and wants to leave our community. I myself felt like I was without identity when I was

younger, I was very attracted by and to the city, it was difficult”.

Nhonkoberi also say that the Kĩsêdjê have certainly been made more aware of health issues.

“We have more stomach-related problems than before, but this can also be due to the fact

that we now eat different kinds of food, for instance from the city, that we are not used to. Our

blood pressure is in general higher- also amongst the youngsters, and we would like to know

why these changes have occurred. That’s why we are cooperating with ISA and IPAM with a

water-monitoring project, but due to lack of funding, the project had to be put on hold”.

Nhonkoberi says that the Suiá-missu river has changed. There is supposed to be at least 10

km. of forest between riverbanks and arable land , but this limit is very seldom respected . On

my way to Ngôjhwêre I saw numerous examples of that. This also generates concern