The changing dynamics of land conflict in the Brazilian ...simmo108/Urban_Ecosystems.pdf ·...

Urban Ecosystems, 6: 99–121, 2002c© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

The changing dynamics of land conflict in theBrazilian Amazon: The rural-urban complexand its environmental implications

CYNTHIA S. SIMMONSDepartment of Geography, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA

STEPHEN PERZDepartment of Sociology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

MARCOS A. PEDLOWSKILaboratorio de Estudos do Espaco Antropico, Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense, Campos dosGoytacazes, RJ, Brazil

LUIZ GUILHERME TEIXEIRA SILVAEMBRARA/CPATU, Belem, Brazil

Received April 17, 2002; Revised April 16, 2003; Accepted July 3, 2003

Abstract. The Brazilian Amazon is an area of both serious environmental degradation and social instability.Despite billions of dollars spent on economic development and the rapid pace of urbanization, deforestation isextreme and violent land conflict is intense. Although episodes of conflict over land are common in Brazilianhistory, this paper focuses on agrarian issues that arose with the opening of the Amazon frontier in the 1970s. Thepaper argues that the nature of land conflict in the eastern Brazilian Amazon is dynamic, and proposes a two-stagemodel to illustrate how the struggle has evolved from an agrarian phenomenon to an organized resistance that isurban-based. Recognizing the interaction between cities and rural areas in the frontier reaches of the BrazilianAmazon is key to understanding the land struggle in the face of urbanization. The analytical framework deployedconsiders the transformation of the region from an agrarian frontier to an urbanized frontier, assessing the dynamicnature of the land struggle and examining the implications for land cover change.

Keywords: land conflict, frontier urbanization, environmental justice, political and social movements

1. Introduction

The Brazilian Amazon is an area of both serious environmental degradation and socialinstability. Large tracts of forest have been removed in the wake of economic development,and current estimates of deforestation range between 10,000 and 20,000 km2 annually(INPE, 2000). Although much international attention and research have considered theenvironmental consequences of development, comparatively less has been written about thesocial consequences of development in the region. Nevertheless, available social welfareindicators reveal that infant mortality rates are rising (Schneider, 1995), malnutrition levelsare higher than the national average (INAN, 1989), and several Amazonian states (e.g.Para) show social indicators comparable to Sub-Saharan Africa (Cardoso and Helwege,

100 SIMMONS ET AL.

1992). Another troubling outcome of development has been intensified land conflict, whichfrequently turns violent. Land conflict, in turn, may have serious consequences for landcover change dynamics, and in particular deforestation.

Conflict over land resources in the Amazon is somewhat ironic given that vast tracts ofundeveloped land are characteristic of frontier regions. However, it is land made accessibleby development efforts, particularly road construction, that is targeted by new immigrants,small farmers and large ranchers alike. The Brazilian government frequently intervenes bypurchasing contested land from the owners, and distributing it to the claimants. But, whengovernment intervention is not forthcoming, ensuing land conflict may evolve into violentconfrontation, involving ranchers, landless farmers, wage laborers, hired gunmen, police,and numerous political, religious, and social organizations.

Such conflict is not new to Brazil, nor is it confined to the Amazon region. Nevertheless,this paper focuses on contemporary land struggle that has emerged in the wake of develop-ment efforts in the mid 1960s aimed at opening up the Amazon frontier, creating an urbanhierarchy of central places to facilitate modernization, and integrating the region with thenational economy. Although the discussion that follows considers national and regionalscale processes and outcomes, the analysis is limited to data available for the State of Para,which is appropriate given that this was the site of much of the early development interest,and is the region of greatest land conflict-related violence (figure 1).

This paper considers the ongoing land conflict that has emerged alongside of developmentand urbanization, and links it with processes of land cover change. Its primary objectives areto: (1) re-conceptualize explanations that describe land conflict in Amazonia as endemic tothe agricultural frontier; (2) dispel the expectation that conflict will dissipate with urbaniza-tion; and (3) assess the implications for deforestation concomitant with the transformationfrom a rural to an urban-based land struggle. In so doing, the paper considers an emergingdebate in Brazil that questions the importance of traditional agrarian reform measures toaddress rural problems in the wake of the mass movement of farmers from the country-side to the city (Graziano and Biachini, 2001; Veiga, 2001). Explicit in this discussion arecomplications that arise by imposing policies that accept as given a dichotomous dividebetween the urban and the rural (Silva, 2001; Veiga, 2001). In particular, this paper arguesthat recognizing the interaction between cities and rural areas in the frontier reaches of theBrazilian Amazon is key to understanding the dynamic nature of land struggle in the faceof urbanization.

The paper proposes a hypothetical two-stage model of land conflict evolution thatacknowledges rural and urban dynamics. The first stage involves a purely agriculturalfrontier with individualized conflicts between small farmers and large-landed interests,triggered by competition for land resources. In such a setting deforestation occurs as in-dividuals establish their farming systems and cut down trees to demonstrate land claims.Under conventional urban theory we expect that as the frontier begins to urbanize, ru-ral to urban migration takes place and excess rural labor is absorbed into the urban jobmarket. An emerging theory, forest transition, suggests that urbanization and industrial-ization will alleviate pressure on agricultural land, allowing forest recovery to proceed(Walker, 1993; Rudel, 2002). Unfortunately, urbanization and industrialization are not oc-curring in unison in the Brazilian Amazon. The immaturity of the industrial base has not

THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF LAND CONFLICT IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON 101

Figure 1. Study region: Para State, Brazil.

satisfied the job demands of recent immigrants, and many still have their sights on ruralland.

The second stage of the land conflict is organized resistance emerging as a result ofurbanization. Urbanization under this scenario has facilitated the large-scale political mo-bilization of different groups on both sides of the land struggle. In this stage, the foresttransition is prolonged, and land conflict is explicitly linked to deforestation as political

102 SIMMONS ET AL.

groups target forested land for occupation. Thus, the argument here is that long-run for-est recovery is put at risk. This new form of land conflict can have dramatic impacts onland cover given that it most often occurs as large-scale land invasions involving 1000s offamilies, and in the Amazon region these occupations occur almost exclusively in forestedareas, exacerbating deforestation rates.

The paper is organized as follows. Section two addresses the primary theoretical ex-planations of land conflict. In this discussion, frontier settlement processes are outlined,implications for land conflict considered, and impacts on land cover change discussed. Inaddition, this section examines the nature of frontier urbanization particular to the Amazon,with details provided about migration and land occupation patterns. In section three, analternative understanding of land conflict is proposed that suggests the evolution of thestruggle from an agricultural frontier to an urban-rural phenomenon. The changing dynam-ics of land conflict are addressed, and the importance of social capital networks considered.Finally, in section four the environmental implications of land conflict in light of urbaniza-tion are considered. The paper concludes in section five by summarizing the rural-urbandynamics of land conflict and presenting potential policy implications.

2. Theories of frontier settlement: Implications for land conflict and deforestation

Land conflict in Brazil began more than 500 years ago with Portuguese settlement in thenew world (Mueller et al., 1994). Numerous accounts of early peasant resistance (i.e., theCabanagem Rebellion in the 1830s, Ronco de Abelha rebellion in 1851, Quebra-Quilosrebellion in 1874; and War of Canudos at the end of the 19th century) have pointed tothe maldistribution of land as the impetus to confrontation. Contemporary land conflictsinclude violent settlement in Sao Paulo State beginning in the 19th century (Welch, 1999;Brannstrom, 2001), western Parana in the 1940s, Matto Grosso in the 1950s (see Velho,1972; Katzmann, 1977; Foweraker, 1981; Schmink and Wood, 1992; Mueller et al., 1994;Alston et al., 2000), and Southern Para at the turn of the 20th century. Violent struggle hasexisted during every phase of frontier expansion in Amazonia (Foweraker, 1981). In the veryearly years, physical coercion was used to force nomadic nut gatherers to extract resources(Velho, 1972), and during later periods, large-landholders resorted to violent expulsion ofsquatters in the process of land appropriation and consolidation (Schmink and Wood, 1992).

Today, land invasions and violent clashes are occurring in many places across the country.This struggle is most frequently portrayed as a confrontation between landless peasants andlarge landed interests, emerging as poor farmers intent on acquiring farmland, or exploitingvaluable timber, invade public and private holdings not put to beneficial use. By Brazilianlaw, individuals who occupy and improve public lands for one year and one day, or occupyprivate lands not in production for five years and a day, can obtain legal recognition of theirclaim.1

A more cynical perspective considers the land struggle to be a moneymaking ventureon part of squatters, or a collusional effort between them and large landowners. There aretwo common categories to distinguish squatters, the “good-faith” farmer who genuinelyintends to farm the land occupied, and the “marginal minority” who invade land in order toturn around and sell it to the highest bidder, whether the buyers are other squatters, large


landholders, or the State (Foweraker, 1980). By this account, the incentive behind invasionsis monetary payoff from government. It is alleged that large landowners hire peasants tooccupy land they do not deem valuable, and then profit from government buyouts. Underanother scenario, land invasions are motivated by the expectation that government will payinvaders to vacate disputed areas.

Complicating any understanding of land conflict is grilagem, a scheme involving the useof fraudulent titles to lay claim to land and evict current occupants. Grilagem, in turn, isfacilitated by a historical land law system that enables the registration of illegal land titles,which then affords the holder of the title legal status, that is unless the land is contested by analternative land claim, which might also be fraudulent. Some suggest, in fact, that Brazilianland law promotes conflict, not resolution (Holston, 1991; Brannstrom, 2001; Fearnside,2001), and serves as an instrument of calculated disorder by means of which illegal prac-tices are enabled and extralegal solutions are smuggled into the judicial process (Holston,1991).

2.1. Theoretical models of frontier settlement

Regardless of cause or motivation, land invasions involving several individuals, or, as hasbecome common, planned invasions supported by numerous social movements, are occur-ring in many places throughout Brazil. Much of the literature addressing land conflict inthe Brazilian Amazon considers it endemic to the agricultural frontier. Nevertheless, thisregion has experienced rapid urbanization, with urban population exceeding 50% by 1991.Consequently, some in Brazil have suggested that the traditional agrarian problem is of lessconcern today in light of the movement of many small farmers from rural to urban areas,and the rising problems in the city (Graziano and Biachini, 2001; Veiga, 2001). However,as this paper will demonstrate, land invasions have accelerated despite the rapid pace ofurbanization.

This paper argues that the nature of land conflict in the eastern Brazilian Amazon isdynamic, and proposes a two-stage model to illustrate how the struggle has evolved froman agrarian phenomenon to an organized resistance that is urban-based. Central to this con-tention are two bodies of literature. One is the agricultural frontier literature, addressingagrarian explanations of land conflict. The second is the urban frontier literature, which em-phasizes the demographic and spatial transformation of the Amazon frontier that proceededwith the rural exodus of the people from the countryside to the emerging frontier towns. Theanalytical framework deployed considers the transformation of the region from an agrarianfrontier to an urbanized frontier, assessing the dynamic nature of the land struggle andexamining the implications for land cover change.

Agrarian frontierAgrarian explanations of land conflict. Much of the literature addressing land conflict inthe Brazilian Amazon considers it endemic to the agricultural frontier, attributing it to theconflictive nature of production and exchange relations (Foweraker, 1981; Kotscho, 1981;Wood, 1983; Branford and Glock, 1985; Schmink and Wood, 1992; Walker and Homma,1996; Walker et al., 2000) and the failure of tenure institutions in the countryside (Mueller

104 SIMMONS ET AL.

et al., 1994; Alston et al., 1995, 1997, 2000; Fearnside, 2001). The structural approachsuggests that land monopolization, a necessary condition for the capitalist phase of frontierdevelopment, creates a minifundio-latifundio complex that does not provide sufficient landfor subsistence farming, forcing peasants to work part time in order to supplement theirlivelihood (Foweraker, 1981; Wood, 1983). Furthermore, large landowners benefiting fromscale economies of production are able to drive down prices of production and force smallfarmers unable to compete into bankruptcy, thereby leaving land open for appropriation(Walker and Homma, 1996). Dispossessed farmers either fight for their land rights, pushfurther into the forest in search of new land to settle, or move to the city in search ofemployment opportunities.

The institutional account suggests that violent land conflict results from the failure ofland tenure institutions to keep pace with frontier expansion (Mueller, 1994; Alston et al.,1995, 1997, 2000). Through the process of frontier settlement, in-migration augments thedemand for land, stimulating property values and accentuating the need for the definition ofproperty rights. Land conflict occurs as a result of ill-defined property rights, and the slowpace of government intervention.

Implications for deforestation. During the agrarian stage of frontier development, defor-estation occurs as individuals establish their farming systems. Land conflict emerging asindividuals compete for land resources has also been recognized as an important factorexacerbating deforestation (Alston et al., 2000; Fearnside, 2001). In particular, inconsisten-cies between civil and constitutional law regulating private property rights provide incentivefor occupants to deforest. Although legal rights are afforded to private landowners underBrazilian civil law, the main stipulation for tenure, as stated in the “beneficial use” clausein the Brazilian constitution, is that land must be kept in production for the governmentto recognize and enforce those rights. Land not put to “productive” use is vulnerable toinvasion, and expropriation by the government.

In general, the social value of land stipulated in these laws contradicts environmentalpolicy requiring private land in the Amazon to maintain 80% forest cover (medida provisoria2.166-67, article 16 part 1 and 2), and, unfortunately, forest is not often recognized as aproductive use. Consequently, large landowners frequently convert forest to pasture in anattempt to reduce their vulnerability to land invasion by squatters and strengthen theirproperty rights. Squatters likewise deforest the areas they occupy in order to lay claim tothe land and, in areas with hardwood, to extract trees to sell in order to provide initial capitalfor investments in agriculture. Another incentive for both squatters and large landowners todeforest is to make improvements on the land, which will ensure some compensation in theevent they are evicted. It should also be recognized that a great deal of deforestation in thisphase is productive and results from farming. Thus, a significant component of land coverchange is initially correlated with land conflict indirectly.

Urbanization processesUrbanization and implications for land conflict. The classical models of frontier expan-sion propose a development process in which the agricultural frontier evolves into a maturecentral-place urban system (i.e., Turner, 1920; Bylund, 1960; Olsson, 1968; Hudson, 1969),the ultimate goal of early Amazonian development policy.2 According to this view, cities are


Table 1. Land conflict-related deaths in the Legal Brazilian Amazon, 1985–1999

1985 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Total

Acre 2 1 3 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 17

Amazonas 1 0 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 17

Amapa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 6

Maranhao 21 12 12 7 6 8 6 7 5 8 3 4 1 4 1 105

Mato Grosso 4 32 7 4 9 10 1 1 5 7 0 4 2 1 1 88

Para 117 82 44 36 14 20 16 15 22 13 14 33 11 10 6 453

Rondonia 1 3 20 3 2 2 1 0 1 2 12 1 0 0 0 48

Roraima 8 8

Tocontins 1 9 5 4 1 2 1 1 7 0 2 0 0 2 0 35

Legal Amazon 147 139 106 59 32 45 26 24 40 36 31 47 14 20 11 777

Average annual assassination rate

1985–89 96.6

1990–94 34.2

1995–99 24.6

Source: CPT.

not randomly distributed across the landscape, but rather they emerge as part of an urbanhierarchy. Different formulations of the model emphasize the importance of transporta-tion, markets, administration, and other conditions, such as mineral discovery and policyincentives, that may distort the hierarchical pattern (see Brown et al., 1994).

Implicit in the process of urbanization are the redistribution of population from ruralareas to cities, and the alleviation of pressure for land in the countryside as the industrialbase of the city expands to absorb excess rural labor. Presumably, then, conflict over landresources should dissipate with urbanization. Be this as it may, there were 777 land-conflictrelated deaths in the Amazon region between 1985 and 1999 (Table 1), during which timeurban population nearly doubled. Nevertheless, over time the number of victims showed amarked trend from 147 deaths in 1985 to 11 in 1999. This represents a precipitous declinefrom a region-wide annual rate of 97 deaths between 1985 and 1990, to 25 deaths annuallybetween 1995 and 2000. Figure 2 clearly depicts a decline in violent land conflict in theAmazon region. On first glance, this would be expected given the rapid rate of urbanizationthat has occurred. However, despite declines in land conflict-related deaths, land conflicthas intensified in terms of the number of land invasions, and the number of participants(figure 3). In fact, the number of families participating in land occupations has increasedfrom almost 100,000 in 1992 to an estimated 180,000 families by 1999. Likewise, thenumber of land invasions increased from about 80,000 to more than 120,000 during thatsame time period.

Implications for deforestation. The urbanization of this tropical forest environment raisesimportant questions concerning land conflict, the pace of deforestation, and the potential

106 SIMMONS ET AL.

Figure 2. Land conflict in the Amazon, Brazil 1985–1999.

Figure 3. Number of conflicts and families participating in the land struggle in the Amazon, Brazil.

for forest recovery at some point in the future. An historical assessment of deforestation indeveloped countries recognizes that the onset of urbanization and industrialization, alongwith labor saving agricultural technology, led to rural out-migration, providing labor tomanufacturing in the cities and alleviating pressure for agricultural land (Walker, 1993).Walker (1993) outlines a two-stage model of landscape change in developed countries inwhich deforestation during early periods gives way to reforestation, and ultimately to for-est stability as economic development progresses. Deforestation is a necessary outcome ofdevelopment; however, at some point of landscape turnaround the factors causing defor-estation dissipate, and forest recovery occurs (Walker, 1993).


Surprisingly, in an apparent paradox, rates of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazonincreased rapidly alongside of frontier urbanization (Perz, unpublished manuscript). Theannual rate of urban growth during the 1980s was estimated at 5.3%, while deforestationranged from 10,000 to 20,000 km2 per year.3 The following section addresses how frontierurbanization varied from the patterns outlined in classical urban theory, and attempts toconnect these processes with land conflict and deforestation outcomes.

2.2. Frontier urbanization in the Brazilian Amazon

The Brazilian Amazon has indeed undergone rapid transformation as development effortsbeginning in the late 1960s attracted waves of in-migration. Population growth rates inthe region have exceeded 15% in many areas, and urbanization increased from 36% in1970 to 61% by 1996. Rather than being a region of progressive rural land occupation, thisregion reveals a pronounced relative shift of population to urban centers. Analysis of thedemographic data in Table 2 provides evidence of a rural-urban exodus, showing that ruralpopulation density from 1970 to 1996 grew little, peaking at 1.5 persons per km2 in 1991and actually declining to 1.4 persons per km2 by 1996. Meanwhile, total population density,reflecting rapid increase in urban areas, more than doubled from 1.5 persons per km2 in1970 to 3.7 persons per km2 by 1996. Overall, population trends indicate that although bothurban and rural population growth rates have slowed, rural population actually declinedbetween 1991 and 1996, while urban population continued to grow at nearly 4% annually.These numbers point to the premature character of urbanization in the Brazilian Amazon.

The most widely cited explanation of population redistribution from rural areas to cities issmall farm failure and violent land appropriation by large landed interests resulting in landconcentration (Schmink and Wood, 1992; Browder and Godfrey, 1997). Table 3 providesland distribution data from the agricultural census that reveal changes between 1985 and1996, attesting to such trends. As shown Table 3, from 1985 to 1996 the number of small

Table 2. Rural and urban population growth in the states of the Brazilian Amazon, 1970–1996

Census year

1970 1980 1991 1996(1) (2) (3) (4)

Rural population 4,977,855 6,535,341 7,598,694 7,300,466

Urban population 2,738,772 5,239,736 9,383,770 11,445,808

Total population 7,716,627 11,775,077 16,982,464 18,746,274

Urban percentage 35.5 44.5 55.3 61.1

Rural population density (persons per km2) 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.4

Total population density (persons per km2) 1.5 2.3 3.3 3.7

Average annual percent rural growth 2.72 1.37 −0.80

Average annual percent urban growth 6.49 5.3 3.97

Source: IBGE, 1970, 1980, 1991, 1996.

108 SIMMONS ET AL.

Table 3. Agricultural land distribution in the Brazilian Amazon, 1985–1995

Number of establishments Land Area (ha) in eastablishments

Size (ha) 1985 1995 Percent change 1985 1995 Percent change

0-LT100 989851 730237 −26.2 14970619 13614655 −9.1

100-LT1000 142370 128304 −9.9 31379168 31299081 −0.3

1000 or greater 16315 17714 8.6 69600799 75846467 9.0

1148536 876255 −24 115950586 120760203 4

Source: IBGE, 1985, 1996.

establishments less than 100 ha declined by 26%, and the land area in smallholdings wasreduced by 9%. Likewise, but to a lesser extent, the number of farms 100 to less than1,000 ha declined by about 10%, and area in such holdings by 0.3%. To the contrary, largeestablishments greater than 1,000 ha increased in number by 8.6% and land area in largeholdings expanded by approximately 9%. Overall, Table 3 shows that the number of largeestablishments and the amount of land in these holdings increased, while the number andland area of small farms declined. In fact, as of 1996, 83% of the agricultural establishmentsin the Amazon are less than 100 ha, but occupy only 11% of the land. On the other hand,only 2% of the establishments are greater than 1,000 ha and occupy an overwhelming 63%of the agricultural land.

Another significant phenomenon is the increasing urbanization of landownership result-ing from wealth accumulation of early colonists who moved to the city, and from landpurchases by successful urban residents. As shown in Table 4, the proportion of urban own-ership of agricultural land increased by 19% between 1985 and 1996, despite an estimated29% decline in the total number of agricultural establishments. In addition, the rural landarea under urban ownership during this period expanded by 23%, while total land area inagriculture increased by a limited 4%. Overall, according to the 1996 census, urban dwellersown more than 54% of the agricultural land, and their properties tend to be more than fourtimes larger than the average size of establishments in the region.

Local rural to urban moves have characterized the rural exodus from agricultural frontiersplagued by violence or farm failure (Smith, 1982; Moran, 1983; Bunker, 1985; Schminkand Wood, 1992). According to demographic data provided in the 1991 Brazilian Census,migrants makeup about 34% of the urban population in the Amazon region. Of that migrantpopulation, 16% are rural-urban migrants, and the overwhelming majority came from withinthe region. Nevertheless, other factors may draw migrants from the rural areas, such asincreasing opportunities and services provided by urban centers, and/or wealth accumulationenabling farmers to move to cities where there are better amenities. Two urban circulationpatterns have been identified for the Brazilian Amazon. The first involves “stage” migrationwith laborers moving initially from the rural area to a local administrative seat, and thenrelocating to progressively larger urban areas where job opportunities are greater (Mougeot,1985). Another noted pattern is the movement of laborers among boomtowns, as one town’stimber or gold economy goes bust (Godfrey, 1990, 1992). The 1991 Brazilian Census revealsthat urban to urban migration is also important, with about 18% of the migrants to the city


Table 4. Land allocation on the agricultural frontier

Number of agricultural Land area of agriculturalestablishments establishments (ha) Average area (ha)

Urban- % Urban- Total Urban-owned % Urban- Urban-State Total owned owned (’000) (’000) owned Total owned

1985 Urban landownership

Rondonia 80,615 6,210 7.7 6,032 1,397 23.2 74.8 225.0

Acre 35,049 900 2.6 5,234 866 16.6 149.4 962.5

Amazonas 116,302 6,277 5.4 5,859 891 15.2 50.4 142.1

Roraima 6,389 1,382 21.6 2,149 1,055 49.1 336.4 763.5

Para 253,222 16,204 6.4 24,727 7,527 30.4 97.7 464.6

Amapa 4,816 536 11.1 1,208 811 67.2 250.8 1,514.0

Tocantins 47,320 9,803 20.7 17,354 8,498 49.0 366.7 866.9

Maranhao 531,413 42,363 8.0 15,548 5,936 38.2 29.3 140.1

Mato Grosso 77,921 14,272 18.3 37,835 23,230 61.4 485.6 1,627.7

1996 Urban landownership

Rondonia 76,956 9,182 11.9 8,890 3,189 35.9 115.5 347.3

Acre 23,788 2,252 9.5 3,183 937 29.5 133.8 416.3

Amazonas 83,289 5,803 7.0 3,322 964 29.0 39.9 166.3

Roraima 7,476 1,927 25.8 2,976 1,392 46.8 398.2 722.6

Para 206,404 17,703 8.6 22,520 8,879 39.4 109.1 501.6

Amapa 3,349 652 19.5 700 446 63.8 209.0 684.5

Tocantins 44,913 15,899 35.4 16,765 10,240 61.1 373.3 644.1

Maranhao 368,191 42,159 11.5 12,560 5,146 41.0 34.1 122.1

Mato Grosso 78,762 24,929 31.7 49,839 34,405 69.0 632.8 1,380.1

Totals—Urban landownership for the North region

1985 1,153,047 97,947 8.5% 115,950 50,214 43.3% 100.6 512.7

1996 893,128 120,506 13.5% 120,759 65,603 54.3% 135.2 544.4

Change 1985 −29% 19% 4% 23%to 1996

Source: IBGE 1985, 1996.

coming from other urban areas. This urban to urban migration is of potential import becauseit may reflect movement after an initial rural to urban move, which is characteristic in thisregion following rural land dispossession (Browder and Godfrey, 1997).

The urban centers on the frontier function as a labor market, providing a cheap and abun-dant workforce for a variety of economic activities. Classic models of urbanization suggestthat rural to urban migration intensifies as the frontier closes, alleviating the excess pres-sure on agricultural lands by redistributing the population to cities where jobs are abundant.This process continues until a modern urban system emerges (i.e., Turner, 1920; James,1938), with a varied industrial base. The 1996 agricultural census for Brazil indicates that

110 SIMMONS ET AL.

employment in the urban frontier towns of Amazonia is still heavily tied to rural extractiveindustries, accounting for an estimated 14% of the jobs for urban residents, most as farmwage labor. Overall, nearly 20% of all laborers in agro-extractive activities in the BrazilianAmazon live in urban centers (Perz, unpublished manuscript). Evidently, industrializationassociated with urbanization processes is still in its infant stages in this region.

While some suggest that the size of the workforce is a function of the employmentopportunities available in the city, others propose that the abundance of the workforce infrontier towns in Amazonia contracts or expands with the availability of land as opposed tojobs (Torres, 1988; Becker et al., 1990). According to this view, displaced farmers and otherlandless migrants stay in urban centers until rural land becomes available. Consequently,unemployed landless migrants have two options—they can either migrate to a larger citywith greater job potential, an urban to urban move, or wait until land becomes available andreturn to the countryside, an urban to rural move.

A significant number of migrants to urban frontier towns have, in fact, recently left thecountryside (since 1980). According to an analysis of the 1991 Brazilian census microdatasample of individuals and households, 22% of the urban population in the Amazon consistedof rural to urban migrants, and approximately 20% of the urban population moved from ruralareas within the region (Perz, unpublished manuscript).4 As has already been noted, manyof these urban dwellers remain connected to the rural areas through employment in agro-extractive activities, and often within close proximity to their previous residence. This papersuggests that limited urban opportunities may leave many recent migrants discontented,thereby creating a group of landless farmers desiring a return to the countryside, and onethat may be easily mobilized for land occupations on public (terras devolutas) or private land.

3. Land conflict: Urban or rural experience?

Although the Brazilian Amazon is most often thought of as a large forested area affectedprimarily by encroachment of the agricultural frontier, this region has experienced rapidurbanization over the past several decades, and currently more than half the population livesin an urban center. Implicit in the process of urbanization described in classical urban theoryis the reconfiguration of the population from rural to urban areas, and reduction in demandfor land in the countryside. Consequently, this paper contends that conflict over these landresources should dissipate as urbanization progresses.

However, in the Brazilian Amazon, urbanization has not necessarily provided greaterwage opportunities (Becker, 1996), and many jobs remained tied to rural extractive activities(Perz, unpublished manuscript). Further analysis of the land conflict dynamics reveals thatland struggle has not dissipated, despite the decline in land conflict-related deaths as revealedin figure 2. In fact, figure 3 shows that both the number of conflicts and families participatingin such actions have steadily risen.

3.1. Urban-rural dynamics of land conflict

This paper contends that the decline in the number of murders, in the face of increasingland conflict, is reflective of the changing dynamics of land struggle. This section describes


the hypothetical two-stage model of land conflict evolution that acknowledges rural andurban dynamics. The first represents a purely agricultural frontier involving individualizedconflicts between small farmers and large-landed interests, triggered by land occupation andconsolidation processes. The second stage considers an organized resistance, facilitated byurbanization and incorporating institutional actors mobilizing on both sides of the landstruggle (i.e., Movement of the Landless Rural Workers (MST) and the Democratic Unionof Rural Landowners (UDR)).

According to this model, stage one is a disarticulated struggle that occurs in the earlydecades of frontier expansion. During this period conflict over land involves spontaneousstruggle between landless farmers and large-landed interests, and political power and wealthdetermines the outcome of conflict (Schmink and Wood, 1992). Large landowners have nofear of retaliation from the dis-enfranchised peasantry. Consequently, the victims of thestruggle are many and mostly the landless.

Little data on land conflict are available for the entire Amazon region in the early de-velopment years prior to democratization (1970–1985), but data are available for Para,which has historically experienced the greatest conflict. In order to assess the changingface of the struggle, Table 5 presents a breakdown of victims of land conflict from 1964 to1992. Throughout this time period the overwhelming majority of victims are the landless,accounting for 67% of those killed. Violence intensifies in the 1980s, peaks in 1985, andthen begins to decline (figure 4); all told, more than half of all the land conflict-relatedmurders fall within this decade. Although the landless farmers incurred the greatest loss,the faces of new victims are evident, including individuals on the side of large landownersand movement activists.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s the sheer number of murder victims declines, but theassassination of specific targets intensifies (CPT, 1996). As Table 5 shows, the proportionof movement activists killed in the struggle is four times greater in the late 1980s andearly 1990s than in previous decades. This paper contends that a new form of struggleemerged in the wake of urbanization, characteristic of stage two, representing a politicallymobilized landless movement. Since the mid 1980s, the organizational structure of thelandless movement in Para has expanded to include offices located in many frontier towns.The organization of the landless movement and the expansion of opposition groups in theAmazon frontier appear to have occurred around the same period, sometime in the late

Table 5. Victims of the land conflict in the state of Para, Brazil, 1964–1992

1964–69 1970–74 1975–79 1980–84 1985–89 1990–92 Totals Percent

Landless farmer interests 8 27 41 74 193 32 375 67

Movement activists 1 0 0 5 11 6 23 4

Large landowners interests 0 0 0 17 82 5 104 19

Police 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 1

Others 0 1 2 2 45 4 54 10

Totals 9 28 43 98 337 47 562

Source: Almeida, 1994.

112 SIMMONS ET AL.

Figure 4. Victims of the land conflict in the State of Para, Brazil, 1964–1992.

1980s. This new organized struggle may provide a deterrent to violent, solitary action.Instead, action in numbers has become more viable. Although violent land clashes stilloccur, the number of people killed has declined, while the struggle has actually intensifiedin terms of number of occupations and participants.

The urban environment provides both the communicative and the interactive spaces forthe land struggle, enabling the landless and the movement activists to meet and organizetheir invasion strategy, and, as a result, facilitating the creation of social capital linkages(Fernandes, 2001). The actual space of struggle and resistance is in the rural areas, whereencampments are set up and land invasions are carried out. Consequently, urbanization mayfacilitate an urban to rural exodus of the unemployed and landless city dwellers, representingan important urban-rural link to land conflict. The discussion that follows examines the rural-urban connections between various organizations and participants involved in the landlessmovement.

3.2. Social mobilization of the land conflict

The main argument of this paper is that land conflict has not dissipated with urbanization;instead the nature of the struggle has changed from a rural-based to an urban-based politicalmovement. One important factor contributing to this evolution has been intensified socialmobilization around the plight of Brazil’s landless population. In fact, there appears tohave been an upsurge in land conflict across Brazil pursuant to Democratization in 1985.This may be attributable to the proliferation of social organizations that were banned underthe authoritarian administration of the previous government. In particular, agrarian reformefforts pursued prior to the military coup were stymied under military rule, and mobilizationon behalf of the landless was suppressed. Despite such restraint, an important advocate ofreform was the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT) established in 1975, an organization linked


to the Brazilian National Conference of Bishops, which actively supports rural workers,their organizations, and their movement for agrarian reform. After democratization, theCPT facilitated much of the social organizing and mobilizing efforts across the country, andcurrently has three main areas of activity in the Amazon including the main office in Belem,and the Abaetetuba and Tucuma regions, all in the State of Para (figure 2). Nevertheless,the Catholic Church plays an influential role in most places in Brazil irrespective of officialCPT presence (Petras, 1998).

Other organizations have gained momentum in the landless struggle under post-militaryrule. The three most widely recognized include: the Movement of the Landless Rural Work-ers (MST), the Rural Workers Union (STR), and the Democratic Union of Rural Landowners(UDR). The MST was officially established in 1984 when various leaders of independentlandless movements joined forces in their struggle. The main objective of the MST is to mo-bilize the landless and force the government to follow through on their promise for agrarianreform (Kelson, 1997; Stedile, 1997; Fernandes, 2000). The MST organizes encampmentson public land, assists the landless community in the selection of target properties for occu-pation, and, immediately following invasion, petitions the government for the legalizationof the squatters’ claims and for provision of food and supplies. Although land occupationsoccur in rural areas, much of the recruitment efforts take place in the city. The MST, in fact,holds that urban mobilization is an essential component of the National Political Struggle(Petras, 1998).

Originally based in Southern Brazil, the MST began to move into the Amazon region inthe early 1990s (Fernandes, 2000), and currently has four regional offices in the State of Para,the: (1) Araguaia region corresponding to the municipios of Maraba, Sao Joao do Araguaia,and their neighboring cities with headquarters in the city of Maraba; (2) Carajas region thatencompasses the municipios of Parauapebas, Eldorado do Carajas, and their surroundingcities with headquarters in the city of Parauapebas; (3) Chico Mendes region that coversthe municipios of Tucuruı, Novo Repartimento, and nearby cities with the secretariat in thecity of Tucuruı; and (4) Cabanos, which includes the municipios of Castanhal, Belem, andsurrounding cities with the main State office in Belem (figure 2).

Although the MST is the most visible proponent of agrarian reform, other importantorganizations with local representation are the Rural Workers Unions (STRs) (Toni, 1999).The STRs have gained independence from the corporatist state in response to the NewUnionism movement of the 1970s in the State of Para, and with significant support from theCPT (Toni, 1999). Membership in STR provides local, state, and national representationfor small farmers, sharecroppers, permanent and temporary employees, and day labor, withoffices in numerous cities across Para (figure 2). The STRs have organized to improveconditions for the rural workers with important issues such as access to agricultural credit,infrastructure development and improvement (i.e., roads and schools), wages and benefits,and agrarian reform.

An additional actor in the land struggle is the UDR, an association of large landownerswho have joined forces to stop the MST’s aggressive pursuit of land reform through the use ofpolitical power and repression (Payne, 2000). This group has been accused of hiring privatemilitia to assassinate MST leaders and expel sem terra families from invasion sites. The UDRwas founded in the State of Goias, and presently has representatives in 18 states. Although

114 SIMMONS ET AL.

there is no official presence in Para, the municipio of Xinguara is locally recognized astheir base of operation (Campos, 2002). Nevertheless, they provide alliance with numerousorganizations, and, when the need arises, large landowners facing invasion can contact theUDR directly for assistance by phone or e-mail.5

3.3. Urban-rural social capital networks

The presence and influence of the various urban-based social organizations (MST, CPT,STRs, and UDR) have evidently transformed land conflict in the Amazon frontier. Althoughfar from conclusive, a comparison of the presence of these organizations with the areas ofland conflict depicted in figure 5 provides some limited insight. In particular, there appearsto be a concentration of organizing in the southeast corner of the State, the region referredto as the South of Para, notorious for intense violent conflict.

Overall, state level evidence suggests that land invasions increased, but, as suggested ear-lier, conflict-related murders declined. At the municipio level the pattern is not so apparent.

Figure 5. Land conflict and Urban-based political mobilization.


For example, about half the municipios with STR activity also experienced moderate levelsof land conflict, while the other half revealed no conflict. Nevertheless, in Paragominas STRpresence may have ameliorated levels of violence, which declined from an average of 7.25deaths per year between 1985 and 1989 to 1.2 during the 1990 and 1995 period. Althoughthe CPT involvement is limited to a few municipios, one important center, Tucuma, is lo-cated in the region of intense land struggle. From the data available, it appears as thoughviolence in this municipio has intensified in the early 1990s. However, it must be notedthat such an assertion may prove of little consequence since this municipio was created in1988 from territory in Sao Felix do Xingu, the municipio with the greatest number of landconflict-related murders.

In Maraba, where the MST has an office in the municipal seat, the average annual numberof conflict-related deaths indeed declined from 4 per year between 1985 and 1989, to anaverage of 1.5 between 1990 and 1999. On the other hand, Eldorado do Carajas, also withan MST presence, experienced its period of greatest land conflict violence in the mid 1990s,shortly after the MST was established. However, it must be noted that this extreme violencecan be accounted for by one incident—the “Massacre at Eldorado do Carajas” on April17, 1996 that left 19 landless workers dead and 69 injured. The events and circumstancesthat triggered this tragic encounter between the landless and the military police are welldocumented, and provide limited support to some of the primary contentions in this paper. Inparticular, this incident points to urban-rural political mobilization, with the overwhelmingmajority of participants involved recruited from nearby urban centers.

Although the incident occurred in Eldorado do Carajas, the events leading up to it tran-spired as a region-wide mobilization effort on the part of the MST. Indeed, the South ofPara is the main target region for the MST, and between 1990 and 1999 an estimated 11,400landless families, mostly from the frontier towns, were successfully mobilized to partici-pate in 11 separate land occupations, including 5,000 families that camped at the INCRAcompound in the city of Maraba (Campos, 2002). Given the degree of land invasions occur-ring in this region, the actual incidence of violent conflict is low. The strategy pursued bythe landless movement has been successful, and as of September 1999 MST actions haveresulted in the permanent settlement of an estimated 2,636 families (Table 6).

Although available data reveal the spatial patterns of land conflict and social organizing,more details are necessary to disentangle social capital linkages. Such information could bederived from extensive field investigation, but such a study is beyond the current scope ofthis paper. However, there exists anecdotal evidence from studies conducted in other partsof Brazil that provide support to our assertion of an urban-rural connection. Numerousstudies of assentamentos (settlement areas) have shown that residents have strong linksto urban and rural areas. According to Bergamasco and Ferrante (1998), nearly all of theresidents in their study site had come from a nearby urban area, and more than half hadpreviously lived in the rural areas. Pedlowski et al. (2001), found a strong rural to urbanconnection in their examination of settlers in an assentamento in Rio de Janeiro State. Theoverwhelming majority of residents previously lived on the periphery of an urban center,more than half last held urban-related jobs, and an estimated 38% worked in rural activities.Fanelli (2001), in his analysis of a settlement in Rio de Janeiro State, describes a returnexodus of landless farmers that were previously displaced from their land and moved to the

116 SIMMONS ET AL.

Table 6. MST-initiated settlement areas in Para as of September 1999

Name Municipio Number of families settled

Assentamento 1st of March Sao Joao do Araguaia 350

Assentamento Palmares Parauapebas 535

Assentamento 17 of April Eldorado do Carajas 690

Assentamento Rio Branco Parauapebas 250

Assentamento Joao Batista Castanhal 182

Assentamento Chico Mendes Tucuruı 190

Assentamento Onalıcio Barros Parauapebas 69

Assentamento Cabanos Eldorado do Carajas 250

Assentamento 26 of March Maraba 500

Assentamento Martires de April Belem 120

Source: Campos, 2002.

city, but due to economic hardships and a desire for the idyllic rural life, participated inland invasions to return to the countryside. These studies have also suggested that the MST,in particular, actively seeks out the urban poor to participate in their movement. In fact,Pedlowski et al. (2001) found that almost 90% of settlers had no involvement with socialorganizing until the MST approached them in the city, and encouraged them to participatein the land occupation.

4. Environmental implications of stage two in the land conflict dynamic

4.1. Mitigating effects of urbanization?

Deforestation alongside of urbanization may be partially explained by the increase in urbanownership of agricultural land resulting from land consolidation and, consequently, wealthaccumulation that enabled farmers to move to urban centers (Section 3.1; Table 5). So,although the owners reside in the city, they are economically dependent on agro-extractiveactivities in the countryside. Likewise, as previously discussed, a substantial number ofurban dwellers are employed as wage labor in the rural areas. In general, despite the rapidpace of urbanization, economic activities in the Brazilian Amazon are heavily tied to agro-extractive production systems that, by default, lead to deforestation.

Another obstacle to forest recovery is that urbanization in this region does not appearto mitigate land conflict. To the contrary, data on the land struggle show that the numberof occupations and participation have increased dramatically. The conventional model offrontier expansion, which suggests the evolution from an agrarian structure to a maturecentral-place urban system, appears to unravel in light of actual processes in the BrazilianAmazon. The economy of the region, and the limited wage opportunities offered to citydwellers, are still largely tied to the agro-extractive sector and the uncertainties that comewith commodity markets. Consequently, economic hardship of city life provides motivationfor participation in the larger landless movement, and the incentive for an urban exodus.


The model of land conflict dynamics presented in this paper suggests that urbanizationmay, in fact, be facilitating the mobilization and organization of the struggle. This proposi-tion presents important implications for both greater and accelerated rates of deforestationin the future. In particular, during the initial period of frontier settlement, small farmershad little capacity for extensive deforestation (Walker et al., 2002), and much of the largelandholdings were maintained primarily for speculation (Hecht, 1985, 1992). Nevertheless,unlike other regions in Brazil, forested land in Amazonia is the most likely target for indi-vidual small farmer occupation and organized land invasions (Alston et al., 2000; Fearnside,2001). In particular, invasion of forest is seen as less risky than pasture, which is consideredproductive and more likely to provoke an armed resistance by private security hired by largeranchers (Fearnside, 2001). Another deterrent to invading pasture areas relates to their com-pacted soils and entrenched weeds that make annuals production nearly impossible giventhe limited technology available to most small farmers. In addition, the organic composi-tion of trees provides an endowment of fertility derived from the slash and burn technologyused by almost all agriculturalists in the tropics. Finally, an invasion of forest area maygo unnoticed for some time under the cloak of trees, providing the movement activists theopportunity to file the necessary paperwork to begin the process of expropriation before thelandowner realizes his land has been occupied.

Overall, land reform efforts between 1964 and 1997 are said to have contributed to 30%of the deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, and an estimated 5 million ha of forest in Parahave recently been opened for this purpose (Fearnside, 2001). Although INCRA has for-mally prohibited new settlement in forested areas (medida provisoria 2.166-67, 8/24/2001,article 2, statute 6), reality reveals that most new land invasions are occurring almost ex-clusively in these regions. The reason is that INCRA is not initiating new settlements, butinstead is responding to land invasions instigated by the large-scale urban-based landlessmovements organized by the MST and others. Once the invasions occur, and land is indeedexpropriated, INCRA proceeds to formalize these settlement areas by building infrastruc-ture, such as roads, further exacerbating deforestation (Laurance et al., 2001).

The urban-based landless movement described in this paper presents unique threats tothe environmental quality of the Amazon. In particular, the number of land invasions andparticipants has increased dramatically, and, consequently, the magnitude of forest impactedis much greater than the small scale rural-based squatting that proliferated during stage oneof the land conflict dynamic. In addition, many of the urban dwellers that participate in theseland invasions are not experienced agriculturalists (Pedlowski et al., 2000). As a result, oncethe land is cleared and their agricultural production fails, they abandon the land and returnto the city where they once again join the growing pool of landless and unemployed, andpossibly participate in another land invasion, perpetuating the cycle of deforestation.

5. Conclusions and future research implications

This paper has described a two-stage model for understanding the changing dynamics of landconflict in the Brazilian Amazon. The first stage is reflective of a purely agricultural frontierexpansion process, which leads to land consolidation and land appropriation. In this firststage, landless farmers may leave the countryside and move to the urban centers. Some find

118 SIMMONS ET AL.

employment, but others may wait until land becomes available. During this first stage violentland conflict is intense and murders are frequent outcomes. In this phase, deforestation isonly indirectly linked with land conflicts, resulting as individuals establish their farmingsystems and cut down trees to demonstrate land claims. The second stage of the conflict isreferred to as organized resistance, which is facilitated by urbanization. In this stage, thelandless farmers who moved to the city join forces with various organizations mobilizingfor agrarian reform (i.e., MST and CPT). The strategy behind these new movements islarge-scale land occupations, with security and power offered in numbers. In addition, theorganization of large landowners is facilitated by urbanization (i.e., UDR). This new formof land struggle has resulted in a decline in violent conflict, but has intensified the frequencyof occupations and number of participants. This new form of land conflict can have dramaticimpacts on land cover given that it most often occurs as large-scale land invasions, targetingalmost exclusively forested areas.

This paper has proposed a hypothetical model and has presented data that are consistentwith, but not evidence of, the two-stage process of land conflict described. Further research,however, may provide additional clues. In particular, a logical step in this line of inquiry mayinclude a detailed examination of the geographic distribution of social organization (MST,CPT, UDR) and the actual occurrence of land invasion and conflict on the Amazon frontier.In addition, surveys of those involved in the struggle, whether on assentamentos or in MSTencampments, could provide important information as to where they came from, why theymoved, and how they were mobilized. Some evidence presented in this paper suggests that,in fact, a large proportion of settlers in assentamentos were previous rural residents thatmoved to the city, and later became participants in land occupations. Such accounts supportthe notion that cities embody the communicative spaces for the land struggle, while therural areas represent the actual spaces of resistance.

Urbanization in the Brazilian Amazon should, as classical models of frontier expansionpose and experience from industrialized countries suggests, mitigate land conflict and de-forestation. Nevertheless, evidence demonstrates that this is not the case. Both deforestationand land conflict have intensified alongside rapid rates of urbanization. The compoundingeffect between land conflict and deforestation, as discussed in this paper, may serve toexacerbate the environmental problems in the future. Contrary to conventional notions offrontier development, urbanization in this region has not alleviated pressure for agriculturalland. Although there has been a movement of people from the countryside to the urban ar-eas, the regional economy is still agrarian based, and the employment opportunities limited.While creating a comprehensive development plan for the Amazon is not an insurmountabletask, an obvious need is to improve conditions for the landless immigrants in the city so asto impede the urban exodus. How this is to be accomplished is the challenge, one that isbeyond the scope of this paper.

Notes

1. See the Brazilian Constitution, Article 191, 1988.2. The main strategies of the National Integration Plan (PIN) in 1971 was the development of an extensive

highway network, an elaborate system of central places, and small farmer settlement schemes meant to provide


land for landless peasants, seasonal labor for extractive industries, increases in food production, and, finally,security on the frontier through demographic occupation (See Browder, 1988; Browder and Godfrey, 1997).

3. For urban growth rates see Table 2. For deforestation estimates see Skole and Tucker (1993).4. The microdata consist of 10% household samples in municipios with resident populations of greater than

15,000, and 20% sample of those with fewer than 15,000. Data provided include: State/Municipio of residence;type of residence (urban/rural); whether respondent was born in municipio of current residence, and if not, theduration of residence since 1991. This information allows for the identification of people who moved since theprevious census of September 1980.

5. See the official UDR website at www.udr.com.br. We tried to contact the main office to find out where theirPara influence lies, but they would not release the information. Nevertheless, rumor has it that their base ofoperation is Xinguara, located in the so-called “South of Para”, a region known for its violence.

References

Almeida, A.L.O. (1992) Colonization of the Amazon. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.Almeida, A.W.B. (1994) Carajas: A Guerra dos Mapas. Falangola, Belem, Para, Brazil.Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D. and Mueller, B. (1997) Violence and the development of property rights to land in the

Brazilian Amazon. In The Frontiers of the New Institutional Economics (J.N. Drobak and J.V.C. Nye, eds.),pp. 145–163. Academic Press, San Diego.

Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D. and Mueller, B. (2000) Land reform policies, the sources of violent conflict, andImplications for deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management39(2), 162–188.

Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D. and Schneider, R. (1995) Property rights and the precondition for markets: the case ofthe Amazonian frontier. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 151(1), 89–107.

Barata, R. (1995) Inventario da Violencia: Crime e Impunidade no Campo Paraense. Cejup, Belem, Para, Brazil.Becker, B.K. (1996) Brazil’s frontier experience and sustainable development: a geopolitical approach. In Frontiers

in Regional Development (Y. Gradus and H. Lithick, eds.), pp. 73–99. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,Lanham.

Becker, B.K., Miranda, M. and Machado, L. (1990) Fronteira Amazonica: questoes sobre a gestao do territorio.Editora da UnB-Editora da UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

Branford, S. and Glock, P. (1985) The Last Frontier: Fighting Over Land in the Amazon. Zed Press, London.Brannstrom, C. (2001) Producing possession: labour, law, and land on the Brazilian agricultural frontier, 1920–

1945. Political Geography 20, 859–883.Browder, J.O. and Godfrey, B. (1997) Rainforest Cities: Urbanization, Development, and Globalization of the

Brazilian Amazon. Columbia University Press, Columbia.Brown, L.A., Sierra, R., Digiacinto, S. and Smith, W.R. (1994) Urban-system evolution in frontier settings.

Geographical Review 84(3), 249–264.Bunker, S. (1985) Understanding the Amazon: Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Failure of the Modern

State. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Bylund, E. (1960) Theoretical considerations regarding distribution of settlement in inner north Sweden. Ge-

ografiska Annaler B42, 225–231.Campos, A.S. (2002) O Confronto em Eldorado do Carajas. Promev Grafica e Editora, Belem, Para, Brazil.Cardoso, E. and Helwege, A. (1992) Below the line: poverty in Latin America. World Development 20(1),

19–37.Cleary, D. (1990) Anatomy of the Amazon Gold Rush. MacMillan, London.Commissao Pastoral da Terra (CPT) (1996) Conflitos No Campo. CPT, Belem, Para, Brazil.Covert, H.H. (1998) Fighting for Agrarian reform in Brazil: an analysis of the strategies and dialogue of the Sem

Terra movement. Latin Americanist 33(2), 1–6.Deininger, K. and Squire, L. (1998) New ways of looking at old issues: asset inequality and growth. Mimeo,

Brasilia.Fanelli, L. (2001) Movimento Sem Terra and Migrations. Paper presented at the meeting of the Latin American

Studies Association, Washington, DC, Sept. 6–8, 2001.

120 SIMMONS ET AL.

Fearnside, P.M. (2001) Land-tenure issues as factors in environmental destruction in Brazilian Amazonia: the caseof Southern Para. World Development 29(8), 1361–1372.

Fernandes, B.M. (2000) A Formacao do MST No Brasil. Vozes, Petropolis.Fernandes, B.M. (2001) The Occupation as a Form of Access to Land. Paper presented at the meeting of the Latin

American Studies Association, Washington, DC, Sept. 6–8, 2001.Foresta, R.A. (1992) Amazonia and the politics of geopolitics. Geographical Review 82(2), 128–142.Foweraker, J. (1981) The Struggle for Land: A Political Economy of the Pioneer Frontier in Brazil, 1930 to Present.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Gasques, J.G. and Conceicao, J.C. (1999) Ademanda de terra para reforma agraria no Brazil. Rio de Janeiro:

www.dataterra.org.br.Godfrey, B.J. (1990) Boom towns of the Amazon. Geographical Review 80(2), 103–117.Godfrey, B.J. (1992). Migration to the gold-mining frontier in Brazilian Amazonia. Geographical Review 82(4),

458–469.Hall, A.L. (1987) Agrarian crisis in Brazilian Amazonia: the grande carajas programme. Journal of Development

Studies 23(4), 522–552.Hall, A.L. (1989) Developing Amazonia: Deforestation and Social Conflict in Brazil’s Carajas Programme.

Manchester University Press, Manchester.Hecht, S.B. (1985) Environment, development, and politics: capital accumulation and the livestock sector in

Eastern Amazonia. World Development 13(6), 663–684.Hecht, S.B. (1992) Logic of livestock and deforestation: the case of Amazonia. In Development or Destruction:

The Conversion of Tropical Forest to Pasture in Latin America (T.E. Downing, S. Hecht, H. Pearson and C.Garcia-Downing, eds.), pp. 7–26. Westview Press, Boulder.

Hoffman, R. (1998) A estrutura fundiaria no Brasil de acordo com o cadastro do INCRA: 1967 a 1998. WorkingPaper: INCRA/UNICAMP.

Hudson, J.C. (1969) A location theory for rural settlement. Annals of the Association of American Geographers59, 365–381.

Ianni, O. (1979) Colonizacao e Contra-Reforma Agraria na Amazonia. EditoraVozes, Petropolis.Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE) (1985) Agricultural Census of 1985. Secrataria de Planeja-

mento, Orcamento e Coordinacao, Rio de Janeiro.Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE) (1996) Demographic Census of 1996. Secrataria de Plane-

jamento, Orcamento e Coordinacao, Rio de Janeiro.Instituto Nacional de Alimentacao e Nutricao (INAN) (1989) Pesquisa Nacional Sobre Saude e Nutricao: Resul-

tados Preliminar. INAN, Brasilia.Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) (2000) Desmatamento da Amazonia Brasleira, 1998–1999.

Available at INPE website: http://www.inpe.br/Informacoes Eventos/amz1998 1999/pagina7.htm, May.James, P. (1938) Changing patterns of population in Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Geographical Review 28, 353–

362.Katzman, M.T. (1977) The Brazilian frontier in comparative perspective. In Cities and frontiers in Brazil (M.T.

Katzman, ed.), pp. 11–83. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Kelson, G.C. (1997) Brazil Up-Close. The Brasilians, May 1997: 7E–8E.Kotscho, R. (1981) O Massacre Dos Posseiros: Conflicto de Terras no Araguaia-Tocantins. Brasiliense, Sao Paulo.Langevin, M.S. and Rosset, P. (2000) Land reform from below: the landless workers movement in Brazil.

http://www.mstbrazil.org/rosset.html.Laurance, W.F., Cochrane, M.A., Bergen, S., Fearnside, P.M., Delamonica, P., Barber, C., D’Angelo, S. and

Fernandes, T. (2001) The Future of the Brazilian Amazon. Science 291, 438–439.Mahar, D.J. (1979) Frontier Development Policy in Brazil: A Study of Amazonia. Praeger Publishers, New York.McCracken, S., Brondizio, E., Nelson, D., Moran, E. and Siqueira, A. (1998) The Use of Remote Sensing and

GIS in the Collection of Survey Data on Households and Land Use. Proceedings of the IX Brazilian RemoteSensing Congress.

Moran, E.F. (1983) The Dilemma of Amazonian Development. Westview Press, Boulder.Moran, E.F. (1989). Adaption and maladaption in newly settled areas. In The Human Ecology of Tropical Land

Settlement in Latin America (Debra A. Schumann and William L. Partridge, eds.), pp. 20–39. Westview Press,Boulder.


Mougeot, L.J.A. (1985) Alternative migration targets and Brazilian Amazonia’s closing frontier. In Change in theAmazon Basin, Vol. 2: The Frontier After a Decade of Colonisation (J. Hemming, ed.), pp. 51–91. ManchesterUniversity Press, Manchester.

Mueller, B., Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D. and Schneider, R. (1994) Land, property rights, and privatization in Brazil.The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 34(1), 261–280.

Oliveira, I. (2000) Guerra Na Selva. Amazonia: Vinte E Um. May 2000, 34–39.Olsson, G. (1968) Complementary models: a study of colonization maps. Geografiska Annaler B 50, 1–18.Payne, L.A. (2000) Uncivil Movements: The Armed Right Wing and Democracy in Latin America. Johns Hopkins

University Press, Baltimore.Pedlowski, M.A., Vieira, R.R., Zinga, M.R. and Cavadas, L.S. (2000) The Limits of Agrarian Reform in A Rural

Settlement in The Northern Fluminense Region, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. Paper presented at the 10th Congressof the International Rural Sociology Association, Rio de Janeiro, 2000.

Perz, S. (1998) The Rural Exodus and the “Rurban” Labor Force of the Brazilian Amazon. Unpublished Manuscript.Petras, J. (1998) The new revolutionary peasantry: the growth of peasant-led opposition to neoliberalism. Z

Magazine, October 1998. http://www.mstbrazil.org/petras1098.html.Roberts, J.T. (1992) Squatters and urban growth in Amazonia. Geographical Review 82(2), 441–469.Roberts, J.T. (1995) Trickling down and scrambling up: the informal sector, food provisioning and local benefits

of the Carajas mining growth pole in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development 23(3), 385–400.Rudel, T. (2002) A tropical forest transition? Agricultural change, out-migration, and secondary forests in the

Ecuadorian Amazon. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92(1), 87–102.Sawyer, D. (1987) Urbanizacao da fronteira agrıcola no Brasil. In A urbanizacao da fronteira (L. Lavinas, ed.),

pp. 43–55. Publipur, Rio de Janeiro.Schmink, M. and Wood, C.H. (1992) Contested Frontiers in Amazonia. Columbia University Press, Columbia.Schneider, R.R. (1995) Government and the Economy in the Amazon Frontier. World Bank, Washington, DC.Silva, J.G. (2001) Quem Precisa de uma Estrategia de Desenvolvimento. In Debatem O Brasil Precisa de uma

Estrategia de Desenvolvimento (Jose Graziano and Jean Marc e Bianchini, eds.). Ministerio do DesenvolvimentoAgrario/Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentavel/NEAD. Brasılia, D.F.

Skole, D.L. and Tucker, C.J. (1993) Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite datafrom 1978 to 1988. Science 260, 1905–1910.

Smith, N. (1982) Rainforest Corridors: The Transamazon Colonization Scheme. University of California Press,Berkeley.

Smith, N., Serrao, E.A., Alvim, P.T. and Falesi, I.C. (1995) Amazonia: Resiliency and Dynamism of the Land andIts People. United Nations University Press, New York.

Stedile, J.P. (1997) A Reforma Agraria a Luta do MST. Vozes, Petropolis.Toni, F. (1999) State-Society Relations on the Agricultural Frontier: The Struggle for Credit in the Transamazonia

Region. Ph.D. diss. Department of Political Science, University of Florida, Gainesville.Turner, F.J. (1920) The Frontier in American History. Holt Press, New York.Veiga, J.E. (2001) O Brasil Rural de uma Estrategia de Desenvolvimento. Ministerio do Desenvolvimento

Agrario/Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentavel/ NEAD. Brasılia, D.F.Velho, O. (1972) Frentes de Expansaao e Estructura Agraria. Zahar, Rio de Janeiro.Walker, R.T. (1993). Deforestation and economic development. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 16(3),

481–497.Walker, R.T. and Homma, A. (1996) Land use and land cover dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon: an overview.

Ecological Economics 18, 67–80.Walker, R.T., Moran, E. and Anselin, L. (2000) Deforestation and cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: external

capital and household process. World Development 28(4), 683–699.Walker, R.T., Perz, S., Caldas, M. and Texeira da Silva, L.G. (2002) Land use and land cover change in forest

frontiers: the role of household life cycles. International Regional Science Review. 25(2), 169–199.Welch, C. (1999) The Seed was Planted: The Sao Paulo Rot of Brazil’s Labor Movement, 1924–1964. Pennsylvania

State University Press, University Park.Wood, C.H. (1983) Peasant and capitalist production in the Brazilian Amazon: a conceptual framework for the

study of frontier expansion. In The Dilemma of Amazonian Development (E. Moran, ed.), pp. 259–277. WestviewPress, Boulder.

Date post:	21-Dec-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyenkiet
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

The changing dynamics of land conflict in the Brazilian ...simmo108/Urban_Ecosystems.pdf ·...

Documents