CROP DIVERSIFICATION OF FAMILY FARMING IN TUPÃ-SP

Bruce Wellington Amorin da Silva1

Fernanda Cristina Pereira2

ABSTRACT: Family farming is an important rural class and it is vulnerable to external factors,
such as economic crises and climate change. There is evidence in literature that supports crop
diversification as a strategy to stabilize smallholders and protect them from uncertainties and
market variations. Then, this, as an exploratory research, measures four categories of family
farming crop diversity in Tupã, São Paulo. The results show some degree of diversification, but
one of the categories is very specialized, related to peanut production, an important local crop.
This provides subsidies for future researches, especially survey-based.

Keywords: Crop diversification. Family farming. Pronaf. Resiliency.

DIVERSIFICAÇÃO AGRÍCOLA DA AGRICULTURA FAMILIAR EM TUPÃ-SP

Resumo: Agricultura familiar é uma importante classe rural e é vulnerável a fatores externos,
como crises econômicas e mudanças climáticas. Há evidência na literatura que apoia a
diversificação da produção agrícola como uma estratégia de estabilizar pequenos proprietários
e protege-los de incertezas e variações de mercados. Então, como uma pesquisa exploratória,
esse trabalho mede a diversidade da produção agrícola quatro categorias de agricultura familiar
de Tupã, São Paulo. Os resultados mostram certo grau de diversificação, mas uma das
categorias é muito especializada, relacionada à produção de amendoim, uma importante cultura
local. Tem-se subsídios para pesquisas futuras, especialmente baseadas em entrevistas.

Palavras-chave: Diversificação agrícola. Agricultura familiar. Pronaf. Resiliência.

1
Agribusiness and Development Graduate Student, CAPES Scholarship, bruce.wellington@unesp.br
2
Agribusiness and Development Graduate Student, fernanda.c.pereira@unesp.br

IV SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL DE AGRONÉGOCIO E DESENVOLVIMENTO – SIAD

“Desafios e soluções para a redução de perdas e desperdícios de alimentos”
Tupã – SP: 25 a 27 de outubro de 2022
1. INTRODUTION
Family Farming has an important economic and social role worldwide. Family farming is
responsible for most rural establishments, what means 500 million rural properties around the round
are managed by only one person or family (FAO, 2014). In Brazil, in 2017, it represents 77% of the
rural establishments, or 3.9 million, with a production value of 107 billion or 23% of the total
agricultural production value (IBGE, 2017). As a social category, it consists of people that live in the
countryside and use land for productive and reproductive means, alongside other family members
(IICA, 2017).
In Brazil, according to Decree 9,064/2017, family farming is developed in small properties
(maximum of four fiscal modules) with predominantly family labor and at least half of the income
from rural activities in the property (BRAZIL, 2017). In Tupã, São Paulo, the fiscal module is 20 ha
(MAPA, 2020).
Sustainable agricultural systems must promote agrobiodiversity allied with economic growth,
environmental preservation and social justice (ASSIS, 2006). Caporal and Costabeber (2003) defend
that supporting family farming and polyculture is an option to maintain sustainability. Deponti and
Preiss (2021) say family farming is able to supply cities with diversified production of nutrient rich
food and low environmental impact.
Crop diversification, specifically, protects small farmers from complexity and uncertainties
in global shocks, such as pandemics and droughts (PETERSEN-ROCKNEY et al., 2021). Chambers
and Conway (1992) defend it is a strategy to deal with stresses and shocks. FAO (2012) promotes
crop diversification and say it is an effective strategy to deal with food and nutritional security,
sustainable rural development, job creation, poverty reduction and environmental and ecological
preservation. Other authors, such as Lin (2011), Birthal and Hazarana (2019), Spangler et al. (2022),
Petersen-Rockney et al. (2021), support the increased resiliency as a result of crop diversification,
especially when it comes to climate changes.

2. OBJECTIVES
The objective of this paper is to measure the crop diversification of family farming in Tupã,
São Paulo.

3. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES
Sambuichi et al. (2014) measured the crop diversity of the family farming in Brazil using the
Simpson Diversity Index, proposed by Simpson (1949). It can be seen in the equation (1).
𝑛 2
𝑋𝑖
𝑆𝐷𝐼 = 1 − ∑ ( ) (1)
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑋𝑖
𝑖=1

In the context of this analysis, 𝑋𝑖 means the production value in reais (R$) and it is divided
by the total production value, ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑋𝑖 . Subtracting one from the sum of these results, there is the
Simpson Diversity Index.
Resende and Boff (2013), for Hirschman-Herfindahl Index (HHI), state one problem related
to this index is that its limits are not fixed. It depends on the number of values considered for the
calculation. In this context, the number of crops. Adajar, Berdnt and Conti (2019) say SDI and HHI
are analytically similar: SDI represents diversity while HHI represents concentration. Then, in order
IV SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL DE AGRONÉGOCIO E DESENVOLVIMENTO – SIAD
“Desafios e soluções para a redução de perdas e desperdícios de alimentos”
Tupã – SP: 25 a 27 de outubro de 2022
to ease the interpretation and make it possible to compare between different family farming
categories, according to equation (2), originally used for HHI but adapted to SDI, it is possible to
adjust the result so it goes from zero to one.

1
𝑆𝐷𝐼′ = [𝑛𝑆𝐷𝐼 − 1] (2)
𝑛−1

𝑆𝐷𝐼′ is the adjusted index (0 ≤ 𝑆𝐼𝐷′ ≤ 1) and 𝑛 is the number of crops. It is important to say
the degree of diversification is related to the production value of each crop, not the total number of
crops. So, if one crop concentrates production value, the degree of diversity decreases.
Sambuichi et al. (2014) used four categories in order to classify the degree of diversification
(SDI). In this paper, it is applied to SDI’. Then, the categories are:

• Very Specialized – SDI’ = 0 (only one crop)

• Specialized – 0.0 < SDI’ ≤ 0.35
• Diversified – 0.35 < SDI’ ≤ 0.65
• Very Diversified – 0.65 < SDI’ ≤ 1.0

The categories analyzed were Non-family Farming, Family Farming (Pronaf B), Family
Farming (Pronaf V) and Family Farming (Non-Pronaf). Data of production value in reais (R$) were
extracted from the Census of Agriculture, Tables 6955 and 6957, from SIDRA (IBGE, 2017).
For the purpose of analysis, by the time of the Agricultural Census of 2017, the Pronaf line of
credit groups were: Pronaf B, for those with an anual income of R$20,000; Pronaf V of R$20,000 to
360,000 and Non-Pronaf above R$360,000.
Finally, this is an exploratory research that tries to dig into family farming data in order to
provide subsidies for further researches. It is of quantitative approach, applied nature and
bibliographical and documental procedures, according to the definitions of Gil (1987), Marconi and
Lakatos (2003), Bocatto (2006) and Sampieri, Collado and Lucio (2013),

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

It is important to know how many crops each category cultivates. These numbers can be seen
in Table 1. Non-family farming surprisingly shows seven different crops. They are: Rubber (liquid
latex); Rubber (coagulated latex); Arabic coffee beans (green); In-shell peanuts; Sugarcane; Cassava
and Corn grains. Family Farming – Pronaf B shows five different crops: Rubber (coagulated latex);
Arabic coffee beans (green); Sugarcane; Corn grains and Other products. Pronaf V shows six different
crops: Banana; Rubber (coagulated latex); Pumpkin. In-shell peanuts; sugarcane and cassava. Finally,
Non-Pronaf, only one crop: In-shell peanuts.

Table 1 – Number of crops by category

Non-Family Family Farming – Family Farming – Family Farming – Non-
Categories
farming Pronaf B Pronaf V Pronaf
Number of
7 5 6 1
crops
Source: IBGE, 2019.

IV SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL DE AGRONÉGOCIO E DESENVOLVIMENTO – SIAD

“Desafios e soluções para a redução de perdas e desperdícios de alimentos”
Tupã – SP: 25 a 27 de outubro de 2022
 Table 2 shows the results for SDI’ and the classification for each category. It is important to
see Pronaf B is the most diversified category, followed by Pronaf V and Non-Family Farming. The
most specialized one is Family Farming – Non-Pronaf, with only one product and an SDI’ of zero.

Table 2 – SDI’ and Classification of each category

Categories SDI' Classification
Non-Family farming 0,521159 Diversified
Family Farming – Pronaf B 0,696883 Very Diversified
Family Farming – Pronaf V 0,532236 Diversified
Family Farming – Non-Pronaf 0 Very Specialized
Source: Authors.

5. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
There is some degree of diversification when it comes to Tupã family farming, but there is
also a small number of crops being cultivated. As previously said, the SDI’ only measure the degree
of diversity between the considered crops. Existing five or six crops in a single category does not
mean it is specialized, by this index. This is one limitation of this research. It is possible, in the future,
to compare diversification over the years.
It is not a surprise to see a very specialized category, in other words, family farming with only
one crop. In this case, in-shell peanuts, which is an important crop for Tupã, known as the capital of
peanut, since it is a great producer and exporter. This category probably is integrated to the peanut
industry, what justifies the high income. These smallholders, however, are probably more exposed to
the market, since variations on peanut prices and global economy can affect them.
In spite of that, since literature suggests crop diversification is good for farmers resilience and
food security, Tupã family farmers are not necessarily far from being resilient.
It is important to say family farming in the context of Tupã means properties of until 80 ha.
Then, for future researches, there is the possibility of applying surveys in order to understand the real
situation of these smallholders.
Another limitation of this research is it does not consider livestock and other sources of
income. For future researches, income diversity, considering livestock, agricultural production and
incomes not related to the rural property is a possibility to draw conclusions that better fit their reality.
For instance, it is important to understand how diversity and specialization affects their livelihoods.
Finally, let us not forget this is an exploratory research, therefore, this kind of limitation is expected.

REFERENCES
ADAJAR, P. M.; BERNDT, E. R.; CONTI, R. M. The surprising hybrid pedigree of measures of diversity and
economic concentration. Cambridge: NBER Working Paper 26512, 2019.
ASSIS, R. L. Desenvolvimento rural sustentável no Brasil: perspectivas a partir da integração de ações públicas e
privadas com base na agroecologia. Economia Aplicada, v. 10, n. 1, p. 75-89, 2006.
BIRTHAL, P. S.; HAZRANA, J. Crop diversification and resilience of agriculture to climatic shocks: Evidence from
India. Agricultural Systems, v. 173, p. 345-354, 2019.
BOCCATO, V. R. C. Metodologia da Pesquisa Bibliográfica da Área Odontológica e o Artigo Científico Como Forma
de Comunicação. Revista de Odontologia da Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, v. 18, n. 3, p. 265-274, 2006.
BRAZIL. Decreto Nº 9.064, de 31 de maio de 2017. 2017. Available in:
http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2015-2018/2017/Decreto/D9064.htm. Access in: 24 aug. 2022.
CHAMBERS, R.; CONWAY, C. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Brighton:
IDS Discussion Paper 296, 1992.

IV SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL DE AGRONÉGOCIO E DESENVOLVIMENTO – SIAD

“Desafios e soluções para a redução de perdas e desperdícios de alimentos”
Tupã – SP: 25 a 27 de outubro de 2022
COSTABEBER, J. A.; CAPORAL, F. R. “Possibilidades e alternativas do desenvolvimento rural sustentável”. In: Vela,
Hugo. (Org.): Agricultura Familiar e Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável no Mercosul. Santa Maria: Editora da
UFSM/Pallotti, 2003. p. 157-194.
DEPONTI, C. M.; PREISS, V. Covid-19, a agricultura familiar e desenvolvimento regional: uma análise da Região do
Vale do Caí, RS. In: Seminário Internacional sobre Desenvolvimento Regional, 10., 2021, Santa Cruz do Sul. Anais...
Santa Cruz do Sul: SIDR, 2021. p. 1-20.
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization. Crop diversification for sustainable diets and nutrition: The role of FAO's
Plant Production and Protection Division. 2012. Available from:
https://www.fao.org/ag/agp/greenercities/pdf/CDSDN.pdf. Access in: 20 nov. 2021.
_____. Legacy of IYFF 2014 and the way forward. 2014. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/mm296e/mm296e.pdf.
Access in: 15 aug. 2022.
GIL, A. C. Como Classificar as Pesquisas? In: GIL, A. C. Como Elaborar Projetos de Pesquisa. 4 ed. São Paulo: Atlas,
1987.
IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo Agropecuário 2017. 2019. Available in:
https://censoagro2017.ibge.gov.br/templates/censo_agro/resultadosagro/pdf/agricultura_familiar.pdf. Access in: 25 aug.
2022.
_____. Tabela 6955. 2019. Available in: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/6955. Access in: 23 aug. 2022.
_____. Tabela 6957. 2019. Available in: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/6957. Access in: 23 aug. 2022.
IICA – Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura. La agricultura familiar y el abastecimiento
agroalimentario ante la pandemia COVID-19 em America Latina y el Caribe. San José: Instituto Interamericano de
Cooperación para la Agricultura, 2020.
LIN, B. B. Resilience in Agriculture through Crop Diversification: Adaptive Management for Environmental Change.
BioScience, v. 61, n.3 p. 183-193, 2011.
MAPA - Misitério da Agricultura, Pecúaria e Abastecimento. Tabela de Índices Básicos do Sistema Nacional de
Cadastro Rural. 2020. Available in: https://www.gov.br/incra/pt-br/acesso-a-
informacao/indices_basicos_2013_por_municipio.pdf/view. Access in: 25 aug. 2022.
MARCONI, M. A.; LAKATOS, E. M. Técnicas de Pesquisa. In: MARCONI, M. A.; LAKATOS, E. M. (Ed.).
Fundamentos de Metodologia Científica. 5. ed. São Paulo: Editora Atlas, 2003. p. 174-214.
PETERSEN-ROCKNEY, M. et al. Narrow and Brittle or Broad and Nimble? Comparing Adaptive Capacity in
Simplifying and Diversifying Farming Systems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, v. 5, 2021.
RESENDE, M.; BOFF, H. Concentração Industrial. In: KUPFER, D.; HASENCLEVER, L. (Org). Economia Industrial:
Fundamentos Teóricos e Práticas no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2013. p. 55-65.
SAMBUICHI, R. H. R. et al. A diversificação produtiva como forma de viabilizar o desenvolvimento sustentável da
agricultura familiar no Brasil. In: MONASTERIO, L. M.; NERI, M. C.; SOARES, S. S. D. (Ed.). Brasil em
desenvolvimento 2014: estado, planejamento e políticas públicas. Brasília: IPEA, 2014. p. 61-84.
SAMPIERI, R. H.; COLLADO, C. F.; LÚCIO, M. P. B. Definições dos Enfoques Quantitativo e Qualitativo, suas
Semelhanças e Diferenças. In: SAMPIERI, R. H.; COLLADO, C. F.; LÚCIO, M. P. B. Metodologia de Pesquisa. Porto
Alegre: Penso, 2013, p. 28-48.
SIMPSON, E. H. Measurement of Diversity. Nature, v. 163, p. 688, 1949.
SPANGLER, K. et al. Path dependencies in US agriculture: Regional factors of diversification. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment, v. 333, 2022.

IV SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL DE AGRONÉGOCIO E DESENVOLVIMENTO – SIAD

“Desafios e soluções para a redução de perdas e desperdícios de alimentos”
Tupã – SP: 25 a 27 de outubro de 2022