brazilian agricultural cooperatives in the

Cooperatives’ Power of Innovation Texts selected from the international call for papers

BRAZILIAN AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES IN THE AGRICULTURAL BORDER: A NEW KIND OF COOPERATIVISM?

Sigismundo BIALOSKORSKI NETO1

Abstract The present paper analyzes the evolution of agribusiness in Brazil to answer the research question: Have agricultural cooperatives kept pace with the growth of agribusinesses in the new “border areas” of Brazilian agriculture? Comparing traditional agribusiness regions and the newly emerging agricultural areas or border areas, we find that farms in the agribusiness border have minor relations with the cooperatives, need few cooperative services, and require less technical assistance from the cooperatives, which suggests a new level of organization within a new agricultural cooperative standard. The growth and expansion of agribusiness activities and commodities production on the borders were superior to that of the cooperative organizations, and cooperatives did not show the same agribusiness performance or outperformance. In this situation, this last question can be posed: if agricultural cooperatives have not had the same or proportional growth compared with the growth of agribusiness and the expansion in agribusiness zones, are cooperatives important only in the poor areas and not in the economic expansion areas?

Résumé Cet article analyse l'évolution de l'agro-industrie au Brésil afin de répondre à la question suivante : les coopératives agricoles ont-elles maintenu la cadence de la croissance agro-industrielle dans les nouvelles « zones frontalières » de l'agriculture brésilienne? Comparant les régions agro-industrielles traditionnelles et les zones émergentes ou « zones frontalières », les fermes dans la zone frontalière ont des relations mineures avec les coopératives, requièrent peu de services coopératifs et moins d'assistance technique de la part des coopératives, ce qui indique un nouveau niveau d'organisation dans un nouveau standard de coopérative agricole. La croissance et l'expansion des activités et de la production agro-industrielle dans la zone frontalière étaient supérieures à celles des organisations coopératives et les coopératives n'ont pas affiché la même performance ou surperformance agro-industrielle. Dans cette situation, cette dernière question peut être posée : si les coopératives agricoles n'ont pas connu une croissance similaire ou proportionnelle à celle des entreprises agro-industrielles ou une expansion dans les zones agro-industrielles, les coopératives sont-elles seulement importantes dans les zones pauvres et pas dans les zones de croissance économique?

Resumen Este artículo analiza la evolución de la agroindustria en Brasil a fin de responder a la siguiente pregunta : ¿Las cooperativas agrícolas han mantenido el ritmo del crecimiento agroindustrial en las nuevas zonas fronterizas de la agricultura brasileña? Comparando las regiones agroindustriales tradicionales y las zonas emergentes o “zonas fronterizas”, los establecimientos agrícolas en la zona fronteriza tienen menos relaciones con las cooperativas, requieren pocos servicios cooperativos y menos asistencia técnica por parte de las cooperativas, lo que indica un nuevo nivel de organización en un nuevo estándar de cooperativa agrícola. El crecimiento y la expansión de las actividades y la producción agroindustrial en la zona fronteriza eran mayores al de las organizaciones cooperativas y las cooperativas no han tenido el mismo desempeño o sobre-desempeño agroindustrial. En este contexto, se puede formular esta última pregunta : si las cooperativas agrícolas no han registrado un crecimiento similar o proporcional al de las empresas agroindustriales o una expansión en las zonas agroindustriales, ¿las cooperativas sólo son importantes en las zonas pobres y no en las zonas de crecimiento económico?

684

Introduction2

Farmers demand strategies to improve their bargaining power based on market concentration. Cooperatives and rural producers' organizations are important actors in answering this demand, as they act to ensure that rural producers are better at bargaining, add value to their produce, and gain access to national and international markets.

According to the Brazilian Cooperative Organization (OCB, 2012), 1 548 agricultural cooperatives existed in Brazil in December 2010 and represented 943 054 rural producers. However, the number of cooperatives decreased by 4.1% from 2009 to 2010, while the number of members remained stable, which might indicate mergers between cooperatives.

In contrast, exports from Brazilian cooperatives increased by 22.2%, rising from $3.6 billion in 2009 to $4.4 billion in 2010. This increase might indicate a stronger rate of growth than that of agribusiness over the same period. Moreover, these Brazilian cooperative exports represent 5.78% of the total Brazilian agribusiness exports for 2010. Over the last 10 years, this proportion has remained stable with an average of 5.18% and a standard deviation of 0.78%.

Agricultural activity significantly increased in Brazil in recent years. In fact, the production of grain grew by 268%, exhibiting a continuous growth followed by a significant productivity gain with less growth in terms of area.

New agricultural areas were incorporated within new and dynamic agricultural frontiers. According to the Agricultural Census of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística — IBGE), the number of farms in Brazil increased by only 5.69% from 1970 to 2006, whereas the area of these farms grew by 20.64%, and the area planted with seasonal crops (including grain) grew by 125.69%. In the agricultural frontier, the Centre West of Brazil, these numbers are 26.40%, 22.48%, and 435.43%, respectively (IBGE, 2006).

Brazilian agricultural cooperatives' activities show a strong presence in the South and Southeast regions of Brazil, which are traditional agricultural areas with medium- and small-size farms.

Furthermore, a large growth occurred in grain production in the border areas of Brazilian agriculture. However, this expansion in agribusiness was not accompanied, at least initially, by the presence of the established traditional cooperatives from the Central-South regions or the new agricultural cooperatives in the Centre West regions until 2006.

In 2006, however, between 30% and 40% of the rural producers in the Central-South Brazilian states were cooperative members. These numbers decreased to only a little over 10% in the agricultural borders states (IBGE, 2006).

Thus, the following research question was formulated: If agricultural cooperatives are beneficial organizations to rural producers, why did these organizations not follow the expansion of Brazilian agricultural activities to the agribusiness border areas, in a similar volume to what occurred in South and Southeast agricultural regions?

685

Cooperatives and Agriculture in Brazil The growth of agriculture and the importance of cooperatives Brazilian agriculture has significantly increased over the last few years. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Supply of Brazil (MAPA, 2012), grain production rose by 268% from 1975 to 2010, increasing from 39.4 million tons to 145.2 million tons. This growth was accompanied by an increase in the planted area of 45.6% and a significant advance in productivity, which rose by 2.59% per year over the same period, growing from an average of 1.2 tons per hectare to 3.0 tons per hectare (i.e., an increase of 150%).

The system surrounding the soya agro-industry grew at even more impressive annual rates of 3.58%, 5.55%, and 1.9% in terms of the harvested area, quantity harvested, and productivity, respectively (MAPA, 2012).

Agriculture held a consistent proportion of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) over the period, varying between 5.3% and 5.7%. Thus, agriculture's share of the economy remained stable during the period; in other words, it accompanied the overall growth of the Brazilian economy (MAPA, 2012).

According to the 2006 IBGE Census, 10.60% of all farms were members of a cooperative. However, of those farms that declared income and were therefore agriculturally active, 15.16% were members of an agricultural cooperative, credit cooperative, or both. These 15.16% of rural farms represented 35.08% of total agricultural income over the same period. In other words, a small portion of all farms accounted for more than 1/3 of the sector's income (IBGE, 2006).

One cannot infer whether this occurred because the farms with more income are members of cooperatives or whether these farms achieved better performances over the years, thereby improving income, because they were members of a cooperative. The two approaches most likely occurred simultaneously and concomitantly without an exclusive causal direction.

Figure 1 shows that, among the Brazilian rural farms that were members of cooperatives, the largest portions were owners of between 10 and 50 hectares of farm area

With regard to the rural farms that declared an income (i.e., active farms), Appendix 1 shows that in 2006, the largest proportion of rural farms who were members of cooperatives was located in the South-Central region of Brazil as well as the South and Southeast regions, where 38.43% and 23.26% of farms, respectively, declared incomes as members of cooperatives.

In addition, the proportion of farms declaring an income that were members of a cooperative was smaller in the North and Northeast regions (4.10% and 2.68%, respectively). The Centre West region fell in the middle range: 18.32% of farms that declared an income were member of a cooperative.

In Brazil, the average annual farm income for those in cooperatives was USD 42 147.70 (R$91 882.00), or 273.06% more than the average annual income of USD 15 435.32 (R$33 649.00) for all farms. In the Northeast region, this difference was greater, 503.14%, which indicates that although a smaller proportion of farms were members of cooperatives, their average income was much higher than the regional average.

686

Figure 1 Percentage Distribution of the Total Number of Farms and those MemberS in Cooperatives by Farm Area in Brazil, 2006 (IBGE, 2006)

The situation was similar in the Southern region: a larger proportion of farms were members of cooperatives compared with other Brazilian regions, and the average income of the farmer member was higher than the latter by 137.01%. Compared with other regions, this result reveals a potentially lower degree of inequality between the farms who are members of cooperatives and those that are not.

Thus, these numbers might reveal that the income inequality between rural producers was higher in the North and Northeast regions than it was between the producers in the Central-South regions of the country.

Agricultural border area and cooperatives According to Contini, Gasques, Alves, & Bastos (2010), the crop area of Brazilian agriculture increased by 45.6% between 1975 and 2010. Although this increase was smaller than the increase in production (which was 268% over the same period), it was significant and occurred mainly in areas witnessing an expansion of the agricultural border areas in the “Cerrado”4 and in the Centre West region of Brazil.

According to the IBGE agricultural census (2006), a 43.64% growth in seasonal farmland area occurred between 1970 and 2006, in traditionally cultivated areas of farmland such as the South region of Brazil. However, over the same period the growth rate was 435.53% in the agricultural border areas, including the Centre West region of Brazil, rising from 2 402 326 hectares in 1970 to 12 865 374 hectares in 2006 (IBGE, 2006). Figure 2 shows the difference in growth with regard to the production area in Brazil. Figure 3 shows the same relationship with regard to production of soybeans.

Thus, we have evidence of the importance of the agricultural border regions with regard to the growth in the production of grain in Brazilian agribusiness. Because cooperatives are important organizations that add value to the soybean agribusiness system, we expect that a proportional growth should occur in

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

Total Coops

687

-1-0,5

00,5

11,5

22,5

33,5

44,5

Norte Nordeste Sudeste Sul Centro-Oeste

1970 1975 1980 1985 1996 2006 70/06

the presence of the cooperative organizations in these regions based on what happened in the regions that are traditionally responsible for production.

However, the data revealed that this proportional presence did not occur. For example, 38.43% of the rural farms that declared income in the Southern region of the country (which is a traditional producer of soybeans and grains with a strong cooperative presence) did so as members of cooperatives. However, this proportion was merely 18.32% in the Centre West region.

Figure 2 Percentage of Variation in the Crop Area by Brazilian Region between 1970 and 2006 in Brazil (IBGE, 2006)

Figure 3 Production of Soybeans by Brazilian Region from 1970-2006 (IBGE, 2006)

02.000.0004.000.0006.000.0008.000.000

10.000.00012.000.00014.000.00016.000.00018.000.00020.000.000

Norte Nordeste Sudeste Sul Centro-Oeste

1970 1975 1980 1985 1996 2006

688

In this specific scenario, we compared states that typified these regions: Mato Grosso is characteristic of the areas at the agricultural border, and Paraná is a traditional producer of grain in South Brazil.

We used Mato Grosso as an example of the expanding areas of the agricultural border in 2006. Of all its rural farms that declared income, 16.76% were members of a cooperative. However, cooperative-supplied technical assistance supported only 1.26% of all farms, with a farmed soya area of 5 641 347 hectares. In Paraná, 37.49% of all rural farms that declared income were members of a cooperative, and 17.82% of these farms received technical assistance from the cooperatives for a farmed soya area of 3 402 397 hectares.

Thus, Paraná has proportionally more farms that were members of a cooperative, and, compared with Mato Grosso, the cooperatives have a much closer relationship with the rural producers through the technical assistance supplied to members.

Furthermore, Appendices 2, 3, and 4 of the 2006 IBGE census (IBGE, 2006) show that the average farm size was larger in Mato Grosso, with an average area of 2 277.49 hectares per farm. In Paraná, the proportion of properties linked to cooperatives was larger, but their average size was smaller, with only 77.92 hectares per farm.

In terms of the value produced, the same comparative example showed that the rural farms in Paraná that were member of cooperatives managed an average income of USD 34 860.16 (R$75 995.17), whereas this value was USD 134 649.08 (R$293 535.00) in Mato Grosso (i.e., 286.25% higher).

This finding might indicate that a different production structure exists for both cases. In the traditional areas of the South and Southeast regions, an increased proportion of farms were linked to cooperatives, but these farms were smaller in average area. Furthermore, a close relationship was forged between cooperatives and rural producers because they received technical assistance, support, and services in addition to commercialization and an increased level of added product value.

By contrast, a reduced proportion of rural farms were linked to cooperatives in the Centre West areas of the agricultural border area, with larger average areas. Their relationship with cooperatives was less intimate, with limited technical assistance and service provision by cooperatives.

Agricultural cooperative exports Exports represent another indicator of agricultural cooperative activity, and we found that Brazilian cooperative exports rose significantly over the 12-year period from 2000 to 2012. Taken as a proportion of all Brazilian agribusiness, however, these exports have been stable. This proportion, whose average is 5.18% with a standard deviation of 0.78%, has not grown in proportion to the level of agribusiness (MAPA, 2012; OCB, 2012). In Figure 4, %Agro_BR is Agribusiness exports as a percentage of all Brazilian exports; %Coop_BR is Agricultural cooperatives exports as a percentage of all Brazillian exports, %Coop_Agro is Agricultural cooperative exports as a percentage of Brazilian agribusiness exports between 2000 and 2011.

Figure 5 shows that the variation in cooperative exports (VarExportCoop) was greater than that of overall variation in agribusiness exports (VarExportAgro) during 2001. However, this value decreased in 2002 and 2003, increased between 2004 and 2006, decreased again between 2007 and 2009, and increased again in 2010 and 2011. This inconsistency indicates a lack of a pattern and demonstrates that performance depends on seasonal variations in the international prices of agricultural commodities

689

as well as in the exchange rate, given that cooperatives' agricultural exports are largely based on the agribusiness systems of sugar, alcohol, soya, meat, and coffee. In this graph, overall Brazilian agri-business exports are represented as VarExportBR.

Figure 4 Brazilian Agricultural Exports as Percentage of all Brazilian Exports, Per Sector, from 2000 to 2012 (MAPA, 2012; OCB, 2012)

Figure 5 Annual Percentage Change of Brazilian exports, Brazilian Agribusiness Exports, and Agricultural Cooperative Exports from 2001 to 2011 (OCB, 2012; MAPA, 2012)

The cooperatives in Paraná, São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, and Santa Catarina have a traditional way of organizing production, and they comprise 92.46% of the exports from agricultural cooperatives (OCB, 2012). This figure indicates that the activities of the cooperative

690

organizations are concentrated in these states and that the states along the agricultural border contribute a proportionally small amount to exports. Ninaut and Matos (2008) indicated that 32.79%, 25.91%, 17.76%, and 8.32% of the agricultural cooperative exports originated from the sugar-alcohol, soya, meat, and coffee sectors, respectively, in 2007. Thus, a small amount of agricultural commodity exports actually originated from the cooperatives along the agricultural border.

Organization of Production and the Cooperatives along the Agricultural Border The organization of production Mato Grosso has important characteristics. Its properties are relatively large compared with the rest of Brazil. The properties involved in soya cultivation have an average of 2 277.49 hectares; those involved in cotton cultivation have 6 142.12 hectares on average.

In addition, Mato Grosso has a higher average annual income per agricultural property (USD 69 092.20, or R$150 621.00) compared with the agricultural properties linked to cooperatives (USD 134 649.08 or R$293 535.00). In 2006, the latter was one of the highest average annual incomes of Brazil, together with São Paulo.

In Mato Grosso, 8.49% of the farms who are members of cooperatives were individually owned, 14.82% belonged to rural condominiums, and 13.85% belonged to corporations. However, 65.45% of all rural producers were not linked to cooperatives. This situation demonstrates that a higher proportion of properties are linked to cooperatives that belong to condominiums and corporations than those that belong to individual rural producers, which might indicate a particular land arrangement.

Pessa (2011) discussed how rural producers reached the agricultural frontier without the support or strategies of the traditional cooperatives in the Central-South region. Their response was to take a series of actions with regard to their own large properties, including technical assistance and (in some cases) processing, rendering the traditional roles of cooperatives unnecessary.

This approach is different from the formation of the cooperatives in south Brazil, which were organized by smaller rural producers with the intention of facilitating access to inputs, commercialization, technical assistance, and better technology. These cooperatives frequently developed in culturally homogeneous regions colonized by the same group of European immigrants.

The consortium of cooperatives The Brazilian Agriculture Cooperative Consortium (Consórcio Cooperativo Agropecuário Brasileiro, CCAB) was created in April 2006. It is comprised of 14 important cotton and soya producing cooperatives in Santa Catarina, Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso do Sul, Mato Grosso, and Bahia e Goiás (CCAB, 2013).

The mission of this consortium is to obtain better deals and prices from agricultural input suppliers, and it proposed a model for a purchasing pool to limit the price of inputs on the market according to the scale of its purchasing and bargaining power. The objective of this strategic model was to reduce the profit margin that those selling the inputs levied on rural producers (CCAB, 2013).

691

For the 2007–2008 crop year, the CCAB invoice reached USD 43.475 (R$100) million, and it showed a net profit of USD 4.34 (R$10) million after taxes. The consumption of pesticides by the members of the consortium exceeded USD 304.34 (R$700) million per crop, which represents an economically significant figure.

The cooperative consortium generated efficiency and economic gains. The results were positive in the first years, and in 2008, the group invested USD 0.869 (R$2) billion in logistics. This investment lead to the group becoming the owner of a brand of agricultural pesticides, import and distribute generic drugs, and limit prices on the market.

In 2008, 2 years after the creation of the CCAB, the consortium transformed into CCAB Participações S/A (a holding company of which the cooperatives are shareholders) with the intention of expanding to São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul in a bid to attract new cooperatives.

Thus, CCAB Participações S/A used two business models; it was cooperative in its relationships with the rural producer members (i.e., its “clients”) and a non-cooperative, capital-funded company in those activities that created bargaining power. The business-oriented services and logistic operations should function better under the auspices of a capital funded non-cooperative business.

In 2012, the market shares of soya, cotton, and corn held by this system were 20%, 70%, and 16%, respectively. There were 69 000 producer members; only 270 rural producers comprised 50% of the CCAB sales, and 1 200 rural producers comprised 75% of CCAB sales. From a different perspective, 0.39% of the producers represented 50% of the produce, and 1.74% of the producers totaled more than 75% of the output, which indicates the concentration of income and land that exists in the Brazilian agricultural border. Taken together, this imbalance likely prompted the need for different forms of organization, cooperative organization, and economic and market organization (CCAB, 2013).

For example, COALESTE had 68 rural producer members, with each property averaging 6 382.10 hectares in 2012. These dimensions show the economic scale of the productive units and the cooperatives of the Centre West region of Brazil.

As such, these producers and their cooperatives constituted a particular organizational arrangement, close to the concept of a pool, while remaining different in the focus and mission with regard to the arrangements of the traditional cooperative organizations found in Central-South Brazil. This arrangement depicts the new type of agricultural production organization that exists in the Centre West region of Brazil.

Conclusions This data initially revealed that the farms moved to new agribusiness areas, but that the traditional cooperative organizations did not follow this way of production and did not move to new agribusiness areas.

For its part, the levels of product commercialization at the agricultural frontier differentiated themselves from the traditional areas in the south, in that these areas participate in the cooperatives less. This lack of participation most likely creates the conditions for an increased freedom to commercialize through other distribution channels; as such, this commercialization is organized in a different way than the cooperatives of the South and Southeast regions of Brazil.

692

On the other hand, the cooperatives are important both for offering technical assistance as well as adding value and commercializing rural producers' agricultural produce (e.g., the soya agribusiness system in the South and Southeast regions of Brazil). Again, one might ask, “Why did this type of strategy, as well as these traditional and experienced agricultural cooperatives, not follow the movement of Brazilian agriculture into the agricultural frontier to continue the process of vertical integration and added value for agricultural commodities?”

The following hypotheses might explain this phenomenon:

1. The costs of moving the traditional cooperatives (i.e., the social costs associated with leaving their regions in search of new borders) limited movement.

2. The increased size of the properties and scale of the businesses at the agricultural border were factors that increased producer bargaining power and generated in-house production processes and technical assistance, rendering the traditional cooperatives unnecessary.

3. The presence of specialized companies at the agricultural border that supplied the producers with services and support practiced the required level of professionalism with regard to costs.

4. The significant opportunity costs associated with the agricultural cooperative organizations outweighed the advantages of moving to the new areas.

5. The significant transaction costs and information asymmetries related to the governance of cooperatives did not justify proceeding.

An agenda for future research includes determining how much each of these factors significantly contributed to this state of affairs and evaluating how the scale of this transformation demutualizes the added value of agricultural commodities. A last research question could be: Are cooperatives only important organizations in poor areas with economic and social problems, and unnecessary in areas with strong economic dynamics, where the invisible hand of the market economy supplies the economic actors' needs for all goods and services?

693

Notes

1 Full Professor at the University of São Paulo (USP) School of Economics, Administration and Accounting (FEA-RP) at Ribeirão Preto. Coordinator of the Study on Cooperatives Research Program (E-Coop), Researcher at the Center for Organization Studies (CORS), Brazil. http://cors.usp.br/en/, [email protected]. 2 This paper was developed at the University of São Paulo's Study on Cooperatives Research Program (E-Coop) at the Center for Organization Studies (CORS), and presented and discussed in ICACCR in Cyprus in 2013.

3 Exchange rate: USD 1.00 is R$2.18 in December 2005. Time of IBGE Census data base. Brazilian Central Bank.

4 A kind of geographic ecological ecosystem land (a kind of savannah).

5 Exchange rate on USD 1.00 is R$2.30 in December 2008. Brazilian Central Bank.

694

Bibliography Consorcio Cooperativo Agropecuário Brasileiro – CCAB (2013). CCAB Agro, Area de Atuação. Retrieved from http://www.ccab-agro.com.br/site/ccab-agro/area-de-atuacao.

Contini, E., Gasques, J. G., Alves, E., & Bastos, E. T. (2010). The dynamism of Brazilian agriculture. Revista de Política Agrícola, Ministerio da Agricultura, Pecuaria e Abastecimento (MAPA), Special Edition Mapa’s 150 Anniversary, July 2010. Retrieved from www.agricultura.gov.br.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística – IBGE (2006). Censo Agropecuário 2006. Retrieved from www.ibge.gov.br.

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística – IBGE (2006). Listagem especial do Censo Agropecuário 2006. CD-Rom. 2012.

Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento – MAPA (2012). Estatísticas e dados Básicos de Economia Agrícola, Março 2012. Retrieved from www.agricultura.gov.br.

Ninaut, E. S., & Matos, M. A, (2008). Panorama do cooperativismo no Brasil: censo, exportação e faturamento. São Paulo. Informações Econômicas, 38(8), August.

Organização das Cooperativas Brasileiras – OCB (2012). Números do Cooperativismo Brasileiro. Retrieved from www.ocb.org.br.

Pessa, J. L. R. (2011). A organização dos produtores de algodão. In E. C. Freire, Algodão no cerrado do Brasil. Goiânia: ABRAPA.

695

http://www.agricultura.gov.br/

Appendix 1 - Producer status, economic activity, and total area for all rural farms and those within cooperatives in Brazil, 2006

Source: The authors constructed this table based on those of the 2006 Agricultural Census (IBGE, 2006)

Total farms

%distribution of total

establish-ments

Establish-ments

organized as cooperatives

%distribution of establish-

ments organized as cooperatives

Total area in hectares

%distribution of total establish-

ments

Total area of establishments


(hectares)

%distribution of

establishments organized as cooperatives

Total 5 175 489 549 078 329 941 393 55 725 880 Producer's condition Owner 3 946 276 76.25% 480 025 87.42% 306 847 605 Location without definitive entitlement 189 191 3.66% 13 130 2.39% 5 750 283 Tenant 230 110 4.45% 31 259 5.69% 9 005 203 Partner 142 531 2.75% 7 629 1.39% 1 985 085 Occupant 412 357 7.97% 12877 2.35% 6 353 218 Landless producer 255 024 4.93% 4 158 0.76% - Groups of economic activity Temporary crops 1 908 654 36.88% 216 784 39.48% 83 464 335 25.30% 21 772 744 39.07% Horticulture and floriculture 200 379 3.87% 11 646 2.12% 6 051 687 1.83% 365 534 0.66% Permanent crops 558 587 10.79% 62 026 11.30% 19 012 165 5.76% 3 443 624 6.18% Seeds and plant propagation 2 682 0.05% 569 0.10% 436 920 0.13% 100 462 0.18% Livestock breeding and raising 2 277 211 44.00% 248 310 45.22% 204 442 681 61.96% 29 063 047 52.15% Production – planted forests 74 344 1.44% 5 277 0.96% 9 018 396 2.73% 607 352 1.09% Production – natural forests 126 649 2.45% 2 881 0.52% 6 158 285 1.87% 301 020 0.54% Fishing 15 072 0.29% 375 0.07% 433 585 0.13% 18 529 0.03% Aquaculture 11 911 0.23% 1 210 0.22% 923 340 0.28% 53 568 0.10% Total area (range, in hectares) Greater than 0 to less than 0.1 101 287 1.96% 1 255 0.23% 3 749 0.0011% 51 0.0001% From 0.1 to less than 0.2 50 194 0.97% 781 0.14% 7 037 0.0021% 108 0.0002% From 0.2 to less than 0.5 165 434 3.20% 1 927 0.35% 55 028 0.0167% 637 0.0011% From 0.5 to less than 1 289 893 5.60% 4 003 0.73% 199 005 0.0603% 2623 0.0047% From 1 to less than 2 442 148 8.54% 10 064 1.83% 563 880 0.1709% 12 935 0.0232% From 2 to less than 3 319 656 6.18% 12 619 2.30% 711 113 0.2155% 28 856 0.0518% 3 to less than 4 256 145 4.95% 13 811 2.52% 826 217 0.2504% 45 378 0.0814% From 4 to less than 5 215 977 4.17% 16 345 2.98% 947 732 0.2872% 73 114 0.1312% From 5 to less than 10 636 337 12.30% 69 605 12.68% 4 484 847 1.3593% 510 893 0.9168% From 10 to less than 20 736 792 14.24% 123 805 22.55% 10 289 684 3.1186% 1 764 676 3.1667% From 20 to less than 50 843 911 16.31% 142 231 25.90% 26 120 628 7.9167% 4 406 207 7.9069% From 50 to less than 100 390 874 7.55% 61 014 11.11% 26 482 780 8.0265% 4 238 635 7.6062% From 100 to less than 200 220 255 4.26% 37 932 6.91% 29 342 738 8.8933% 5 237 557 9.3988% From 200 to less than 500 150 859 2.91% 29 716 5.41% 46 395 555 14.0618% 9 200 634 16.5105% From 500 to less than 1 000 53 792 1.04% 11 329 2.06% 36 958 185 11.2014% 7 840 920 14.0705% From 1 000 to less than 2 500 31 899 0.62% 6 136 1.12% 48 072 546 14.5700% 9 157 262 16.4327%

Appendix 2 - Income by type of rural farm and federation region in 2006

Total farms

Revenue ($1 000R) of

all establish-

ments

Average revenue for

all establish-ments

Establish-ments


% of establishments organized

as cooperatives

Revenue ($1 000R) of


Average revenue of

establishments organized

as cooperatives

Average revenue for establishments

organized as cooperatives/

Average of total revenue

Brazil 3 620 670 121 833 136 33 649 549 078 15.17% 50 450 421 91 882 273.06%

North 342 352 4 965 381 14 504 14 044 4.10% 427 229 30 421 209.74%

Northeast 1 650 501 22 684 513 13 744 44 225 2.68% 3 058 261 69 152 503.14%

Southeast 632 867 40 985 579 64 762 146 578 23.16% 20 361 810 138 915 214.50%

South 805 401 34 976 717 43 428 309 513 38.43% 18 416 787 59 502 137.01%

Centre-West 189 549 18 220 946 96 128 34 718 18.32% 8 186 333 235 795 245.29%


Appendix 3 - Production value for all rural farms and those within cooperatives by federation region in 2006

Total farms

Production value of total

establish-ments

($1000R)

Average value of

production per farm

Number of establishments


Proportion of establishments


Produciton value of the


Average value of production

in establishments


Proportion of the average value of

production of establishments


Brazil 4 596 439 143 821 309 31 289.72 520 912 11.33% 55 815 776 107 150.11 342.45%

North 404 866 6 148 812 15 187.28 12 704 3.14% 476 983 37 545.89 247.22%

Northeast 2 218 769 28 413 461 12 805.96 40 817 1.84% 3 520 230 86 244.20 673.47%

Southeast 788 147 47 953 805 60 843.73 134 603 17.08% 22 561 463 167 614.86 275.48%

South 933 013 41 465 102 44 442.15 300 777 32.24% 20 789 807 69 120.33 155.53%

Centre-West 251 644 19 840 128 78 842.05 32 011 12.72% 8 467 293 264 511.99 335.50%


Appendix 4 - Source of technical assistance for all rural farms and those within cooperatives by federation region in 2006

Establish-ments Government Self-initiative Cooperatives Integrative

businesses Planning firms NGO Others

Brazil 5 175 489 491 600 9.50% 250 241 4.84% 225 521 4.36% 153 858 2.97% 85 195 1.65% 6 793 0.13% 30 374

North 475 775 53 592 11.26% 13 430 2.82% 4 401 0.93% 1 167 0.25% 2 121 0.45% 340 0.07% 577

Northeast 2 454 006 127 362 5.19% 52 894 2.16% 7 404 0.30% 5 248 0.21% 8 715 0.36% 3 607 0.15% 5 773

Southeast 922 049 119 002 12.91% 87 093 9.45% 53 039 5.75% 13 241 1.44% 19 200 2.08% 1 012 0.11% 11 679

South 1 006 181 157 369 15.64% 60 935 6.06% 151 502 15.06% 128 989 12.82% 40 726 4.05% 1 459 0.15% 9 962 Centre-West 317 478 34 275 10.80% 35 889 11.30% 9 175 2.89% 5 213 1.64% 14 433 4.55% 375 0.12% 2 383


Directors of the call for papers of the 2014 International Summit of Cooperatives Lou Hammond Ketilson, Centre for the Study of Co-operatives, University of Saskatchewan Marie-Paule Robichaud Villettaz, Conseil québécois de la coopération et de la mutualité

Acknowledgements A publication of this size requires many hours of effort and the collaboration of many people. We wish to thank the authors for their contribution, and for their prompt responses to our requests. We would like to thank the members of the Scientific Committee for their advice throughout the evaluation process, and for their assistance in identifying content experts to review the manuscripts. Their assistance was invaluable to the production of a quality publication. We would particularly like to thank Mirta Vuotto and Heather Acton for collaborating with the authors and reviewers during the evaluation process. We would also like to thank Ursula Acton, Stephanie Guico, Luc Gobeil and Marie-Hélène Leclerc for their excellent work in the copy editing, proof reading and formatting.

Extract of: Cooperatives’ Power of Innovation Texts selected from the international call for papers

ISBN : 978-2-9813483-2-6 Dépôt légal – Bibliothèque et Archives Nationales du Québec, 2014 Dépôt légal – Bibliothèque et Archives Nationales du Canada, 2014

©Sommet international des coopératives www.sommetinter.coop

Reference: Bialoskorski Neto, S. (2014). Brazilian Agricultural Cooperatives in the Agricultural Border: A New Kind of Cooperativism?. In L. Hammond Ketilson & M.-P. Robichaud Villettaz (under the direction of), Cooperatives' Power to Innovate: Texts Selected from the International Call for Papers (p. 683-698). Lévis: International Summit of Cooperatives.

Published by:

The content of this publication may be reproduced provided the sources are fully acknowledged. The content of the papers published here is the sole responsibility of the authors.

brazilian agricultural cooperatives in the

Documents