Grouping livelihood trajectories and forest dynamics from 1985 to 2010

4.4.2 Grouping livelihood trajectories and forest dynamics from 1985 to 2010

In the second step, we changed the focus from livelihood strategies (LS) to livelihood trajectories. We grouped the livelihood trajectory presented among settlers in accordance with the timeline (see Appendix). The initial livelihoods adopted by settlers were mainly cropping (21 or 50% of the total sample – Figure 4.4) or cropping and raising cattle (17 or 40% - Figure 4.5), whereas around 10% had started with other activities such as breeding cattle and off-farm labour. From the total sample, just one settler started with cattle (beef) and changed to dual-purpose cattle two years later, keeping his livelihood trajectory based on livestock since his arrival. See Figures 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6.

Ranging from three to seven years after arrival, settlers who had crops as their main initial livelihood strategy incorporated cattle raising in their livelihood portfolio (Figure 4.4).

This expansion in their livelihood portfolio can be linked directly to three factors: the slash-and-burn itinerant agriculture within their properties, resulting in pasture expansion after two or three years, the pasture area already established in some properties on their arrival, and the available beef market in the region. They acquired a few head with their own financial resources, also usually entering into a partnership with a big rancher (gado de meia¹¹). A few settlers (about 10%) opted to stop cropping and started to dedicate themselves to raising (beef) cattle only. The majority of them (76%), however, combined cropping and raising cattle. Sometime later, this group changed their portfolio again, as new opportunities arose.

The main opportunity was the establishment of the dairy plant in the municipality, requiring a growth in milk production, and subsequently official credit for the purchase of cattle became available at the end of the 1990s. Twenty-five percent of them opted to increase their herds, still cropping small areas. Another group (13%) opted to concentrate just on the dual-purpose cattle, aiming at serving both markets (beef and milk). Around 63% incorporated other farm livelihood strategies in their portfolio, such as opening a small shop, pensions, and

11 Gado de meia is a common practice in southeastern Pará, consisting of a farmer exchanging forage for the equivalent of half a calf or half the weight-earning capacity of an animal (Topall, 1992).

91 Crops

Livestock Cattle

Livestock Crops + cattle

Off-farm + cattle Crops + cattle +

off-farm Diversified Off-farm Off-farm LS 2010 farm labour. Those who had maintained balanced livelihood strategies in their portfolio (60%) were identified as diversified in 2010. Otherwise, those who had off-farm strategies as their main livelihood (40%) were identified as off-farm in 2010.

Initial LS 2 2

21 16 6

10 6

4 3 3

Time

Figure 4.4 Livelihood trajectories initiated with crops on arrival

Note: The number of settlers in each livelihood trajectory is indicated within the relevant text box

Settlers with crops and cattle as their initial livelihood strategies also changed their portfolios over time, even though about 40% of them carried on these activities, enhancing their cattle breeding, resulting in the livestock cluster identified in 2010 (Figure 4.5). Others (18%), who kept the balance between cropping and breeding cattle, were identified as diversified in 2010. Twenty-four percent incorporated off-farm strategies in their livelihood portfolio, keeping the balance with cropping and breeding cattle, being also identified as diversified in 2010. About 12% of settlers incorporated off-farm strategies, mainly pensions, in their portfolio. They were identified as off-farm in 2010, together with those who abandoned all agricultural activities as their livelihood strategy, relying on off-farm activities (small market) as their means of making a living.

92

Figure 4.5 Livelihood trajectories initiated with crops and cattle on arrival

Note: The number of settlers in each livelihood trajectory is indicated within the relevant text box

A small group of settlers (7%) started with off-farm activities immediately on arrival (Figure 4.6). They worked for the mining company, the municipality, and as labourers on other properties.

Initial LS

3 3

Time

Figure 4.6 Livelihood trajectory initiated with off-farm activities, crops, and cattle on arrival Note: The number of settlers in each livelihood trajectory is indicated within the relevant text box

Although insightful and useful to identify livelihood trajectories, this approach also shows how widespread the trajectories followed by settlers are. Among the participants in this research (42), 11 different livelihood trajectories were identified. For example, those who initiated with cropping (see Figure 4.4) subsequently followed four different trajectories, reaching three different livelihood strategies identified in 2010.

Combining this complex and diverse livelihood system with forest dynamics makes the analysis even more complicated. Among the top three trajectories in terms of the number of settlers, forest dynamics within and among those properties are very diverse, showing several trends as visualized in Figure 4.7. The picture becomes even more complicated when one considers that settlers arrived at their properties in different years, finding different percentages of forest cover at that time.

93

Figure 4.7 Forest dynamics within and among settler properties grouped in three different livelihood trajectories Note: Different colours represent different livelihood trajectories. Each line represents a household throughout the study period. Dotted lines indicate the period before the arrival of settlers at the property; solid lines indicate the period from arrival to 2010.

All of these challenges and constraints, presented in this and in the previous section, lead to the conclusions that it is not possible to determine the influence of livelihood trajectories on forest dynamics because these are two complex systems interacting in particular ways in each household and at each property. However, some scholars such as Sallu (2010) have used individual cases to describe livelihood trajectories and environmental changes. Therefore, the alternative found to analyse the influence of livelihood trajectories on forest dynamics was to do so at individual level.