Impact of the Rural Agent Program on the performance of family farmers in the state of Ceará

Silva, Laura Costa; Khan, Ahmad Saeed; Rodrigues, Anderson da Silva; Sousa, Eliane Pinheiro de

doi:10.1590/1806-9479.2023.276249en

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • Rev. Econ. Sociol. Rural 62 (3) • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9479.2023.276249en copy

Impact of the Rural Agent Program on the performance of family farmers in the state of Ceará

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Rural extension plays a significant role in rural development, acting as an instrument of economic, social, and environmental leverage. Aware of this importance, Ceará has restructured its extension services by implementing the Rural Agent Program in 2012. In this sense, this study aims to evaluate the impact of this policy on agricultural sustainability and the generation of employment and income for family farmers in the municipality of Crato, Ceará, in 2021. The data were obtained through questionnaires with 112 farmers (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the program). For this purpose, the Agricultural Sustainability Index (ISA) (in the environmental and economic dimensions) and the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) were used. The results showed that the Rural Agent Program contributed to the adoption of environmentally sustainable technologies and the promotion of employment and income generation for beneficiary families.

Keywords:
Rural Agent Program; avaluation; family farming; Ceará

Indices and indicators	Variables and their Operationalization
Environmental Sustainability Index
Soil Preparation Practices Indicator	Does deforestation: Yes = 0; No = 1
	Burns: Yes = 0; No = 1
	Uses tractor: Yes = 1; No = 0
Planting and Fertilization Practices Indicator	Uses direct planting: Yes = 1; No = 0
	Rotates crops: Yes = 1; No = 0
	Uses manure: Yes = 1; No = 0
	Uses fertilizer: Yes = 0; No = 1
	Use compost/biofertilizer: Yes = 1; No = 0
Post-Planting Practices Indicator	Does manual weeding: Yes = 1; No = 0
Post-Planting Practices Indicator	Uses herbicide: Yes = 0; No = 1
Pest Control Practices Indicator	Does biological control: Yes = 1; No = 0
Pest Control Practices Indicator	Uses chemical pesticides: Yes = 0; No = 1
Indicator of Environmental Resource Preservation Practices	Uses permanent vegetation cover: 1 = yes; 0 = no
	Fallow: 1 = yes, 0 = no
	Do reforestation: 1 = yes, 0 = no
	Makes rational use of water sources: Yes = 1, No = 0
Economic Sustainability Index
Financial Efficiency Indicator	Agricultural Revenue (in R$) per hectare cultivated

Variables	Description	Classification
Participation in PAR	Dependent variable, referring to participation in the Rural Agent Program	Qualitative / 1 = beneficiaries; 0 = non-beneficiaries
Number of rooms	Number of rooms in the producer's residence	Quantitative
Cultivated area	Area cultivated in all crops (in hectares)	Quantitative
Do not use chemical fertilizer	Variable related to the non-use of chemical fertilizers on soil	Qualitative / 1 = No; 0 = Yes
Biological control	Regarding the adoption of biological control for pest control	Qualitative / 0 = No; 1 = Yes
Rational use of water	Related to the rational use of water sources	Qualitative / 0 = No; 1 = Yes
Credit	Associated with access to rural credit	Qualitative / 0 = No; 1 = Yes
Vegetables	Related to planting vegetables on the property	Qualitative / 0 = No; 1 = Yes
Family members involved in the production	Number of family members participating in agricultural production	Quantitative

Variables	Minimum	Average	Maximum	Standard deviation	^* CV (%)
Number of rooms	1.00	5.20	9.00	1.58	30.44
Cultivated area	0.30	1.25	6.96	1.00	79.91
Family members involved in production	1.00	1.79	5.00	0.82	45.99

Variables	Beneficiaries		Non-Beneficiaries		Total
Variables	fi	%	fi	%	fi	%
Do not use chemical fertilizer	49	94.23	52	86.67	101	90.18
Biological control	14	26.92	1	1.67	15	13.39
Rational use of water	45	86.54	48	80.00	93	83.04
Credit	9	17.31	9	15.00	18	16.07
Vegetables	25	48.08	10	16.67	35	31.25

Variables	Coefficients	*Odss ratio*	P>\|z\|
Number of rooms	0.3002177	1.350153	0.063
Cultivated area	0.8436921	2.324789	0.02
Do not use chemical fertilizer	2.091869	8.100037	0.025
Biological control	2.42925	11.35037	0.045
Rational use of water	0.745992	2.108532	0.296
Credit	0.2244596	1.251646	0.733
Vegetables	1.149842	3.157694	0.056
Family members involved in the production	0.6614838	1.937665	0.032
Constant	-6.955039	0.000938	0.000
Criteria	Coefficients
Log Likelihood – LL	-53.519347
AIC criterion value	125.0387
BIC criterion value	149.5052
Pseudo R² value	0.3081
Percentage of cases correctly classified	75.00

Variables	Observed coefficient	Standard “Bootstrapping” Error	Z	P ˃\|z\|
M.d.o familiar/ha	158.738	85.15597	1.86	0.062
M.d.o total/ha	142.0436	80.58006	1.76	0.078
Renda agrícola/ha	1,962.648	943.6722	2.08	0.038
ISA	0.05474	0.0193683	2.83	0.005
ISAA	0.0512613	0.0280116	1.83	0.067
ISAE	0.0582187	0.0279925	2.08	0.038

Variables	$Γ$			Variables	$Γ$
Variables	1.0	2.0	3.0	Variables	1.0	2.0	3.0
M.d.o family/per				ISA
sig+	0	4.1 and -11	5.7 and -08	sig+	0	4.1 and -11	5.7 and -08
sig-	0	0	0	sig-	0	0	0
M.d.o total/per				ISAA
sig+	0	4.1 and -11	5.7 and -08	sig+	0	4.1 and -11	5.7 and -08
sig-	0	0	0	sig-	0	0	0
Agricultural Income/per				ISAE
sig+	0	4.1 and -11	5.7 and -08	sig+	0	3.2 and -14	5.7 and -08
sig-	0	0	0	sig-	0	0	0

Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural Av. W/3 Norte, Quadra 702 Ed. Brasília Rádio Center Salas 1049-1050, 70719 900 Brasília DF Brasil, - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: sober@sober.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Source: Adapted from Passos et al. (2018)Passos, A. T. B., Khan, A. S., & Rocha, L. A. (2018). Sustentabilidade agrícola do PRONAF nos municípios de São Luís do Curu e Pentecoste, no Estado do Ceará. In A. S. Khan, F. Lima & P. V. P. S. Lima (Eds.), Uso de Indicadores em Ciências Ambientais. Fortaleza: Expressão.