Caracterização da pluriatividade e dos plurirrendimentos da agricultura brasileira a partir do Censo Agropecuário 2006

Abstract

O artigo trata do fenômeno da pluriatividade na agricultura brasileira, referente à diversificação das atividades econômicas e laborais exercidas no meio rural, e dos plurirrendimentos, referentes à diversificação das fontes de renda acessadas pelos agricultores e suas famílias. Com base nos dados do Censo Agropecuário 2006, realiza-se uma análise para o Brasil e as regiões Sul e Nordeste do País, buscando comparar os assim denominados "estabelecimentos pluriativos" pertencentes às categorias agricultura familiar e agricultura não familiar. O trabalho identifica e quantifica esses estabelecimentos; caracteriza-os segundo o tipo de pluriatividade e a relação de trabalho do pessoal ocupado; e identifica as suas distintas fontes de receitas, mensurando a importância de cada uma na formação da receita total. A constatação empírica de um percentual maior de estabelecimentos de agricultura não familiar classificados como pluriativos (51,9%) do que na própria agricultura familiar (34,1%) levou a uma intrigante questão teórica, já que a quase totalidade dos estudos sobre pluriatividade no Brasil sempre considerou o fenômeno como uma especificidade da agricultura familiar. Embora essa questão seja apenas brevemente discutida no artigo, o resultado mais significativo é que deve haver uma importante parcela dos agricultores familiares que, justamente por serem pluriativos, encontram-se inadequadamente classificados como agricultores não familiares e, portanto, excluídos das estatísticas oficiais e, possivelmente, das próprias políticas públicas voltadas à agricultura familiar.

Occupation and Pluriactivity of the Families in the Southern Region of Brazil

“…But what interests us, in this case, is to call the attention on the fact that the PNAD, unlike the DC, although it does not collect information of all the municipalities it is absolutely not less reliable than the DC. In this sense, the last two columns of Picture 5 reveal that the results extracted from the microdata from the PNAD are compatible not only with the results of the DC but also with the ones Escher and others (16) found in the Agricultural Census k .…”

“…Developed by the authors. All information presented here show that the analysis of Escher and others (16) may have been somewhat hasty: first because they claim -without any intention to verify as we are proposing in this article, to compare the PNAD with DC -that the PNAD, given that it is a sample investigation (which do not collect information in all municipalities as censuses do), would be limited to studies on pluriactivity; and, secondly, because they highlight the strong presence of pluriactivity in the non-familiar agriculture as information supposedly exclusive of the Agricultural Census of 2006.…”

“…In the work of these authors, the employees seem not to form families, let alone deserve, as a family group, the attention of the investigators. Obviously this it is not a problem of Escher and others (16) , but of the database they used, the Agricultural Census, that did not allow them to consider the group of the families of employees (and the pluriactivity within).In this sense, the greater importance of PNAD is evidenced, more than the 2006 Agricultural Census, for the analysis of pluriactivity, since PNAD includes both agricultural family (self-employed workers) and the two non-familiar agriculture groups (employers and employees). It is a more adequate database for the purpose of studying the pluriactivity as mentioned in the innumerable articles produced by the researchers of the Rurban Project.…”

“…Another comment that deserves highlight refers to what is considered non-family agriculture. In the work of Escher and others (16) there is an explicit association with «employers» agriculture and no relation with the families of employees. In the work of these authors, the employees seem not to form families, let alone deserve, as a family group, the attention of the investigators.…”

Low Cost Robotic Manipulator for Family Agriculture

“…This process marks the recognition of a social category of rural workers, within the scope of public policies, by providing resources for funding and investments, creation of municipal, state, national rural development councils, as well as a set of research lines, giving conditions for pluriactivity, a new rural reality. This concept allows the occupation of spaces in the agricultural as well as in the industrial, commerce and service areas according to (Escher, et al, 2014).…”