Do Peasants Make Science? Solidarity-based Strategies and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Amazon Estuary: a case study of the Açaí Solidarity Fund, Brazil

(1)

Do Peasants Make Science?

Solidarity-based Strategies and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Amazon

Estuary: a case study of the Açaí

_{Solidarity Fund, Brazil}

Master’s Thesis: _{Matheus Monteiro Alves} Research Master International Development Studies

Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam

(2)

1

University of Amsterdam

Master of Science Thesis

Do Peasants Make Science?

Solidarity-based Strategies and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Amazon Estuary: a case study of the Fundo Solidário Açaí, Brazil

Matheus Monteiro Alves 12232068

matheus.monteiro.alves@outlook.com

Supervisor: Dr Fabio de Castro Second Reader: Dr Mirjam Ros-Tonen

31.05.2020

(3)

Acknowledgements

I would like to recognize the invaluable assistance that my supervisor, Dr Fabio de Castro, provided during the research process - his insights, as well as his passion for Amazonian communities, made the research-process a life-lesson on professionalism. Moreover, I wish to thank all my participants for their time, their views and their inspiration. I also wish to show my gratitude to the never-ending support of my all-weather partner Nadieh. Thanks for embarking on this UvA cycle with me and for listening to all my thoughts and worries. Lastly, completing this Masters would not be possible without the motivation, love and hardships endured by my parents. Mom, thanks for working at _Degraus. Dad, thanks for expanding my worldview with that _Atlas.

(4)

Abstract

Throughout the Brazilian Amazon, a variety of grassroots initiatives grounded in principles of solidarity economy (i.e.: shared funds, cooperatives) have emerged as instrumental in overcoming infrastructure bottlenecks. Yet, research on the reasons for and consequences of rural solidarities has focused on governmental institutionalization of sharing practices, re-designing food systems and decent rural work. Remarkably, there has been not enough attention paid to local processes of solidarity-based strategies established by peasants themselves. Strategies originated and nourished within and for communities of historically marginalised groups remains understudied.Little has been understood about how bottom-up rural solidarities affect sustainable livelihoods processes. Accordingly, this study investigates the impacts of an Amazonian shared fund called Fundo Solidário Açaí (FSA) [Solidarity Açaí Fund]. Grounded in democratic decision-making and agroecological practices, money from FSA has been used to finance education, health services and infrastructure improvements. After FSA’s implementation, the Santo Ezequiel Moreno (SEM) community has gone from predatory exploitation of forest products to become a regional reference in sustainable forest management. Under an actor-oriented approach, fieldwork has been operationalised by semi-structured interviews on a mixed-methods research design. Overall, findings disclose ongoing challenges and a range of (non)monetary practices and partnerships regarding FSAs’ impacts on livelihoods at SEMs’ community. Current challenges concern logistic hindrances and local elites; yet, knowledge-exchange networks with universities and research centres and a strong engagement with social movements play an important role. The implications of this study contribute to broader debates over peasants’ agency as central to rural development processes.

(5)

‘Do peasants make science? Now I remember how the idea of the community’s Science Fair came up. Someone raised this question in one of our visits. This year the Acutipereira’s Science Fair is in its fourth edition already’

(6)

1. Introduction

In the past two decades, a growing body of scholarly and practical attention has been paid to solidarity within rural development debates ( EADI 2019; Embarca Marajó, 2017;

Scoones et al. 2017 ). According to the International Labour Office, local development efforts based on principles of solidarity economy (i.e.: cooperatives, community-banks, shared-funds, etc) have become instrumental in mobilising and voicing demands of the peasantry (ILO, 2019). Research on the reasons for and consequences of rural solidarities has focused on governmental institutionalization of sharing practices ( Otsuki and Castro, 2019), re-designing food systems (FAO, 2020) and providing decent work (UN, 2017). However, there has been not enough attention paid to the role of solidarity-based strategies established by peasants themselves. Strategies originated and nourished within and for communities of historically marginalised groups remains understudied.

Brazilian experiences on peasant strategies aligned to rural solidarities provide a consistent base for diving into peasantry agency and its effects on livelihoods. This can be explained by what Ploeg (2014) describes as a ‘counter capital’ strategy. According to him, the insecurity and poverty induced by capital (i.e.: ‘commodification, land grabbing’) are not only denied by the peasantry but is also a fertile ground where ‘the constructive capacity of the peasantry’ flourishes. Likewise, other authors have linked this trait to State-led processes of commoditization that prioritizes global markets over local demands (Van der Berg et al. 2019). According to Schneider and Niederle ( 2010) peasant strategies usually ‘develop within the field of organisation of the production process and of technological and institutional innovations – a field that has been underestimated over time as a space of peasant resistance’ (p. 380). Hence, how peasants translate their own strategies into livelihood outcomes deserves further investigation.

1.1 The Açaí Solidarity Fund

In the Brazilian Amazon, local innovations grounded in organizational strategies such as cooperatives and community shared funds, in some cases, fulfil functions that should primarily be exerted by the State (Sousa et al. 2019 ; Embarca Marajó, 2017; Portela and Gomes, 2009). This thesis investigates a case-study called _{Fundo Solidário Açaí [Açaí} Solidarity Fund] (FSA). FSA is a shared-fund grounded in principles of solidarity economy originated and managed by the Santo Ezequiel Moreno’s community (SEM), within the Amazon estuary. SEM’s community is composed of Amazonian floodplain peasants that identify themselves as _{ribeirinhos. As Pegler (}2015, p.939) outlines, due to their flexibility and scattered spatial distribution, _{ribeirinhos ‘never had the visibility of groups such as the} indigenous peoples of the Amazon, and have historically remained invisible to public policy and analysis’. Further, when describing the heterogeneity of the Amazonian peasantry, Brondízio (2008, as cited in Pegler 2015), described _{ribeirinhos as part of ‘the controllable} other’. Thus, although scarce, the existing knowledge on _{ribeirinhos provides theoretical} relevance for further investigating FSA.

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that previous accounts on the FSA have had a limited scope of investigation ( Araujo, 2018; Caixa, 2018). These accounts have described

(9)

the initiative as a ‘social technology’ , without investigative work on the internal and external 2 mechanisms underlying its operationalization. Accordingly, the specific aspect addressed by this study relates to investigating the ways in which FSA, over the course of its first 10 years of existence, has affected livelihoods at SEM’s community. Contrasting previous accounts, this thesis aims at expanding understanding of both the FSA initiative and the livelihood impacts of rural solidarities. Chiefly, this is important because it places peasants’ agency as central in translating solidarity-based strategies into ‘concrete alternatives for the construction of life trajectories they consider significant’ (Schneider and Niederle, 2010, p.387). Subsequently, as Otsuki and Castro ( 2019, p.161) argues, ‘we still know little about processes by which every day sharing practices add value to (non)monetary processes of redistribution, sustainable production and consumption’. Therefore, the validity of this research also lies in informing wider debates on the solidarity economy movement.

In a nutshell, to investigate livelihood impacts of the solidarity-based strategy FSA, this thesis builds on existing knowledge on community’s heterogeneity ( Futtema et al. 2002 ) and solidarity economy principles (Singer, 2002). It further applies a framework of analysis grounded in Chamber’s and Conway’s ( 1992) sustainable livelihoods approach to decode meaning from FSA impacts. Lastly, this research aims to explore to a further degree of scrutiny how _ribeirinhos _{at SEM’s community practice monetary and non-monetary values,}

as well as the ways in which these practices are intertwined with external partnerships and collective understandings of sustainability and social inclusiveness.

1.2 Thesis Outline

This thesis is divided into 8 chapters, the first of which has briefly outlined the concept of solidarity-based strategy and the case-study FSA. Chapter 2 provides the reader with an overview of the local context in which the study took place. The third chapter presents the theoretical framework, elaborating the main concepts. The fourth chapter introduces the methodological framework, including research design and methods. Further, field data are presented in chapters five and six. Whereas chapter 5 relates to data covering the proposed research questions, the latter - chapter 6 - deals with an emergent topic. Chapter 7 discusses the findings’ implications and limitations of the data that has been presented in the previous chapters. Lastly, in the concluding chapter 8, an answer to the main research questions is given.

2 _{According to Levidow et al. (} ₂₀₁₉_{), the term ‘social technology’ relates to methods developed, consolidated}

(10)

2. Research Context

Figure 1 - Santo Ezequiel Moreno

2.1 From rubber to açaí

The research took place in the Brazilian Amazonian state of Pará, most precisely in the Marajó Island. According to Embrapa ( 2020), Marajó Island has an estimated population of 500 thousand people, distributed in 16 municipalities, in which 7 of these municipalities are amongst the top 50 worst-ranked HDI’s (Human Development Index) in Brazil UNDP (2010). One of these municipalities is Portel, the closest city from the SEM community. From the capital of Pará’s state, Belém, to Portel it takes approximately 16 hours by ‘ _navio’ (passenger ship). SEM’s community is located in the Acutipereira’s river, which is part of the municipality of Portel. According to the Socioenvironmental Diagnosis of the Acutipereira’s river (FASE, 2006), ever since the rise and fall of the rubber boom the region has been subjected to intense exploitation of natural resources such as timber, fisheries, Açaí’s _palmito and intensive livestock farming. As far as deforestation numbers are concerned, although in the early 2000s a drop has been observed, recent studies place Portel as a ‘priority municipality’, meaning one of the locations where deforestation has increased the most (Tupiassu et al. 2019 ; Moura et al. 2017 ). From the city of Portel to SEM’s community it takes about 3 hours by boat.

(11)

Figure 6 - Communities along the Acutipereira’s river

SEM’s community is located in the top-right corner3

Ribeirinhos differ from other peasant groups in the Amazon for two main reasons: their riverside habitat subjected to periodic flooding (of greater or lesser intensity) and their position as both farm-family producers but also traders ( Pegler 2015; Neves, 2009). Unlike indigenous and runaway slaves populations acknowledged in the Brazilian constitution in 1988, it was not until 2007 that traditional forest populations such as the _{ribeirinhos were} officially recognized under the scope of national policies . 4

Historically, the origins of _{ribeirinho populations across the Brazilian Amazon are} mostly associated with the rise and fall of the rubber boom between 1879 and 1912. The global demand for rubber pumped by the automobile industry (tires) in the late 19th century demanded an expanded workforce. Hence, large numbers of workers migrated from the poorest Brazilian regions in the northeast towards the Amazon. These workers (known as

seringueiros_{), upon arrival, were sent to settlements to harvest latex, the raw material used in} the manufacture of rubber.

Under slavery-like working conditions and low wages, in order to buy food and other goods _{seringueiros overtime accrued huge debts in storehouses owned by land-holders} (_{seringalistas), whom also financed their trip to the Amazon and accommodation in rubber} tapping settlements ₍Cunha, 1999)_. _{This configured an exploitative relationship that is also} referred to as the _{aviamento system. Castro (}2002, p.204) defines the _aviamento_{system as a} ‘patron-client relationship’ in which workers are given financial and basic needs support at first, in exchange for selling their harvest at an exclusive and low-priced accord to the land-holder. In spite of the burst of the rubber boom in the first decades of the 20th century, the _{aviamento system continuously contributed to the reinforcement of relationships of} dependency and inequality in the region. For instance, Castro (2016) argued several

3_Adapted _from _Diagnóstico _{Socioeconômico} _do _Rio _Acutipereira_. _Available _at:

https://www.recantodasletras.com.br/e-livros/4331518. Adapted version:

https://transforma.fbb.org.br/storage/socialtecnologies/380/files/_apostila_casos_ensino_high.pdf

(12)

economic cycles in the region (i.e.: jute, gold mining, cattle ranching) reproduced this pervasive system.

Further,_ribeirinhos _{share a common identity throughout struggles such as fighting for} official recognition of land titles and access to market and public policies (i.e.: health, sanitation, education, electricity). As Arce (2003) argues, Amazonian peasant livelihoods are immensely complex and entail a heterogeneous mix of collective as well as private property ownership. Nowadays, the main economic activity of _{ribeirinhos in the Amazon estuary} _is

the cultivation of Açaí fruit (Brondizio, 2008). _{The fruit is also a highly demanded global} commodity within the superfoods fashion trend . Açaí, also referred to as the Amazonian5 ‘purple gold’, has led to major socio-environmental changes within _ribeirinho_populations. This recent trend is known as ‘the Açaí boom’.

The Açaí boom

Despite being for centuries a key part of the diet, the socio-cultural aspects and the rural-urban economy among Amazonian populations (Pegler, 2015; Chaves et al. 2015 ); it was not until the ‘Açaí Boom’ in the late 1990s that Açaí gradually became one of the main income sources among _{ribeirinho communities (Brondizio, 2008). Upsurges in demand} followed the first wave of regional rural-urban migration in the 1960s; and then a second wave starting in the late 1990s, when the fruit became popular in Southern parts of Brazil and in other countries (Brondizio, 2008; Pepper and Alves, 2017).

Figure 2 - Açaí in the Amazon

In the Amazon, Açaí is mostly consumed as pulp with farinha (manioc flour) and accompanied by fried fish. In contrast, outside the Amazon, Açaí is consumed mostly as an energy drink or smoothie.

Açaí’s production has nearly doubled in the past 20 years. Numbers from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics shows that Açaí fruit production has gone up from 121.800 tons in 2001 to 219.885 tons in 2017 (IBGE, 2019; 2017).

5_{Alongside quinoa, chia seeds, avocado and others.}

See:https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/oct/02/quinoa-chia-seeds-kale-supe rfoods-marketing

(13)

Table 1 - Açaí production and value (in R$ thousands) between 1994 and 2018

Source:Sistema Nacional de Informações Florestais6

Nationally, the fruit has become Brazil’s number one (in value) agroforestry food product and ‘promises income increases that no other crop can currently match’ (Brodizio, 2017; Pepper and Alves, 2017, p. 218 ). Nowadays, commercialization of Açaí undergoes value-aggregation processes and is usually frozen and shipped nationally or abroad to an expanding market. Furthermore, the price of an Açaí bucket varies according to the season of the year. In the Marajó region, there are two seasons: summer from July to December (dry season) and winter from January to June (raining season). In the summer there is an abundance of Açaí and prices are considered low; between R$ 10.00 [€ 1.65] and R$ 30.00 reais [€ 4.96] for a bucket. Conversely, in the winter months, as the offer declines, the same Açaí bucket is worth something in between R$ 70.00 [€ 11.56] and R$ 90.00 [€ 14.87] reais . 7

The main actors of the açaí chain are producers, transporters, pulp producers, industry traders, restaurants and exporters. Besides, Açaí needs to be processed (frozen or transformed into pulp) no longer than 36 hours after being harvested; meaning most of the stages of the Açaí chain occur close to production sites. The figure below represents the Açaí chain (Pegler 2015, p.936 adapted from Binois 2012).

6_{Available at:}_{http://snif.florestal.gov.br/images/pdf/publicacoes/Boletim-SNIF_Ed1_2019.pdf}

(14)

Figure 4- Açaí chain

Currently, many agree that the Açaí fruit economy has replaced the former Açaí hearts of palm ( _{palmito). Nowadays, cultivating Açaí fruit is more profitable in the short and} long run. Besides, unlike Açaí’s _{palmito the Açaí fruit does not require trees to be cut off.} Most importantly, the Açaí fruit economy ‘suggests possibilities for conservation and sustainable livelihoods’ and has fostered growing interest from a sustainable development perspective (Pegler, 2015; World Agroforestry, 2015).

2.2 Contextual Background of the Santo Ezequiel Moreno’s community

Historically, there is little written or photographic material about SEM’s community. Nevertheless, older residents interviewed traced the reason for the arrival of the first inhabitants back to the rubber cycle period. Further, many inhabitants of the area where SEM’s community is located today came from the Brazilian state of Ceará. The SEM community was originally founded in June of 2003, yet, its inhabitants were already living there but as part of the São Benedito’s community, which is located across the Acutipereira’s river. The community has a population of about 180 people, divided among 31 families. SEM’s community originated around one single family, in which 12 of the 13 children still live in the community. Most of the population growth is a result of marriage and/or reproduction within _{ribeirinhos from other communities or individuals from Portel.} Eventually, one or other household is formed by _{ribeirinhos that migrated from other} communities.

Economically, _ribeirinhos _{at SEM face limitations of capital, labour force, access to} credit and technical assistance. Corroborating Herrera et al. ( 2014), the main socio-economic characteristics encountered at SEM resembles a traditional farm-family mode of production, sometimes referred to as subsistence agriculture ( Martinot et al. 2017 ; Nugent, 2002). In other words, residents rely on family or neighbour assistance to produce, harvest and commercialize. Before Açaí fruit, _farinha_{(cassava flour), Açaí’s palmito and fishing, as well} as eventual sales of craftwork and seasonal fruits constituted the range of income sources. Yet, it is worth mentioning that SEM’s territory is a forested landscape area that consists of both forest and agricultural land. Hence, the community’s economic opportunities go beyond its flooded plain areas filled with naturally-grown Açaí trees.

(15)

2.3 Opportunities and Challenges in the Açaí fruit economy

As mentioned earlier, collective action in the Amazônia is often regarded as complex and highly influenced by _{ribeirinhos’ heterogeneity and contradictory sustainability views} (Pegler, 2015; Futtema et al. 2002 ). It is a mistake to romanticise forest communities in regards to their views on nature conservation. Often their itinerant status means the possibility to move production processes down or up the river to other areas where natural resources have not been fully exploited. For instance, before commercialising açaí fruit the SEM’s community like many others in the region used to cut off açaí trees to harvest Açaí’s

palmito_{. A practice with major environmental consequences.}

Studies in Amazonian non-timber forest products recommend caution before advocating for agroforestry-based economies (Homma, 2012; Peres et al. 2003 ). Açaí's growing demand has brought _{ribeirinhos a promising and somewhat stable source of income.} However, as Homma (2012, p.168) argues, ‘it is a false assumption that every non-timber product is sustainable’. Despite income opportunities, a range of challenges regarding Açaí production has emerged. For instance, the predatory intensification of production aligned with inexistence or low effectiveness of public policies that hardly (or selectively) reach smallholders has led Açaí fruit economy towards controversial outcomes (Araujo and Alves, 2015). As a consequence, whereas some small-scale producers (by chance or choice) engaged with sustainable forestry practices (mostly fostered by peasant organisations, NGOs and Universities) others have overexploited _{Açaizais (areas covered with açaí trees).}

Recent studies have found a growing number of predatory forest practices ( Pepper and Alves, 2017; Cialdella and Alves, 2014; Weinstein and Moegenburg 2004). This trend primarily follows a process of phasing out other species to make way for Açaí. Arguments have been made that in some cases Açaí’s production resembles a monoculture and presents a threat to biodiversity (Pepper and Alves, 2017). The picture below shows both Açaí production on floodplains and dryland.

(16)

Açaí (Euterpe Oleracea) found in the SEM community várzea (left) and Açaí (Euterpe Precatória) planted in deforested dry land in the state of Amapá (right ). 8

2.3 From the Coleta system to the Açaí Solidarity Fund

In 2004, a rabies outbreak transmitted by bats killed 15 people in the region (Rodrigues, 2018). A report from the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama) linked the rabies outbreak to deforestation caused by overexploitation of Açaí’s _palmito₍Araujo, 2018; Ibama, 2004). Although the majority of the casualties happened in and around the Acutipereira’s river, none of the victims was from SEM’s community. Still, the rabies outbreak triggered major changes in how _ribeirinho communities perceived their behaviour and organized themselves. After the outbreak,

ribeirinhos initiated debates on how to reverse the situation. Such debates resulted in improved dialogue and social organization, which led to the establishment of the Agro-extractivist Workers Union of the Acutipereira’s River (ATAA.)

Accordingly, the rabies outbreak seems to have triggered local reflection processes and debates over sustainable production. Yet, as the first president of ATAA pointed out: ‘_it

was not easy to convince others of the long-term benefits of the standing forest. Or açaí fruit over açaí’s palmito_{’ . SEM’s residents had long-term agreements with buyers of Açaí’s}9

palmito_{, which guaranteed them a little cash. Thus, to stop harvesting Açaí’s palmito and} start harvesting Açaí fruit seemed risky, and not all residents agreed with the idea at first. This reveals how the Açaí boom brought both opportunities but also new challenges to

ribeirinho_populations.

In 2004, after the establishment of the _{Associação dos Trabalhadores}

Agroextrativistas do Rio Acutipereira (ATAA) [Agro-extractivist Workers Union of the Acutipereira’s River], _ribeirinhos _{agreed that Açaí’s palmito production was to be forbidden} and replaced by Açaí fruit. Moreover, national attention brought by the rabies outbreak contributed to a wave of research being conducted in the area. As a consequence, in 2006, the river Acutipereira was subject to a comprehensive socioenvironmental diagnosis led by an NGO called FASE, one of the pioneer NGOs in solidarity economy and local development within Brazilian rural contexts (FASE, 2006). As a result, leadership at SEM had the chance (and agency) to engage with civil society organisations and sustainable forest practices. Thus, gradually residents at SEM’s started realizing the importance of sustainable management practices.

However,_{ribeirinhos at SEM noticed an intriguing trend. Despite income gains with} the Açaí boom, basic community needs (i.e.: infrastructure and access to clean water, education, electricity, etc) were still not being addressed. For instance, as built upon constantly flooded wood structures (bridges, ports, houses), the community requires constant maintenance work. Additionally, moving around the community from the different

8_{https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-noticias/-/noticia/45921690/embrapa-apresenta-unidade-de-referencia-tecnol}

ogica-de-acai-irrigado-no-amapa

(17)

production areas; floodplain for Açaí and dryland for _{farinha; was often a risky endeavour.} Residents had to walk on improvised wooden poles and injuries happened frequently.

From time to time, to keep up with the much-needed maintenance of the wood-bridges that connect houses in the community they would try and collect money per household under a system called _{Coleta. Nonetheless, the amounts asked per resident were} often too high for payment at once and the _{Coleta was not working out well. In 2009, over an} attempt to buy a _{conjugado (electric generator) that demanded the amount of R$ 190.00 [€} 31.40] per household, more residents started questioning the _{Coleta system. Difficulties in} achieving the amount needed steered debates over the need to find alternative ways to finance infrastructure improvements in the community. It is under this context that re-investing part of the income generated with Açaí fruit became an option. As Participant 9 (06.10) explains:

‘(...) we saw how difficult it was for us to get those R$ 190.00 to buy the conjugado in 2009. Then we started thinking about how to carry out projects in the community without having to ask for such a high amount per family. We have always sold a lot of açaí, we even sold more than 20 thousand buckets that year. We realized that it was a resource that was being commercialized without leaving any benefit to the community. Then, we started thinking about a strategy to use this resource to help the community.’

In 2010, a solidarity-based strategy was the solution found by _{ribeirinhos at SEM to} internalize and re-invest part of the income generated through Açaí fruit sales. Hence, a shared-fund that did not have the FSA name yet, was created to replace the _{Coleta system.} The strategy consisted of asking community members to pay a (voluntary) fee of R$ 1.00 (real) - currently increased to R$ 2.00 [€ 0.33]- per each Açaí bucket sold. Not all residents took part in the initiative at first, still, the shared-fund started anyway.

Figure 8 - Açaí’s bucket

Açaí fruit is sold in buckets (latas) of about 14kg each. For every lata, residents are asked to contribute with a R$ 2.00 fee to be deposited in the community’s shared-fund, FSA.

Thus, following the approval by a majority in a community meeting, a range of monetary practices started taking place in the community from the 2010s onwards. After each Açaí season, _ribeirinhos _{would collectively decide projects in which the shared fund money}

(18)

should be invested. One vote per household. Accountability of both inputs and outputs must be reported in general plenaries. Despite initial resistance, the fund (later on named FSA) gradually started implementing a range of ‘ _{Obras Sociais’ [socially oriented infrastructure} improvement projects] and developing partnerships that strengthened its concept.

One of these partnerships, the Instituto Internacional de Educação do Brasil (IEB) published a book in 2017 with a systematization of the FSA initiative, highlighting the main 10 projects and actions partially or fully funded by the shared fund. The table below builds on the IEB publication, adding an updated overview of FSA-related projects up to 2019. Besides, financial support, residents at SEM directly worked on each one of the projects below.

Table 2 - Projects partially or fully funded by FSA between 2010 and 2019

Projects Partners’ Inputs

1 Expansion of the community centre Water tank (NGO Tramitty) 2 Construction of a 690 metres bridge linking floodplain

and dry land

Wood transportation (Prefecture); Wood (Agroindustry Aparecida/Gilberto Dinadau)

3 Sanitation services and piping of drinkable water SEM’s only 5 Aviary House (temporarily disabled) Private donation

6 Fish farming tank SEM’s only

7 Purchase of a multimedia projector SEM’s only

8 Initiating the construction of a guesthouse and a restaurant for ecotourism

SEM’s only

9 Mini processing factory Financial resources (Prefecture, Banco do Brasil)

10 Church construction SEM’s only

11 No-interest loans to solve health issues (sometimes turned into a gift)

SEM’s only

12 Participation of leaders in social movements, congresses and other events

SEM’s only

13 Maintenance of bridges in the community Wood (Municipal Secretariat for Environment)

14 Accountability costs SEM’s only

15 Support to the Acutipereira's Science Fair in 2016 Financial resources (IEB, Rural Labour Union of Portel, Ribeirinhos of Melgaço, IVR, Municipal Secretariat for

Education) 16 Construction of a plant nursery Roof tile (Ideflor) 17 Construction of the Mulheres Marajoaras kitchen Financial resources (Caixa)

18 Construction of the FSAs office (in progress) SEM’s only

19 Construction of the Açaí Management Reference Centre Financial resources (UNDP, Global Environmental Fund, Embrapa - Projeto Bem Diverso)

20 Cables and structure for the electricity network SEM’s only 21 School projects (orchard, agroforestry) UFRA, IF-Castanhal 22 Asphalting the villages' bridge with Açaí seeds SEM’s only

Source: Adapted from (Embarca Marajó, 2017, p. 81)

(19)

Although FSA’s money was initially meant to cover maintenance costs, through time its applications have followed a variety of outcomes. FSA has facilitated the implementation of school projects, credit lines and engagement with social movement events. As a resident at SEM’s explained (Embarca Marajó, 2017, p.79):

‘At first, we thought of using the shared-fund for infrastructure, but in the long run, the fund has also served for training and education. (...) The little that entered FSA has helped to capacitate young people in the community. It has helped us in other struggles such as land rights and predatory fishing in the region. To give you an example, in 2013 we used FSA’s money to join protests against large-scale fisheries in the region.’

Most importantly, the bottom-up social technology relates to a range of affirmative actions regarding education, income diversification and political mobilization, which have been central to the community’s livelihood.

2.4 SEM’s community as a reference in the region

To this date, Santo Ezequiel Moreno’s community has become a reference in sustainable forestry use in the Amazon estuary ( UNDP, 2020,2019; Manejaí, 2020; UFRA, 2020; Embrapa, 2019; IEB, 2018). Recently, FSA has been replicated in other _ribeirinho community in _{Curralinho. SEM representatives are often invited to conferences in locations} around the_Marajó _{region and other states. In 2017, the FSA won national social technology} prizes . In 2019, throughout the11 _{Bem Diverso project , inaugurated the Reference Centre in}12 the Management of Native Açaí Trees ( _{Manejaí). Manejaí offers capacitation courses to}

ribeirinhos from other communities in the region, who then become _{‘multiplicadores’} [dissemination agents] who share their acquired knowledge when back to their community. Manejaí’s agenda for 2020 includes 18 courses ( UNDP, 2020). Besides training, throughout Manejaí SEM’s community has distributed personal protection equipment to other communities in the region. Although funded by the _{Bem Diverso project, Manejaí is} coordinated by _ribeirinhos. 11_See https://www.caixa.gov.br/PublishingImages/Paginas/melhores-praticas/praticas-premiadas/2017-2018/fundo_sol idario_acai/FUNDOSOLIDARIOACAI.pdf. And https://tecnologiasocial.fbb.org.br/tecnologiasocial/banco-de-tecnologias-sociais/pesquisar-tecnologias/detalhar-tecnologia-700.htm

12 _{The Bem Diverso project capacitated 1193} _{multiplicadores between 2016 and 2018}_{UNDP, 2020}_{. See}

(20)

Figure 9 - The Reference Centre in the Management of Native Açaí Trees in the Marajó (Manejaí)

Back to conceptual claims stated in the introductory chapter, Otsuki and Castro (2019) argue that the solidarity movement shapes collective experiences of ‘co-producing both monetary and non-monetary values’ (p.160). Certainly, while FSA could not have been made possible without the monetary contribution per each Açaí bucket sold, it neither could have kept on going without non-monetary values such as solidarity, union, labour and a shared vision for community’s autonomy.

Figure 10 - Solidarity economy and sustainability office at the community Santo Ezequiel Moreno

As shown above, FSA is not only about paying a voluntary fee per each Açaí bucket sold; rather, the shared-fund entails a strong level of community’s engagement, reflection, dialogue and commonality. FSA also reinforces the principles of solidarity economy in the region. Accordingly, in the face of both opportunities and challenges brought by the Açaí boom, _ribeirinhos _{at SEM found in a solidarity-based strategy a way to enhance its} capabilities while ensuring the sustainable management of forest use. Ultimately, the FSA experience seems to captivate one's interest within the role peasant strategies can play, as well as the livelihood impacts.

(21)

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1 Introduction

This chapter aims at defining and evaluating the two-building concepts of this study, namely, Solidarity-based Strategies (SbSs) and Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA). It further aims at discussing underlying assumptions as well as critiques drawn from the concepts explored throughout the paper.

3.2 Solidarity-based Strategies (SbSs)

3.2.1 Solidarity within rural development in the Brazilian context

In Brazil, the solidarity movement although initiated in urban centres soon made its way to rural contexts. At first, its dissemination was mostly thanks to civil society organizations and non-governmental bodies (such as Cáritas and FASE). Nevertheless, later on in the 2000s, under the national tenure of the leftist Workers’ Party governments, solidarity-based strategies started gaining institutional range (i.e.: Program of Food Acquisition, PAA and the National School Meal Program, PNAE) (Telles et al. 2017 ; Otsuki and Castro, 2019). Yet, it must be said that solidarity in rural contexts is often spread through a variety of struggles and is not limited to debates over livelihoods. Instead, ranges from issues of agrarian land reform to financial services (credit unions, community currencies) and urban-rural commercialization strategies. An exponent of this movement, perhaps, is the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement (MST). Often regarded as one of the most successful peasant movements, MST is one of the founding members of the Brazilian Forum of Solidarity Economy (Otsuki and Castro, 2019; Caldart, 2001).

Reflecting on peasant territories as active agents of rural change, Van der berg et al. (2019) argues that a ‘transformative epistemology based on principles of solidarity, reciprocity, horizontality and respect for nature’ (p.2) has been taking place in different parts of Brazil from the 1980s onwards. A significant example of this epistemology is the emergence and (urban-rural) expansion of solidarity economy principles to other parts of the country, where its manifestation follows mostly the shape of local innovations and community-based strategies such as cooperatives and community shared funds ( Silva et al. 2020; Embarca Marajó, 2017; 2019; Portela and Gomes, 2009). This study focuses on the Brazilian Amazônia, where in some cases, cooperatives fulfil functions that should primarily be exerted by the State (Sousa et al. 2019).

Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that solidarity-based strategies are manifested in different ways and scopes. Although usually reflecting in organisational innovations at the production level (i.e.: internalisation of resources, pluriactivity, value-aggregation) there has also been a growing number of commercialization strategies (i.e.: alternative markets, direct sales, solidarity purchasing groups) and the emergence of social technologies that enable peasants’ better leverage when facing structural bottlenecks (i.e.: community-banks, credit

(22)

unions, university-community partnerships) (UFRA, 2019; Embarca Marajó, 2017;Gutierrez et al. 2017; Maestripieri, 2016; Embrapa, 2011; Schneider and Niederle, 2010; Gife, 2009).

3.2.2 Conceptual challenges of SbSs

The initial challenge when conceptualising SbSs is precisely the inductive nature of the term. As far as the solidarity within Brazilian rural development thinking is concerned, contributions considerably vary in scope and object of enquiry. Consequently, solidarity-based approaches are spread throughout the literature and explored by a diverse set of lenses. For instance, while Otsuki and Castro (2019) investigate the institutionalization of solidarity arrangements led by the national government; Ploeg (2014) focuses on the constructive capacity of the peasantry to ‘counter’ insecurities introduced by capital, and Schneider and Niederle (2010) investigate peasant’s solidarity within technological and institutional innovations. Moreover, other general approaches include international alliances based on solidarity such as the South-South Cooperation Initiative between development and research agencies such as FAO and Embrapa ( FAO, 2013). Ultimately, however, besides referring to solidarity principles each approach builds on a context-dependent set of practices and therefore the inductive logic attached to SbSs remains. Thus, on defining SbSs we must first acknowledge the fact that the solidarity movement follows a logic where ‘theory pursues practice, rather than practice in conformity to a model’ (Kawano, 2018, para. 2).

Another remarkable challenge when conceptualising SbSs is defining the term ‘solidarity’. This is the case because ‘solidarity’ has historically been an important component of many disciplines across social sciences ( Mauss, (1990 [1950]). Thus, a variety of debates orbits its conceptualization. The conceptualization of the term ‘solidarity’ taken by this study is built upon an alternative economic paradigm, also referred to as the Solidarity Economy. Nevertheless, before defining a prefered definition of SbSs, which is grounded in solidarity economy principles, let us elaborate on the fundamentals of the latter.

Perhaps a pragmatic way of describing the solidarity economy is contrasting it with the mainstream capitalist economy. Singer (2002) highlights that key to the solidarity economy movement is the replacement of (contract-based) vertical ownership relations to the association between ‘commons’ within a horizontal paradigm of collective ownership. Singer argues that the hierarchical management of assets in a company that follows solidarity economy principles is replaced by self-management and democratic decision-making. Within this setting, workers become members or associates of the enterprise, bearing the company’s turnover whether that being profit or loss.

Accordingly, this sets the tone of a rather distinct economic concept when compared to a capitalist company, where ownership of the means of production (i.e.: software, machinery) is centred and the distinction between owners and workers leads to the (re)production of unequal gains. This is the cause because within the free-market system, while profit generation from capital is unlimited, the same cannot be said from profit generation based on labour. Consequently, workers, besides being excluded from the decision-making process, rely on selling their (limited) labour force. As a result, it can be said that the solidarity economy movement proposes a shift not only in practices but also in

(23)

principles. Otsuki and Castro (2019) argue that ‘solidarity economy is not only an economic model but a political statement for the needs of socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable market development’ (p.175).

Having said that, this study’s conceptualisation of the term ‘solidarity’ is positioned within this comparative intersection. Hence, it follows Santos and Carneiro ( 2008) proposition of solidarity (grounded in democratic and egalitarian practices) in opposition to the mainstream free-market model (grounded in individualistic and immediate interests). It further aims at exploring what Gaiger ( 2008) describes as socially and economically intertwined practices embedded in the solidarity movement that proposes new ways of altruism, and can, to some extent, reverberate in social mobilisation towards other struggles.

In this sense, the term ‘solidarity’ is:

‘[...] not only about a cultural shift in how to value labour and products but, more fundamentally, about a political action against dehumanization of the conventional economic model. Through the solidarity economic model, citizens challenge the ultimate liberal form of exchange - price-oriented market - to justify the practice of sharing and shape a collective experience of coproducing both monetary and non-monetary values and exchange relations.’

13

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, this leads to a rather diffuse conceptualization of approaches regarding rural solidarities, paving the way to criticism. In other words, that is to say, that on top of the conceptual challenges mentioned above, the solidarity movement has also been criticised on other aspects, which I describe below.

First, Buchanan (2019) argues that the solidarity movement often lacks in acknowledging ‘inevitable tensions that arise from structural inequalities’ within communities of practice; and mistakenly assumes unity in grassroots initiatives. A phenomenon that other authors exploring collective action in Lower Amazonian floodplains have, similarly, referred to as ‘social heterogeneity’ in collective action (Futtema et al. 2002). Put differently, despite sharing perhaps similar goals and to some extent identity, communities are not built upon a blank slate and the shared history of its residents carries, as far as assets and capabilities are concerned, an inherent heterogeneity. Therefore, collective action - within or without solidarity-based principles - does not automatically translate into a fair distribution of benefits (Pegler, 2015; Futtema et al. 2002).

Second, Sahakian (2016, p.34) points out that another weakness of the solidarity movement has been that of scale; ‘although various institutions exist at the level of cities, countries and regions to federate activities across sectors, the actors within the SSE [Social and Solidarity Economy] typically operate on a more micro-scale’. According to Laville (2010), this scale-problem comprises limitations that include both State and market. On the one hand, from a State perspective, as the solidarity-based initiative grows in size they face pre-established models juxtaposed to macro-institutional regulations that make it harder to

(24)

‘justify deregulation measures’. On the other hand, from a Market-based perspective, once solidarity economy enterprises seek collective gains, it comprises a creative dynamic that relies on social rather than private capital, therefore following a slowed pace of scaling-up processes when compared to capitalistic marketing. Ultimately, it can be said that under a context of limited-scale of State support and slower - outside private capitalisation dynamics - SbSs’ efficiency is put into question.

3.3 Conceptualizing Sustainable Livelihoods

3.3.1 The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA)

In the 1990s, the seminal paper written by Chamber and Conway ( 1992) has set out the tone of what would later be known as the ‘Sustainable Livelihoods Approach’ (SLA) (Scoones, 2009). According to Chamber and Conway (1992, p.6), a sustainable livelihood comprises:

‘(...) the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims, access) and activities required for a means of a living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels in the short and long term’.

Normatively based on ideals valuing smallholders’ capabilities, Chamber and Conway’s paper aims at provoking discussion amidst development thinking and practice. The paper is centred around an alternative approach to rural development, focusing on practice that enables local perspectives rather than single-sector interventions. In other words, SLA aims at understanding rural processes from a local perspective rather than imposing ‘artificial categories’ (Scoones, 2009, p, 172); and ever since its publication in 1992, SLA has become an entry point to participatory approaches ( Serrat, 2017). It further challenges what Berkhout et al. (2003) have described as the 1960-1980s’ process in which ‘the role of science grew in informing and justifying managerial and technocratic interventions’ (p.3). Accordingly, on the one hand, SLA argues that policy and practice amongst development thinking often rely on vertical and conventional conservatism regarding its problem-definition and operationalisation. On the other hand, Chamber and Conway (1992) elaborate the concept of sustainable livelihoods based on ‘capability, equity and sustainability, each of which is both end and means’ (p.1). Serrat (2017) argues that SLA contributes to the formulation of people-centred, multilevel and participatory development activities. Additionally, the author presents the following conceptual scheme:

(25)

Figure 11 - Conceptual scheme of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

Source: Serrat, 2017, p.4

Chamber and Conway (1992) identify three lines of ‘technocratic’ development thinking. Namely, poverty line-thinking, employment-thinking and production-thinking. First, poverty-thinking refers to the deprivation of the poor defined in terms of consumption; a definition that according to the authors does not match with the multitude of conceptions that comprises how rural people themselves perceive deprivation or wellbeing. Second, employment-thinking relates to problematization around ‘development’ based on the lack of employment; an approach that ‘misfits much rural reality, in which people seek to put a living through multifarious activities’ (p.2). Third, production-thinking, where problems such as food insecurity amongst the poor are defined as a matter of insufficient production; a view the authors challenge by arguing that such problems are much more a matter of abilities, of being able to actively engage in food chains, than of being able to enhance production.

Further, in response to the critics raised to mainstream development-thinking mentioned above, SLA proposes a normative and practical framework grounded in three concepts: capability, equity and sustainability . 14

Capability

Following Jodha (1988), Chamber and Conway recognize that the word ‘capability’ carries a specific meaning to each group. Bearing that in mind, the authors depart from Amartya Sen’s capability approach, which understands ‘poverty’ as deprivation in the capability of living a valued life, and ‘development’ as the capability expansion ( Wells, n.d.).

14 _{Here, it is worth mentioning that the authors acknowledge that given the diversity and processual nature of}

change in social sciences no search for concepts can ‘fully escape top-down generalisation’ (Chamber and Conway, 1992, p.3).

(26)

Thus, SLA builds on Sen’s capability approach (1989) to argue that livelihood capabilities are not only reactive but also proactive in its responses to change in rural contexts. Accordingly, capability in SLA entails: ‘gaining access to and using services and information, exercising foresight, experimenting and innovating, competing and collaborating with others, and exploiting new conditions and resources’ (Chamber and Conway, 1992, p.4). Equity

Sen’s capability approach argues that ‘individuals can differ greatly in their abilities to convert the same resources into valuable functionings’ (Wells, n.d.). Departing from that, SLA challenges economic approaches towards equity in terms of income or consumption. Hence, on the opposite way of conventional assumptions of ‘equity’, SLA attempts to expand its meaning by including assets, capabilities and opportunities in the equation (Chamber and Conway, 1992). For instance, discrimination against women, individual with physical disabilities or subgroups within a community who are heavily dependent on others.

Sustainability

SLA’s concept of ‘sustainability’ is centred around ‘the ability to maintain and improve livelihoods while maintaining or enhancing the local and global assets and capabilities on which livelihoods depend’ (Chamber and Conway, 1992, p.5). In other words, it relates to the extent to which individuals or communities can maintain their livelihoods and capabilities without harming the natural source in which livelihood prospects are built upon.

3.3.2 Criticism on the SLA

Much of the criticism SLA currently faces seems to rely on inherent aspects of its plural and complex original conceptualization (Fraser et al. 2017 ; (Scoones, 2009). Nearly three decades since Chamber’s and Conway’s publication, it can be said that SLA has been embraced by a critical and heterodox set of reviews. A literature review conducted in the early stages of this study has revealed a multitude of practical and academic accounts on SLA, which is important to bear in mind when reviewing criticism on the livelihoods framework.

In fact, SLA has been applied quite differently throughout development agencies. By way of example, a comparative study from the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) in 2001 compared how a multilateral institution (United Nations Development Programme, UNDP), an international NGO (CARE) and a governmental development agency (the British Department for International Development, DFID) has operationalized the livelihoods approach. In short, the comparative study reveals disparities in terms of focus and unit of analysis. While for UNDP and CARE the sustainable livelihoods framework facilitates planning, at DFID the framework is more of an analytical tool. Further, while UNDP and DFID emphasize macro-level reforms (i.e.: policies, legislation), CARE applies the livelihoods conceptualization primarily at a community-level. Ultimately, SIDA’s study highlights a conceptual weakness shared by all of the three approaches. SIDA’s paper argues that: ‘none of the SL approaches discussed here really deal with the issue of how to identify

(27)

the poor that you are trying to assist. Also, the way resources and other livelihood opportunities are distributed locally is often influenced by informal structures of social dominance and power within the communities themselves’ (Krantz, 2001, p.4). Yet, the literature on what has gone wrong on SLA comprises a wide-span and it is not the subject under the scrutiny of this study.

Notwithstanding, SLA has encountered several critiques, and the following relates to a brief review of these accounts. First, Fraser et al. (2017) argue that a much-needed pluralization of SLA demands a more serious historical perspective. According to them, ‘how diverging economic histories vis-à-vis resource availabilities shape contemporary livelihoods’ should be central in expanding SLA’s conceptual framework (p.1403). Second, Serrat (2017, p.25) argues that SLA ‘underplays the fact that enhancing the livelihoods of one group can undermine those of another’; meaning that although focusing on social relations within communities SLA research often lacks a long-term assessment of its impacts. Third, Scoones (2009) argues that ‘sustainability’ in SLA refers to a micro-scale of analysis which contrasts heavily with ongoing macro-scale challenges, such as climate change. Moreover, the author perceives the SLA’s framework as limited in offering responses to ‘big shifts in the state of global markets and politics’ (p. 181).

Ultimately, however, in spite of the criticism mentioned above, the SLA’s pendulum seems to currently lean more towards ‘recalibration’ than ‘farewell’. This claim is based on the recently published discussion paper from the United Nations Development Programme - Strengthening Livelihoods in Environmental Action: Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: a contribution to agenda 2030 (UNDP, 2017).

3.4 Hypothetical relationships between concepts and a framework of analysis

As mentioned in this chapters’ introduction, the theoretical foundation applied in this research is meant to be presented in two moments. In the previous subsections, moment 1, I have discussed and presented the preferred definition of the two main concepts under scrutiny, SbSs (represented by the FSA initiative) and SLA. From now on - moment 2 - the following subsections focus on elaborating hypothetical relationships between the concepts, chiefly, elucidating assumptions and expectations. It further presents a framework of analysis applied.

3.4.1 - Assumptions and expectations

I would like to start by laying out assumptions regarding knowledge gaps. Or in other words, why is this research needed and how is it built upon existing knowledge. Here, I start by claiming that despite important recognition steps at regional and, to some extent, national level, recent accounts on the FSA initiative falls short on comprehending underlying FSA processes. The overall focus given on ‘social technology’ explores only the surface of the initiative (Araujo, 2018; Caixa, 2018). This is the case because such accounts do not elaborate on collective understandings at both sustainable production and social inclusion level. Consequently, internal practices and partnerships in which FSA relies on remains unexplored. For instance, unanswered topics include (a) internal processes (i.e.:

(28)

non-monetary practices) that influenced the creation of the shared fund, (b) potential threats in the area (i.e.: land invasion; illegal timber extraction) and (c) the existence or not of heterogeneous views amongst residents (i.e.: regarding sustainability or the very existence of FSA) (Silva et al. 2020 ; Embarca Marajó, 2017;OMFCF, n.d.), (d) central partnerships that contribute to the maintenance, replication and strengthening of the initiative, amongst others. Therefore, the limited investigation of the layers within FSA is one of the validating factors assumed by this research. Chiefly, the extent to which collective understandings regarding sustainability and inclusiveness shape and are shaped by FSA. Thus, I assume that expanding FSA’s conceptualization within the overarching solidarity movement allows further inquiry on internal and external processes by which the initiative functions.

Second, I rely on Otsuki and Castro’s (2019) point that ‘we still know little about processes by which every day sharing practices add value to (non)monetary processes of redistribution, sustainable production and consumption’ (p.161). Although the authors investigate institutionalization processes within the solidarity economy movement in Brazil, I find similarities between the FSA initiative and their work on how science, traditional knowledge and social movements enable the co-creation of alternative economic spaces. Additionally, the interlinkage between FSA and solidarity economy follows the assumption that the FSA initiative has been nurtured by both non-monetary and monetary elements.

Third, according to Scoones et al, (2017) comprehensive accounts of the solidarity movement such as Avelino et al. ( 2016) and Utting, (2015) suggests a potential for livelihoods’ regeneration. This is the case if rural solidarities are set to allow for reclaiming the ‘commons’ as offering new forms of economic and political imagination (Bollier, 2014 cited by Scoones et al. 2017). Thus, an underlying assumption here comprises the investigation of existing scaling out processes (i.e.: knowledge-sharing, replicability, social mobilisation) departing from the FSA initiative towards other communities in the region.

Fourth, bearing in mind the criticism each concept has received, the focus given by this research expects to contribute to the much-needed repluralisation of livelihoods (as described by Fraser et al. (2017 ) and Scoones, (2009). This follows an increasing bar of interest amongst practitioners and scholars in experiments in rural solidarity economies (Chavez, 2018; EADI 2020; ISS 2019). But also responds to a central challenge within the livelihoods framework which is ‘integrating livelihoods thinking and understanding of local contexts and responses with concerns for global environmental change’ (Scoones, 2009, p.182). My assumption here rests on the global-scale of importance Amazonian sustainability possesses and how smallholders’ contributions towards sustainability grounded in solidarity can play an important role.

Overall, after taking each one of the four assumptions mentioned above into consideration, it can be said that the extent to which FSA has affected livelihoods at the SEM’s community has not yet been fully explored. Thus, I argue that there are several unexplored aspects at both internal and external levels of analysis.

(29)

3.4.2 - The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework Pentagon

In this subsection, I elaborate on the reasoning behind this study’s choice in applying a livelihoods’ framework of analysis to operationalize the concepts and assumptions discussed above. Yet, one could ask ‘why applying a framework of analysis grounded in the sustainable livelihoods approach to investigate the impacts of a solidarity-based initiative? My answer to that relies on a specific characteristic of SbSs and a few similarities between SbSs and SLA.

First, SbSs as a concept often relies on theory pursuing scattered practices here and there, which considerably impacts its operationalisation and analysis. Therefore, the use of a framework of analysis grounded in SLA is aimed at filling this gap. Second, both concepts, SbSs and SLA, share conceptual similarities regarding its people-centred and context-dependent approach, but, most importantly, the recognition of alternative forms of value (i.e.: capabilities, non-monetary). By way of illustration, some of these similarities entail a shared acknowledgement of:

(a) peasants’ agency; (b) local perspectives;

(c) context-dependent accounts;

(d) tangible (i.e.: monetary) and intangible (non-monetary) repertories;

(e) suggestions for needed epistemological distancing from mainstream economic-based thinking (such as poverty-line and private ownership).

Subsequently, a livelihood’s framework of analysis makes epistemological sense when investigating a solidarity-based strategy. This being said, I elaborate on a more recent account acknowledging the use of the SLA’s framework, known as Pentagon of Assets and described as a comprehensive tool on assessing development interventions ( UNDP, 2017). The framework expands notions of forms of capital and carries a concept that ‘different households have different access to livelihood assets, which the sustainable livelihood approach aims to expand’ (Serrat, 2017, p.23). The five different forms of capital within the SLA comprises a framework that facilitates visual insights on aspects regarding peoples’ livelihoods.

Figure 12 - Pentagon of Assets of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Do Peasants Make Science? Solidarity-based Strategies and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Amazon Estuary: a case study of the Açaí Solidarity Fund, Brazil