Table 3. Perspectives of soy farmers, other farmers and laborers on impacts of soy
| |
| |
|
Perceptions |
Soy farmers
(n=10) |
Other farmers
(n=14;
cattle rearers=12,
subsistence=2) |
Laborers‡, §
(n=11;
5
permanent,
6 temporary) |
| |
|
|
|
Effect of soy on income |
•very positive
•positive
•negative |
6
4
|
7†
6
1 |
11
|
Access to food |
|
|
|
•negative effect
•no effect
•positive
effect |
10 |
1
6
7 |
11 |
Quality of life |
1.Housing |
|
|
|
•Improved
•Decreased
•No change |
9
1
|
8
1
5 |
11
|
2.Social infrastructure |
•Improved
•Decreased
•No change |
10
|
11
1
2 |
11
|
Conflicts in the community |
•Increased
•No change
•Don't know |
7
3 |
n/a
|
5
|
Impacts on the environment |
1. Soil erosion due to soy |
•More
•None
•Don't know |
1
9
|
4
5
5 |
1
4
|
2. Water quality |
•No change
•Decreased moderately
•Decreased
significantly
•Don't know |
9
1 |
6
4
2
2 |
5 |
3. Agricultural pests |
•No change
•Increased
•Don't know |
5
5
|
6
3
5 |
5
|
4. Loss of forest services |
•Yes
•No |
10 |
1
13 |
5 |
| |
|
| |
Notes
†: This figure refers partly to
farmers’ perceptions of income if they were able to start cultivating soy,
but also to the availability to them of well-paid jobs in other sectors, and to
the fact that soy has increased the price of land, meaning that their property
is appreciating.
‡: All laborers are skilled mechanics or drivers;
there are no manual laborers on the soy farms
§: Six laborers were not
able to answer the questions on changes in conflict in the community and changes
in environmental status as they moved to the area to work and cannot compare
to the earlier situation.