Global Journal of Human Social Science, E: Economics, Volume 22 Issue 4

Brazil has a prominent position as a country capable of producing practical, positive, and negative effects at a global level and fostering conceptual bases for a paradigmatic change or maintenance of agriculture. Of these actions, we highlight the promotion of rural credit, the guarantee of minimum prices, agricultural research, technical assistance and rural extension and subsidies for the acquisition of inputs and the expansion of the agricultural frontier (Grisa & Schneider, 2015). As the collective organizations of the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) are a representative part of the FF in Brazil, it is possible to envision the synergy and the need for the contribution of resources to the intersection of these two fields, since the mobilizations and social demands of the grassroots organizations of FF and SSE, in many points, have similar and coincident trajectories of struggle. a) The Family Farming in Brazil At the end of the 20th century, actions were instituted at the national level for Rural Development (DR), with the aim of leveraging the representativeness of agriculture in the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP). These efforts to leverage agriculture and the unification of development policies made the share of agriculture in Brazilian GDP jump from 6.87% in the early 1990s to a significant 8.54% four years later (BM, 2020b). The Agricultural GDP, on the one hand, is linked to the agriculture sectors linked to super-specialization, such as the grain and other commodities export sector, which despite contributing to the maintenance of agriculture's share in the country's GDP, presents a mismatch between social and economic responsibilities. policy in relation to the private interests of accumulation downstream and upstream of agricultural activity (Malagodi, 2017). On the other hand, there is the family farming sector, which is always positioned on the margins of the actions of the Brazilian State (Grisa & Schneider, 2015), even though it is the sector responsible for the internal supply and occupation of the rural workforce. In 2006, The Law #11,326 of 2006, defined the guidelines for the design of the National Family Farming Policy. With the objective of unifying actions to promote the State, then, the generalizing concept of Family Farming (FA) brought together those different denominations of the social agents of agriculture and the countryside, considered until then: peasants, mini landowners, small producers, poor agricultural producers. (Manzanal & Schneider, 2011). Currently, because of this public policy, FF in Brazil is responsible for 22.88% (~20 billion dollars) of production and for the representation of approximately 67% (10.1 million people) of the personnel employed in national agriculture (IBGE, 2019). Among the actions of the FF development policy, the National Program of Improvement of Familiar Farming (PRONAF) is pointed out as an exemplary case, which presents a systematic increase in the volume of contracts and resources available to FF workers (Manzanal & Schneider, 2011). PRONAF did not emerge as an isolated government policy, but because of intense and diffuse social mobilizations that culminated in the creation of legal frameworks such as the Land Statute, institutions such as the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and series of programs such as the Rural Producer Support Program (PAPP), the latter responsible for expanding community associations of FF (Sabourin, 2009; 2017). Nevertheless, the FF has a multi-located and pluriactive territorial socioeconomic microdynamics as significant characteristics, that is, in addition to intrinsically agricultural activities, such as production and gathering, whether animal and plant, it also develops rural non-farm activities, such as processing, trade and services, in a territory that exceeds the physical limits of the family production unit (Fuller, 1990; Mardens, 1995; Sacco-Dos-Anjos, 2003; Baumel & Basso, 2004; Haggblade, Hazzel & Reardon, 2007; Mattei, 2008; Schneider, 2003, 2009; Gaspari, Khatounian & Marques, 2018; Cazella, et al. 2020). At the global level, in the last decade, FF has become the focus of sustainable development actions worldwide. The United Nations designates 2014 as the International Year of Family Farming (IYFF). Three years later, it was established that FF becomes a guiding centre for agricultural, environmental and social policy guidelines on international agendas, precepts discussed in the 2019-2028 agenda called the United Nations Decade of Family Farming and institutionalized in the Ten-Year Plan of the United Nations. Family Farming 2019-2028 (FAO-IFAD, 2019). This plan defines PA as a fundamental instrument for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the territories, since 78% of the 169 goals depend on actions exclusively or mainly carried out in rural areas (BERDEGUE, 2019). b) Social and Solidarity Economy Regarding the commitments of the Global Agenda 2030, the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, in 2018, through an inter- institutional task force, pointed to the SSE aspect as an effective instrument for achieving the SDGs in the territories. The SSE is a branch that demonstrates operating in an unequal field of disputes of economic and financial liberalization, privatization, and austerity measures, which start to favor specific business and economic sectors instead of prioritizing socio- environmental inclusion and the reduction of inequalities (Utting, 2018). Today, the ESS has an increasing Volume XXII Issue IV Version I 2 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2022 © 2022 Global Journals E Systematic Review of the Literature on Family Farming and the Social and Solidarity Economy in Brazil and Latin America