This field research examines the effects of Venezuela's 2001 Law of Land and Agrarian Development by studying a Fundo Zamorano cooperative in rural Monagas. The Fundo Alejandro de Humboldt was established in 2003 but has struggled to meet production goals, with membership declining from 28 to 8 people on average across its 17 production units. Infrastructure remains underdeveloped despite government investment. Conflict between members and poor crop management have limited productivity. While continued funding and technical support could improve sustainability, the program has so far failed to achieve production expectations in its first three years.

1. Sources Rojas, A. C. (2006). El Nuevo Cooperativismo Venezolano: Una Caracterizacion Basada en Estadisticas Recientes. Cayapa , 227-248. Chacin, N. A. (2004). Gestion Social, Pobreza y Exclusion en Venezuela a la Luz de las Misiones Sociales, Balance y Perspectivas (2003-2004). Venezolana de Analisis de Conyuntura , 25-56. Salcedo-Bastardo, J. (1979). Historia Fundamental de Venezuela. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela. Soto, O. D. (2003). El Proceso Agro-Reformista y La Revolucion Chavista. Monagas: Servicio Autonomo Imprenta. Universidad Central de Venezuela. (1971). Materiales para el Estudio de la Cuestion Agraria.Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela. Ellner, S. &. (2003). Venezuelan Politics in the Chavez Era – Class, Polarization and Conflict.London: LynneRiennerPublishers Muller, A. G. (2002). Un Analisis de la Nueva Ley Especial de Asociaciones Cooperativas de Venezuela. Cayapa , 1-14. Osta, K., Mendoza, E., & Giraldo, M. (2005). La Actividad Cooperativa en Venezuela. RevistaVenezolana de Gerencia , 424-439. Kay, C., & Gwynne, R. N. (1999). Latin America Transformed: Globalization and Modernity. New York: Oxford University Press. Gott, R. (2005). Hugo Chavez and theBolivarianRevolution.New York: Verso Press. Guevara, A. (2005). Chavez - Venezuela and The New Latin America. New York: Ocean Press. Becker, M. (2003). Land Reform in Venezuela. Global Exchange. Wilpert, G. (2005). Venezuela's Land Reform: Land for the People not for Profit in Venezuela. Land Research and Action Network. Blank, C. A. (2007). Evaluacion de Impacto y Misiones Sociales: Una Aproximacion General. Fermentum , 58-95. Cavadias, E., & Castillo, J. H. (2003). Las Politicas Publicas Sobre Cooperativismo en Venezuela. 1-18. Freitez, N. (2007). El Cooperativismo en el Estado Lara, Venezuela, en los Anos de 1960: Promocion Religiosa y Crisis Politica. Cayapa , 76-104. Garcia Lobo, L. N., & HiguereyGomez, A. A. (2005). Analisis Comparativo de las Cooperativas y Sociedades Anonimas del Sector Agricola desde la Perspectiva de la Rentabilidad segun la Legislacion Venezolana. Capaya , 38-63. Jaspersen, F. Z. (1969). The Economic Impact of teh Venezuelan Agrarian Reform. Bloomington: Indiana University.

2. Research Direction Visiting the agrarian sector in rural Monagas, the purpose of this field research trip was to interview farmers regarding the effects of the Law of Land and Agrarian Development enacted in Venezuela on 2001. Through participant observation, interviews and the study of local government documents this study analyses the effect of the agrarian changes in the local campesino and the sustainability of the government efforts.

3. Background Information In an attempt to improve the living conditions of the rural poor, and to diminish dependence on food imports and increase domestic agricultural production, the Venezuelan government under the executive authority of Hugo Chavez Frias has implemented a number of initiatives, called “misiones,” to bring about land redistribution and rural development. Venezuela has been able to invest heavily in development due to the influx of dollars from rising oil prices which have risen from $ $11.91 a barrel in 1998 to $97.98 in 2005. In this period, oil exports have accounted for over 80% of the country’s exports. Between 2003 and 20007, the Chavez government has redistributed over 2 million hectares of land. This land redistribution has been awarded through “CartasAgrarias”, state land distributed in usufruct on a permanent basis, or “PrendasAgrarias”, state land distributed on a temporary basis. In pursuit of its goal of food self-sufficiency, the government has established a chain of supermarkets (MERCAL and PDVAL) and production plants, restructured existing agrarian agencies such as INIA (InstitutoNacional de InvestigacionesAgricolas), INTI (InstitutoNacional de Tierras), and the MAT (Ministerio de Agricultura y Tierra), and fostered the development of enterprises of socialist production (EPS), and agrarian cooperatives.

4. During my field work I visited one of 89 government created Fundo Zamoranos. These fundos, organized primarily through cooperative production units, are the basis of the “Mision Zamora” and the government’s struggle to promote rural development. The fundo Alejandro de Humboldt funded in 2003 is organized into 17 different production units extending over 4831 hectares. The fundo has struggled in achieving their goals of production and the average cooperative has decrease from an average of 28 members to an average of 8 in the span of 3 years. While infrastructure has been slow to develop, as of February 2008 the government had provided agrarian credits of over four million dollars, and invested heavily on infrastructure development. Despite the initial hardships, continued investment and reorganization efforts are attempting to increase production, consolidate the production units of the fundo zamorano into a second degree cooperative and help develop rural Monagas.

5. Conclusions The continuous decrease in membership in most of the original production units is endangering the sustainability of the fundo and the ability of the members to produce in the hectares granted to them under their “cartaagraria.” Substantial improvement in infrastructure is necessary, in particular road construction, to increase the productivity and sustainability of the fundo. The conflictive relationship between members of the fundo towards other fundo members, towards production units, and towards government workers has led to a low level of crop productivity, increasing coordination problems and a limited communication between technicians and fundo members resulting in poor crop management. Despite the heavy investment, the program has failed to meet production expectations during its first three years of existence. While it is to early to determine the long run success or failure of the program, continued government funding and an improvement in technical support is pivotal to increase the long run sustainability of this Fundo Zamorano.

6. Future Research Questions Comparison of the fundo Alejandro de Humboldt with other Fundo’s across Venezuela. What impact did the laws enacted in 2008 regarding credit and agrarian development have had on the Fundo Alejandro de Humboldt? Has the reorientation of the fundo towards animal production improved sustainability? What quantifiable impact resulted from the improvement of infrastructure, especially road construction?

7. Field Research Completed By Alfonso J. Sintjago M.A. Student in Latin American Studies Graduate Assistant fastfonz@ufl.edu fastfonzsintjago@yahoo.com

16. Venezuelan Agrarian Reform:

17. A Case Study of a Fundo Zamorano in the State of Monagas