ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND MIGRATION THE U.S./MEXICO CASE STUDY
by the NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE DECEMBER 1997
FORWARD
Globally, land degradation has become an acute environmental, economic and social problem. Each year, the world loses 24 billion tons of topsoil through the process known as desertification, mostly in the drylands which cover about 40% of the earth's surface:1 Desertification is defined as the degradation of drylands, in arid and semi-arid zones, to the extent that the lands can no longer sustain vegetation. Currently, approximately 70% of the 5,200 million hectares of the world's agricultural lands are already degraded.2 The primary causes of desertification, which in some cases irreversibly decreases the biological potential of soils and their ability to sustain life, include overgrazing, overcultivation, deforestation, poor water management, and climatological factors that contribute to vegetation loss and soil erosion. Because rural communities depend on local land and water resources for their continued subsistence, soil erosion directly contributes to declines in rural incomes. Combined with other factors such as population growth (which increases land use and subdivision) and access to labor markets, this decline in incomes can stimulate migration. It is estimated that 25 million people worldwide have already been displaced due to these factors.3 For these and other reasons, over 100 countries have now ratified the first global Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought. Though the President of the United States has sent the Convention to the Senate for ratification, the Senate has still not acted upon it. As discussed in this report, important U.S. interests related to desertification and migration to the United States, and the need for cooperative programs to address this problem, argue strongly in favor of expeditious U.S. ratification of the Convention. The desertification-poverty-migration phenomenon is growing in Latin America and the Caribbean. Desertification now affects much of the Peruvian coastal areas, 20% of Argentina's territory, and all of Northeast Brazil where migration from rural areas is growing rapidly. 4 Haiti has experienced a 2/5 decline in productive lands over the last several decades, and only 2% of its territory remains forested. Mexico is one of the most acutely affected countries in the region: more than 60% of Mexico's territory is severely degraded. As discussed extensively in this report, those affected are largely the rural poor. Mexico's widespread land degradation, together with the history of migration across the 2,000 mile U.S.-Mexico border, make these countries an interesting case study for analysis of the linkages between land degradation and international migration.
1
W. Franklin Cardy, Director Desertification Programs, U.N. Environment Programme, presentation at "Improving Science and Technology for Increased Environmental Security in the Drylands Workshop (July 8, 1997)"; see also, Hassan, Hassan and H.E. Dregne, “Natural Habitats and Ecosystems Management in Drylands: An Overview� Natural Habitats and Ecosystems Management Series, (May 1997).
2
Lean, Geoffrey. Down to Earth, The Centre for Our Common Future, p.5. (1995)
3 4
Id. See NHI/CODEFF Report, "North-South NGO Forum on Desertification in the American Hemisphere," San Francisco, CA, (Nov. 10-12, 1996).
The Natural Heritage Institute ("NHI"), a non-profit, public interest environmental organization which seeks to promote improved management of natural resources worldwide, began documenting environmental migration in 1992, co-publishing, with Universities Field Staff International, reports on environment and migration in Northeast Brazil, Haiti, India, and Horn of Africa. In 1993, the Institute included Mexico in its program. In 1994, NHI prepared a preliminary report entitled, "Desertification and Migration: Case Studies and Evaluation," related to Mexico, Haiti, Northeast Brazil, India and Africa, for the U.N. Secretariat for a Global Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought. Subsequently, NHI completed a more geographically focused research paper on the phenomenon in North America entitled, "Desertification and Migration: Mexico and the United States." This was published by the U.S. Congressional Commission on Immigration Reform in 1995. In 1995, the Natural Heritage Institute organized a Roundtable meeting of binational experts in the environment, economic, legal and demographic fields to discuss initial findings and to identify a framework for an interdisciplinary work plan. NHI's "Roundtable on Defining the Relationship Between Environment, Population Trends, Trade and Migration: Identifying the Data Gaps and Policy Solutions in Mexico and the U.S." was held, in association with the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, November 14, 1995 in San Francisco. Based upon preliminary data then available to characterize environmental degradation, there was general opinion among the participants that a significant correlation exists between environmental degradation, population trends, and migration in Mexico, complicated by U.S. and Mexican economic and immigration policies. It was also recognized that the controversy about migration continued to be fueled by gaps in existing data and lack of consensus on findings. The participants determined that further research of these correlations is warranted to develop sound policy responses, particularly to clarify the degree of associations among factors. This opinion was echoed in a recent gathering of experts for an international symposium on the subject, in which NHI participated, hosted by the International Organization for Migration, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Refugee Policy Group in 1996.5 Similarly, in North America, 1996 and 1997 reviews of the effects of NAFTA by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation have included analysis on the links between trade and economic reforms, dryland degradation in agricultural regions and rural to urban migration.6 Determining the root causes of migration has become the focus of other official investigations in North America. Mexican and U.S. agencies agreed in 1994 to study jointly the causes and consequences related to cross-border migration. Their effort lacks analysis of the environmentally related causes of migration. Our report, the culmination of an investigation since 1993 on the U.S.-Mexico case study, seeks to fill this gap in analysis and to provide a framework for policy reform. We are pleased that the U.S. Congressional Commission on Immigration Reform has incorporated certain key findings and recommendations from our report into its official Congressional report of September, 1997. Importantly, it too urges Congress to consider the environment and development root causes of migration in establishing its foreign policies related to Mexico and other countries. NHI’s findings, provided in this report, can serve as a beginning point for further official debate and action on the issue. As indicated in the Acknowledgments, we are grateful to our many collaborators on both sides of the border for their expertise and assistance in this effort, and particularly indebted to Dr. Alain
5 6
International Symposium, Environmentally Induced Population Displacements and Environmental Impacts Resulting from Mass Migrations (1996) (Report available from Dr. Reinhard Lohrmann, IOM, Geneva). NAFTA Commission on Environmental Cooperation, Effects Workshop in La Jolla, CA. Apr. 29-30, 1996.
de Janvry and Dr. Elisabeth Sadoulet of the Agricultural Economics Department, University of California at Berkeley, for their collaboration on this effort.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Natural Heritage Institute Project Director, Michelle Leighton, Senior Legal Counsel, Director of International Programs; Mark R. Wolfe, Associate Legal Counsel; Heather Hanson, Research Coordinator; Heidi McAllister, Research Assistant; Elinor Leary, Project Assistant; Research Interns, Michelle Passero, Lara Hinde, Katarina Rost, Michelle Hudson. U.C. Berkeley Team working with Natural Heritage Institute: Professor Alain de Janvry, Project Director; Elisabeth Sadoulet, Paul Winters, Benjamin Davis, Kevin Seidel. Collaborating Agencies In Mexico: Secretariat for the Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries (SEMARNAP), National Population Council (CONAPO), Secretary for Agrarian Reform (SRA) In the United States: U.S. Congressional Commission on Immigration Reform; U.S. Department of State, Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration. Support for this work has been generously provided by: The Congressional Commission on Immigration Reform, the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Organization for Migration, Weeden Foundation, the Summit Charitable Foundation, and the Compton Foundation. We would also like to thank our many associates who contributed their thoughts and comments in our work during the development of this report, including the following. Associates in the United States: Susan Forbes Martin, Executive Director, Lindsay Lowell, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform; Douglas Hunter, Kathy Johnson Caserras, Bureau of Population, Migration and Refugees, U.S. Department of State; David Myhre, Assistant Director for Program Development, Program in Latin American Studies, Princeton University; Susan Bass, Environmental Law Institute; Robert Engelman, Population Action International. We extend special thanks to U.C. Davis Professors Philip L. Martin and Edward P. Taylor for their continued assistance since 1994 in this effort. Associates in Mexico: Dr. Héctor M. Arias Rojo, Centro de Investigación para el Desarrollo de los Recursos Naturales de Sonora (Cideson); Dr. David Barkin, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Xochimilco, Gonzalo Chapela y Mendoza, Director de Conservacion de Suelos, and Sergio Varela Hernandez, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pesca (SEMARNAP); Professor Manuel Anaya Garduño, Director de Investigacion, Colegio del Postgraduados; Dr. Valentino Sorani, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México (UNAM); Diego Reygada; Maria Ortega de la Luz Solario; Dr. Rodolfo Tuirán, Secretary General, and former Secretary General José Gómez de León, Consejo Nacional de Población (CONAPO). Associates from around the globe: Dr. Karen O'Brien, Institute for Geography, Norway; Dr. Reinhard Lohrmann, International Organization for Migration (IOM), Geneva; and W. Franklin G. Cardy, Deputy Assistant Executive Director, Environmental Management and Support Measures and Director, Desertification Control Programs, Elizabeth Migongo-Bake, Desertification Control Programs, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi; Dr. Pierre Marc Johnson, McGill University School of Law, and Counsel of Heenan & Blaikie, Montreal. We thank the following for their contribution to our earlier report, including certain GIS information produced in this report: Dr. Jorge Bustamante, President, Dr. Jorge Santibañez Romellon, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, México; Dr. Alain Winckell, Dr. Daniel Delaunay, ORSTOM Team, Mexico. Please direct questions related to this report: Michelle Leighton, Director International Programs, 114 Sansome Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, Ca., USA 94104, (415) 288-0550, e-mail: mls@n-h-i.org.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... i
I.
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ............................................................. 1 Figure 1
II.
THE U.S./MEXICO CASE STUDY ON MIGRATION ............................................................ 3
III.
A.
Summary of Migration Findings from a National Survey in Mexico ................................. 3 Map on Mexican States Table 1 Characteristics of Individual Migrants Table 2 Migration by Farm Size 1. Areas of Migrant Origin and Destination .............................................................. 5 Table 3 Migration by State of Origin Table 4 Matrix of Mexico-U.S. Migration 2. Social Characteristics of Migrants ......................................................................... 6 Table 5 Characteristics of the Indigenous Population
B.
Social and Demographic Causes of Migration Between Mexico and the United States .... 7 1. The Economics of Migration ................................................................................. 7 Map on Migration by State 2. The Role of Community Networks ........................................................................ 8 3. "Pull" Factors From the U.S. Side of the Border ................................................... 9
C.
Population Trends and Migration ..................................................................................... 10
D.
Land Tenure and Migration .............................................................................................. 11
E.
Agricultural Economic Reforms, NAFTA, and Migration ............................................... 13
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND MIGRATION ................................................. 16 A.
Degradation of Mexico's Agricultural Lands, Forests, Climate, Biodiversity and Water 16 Map on Index of Aridity 1. Agricultural Land Degradation ............................................................................ 17 Map on Soil Degradation in Mexico 2. Deforestation........................................................................................................ 19 Map on Forest Area by Municipality Map on Deforestation Between 1980 and 1990 3. Climate Change as a Cause and Consequence of Land Degradation................... 19 4. Agricultural Land Degradation and Biodiversity Loss ........................................ 22 5. Water Resource Degradation and Scarcity .......................................................... 23
B.
Land Degradation as a Determinant of Migration ............................................................ 24 1. Impacts of Land Degradation on Household Incomes ......................................... 25 Map on Marginality by Municipality Table 6 Household Characteristics by Income Level 2. Poverty: the Nexus Between Land Degradation and Migration .......................... 26 Table 7 Determinants of Migration 3. Correlation Between Land Degradation And Population Trends ........................ 28 Map on Aridity and Density of Rural Population
IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………..30 A.
B.
Potential for U.S. Action: Policies and Programs ............................................................. 30 1. Cooperative Programs.......................................................................................... 30 2. Integrating U.S. Environment, Population, Migration Policies ........................... 31 3. Use of Remittances for Improving Local Development and Financial InstitutionalCapacity…….………………………………………………………33 4. Support for Research Which Seeks to Identify Problems and Solutions in an IntegratedFashion……………………………………………………………..34
Opportunities for Policy Reform ................................................................................................... 34 1. Environment and Agriculture .............................................................................. 34 2. Population and Rural Development ..................................................................... 36
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of a four-year investigation led by the Natural Heritage Institute (NHI) into the environmental and developmental causes of cross-border migration from Mexico to the U.S. The purpose of NHI's effort is to broaden understanding about the interrelationship between the social, economic, demographic, and natural resource management-related determinants of transnational migration. Mexico-U.S. migration is a problem shared by both countries. Solutions will require joint action. We have produced this report in the spirit of catalyzing binational cooperation and the development of lasting solutions. Experts and officials estimate that each year between 700,000 and 900,000 people are forced to leave Mexico's rural dryland areas in search of livelihood elsewhere. It is generally accepted among government officials and academics that migration is a product of the expectation of higher wages, improved social services, and a comparatively high standard of living in the U.S. What is often ignored and less understood, however, is that these economic determinants are a component of a larger system of inter-connected social, demographic, and environmental phenomena that together form the motivating basis for cross-border migration. Indeed, while much has been written about the relationship between migration and employment, for example, surprisingly little analysis has emerged from the academic and government communities to address other social and environmental factors that are now emerging as important determinants of Mexican migration. Among the least studied of these other factors are those stemming from the physical environmental degradation of agricultural lands in Mexico, particularly in the country's arid and semi-arid regions where water is most scarce. Degradation occurs from overharvesting, overgrazing of livestock, improper irrigation and lack of access to technology. Severe soil erosion and the removal of land from crop production inevitably cause serious income declines among Mexican households for whom agriculture is the primary income-generating activity. As agriculture becomes less and less viable as a source of income and wealth for these households, cross-border migration correspondingly becomes more economically attractive. Meanwhile, the agricultural communities in Mexico impacted by land degradation are developing more sophisticated social networks in U.S. destination areas, thereby reducing the costs and risks associated with migration. For farm households in Mexico's dryland areas, a majority of which are threatened by desertification, migration is often an obvious economic choice. This is not unlike the American experience during the 1930's, when thousands of migrants streamed from the "Dust Bowl" of the midwest into western states when drought and unsustainable farming combined to induce massive poverty. Believing that Mexican migration is linked to environmental stress, a problem that is measurable and that may be eased through targeted intervention, NHI undertook this investigation. Our findings reveal several key conclusions. There is a strong correlation between environmental stress, poverty, and population pressure which can lead to migration. Environmental degradation, poverty, population and associated migratory flows cannot be addressed through short-term fixes initiated unilaterally by the U.S., such as additional border security and employment related sanctions. Rather, official and private, or nongovernmental programs within Mexico to address these problems is warranted. The Mexican government will need to direct greater attention and resources to these issues. The U.S. can play a catalyzing role for these reforms through binational i
cooperation with Mexico’s private and public sectors. The U.S. has technology and expertise that can serve in building and facilitating these programs. To date, these opportunities have been little explored beyond the physical border area. An immediate step is to ratify the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought already ratified by Mexico and more than 100 other countries. This can serve as a framework for cooperation between Mexico and the U.S. in addressing these issues as it recognizes the direct link between desertification and migration. Below is a summary of the key findings and recommendations warranting official consideration. Results From Analysis of Demographic, Economic and Environmental Data In 1994, Professor Alain de Janvry of the Department of Resource Economics at the University of California at Berkeley, in conjunction with the Mexican Secretary for Agrarian Reform (SRA), undertook a comprehensive demographic survey of ejido households in Mexico. Ejidos are cooperative farming communities with common land ownership, which together account for more than 70% of the Mexico's farmers and 52% of all its arable land. The survey was designed to obtain data on the nature and incidence of migration from ejido households and the socioeconomic characteristics of the migrants. Data from the over 14,000 survey responses were analyzed, first independently, and then cross-tabulated against existing data, in association with NHI, on land degradation, deforestation, and population growth in Mexico to determine whether and to what extent significant correlations existed. This analysis was then compiled and organized in a special report developed by Professor de Janvry for NHI, attached as Appendix 1. The survey results are illuminative. 12.4% of the ejido households surveyed had members who had migrated to the U.S. at least once during the last four years, and 26.8% had members who had migrated to the U.S. at least once in their lifetimes. The survey also reflects that fully 75% of the migrants originated from the same ten states in the central, northern, and North Pacific regions of the country. The areas of destination in the U.S. are similarly concentrated, with 56% of all migrants surveyed ending their journeys in California, and 23% in Texas. Although the typical migrant is a male head of household over 35 years old, and more likely to be mestizo than of uniformly indigenous origin, this profile appears to be in the process of transforming. The survey reflects that migration among those younger than 35 and of indigenous origin is on the rise, particularly in those states with already high rates of migration. Traditional Economic and Demographic Determinants of Migration From a microeconomic analytic standpoint, two theories of migration currently predominate. According to the "classical" migration economics, the decision to migrate stems primarily from perceived wage differentials and income gaps between the U.S. and Mexico. A more recent theory, termed the "new" migration economics, argues that migration stems more from the motivation of households to gain remittances from the employment of one or more family members in the U.S. as a means of coping with agricultural insurance and credit market failures at home. It can be said that the "classic" economics theory views migration as a substitute for agriculture, while the "new" migration economics view it more as a complement. In other words, the traditional economics of migration suggests a reason for permanent migration while the new theories suggest why there may be temporary or seasonal migration. Whatever the motivation, the decision to migrate is clearly a function of higher-wage employment opportunities in the area of destination, whether in Mexico's urban areas or the U.S.
ii
In the case of the U.S., it is widely believed that Mexico-U.S. historic migration patterns arose in large part from the U.S. "Bracero" Program, instituted in 1942, which promoted legal immigration to the U.S. as a means of serving the labor needs of American agribusiness, but ended up stimulating illegal immigration by creating the expectation of upward mobility dependant upon movement north. The Bracero Program also contributed to the establishment of strong networks of support among migrants in the U.S., which to this day facilitate employment of migrants and otherwise work to reduce the perceived costs and risks associated with migration. Population Pressure and Migration It is clear from our investigation that population growth is associated with migration: our data reveals that population pressures at the municipal level in Mexico are associated with poverty, and poverty is a major determinant of migration. Currently, more than 31 million people -- more than one-third of Mexico's population of 92 million -- live in small rural communities of fewer than 5,000. Mirroring a situation familiar to many agricultural communities in the U.S., particularly in California, rapid increases in the densities of Mexico's urban areas are exacerbating environmental degradation in adjacent agricultural lands. This is the beginning of a malevolent cycle: as cities grow with the population, more and more agricultural lands will be taken out of production, spurring more migration from rural areas to the cities. Although government population policies of the last twenty years have helped lower the national average birthrate to 3.2 children per woman in 1992, with an expected further decrease to 2.5 per woman in 2000, the poorest regions of Mexico continue to experience a population surge. The impacts of these population trends on land degradation and migration are difficult to predict. Many experts believe that rapid population growth in the rural dryland areas could place increased stress on land and water resources, cause greater subdivision of land, reduce farm income, and result in greater social fragmentation and migration. Others believe that population growth, in the context of Mexico's rapid integration into the global economy, will lead to the adoption of new technologies and new forms of social organization that will mitigate such adverse impacts. In Mexico's ejido areas, Professor Alain de Janvry found that population pressure on agricultural land increases the likelihood of migration, suggesting that policies to reduce population pressures could play a significant role in reducing incentives to migrate. Land Tenure Reform and NAFTA Many experts predict that changes in the institutional structure of agricultural land tenure in Mexico will lead to an increase in the consolidation of smaller family farms into larger corporate-owned farm enterprises. A likely impact could be the displacement and unemployment of small land-owners and farm workers, resulting in increased rural-to-urban or cross-border migration. A 1992 Constitutional amendment, however, now allows ejido land owners to receive title to, and to sell or rent their lands independent of government bureaucracy. The hope is that this will promote greater access to credit, open the ejido sector to outside investment, and generally improve agricultural efficiency. Whether it will have the effect of a widespread sell-off of land to larger farm interests remains to be seen. Economic changes resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or "NAFTA," could also affect crossborder migration patterns in Mexico indirectly through their potential impacts on investments and employment in agriculture. Some economists predict a migration surge that will endure until NAFTA-related reforms deliver higher employment. Although it is uncertain to what degree and iii
how quickly agricultural investment based on a Mexican comparative advantage (warmer winters, for example) will increase because of NAFTA, economists agree it will almost certainly continue to decrease in the short-term. The Role of Agricultural Land Degradation in Migration The roles of wage and income differentials, population pressures, and economic reforms in contributing to Mexican migration have been studied far more deeply than the role of environmental degradation. Our research shows, however, that the degradation of agricultural lands in Mexico can contribute directly to cross-border migration via its impacts on household incomes in the agricultural sector. Data demonstrate that high levels of environmental stress and high population pressures at the municipal level are associated with poverty. As poverty is a major determinant of migration, environmental degradation may be seen to influence migration through its impacts on poverty in the agricultural sector. Indeed, three-quarters of all lands affected by soil erosion and other forms of desertification in Mexico are agricultural. The most critically affected states are Oaxaca, Tamaulipas, Yucatan, Veracruz, and Chiapas. The environmental factors responsible for this degradation are myriad. Erosion-causing deforestation is a primary contributor, and indeed today Mexico has only about 130,000 square kilometers of forests remaining. Data indicate deforestation rates of 24% to 34% per year in ejido communities. Climate change at both the global and local levels is also a major factor, and there is evidence suggesting that land degradation and climate change are reciprocal contributory factors. Yet poor land and water management practices remain the most significant -- and preventable -- contributors. Increasing degradation and scarcity of Mexico's agricultural water supplies is combining to aggravate the already serious problems stemming from overgrazing, overharvesting, and other unsustainable practices. The resulting land degradation dramatically impacts agricultural productivity. Migration can become the only means to avoid economic ruin, as declines in land quality in dryland areas lead to cessation of cultivation and abandonment of lands. In other words, higher environmental degradation increases the level of poverty, which in turn increases the expected income gains from migration. Under the "new" migration economic theory, migration may also be a temporary or seasonal avenue to generate income to compensate for market failures, i.e., remittances from migration are used to invest in capital or land at home as a means of increasing agricultural productivity and income. This intuitive link between land degradation and migration is borne out by our research. Two environmental stress indicators, municipal-level deforestation rates from 1980-1990 and municipal population pressure (measured as the product of average farm size and average rainfed corn yield in the municipality) were analyzed with the results of the 1994 ejido survey. Although no nationwide soil erosion data were available, these two indicators serve as adequate proxies, since 75% of Mexico's remaining forests are located in ejido areas, and corn yield is an excellent indicator of agricultural land productivity. Our analysis of the 1994 ejido survey data with other economic and environmental variables substantiates the correlations between environmental stress, poverty, and migration. As this report describes, the results of the analysis show a systematic inverse relation between environmental stress variables and income levels. At the municipal level, high levels of environmental stress are highly associated with poverty, which in turn, is highly correlative with migration the ejido survey also makes clear. Since much of the land degradation in Mexico is the result of human factors, particularly unsustainable land management practices, it follows that iv
programs to improve these practices will likely have a positive impact on stabilizing agricultural incomes, reducing the acceleration of poverty rates, and, by extension, reducing the incidence of cross-border migration. Conclusions and Recommendations Although the U.S. will no doubt continue to attract large numbers of migrants from Mexico for a variety of economic reasons, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the degradation of agricultural lands as a result of preventable, human-induced factors is a major determinant of the migration phenomenon. Accordingly, public and official efforts should be designed and implemented with an aim toward preventing further unnecessary land degradation through improving the institutional, economic, and technological landscape in which Mexico's poorer farm households engage in agriculture. This report offers the following recommendations as a preliminary framework from which U.S. and Mexican policy-makers may begin to craft more sophisticated strategies and cooperative programs. 1.
Promote Improved Land and Water Management Practices
Returning Mexican agriculture to sustainable levels by improving local land and water management practices should be a priority. Agricultural education programs should be developed to promote the use of quality fertilizers, high-yield seed, crop variegation and rotation, and other efficiency-improving techniques. Emphasis should also be placed on reducing waterintensive dryland crop-cultivation, and on promoting the adoption of water-conserving irrigation systems. Water conservation will only increase in its degree of necessity in Mexico in the future, particularly in the desertified dryland areas. 2.
Promote Reform of Forest Management and Land Tenure Institutions
Most of the Mexican forests, many of which are threatened by over-harvesting, are located on ejido land, as discussed in this report, where much of the property is communal and cooperation among communities in forestland management has been problematic. This has led to the overuse of land, including overharvesting and soil erosion. One solution may be to direct policy efforts at resolving property rights on these lands and enhancing the ability of these communities to cooperate and effectively manage common property resources. Part of this solution must include continued regulation of forest management and improved enforcement of laws/policies. 3.
Promote the Integration of Economic Development Programs with Population and Demographic Initiatives
More research into the correlations between population trends and migration is warranted to quantify the former's contribution to the latter. In the interim, decentralized industrialization in the wake of NAFTA is key to stemming the growing influx of rural-to-urban migration in Mexico. The Mexican and U.S. governments should cooperate to foster economic development programs to reduce over-concentration of industry in urban areas by promoting the diffusion of industrial activity across the country's geography.
v
4.
Promote Local Community Development Initiatives
Because municipalities with high levels of environmental stress also have high rates of migration, community development programs should be instigated to provide alternative employment sources for households currently cultivating degraded areas. New investments and entrepreneurship promoted by NAFTA and other reforms should be re-directed to the extent possible to rural areas where farm employment is expected to suffer as a result of land degradation. Successful local economic development initiatives in some smaller U.S. communities could serve as models. 5.
Promote and Target U.S. Investment in Migrant-Emitting Areas
U.S. policy should promote improved rural development and agricultural productivity in the high poverty, migrant-emitting states with extensive soil erosion problems, particularly Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatan, Quintana Roo, and Chiapas. To the extent feasible, U.S. aid and investment should be promoted and channeled toward these localities. The exploration of a binational program encouraging use of remittances for development in these areas is warranted. 6.
Assist in Strengthening of Local Credit and Insurance Markets
To the extent that migration is employed by agricultural communities as a means of coping with the lack of access to credit and insurance markets, these markets should be developed and strengthened, particularly in the dryland areas. To the extent that unsustainable land and water management practices are the result of communities' inability to invest in new capital, the development of credit markets could have a two-fold effect on reducing migration. 7.
Integrate U.S. Environment, Population, and Migration Research and Policy Development
Currently, U.S. foreign policy addresses environment, population, and migration problems separately. There is little thematic integration at the bureaucratic level. We strongly recommend establishing an inter-agency task force comprised of the Department of Interior Bureau for Land Management, Department of Agriculture, Geological Survey, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and State Department Bureaus on environment, population, and/or migration. Similarly, within the State Department’s Global Affairs Bureau coordination and integration of these issues can be improved. The sharing of data and the cross-fertilization of ideas and approaches to problem-solving will likely result in more efficacious program and policy development. 8.
Support Integrative Research Initiatives
There is an immediate need for integrated research on the environmental causes and consequences of migration in Mexico. Most of the research on migration to date has been sector-specific, e.g., research on agricultural productivity has not addressed related environmental degradation and social or economic transformations. This in turn has led to policies that are similarly not integrated, and policy implementation methodologies that are necessarily ineffective. A shift in research priorities toward more integrated approaches will likely contribute to a marked improvement in future policy-formation, particularly if it is within the context of the inter-agency cooperation suggested above. vi
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND MIGRATION: THE U.S.-MEXICO CASE STUDY
I.
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS
The 2,000 mile border between Mexico and the United States presents both opportunities and challenges for these countries in the migration and environment arenas. This report seeks to deeply explore the linkages between the widespread degradation of land resources in Mexico's rural areas, population trends and migration to the United States. Figure 1 presents a diagram of our analysis and hypothesis on these linkages. This report also seeks to present concrete recommendations that would promote greater binational cooperation in addressing this issue, an issue which to date has been understudied as an interrelated phenomenon and little considered in policy discussions. From these efforts, we hope to learn more about the environmental root causes of other instances of international migration that affect the United States. Specifically, Section II of this report discusses Mexico-U.S. migration: migration which is phenomenal compared to other international borders. Mexico is now the world's largest emigration country while the U.S. is the largest immigration country.7 The border facilitates some of the highest commerce and labor exchanges in the world. Between 60-80 million people a year, or about 200,000 per day, cross north from Mexico into the United States along just one of the border’s crossing points: between Tijuana and San Diego.8 The findings presented here are derived from our own investigation since 1993 and from a new report prepared for our Institute by Professor Alain de Janvry and associates at the University of California at Berkeley, which analyzes a 1994 survey of ejido households9 conducted by the Mexican Secretariat for Agrarian Reform ("SRA") in conjunction with Professor de Janvry.10 These findings suggest that transnational or cross-border migration is a widespread activity among ejiditarios. Most who migrate originate from 10 states of Mexico in the central and northern regions of the country, though southern states on the Pacific Ocean are accelerating their participation in migration. Indigenous communities in these states are also the fastest growing segment of migrants to the U.S. While many academics and officials have looked to traditional reasons to explain this migration, such as the fact that wages in the U.S. are 8 times greater than in Mexico, it is now becoming better recognized that rural land degradation, a pervasive environmental problem throughout Mexico, can affect agricultural productivity, increasing poverty among the rural population. Analysis by Dr. de Janvry indicates that poverty is a major determinant of migration.
7 8
See discussion in Section II of this report for details and citations. Telephone Conference with Karen Phyllis, U.S. Port Director at San Diego border, September 3, 1997. In 1996 approximately 76 million people crossed the border at all three ports in San Diego County. Id.
9
Collective farms with common land ownership, now comprising over 60% of all farmers in Mexico. The ejido sector is described in more detail in Section II of this report.
10
This report is attached as Appendix 1 and the methodologies and findings are presented in the Appendix and throughout this report.
1
Section III of this report discusses the environment-migration links. In particular, we present information on Mexico's extensive environmental problems related to agricultural lands, forests, water, and other issues of biodiversity, which in some ways are similar to those in the United States. For example, both countries share an endemic problem of aridity and desertification (soil degradation in dryland regions) on a large scale--for the United States this is experienced largely in the western states, and for Mexico it covers the majority of its nearly 2,000,000 square kilometers of territory.11 The problem is more sociologically acute in Mexico, as two-thirds of Mexico's poor people are farmers and farm workers, and three quarters of those most impoverished live in rural areas, most of which are drylands susceptible to desertification.12 Many living in these areas are engaged in agriculture as subsistence farmers, commonly growing corn and beans for their families and dependent on rainfall for the success of their crops.13 This livelihood is difficult under any circumstances given Mexico's generally dry climatic conditions-only 12% of the nation's water is found on the central plateau where 60% of the population and 51% of the croplands are located.14 Population pressures are also greatest in rural areas where in some indigenous communities birth rates are twice the national average.15 Also in Section III, we analyze the linkages between land degradation and poverty, and poverty and migration. First, Professor de Janvry's analysis centers on the relationship between poverty and high environmental stress, largely determined through rates of deforestation, and high population pressure,16 as well as the relationship between poverty and migration. These findings suggest that poverty is associated with high environmental stress and high population pressure, and that environment and population trends influence migration through their impacts on poverty. In addition to this data, we present the related findings of other researchers. While our empirical analysis integrating environmental, economic and demographic data sets with field surveys on migration is perhaps the first of its kind, it supports the findings of sociological studies of Mexico which, as early as 1978, suggested a direct correlation between land degradation, reduced agricultural productivity and income, and migration from rural areas. 17 This, in fact, is not unlike the American experience during the 1930's, when thousands of migrants streamed from the "Dust Bowl" of the midwest to western states when drought and unsustainable farming combined to induce massive poverty. Our goal in presenting our findings is to spawn similar efforts by scientists, advocates, and policymakers on both sides of the border. In an attempt to catalyze future efforts in this area, Section IV presents a set of recommended next steps. Many of these are directed at U.S. policy makers who have a unique opportunity to encourage these efforts, particularly given our existing binational programs. Two important steps that can be of immediate utility are the US AID program for Mexico and the recently amended MOU between U.S. Department of Agriculture and Mexico's environmental agency, SEMARNAP, which presents opportunities for binational cooperation on deforestation and desertification.18
11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18
See discussion in Section III of this report for details and citations. P.L. Martin, Trade and Migration: NAFTA and Agriculture, p. 99 . (Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C.) (1993). Id., p. 100. See discussion in Section III of this report on water scarcity. See discussion in Section II on population trends and migration. See Section III.B: population pressure is measured as the product of the average farm size in the municipality multiplied by the average rainfed corn yield in that municipality. This indicator combines the role of population pressure with production potential of the land that is affected by environmental stress. See discussion in Section III.B.2. See Discussion in Section IV.D.
2
II.
THE U.S./MEXICO CASE STUDY ON MIGRATION
By way of geographical background, Mexico is the third largest and second most populous country in North America. Its current population of 9219 million people has quadrupled since 1940,20 and its urban areas are growing by 1.9 million people annually.21 Mexico City, the capital of Mexico, is one of the most populated cities in the world with an expected 22 million people by the year 2000.22 Mexico's territory extends over 1,972,544 square kilometers, bordering the United States to the north for a span of 2,000 miles. The Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea lie to the east, Belize and Guatemala to the southeast, and the Gulf of California and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Most of the country is highland or mountainous. Most of the Yucatán Peninsula and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in the southeast is lowland. There are lowlying strips of land along the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of California. The heart of Mexico is the great Mexican Plateau, which is interrupted by mountain ranges and segmented by deep rifts. The country is divided into 31 states and a federal district that includes the capital. The government is organized as a federal republic, with the powers of chief executive and head of state vested in a popularly-elected president. Over half the population Mestizo; one-third is Amerindian, and one-tenth is European. Spanish is the primary language and Roman Catholicism is the most widely practiced religion. A.
Summary of Migration Findings from a National Survey in Mexico
This section discusses recent findings on migration from the ejido sector, within Mexico and to the United States. In 1994, in cooperation with Professor Alain de Janvry of U.C. Berkeley, the Mexican Secretary for Agrarian Reform (SRA) undertook a nationwide survey of households in the ejido sector, excluding the State of Chiapas.23 The findings are discussed below and presented in complete form in the attached Appendix 1. The data from the survey provided in this section concerns migration patterns, while subsequent sections of the report concern analyses of survey findings in conjunction with other data sets on environmental, demographic and economic variables. The analyses contained in this report were undertaken by Professor de Janvry and his team for the Natural Heritage Institute in 1997. They are integrated with the Institute's own research findings. By way of background, the ejido system emerged after the Mexican revolution when the government redistributed land from large landowners to landless peasants. Ejido members obtain land as a group from the government, though they typically farm the land individually. The ejido farming sector is particularly important in influencing local land use practices in Mexico. More than 60% of the country's farmers are ejido members, and the sector controls 52% of Mexico's arable land, and 50% of its irrigated area, along with most of its degraded forest
19 20 21 22
23
CONAPO, Población y Alimentación: Una Perspectiva de Analisis ante la Problematica de Seguridad Alimentaria. CONAPO (The National Population Council of Mexico), Mexico City. p. 11 (1996). Commission for the Study of Migration and Cooperative Economic Development, Unauthorized Migration: An Economic Development Response, p. 11 (1990). CONAPO 1996 Población y Alimentación: Una Perspectiva de Analisis ante la Problematica de Seguridad Alimentaria. CONAPO (The National Population Council of Mexico), Mexico City. The Joint Academies Committee on the Mexico City Water Supply, Mexico City's Water Supply: Improving the Outlook for Sustainability p. 6 (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1995); see also, United Nations Population Fund, Briefing Kit on Population Issues, p. 4 (1993). The omission of Chiapas was due to the political turmoil that overtook the city in 1994. For detailed results derived from this survey, see Alain de Janvry, Gustavo Gordillo, and Elisabeth Sadoulet, Mexico’s Second Agrarian Reform: Household and Community Responses. U.C. San Diego:Center for U.S. - Mexican Studies, 1997.
3
and rangelands.24 Ejidos are a primary source of migrants to the North, and in fact account for most of Mexico's rural poverty. The 1994 survey obtained responses to several questions pertaining to household characteristics and migration behavior from 5,267 adults in direct families and 9,216 adults in extended families. Adults are defined as individuals older than 14 years of age. In the survey, data were collected for four categories of individual in the respondent's household, as follows:25 The head of household. In 1994, this person was a man in 96% of the cases (see Table 1). Members of the direct family. This includes the household members who live in the household or who study in another location.26 The children of the household head who do not live at home. In general these are adults who have left the household and have started their own family. These children, the household heads, and other family members who live in the household together comprise what is termed the "biological family." The siblings of the household head. This information was gathered primarily to measure the social migration capital of each household and community. These individuals and members of the direct family together comprise what is termed the "extended family." Results of the 1994 survey show that transnational migration is a widespread activity among ejidatarios. For example, 12.4 % of the ejido households had members who had migrated at least once to the U.S. during the last four years, and 26.8% had members who had migrated North at least once in their lifetime.27 Specifically, the survey found that 14.5% of all adults in the direct family, 18.8% of all adults in the biological family (see Table 2), and 37.8% of the household heads have migrated to the U.S. or within Mexico during their lifetime.28 The greater participation in migration by household heads as opposed to other family members may be explained by the fact that they are older: the average household head is 49 years old, whereas the average age of other adult household members is only 29.29 The average age of adults that have migrated to the U.S. is 47 years-old, and that of household heads is 51.30 Adults who have migrated only within Mexico are younger, with an average age of 42, and 47 for household heads.31 Only 9% of the adults who have migrated were women, and among the household heads who have migrated, only 1% were women (see Table 1).32 Among direct families, female migrants tended to stay in Mexico: 67% went elsewhere in-country, while only 9% came to the U.S.33 In contrast, 58% of the men migrated within Mexico and 35% came to the U.S.34
24
26 27 28
P. Martin, "Emigration Dynamics in Mexico and Central America: The Case of Agriculture," paper prepared for the International Organization of Migration" (April 1996) p. 26. See, Appendix 1: A. de Janvry, Elisabeth Sadoulet, Benjamin Davis, Kevin Seidel, Paul Winters, “Determinants of Mexico-U.S. Migration: The Role of Household Assets and Environmental Factors,�(1997) p. 7. Id. The average direct family size, including the household head, was 5.1 persons in 1994. Id. -U.S. Migration: The Role of Household Assets and
29 30 31 32 33 34
Id. Id. Id. Id., p. 8. Id. Id., pp. 9-10.
25
4
1.
Areas of Migrant Origin and Destination
Tables 3- 4 analyze the origins and destinations of 950 members of the direct and extended ejidatario families who have migrated to the United States. Results of the survey show that a large percentage of these individuals originate from a particular group of states (See Table 3 attached).35 Specifically, 75% of the migrants in the study originated from 10 states located in the center, North Pacific, and northern regions of Mexico.36 More than 20% of the adults in Jalisco, Durango, Nayarit, and Michoacan, and 15% of the adults in Guanajuato, San Luis Potosí, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas have migrated to the United States.37 Migration appears to be accelerating even in states with currently the highest levels of migration, suggesting that the practice is far from reaching equilibrium. In Durango, Jalisco, Nayarit, Michoacan, and Tamaulipas, where the highest frequency of migration is observed, the incidence of migration for those under 35 years is higher than those over 35 years, suggesting an expansion of the role of migration across all age groups within individual households. With increasing participation of states in the South Pacific, the points of origin of migration are becoming more broadly distributed geographically. An extrapolation of these tendencies suggests simultaneously a broadening of migration in those states that are already more involved in migration, and a diffusion of migration toward new states, even those that are far from the border and have little migratory tradition.38 With regard to ultimate destination, the United States, particularly California, is the primary target of migrants leaving Mexico.39 According to the 1994 survey, the destinations of migrants in the U.S. are even more concentrated than their points of origin: 56% of all migrants go to California and 23% to Texas (Table 3).40 The remainder are dispersed, in decreasing order of concentration, among the Midwest, South, Southwest, and Northwest. Significantly, migrants from the states with the highest rates of migration have the most concentrated destinations: nearly all migrants that originate from Jalisco, Michoacan, Nayarit, Guerrero, and Oaxaca go to California. In contrast, migrants from states that participate in migration to a lesser extent, namely Tamaulipas, Durango, and Chihuahua, have more dispersed destinations.41 These findings support the theory that the establishment of social networks at the migrants points of destination facilitate the migratory process. The data also indicate that California s absorption of migrants over 35 years of age has increased by 48%, and its absorption of migrants under 35 has increased by 58%.42 This trend is accompanied by a growing participation of migrants in non-agricultural activities, especially in the tertiary sector.43 In contrast, the relative absorption of migrants by Texas and the Southwest and Northwest regions has declined. 44 In Texas, this trend may partly be attributable to the mechanization of agriculture.45 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
This appears as Table 4 in Appendix 1. Id., p. 9 Id. Id. Bustamante, J. "Undocumented Migration from Zacatecas to the United States," El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, (1992) p. 10. See, Appendix 1: A. de Janvry, “Determinants of Mexico-U.S. Migration: The Role of Household Assets and Environmental Factors” (in the Appendix, this Table is identified as "Table 5"). Id., pp. 9-10. See, Appendix 1: A. de Janvry, “Determinants of Mexico-U.S. Migration: The Role of Household Assets and Environmental Factors”, p. 10. Id. Id. Id.
5
2.
Social Characteristics of Migrants
Ejidatario households can be categorized into three groups of ethnic origin according to the type of ejido institution to which they belong (Table 5):46 Ejidos with a majority of mestizo population: Ejido with a majority of indigenous population: Indigenous communities:
78.0% of all households 12.5% of all households 9.5% of all households.47
Households in ejidos with a mestizo majority are principally located in the Center and North regions; ejidos with an indigenous majority are principally found in the Gulf, Center, and South Pacific regions, and indigenous communities are overwhelmingly found in the South Pacific region.48 The land area under individual control is larger in mestizo ejidos (7.9 ha NRE) and indigenous ejidos (7.5 ha NRE) when compared to indigenous communities (2.5 ha NRE).49 reflecting greater incidence of land fragmentation in indigenous communities where land can be divided between heirs, a procedure that is legally forbidden in the ejido. There is also clearly a higher incidence of poverty and marginalization among households in indigenous communities. Production systems are more frequently intercropped, which is characteristic of subsistence farming, and members of indigenous communities cultivate fewer high- value crops, such as monocropped corn in the fall-winter season, and/or fruits and vegetables. Indigenous households also typically have less access to public credit. Although Mexico's indigenous peoples traditionally have migrated less than other ethnic groups, they currently comprise the fastest growing segment of the country's migrating population. Indigenous people have historically remained among the poorest groups in the rural sector. With relatively little access to land, and advanced levels of land degradation on what land is available, migration has been a rapidly rising source of income for indigenous households.50 In terms of education, results of the survey indicate significant differences in education levels between those in Mexico who migrate and those who do not, as well as between those who migrate to the U.S. and those who migrate elsewhere in Mexico. The data from Table 1 show that for 1994 those who did not migrate typically had 5.0 years of instruction, as compared to 3.9 years of instruction for those who did migrate. The data also demonstrate that those who migrate to the rest of Mexico have more years of education (4.2) than those who migrate to the U.S. (3.7).51 This pattern was also observed by Edward Taylor, who explained that education, at least at levels observed in rural areas, is more valuable in the Mexican labor-market than it is in the U.S.52 Significantly, the level of educational capital for adults in indigenous community 46 47 48 49
50 51
52
Appendix 1 (in the Appendix report, this Table is identified as Table 3). Id., p. 8. Id. These data, however, underestimate access to land in the indigenous community because cultivable land in fallow and natural pastures reverts to common land in the community, while it is still part of individual plots in the ejido. This is significant when subsistence corn plots are part of a slash and burn system. The differential is reflected in the larger total ejido area (in ha NRE) per household in the indigenous community relative to both the mestizo and the indigenous ejido: in 1994, there were 33 hectare NRE per household in the indigenous community, compared to 21 in the mestizo ejido, and 22 in the indigenous ejido. See, Id., pp. 8-9. Id. Data also indicate there is a higher probability that a non-literate person has moved to someplace in Mexico, while a literate person is more likely to have moved to the U.S. For example, 70% of the migrants who could not write moved within Mexico, while only 57% of the migrants who could write did the same. This difference in destination by literacy is also observed among household heads. For a broader analysis of the data, please refer to the Appendix. Taylor, J. Edward. “Differential Migration, Networks, Information, and Risk�, (Oded Stark, ed.) Research in Human
6
households is, in general, lower than in ejidatario households53 There is also less participation in the labor market as a primary activity, as opposed to farming. Each indigenous community household on average has 0.20 adult members in the labor market, compared to 0.53 for mestizo ejidatarios, although more indigenous households use the labor market as a secondary source of income, with 0.42 adults per family compared to 0.29 for mestizo ejidatarios. B.
Social and Demographic Causes of Migration Between Mexico and the United States
Migration from rural Mexico has long been regarded as dependent upon a number of social and demographic factors other than environmental degradation. These factors include the extent of familial or other networks already established in the U.S., the "income gap" and potential earnings differential, the effects of trade policies, local market failures in Mexico, and the effects of U.S. migration policies. All of these factors are rooted within the academic discipline known as "migration economics." As discussed below, the new economics of migration theorizes that migration serves to provide financial resources to supplement agricultural production on migrants' lands in Mexico, more closely linking the migration phenomenon to Mexico's rural land resources. These resources are important environmental assets in Mexico because their degradation can affect not only agricultural productivity but the support of biologically diverse animal and plant species for which Mexico is world renowned.54 1.
The Economics of Migration
A review of the literature on the determinants of migration in Mexico suggests two predominating economic theories of migration, each positing a different sociologic "channel" through which migration occurs.55 The "classic" economic theory of migration focuses upon the causal relation between migration and expected household income gains. The theory states that the primary determinant of migration from Mexico to the U.S. is the earnings gap between Mexico and the U.S., meaning the positive net return accruing to households following migration of one or more members to the U.S. In other words, the higher the incidence of poverty and unemployment in Mexico, the greater the level of migration. The current substantial income gap is explained by several factors. The average wage rate in the U.S. is eight times greater than that in Mexico, while unemployment and underemployment affect two thirds of all potential workers in the country's rural areas. This tends to create strong currents of migration from rural to urban areas, both within Mexico and in the U.S., where opportunities for employment are greatest.56 Lower labor productivity in Mexican agriculture also affects the earnings gap, together with a perception of decreasing transaction costs and risks of migration, in particular the costs and risks associated with apprehension. This is due primarily to the growth of informal institutions that support illegal immigration. In addition, greater binational labor market integration reduces transaction costs of migration by improving information flow.57
Capital and Development. Vol. 4: Migration, Human Capital, and Development. Greenwich. JAI Press, pp. 147-171 (1986). 54 55 56 57
Mexico is recognized as one of the most biologically diverse country in the world. See Appendix 1 for broader discussion. P.L Martin, Trade and Migration: NAFTA and Agriculture, Institute for International Economics, 1993, pp. 52-53. See, Appendix 1: A. de Janvry, “Determinants of Mexico-U.S. Migration: The Role of Household Assets and Environmental Factors� pp. 2-3.
7
The “new” economics of migration58 focuses upon the motivation of households to gain remittances as a means of coping with market failures, and to gain agricultural productivity on their lands in Mexico, a concept generally regarded as beyond the scope of traditional migration economics. The starting point for the new migration economics is an analysis of the constraints on agricultural production created by the numerous market failures that are chronic in Mexico's migrant-sending regions, particularly the failures in the insurance and credit markets. By providing an alternate supply of funds to cushion the impact of seasonal crop-failures or other unforeseen occurrences, remittances from migrants serve to diversify income portfolios in order to reduce household risk where insurance markets are lacking. In addition, they provide a source of funds with which to invest in new capital, relaxing constraints brought on by credit market failures when liquidity is needed to buy inputs and land. International migration is thus hypothesized to stem from market failures that constrain the income-generating capacity of households at the source. This stands in contrast to the traditional economics of migration, where migration is generally seen as a substitute, not a complement, to agriculture in Mexico. In this perspective, economists have viewed migration in the context of household economic relationships. As Professor Edward Taylor noted, Earlier research generally decoupled the determinants of migration from the effects of migration on sending areas; but in the new economics, migration is hypothesized to originate in the desire to overcome market failures that constrain local production.”59 The latter approach "expounds migration s role as an intermediate investment that facilitates the transition from familial to commercial production."60 In sum, it can be said that the "classic" economics theory views migration as a substitute for agriculture, while the "new" migration economics view it more as a complement. In other words, the traditional economics of migration suggests a reason for permanent migration while the new theories suggest why there may be temporary or seasonal migration. 2.
The Role of Community Networks
Other studies demonstrate that migration between Mexico and the U.S. also increases with the growth of community migration networks. Community networks consist of the accumulated migratory experience of their individual members and the social connections between migrants.61 These networks create strong incentives for Mexicans to migrate because they reduce transaction costs: prospective immigrants can count on earlier migrants for information, transportation, housing, and, in some cases, employment.62 Once established, community networks are themselves a strong determinant of migration. A number of secondary effects in the community also affect migration, including changes in the distribution of income, changes in the distribution of land, extensification of land use, land degradation, and changes in consumption habits.63 Professor Alain de Janvry, in his investigation for NHI, reports that in the early stages of migration in a community, individual and household characteristics, particularly the level of 58 59 60 61 62 63
Stark, Oded, and Daniel E. Bloom. (1985) “The New Economics of Labor Migration” American Economic Review 75: pp. 173-178. Taylor J. Edward, et al. (1996)." International Migration and Community Development” Population Index, Fall vol. 62 N3: pp. 397-418. See, Appendix 1: A. de Janvry, “Determinants of Mexico-U.S. Migration: The Role of Household Assets and Environmental Factors” , pp. 2-3. Id., pp. 3-4. B. Reyes, Dynamics of Immigration: Return Migration to Western Mexico. Public Policy Institute of California, (1997). p. 15. See, Appendix 1: A. de Janvry, “Determinants of Mexico-U.S. Migration: The Role of Household Assets and Environmental Factors”, pp. 3-4.
8
income to finance the cost of migration and the level of education, are most important in explaining the potential gains from migration (through a non-linear relation). (See discussion in Appendix 1). At advanced levels of community migration, however, the role of community networks overwhelms the role of individual and household characteristics, allowing those with little capital and little education as well as women and children to participate in migration also. 64 In this manner, migration decisions are most fruitfully examined not as individual decisions of the person or household doing the moving, but rather of the larger social group of which he or she is a part. 3.
"Pull" Factors From the U.S. Side of the Border
Originally, migration from Mexico to the United States was due largely to the strong lure of agricultural work opportunities in California's rich southern and central farming regions. This lure was actively promoted by agribusinesses which needed cheap labor for harvest. More specifically, it is widely believed that Mexico-U.S. historic migration stems from the U.S. Bracero Program, which promoted legal immigration but also encouraged illegal immigration. The Bracero Program was instituted by agreement between the U.S. and Mexico in 1942, and continued by federal legislation, to permit the large scale recruitment of Mexicans to work on a temporary basis in U.S. agricultural fields. Even with these programs, illegal immigration continued to be an important source of Mexican labor in the United States.65 In fact, the number of apprehensions made by the INS (i.e. 4.87 million) was greater than the total number of workers admitted pursuant to the program.66 Experts have argued that the Bracero Program thus actually stimulated illegal immigration by creating the expectation of upward mobility dependant upon movement north, and by establishing permanent migratory community networks. Estimates of the total number of illegal aliens in the United States from the mid-sixties to the early 1990's vary widely, but there appears to be consensus that there was a steady increase until the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).67 IRCA established a compromise between agricultural interests desiring a temporary worker program to provide an adequate supply of seasonal laborers, and labor interests arguing that importation of more labor would depress wages and displace domestic labor.68 Although IRCA was successful in legalizing 2.3 million illegal immigrants, it did not substantially curb illegal immigration,69 and therefore failed to stabilize the agricultural labor market.70 The Commission on Agricultural Workers, which was mandated under IRCA to evaluate the Act, concluded that as long as employers continue to hire unauthorized workers, and as long as Mexicans lack economic opportunities at home, illegal migration will continue.71 It has also been observed that, "under U.S. immigration 64 65 66
67
68 69 70 71
Id., p .2. G. Cardenas, "United States Immigration Policy Towards Mexico: An Historical Perspective." Chicano Law Review, vol. 2:66, p. 79. P. Martin, Trade and Migration, p. 63. The number of illegal aliens apprehended climbed steadily from 86 thousand in 1964 to over 1 million by 1977. Congressional Research Service. 1980. "Temporary Worker Programs: Background and Issues." Prepared for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (February), p. 37. Commission on Agricultural Workers, Final Report, (Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.)(1992) p.19 (hereinafter referred to as Commission on Agricultural Workers); Massey and Durand suggest that perhaps the most accurate estimate of the number of illegal immigrants in the United States at the time of IRCA, is derived from the number of people who applied for general amnesty and legalization through the SAW provisions (2.3 million) plus 25%. D. Massey and J. Durand, Mexican Migration to the United States: A Critical Review (Spring 1992)(hereinafter referred to as "Mexican Migration to the U.S."): p. 3-4. Id. Commission on Agricultural Workers, p. 6. Mexican Migration to the U.S., supra note 66, p. 10. Commission on Agricultural Workers, supra note 66, p. 132. Id., pp. 132-133.
9
law, legal immigrants do not have to remain continuously living or employed in the United States, so that many legal immigrants who are Mexican nationals live at least some of the year in Mexico, and many Mexicans who are not legal U.S. immigrants or visitors live some of the year in the United States."72 This tends to support the findings of some researchers that much of Mexico's rural migration is seasonal. C.
Population Trends and Migration
Several major demographic trend predominate in Mexico: uneven birth rates, uneven population distribution and high levels of migration. One-third of the country's 92 million people, or 34.4% of the population, are located in rural areas of under 5,000 people.73 Population movement and urbanization are increasing.74 The country s urban areas now grow at a pace of approximately 1.9 million people per year.75 On one end of the spectrum stand the most rapidly urbanizing areas of Mexico, cities located mainly in the border region. These cities are growing at rates of approximately 5% per year, creating demands for services far more quickly than they can be met by local officials.76 At the other end of the spectrum are rural populations, such as those in Oaxaca, living in small and widely dispersed communities, making service provisions equally if not more challenging.77 Migration is an increasingly important population trend in Mexico, as between 1985-90, 4.3 million Mexicans changed their place of residence.78 Rapid increases in the densities of urban areas is exacerbating environmental degradation in surrounding agricultural areas. Changing these population distributions and migratory flows in Mexico may require the creation of a complex system of incentives, including creating labor markets in mid-sized cities which can accommodate more migrants.79 There is, however, precedent for this. At the beginning of the 1970's, Mexico had a total population of 51 million people and had historically pronatalist population policies.80 In 1973, the Mexican government dramatically changed official population policy in seeking to design programs to reduce overall population growth. The General Population Law (1973) "promotes an equilibrium between birth rates, population distribution and the distribution of socio-economic activity."81 Subsequent programs emphasized elevating the social status of women, improving standards of living, and promoting better population distribution patterns. In 1974, a Population Policy was established to further incorporate population related goals into development planning. Central to this policy was the formation of CONAPO, Mexico's national population commission, an inter-ministerial body 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81
P. Martin, "Emigration Dynamics in Mexico and Central America: The Case of Agriculture," supra note 23. Personal Interview with Dr. Gómez de León, Director, Mexican National Population Council (CONAPO), Mexico City. CONAPO y SEMARNAP “Las Relaciones Población-Medio Ambiente, Resumen del Proyecto”, p. 9. CONAPO "Población y Alimentación: Una Perspectiva de Analisis ante la Problematica de Seguridad Alimentaria (1996). CONAPO (The National Population Council of Mexico), Mexico City. Personal Interview with Dr. Gomez de Leon, Director, Mexican National Population Council (CONAPO), Mexico City. Personal Interview with Lic. Clara Scherer Castillo, Presidenta del Patronato de Promotores Voluntarios y Sistema para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia, Oaxaca, in Mexico City, October 13, 1995. Comisión Nacional de Población (CONAPO), Programa Nacional de Población: 1995-2000, p. 31 (1995). Id. The Mexican Constitution (1917) "makes Government responsible for regulating the use of natural resources for the social benefit and for betterment of the living standards of the population, and contains an explicit mandate for the state to take a leading role in economic and social affairs. Active State participation and intervention in the economy is further supported by constitutional provisions which make the State responsible for providing certain services and for the exploitation of strategic resources." United Nations, Case Studies in Population Policy: Mexico. New York, 1989, p. 2.
10
directed by the Secretaria de Gobernación. CONAPO integrates demographic factors into state and sectoral development plans and issues five year National Population Programs. Largely as a result the success of these population policies over the last twenty years, the national average birth rate in 1992 has fallen to 3.2 children per woman, and the numbers projected for the year 2000 are 2.5 children per woman.82 However, despite these rapid reductions in overall population growth, the poorest regions of Mexico remain those experiencing the greatest population pressures. Birth rates in the capital city and the border regions stand at 2.5, while in the most impoverished regions - areas of Oaxaca, Guerrero and Chiapas - they are above 4.5 children per woman.83 The zone of traditionally high emigration, meanwhile, known as the traditional zone (including the federal states of Aguascalientes, Colima, Durango, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacan, Naywit, San Potosi and Zacatecas),84 had birth rates of 3.7 per woman in 1990, and are forecasted to average 2.7 in the year 2000.85 General mortality rates in Mexico show very wide regional variation, from 5.8 in Mexico City to 2.8 in Quinata Roo.86 This variation is due to the availability of medical care and the level of social and economic development. The lower the level of economic development, the smaller the effect of a given quantity of medical service on mortality rates, a phenomenon which can exacerbate regional differences in mortality rates.87 Data show a marked decrease in overall mortality rates in recent years.88 While the mortality rates fall and population growth rates remain higher in rural areas than in the cities, population pressure is effectively increased on already scarce resources. In the absence of mitigating factors, such as economic development and decreases in birth rates, this trend clearly suggests a migration push from rural areas. Population pressure and environmental stress are discussed in Section III of this report. D.
Land Tenure and Migration
Land tenure reforms are in general believed to be beneficial to land users who stand to receive legal title to lands they now farm, which in turn could be used to obtain credit for agricultural inputs. Some predict that these reforms in Mexico could also serve to influence migration through several avenues: by opening the market for sale and transfer of ejido lands, thereby stimulating the consolidation of smaller farms into larger farms and displacing small holders; by stimulating transition in land use away from labor intensive agriculture, thereby creating less employment, or by decreasing the value of rainfed lands as compared to irrigated lands; thereby stimulating transfer and consolidation of farmlands or, under the new economics of migration, stimulating migration to make up for the loss of credit caused by a decrease in land value and less capital on which to obtain credit. These are discussed briefly below. The Mexican government is now in the process of titling ejido lands, providing individual owners the right to sell or rent their lands, as Article 27 of the Constitution was reformed in 1992.89 With land titles serving as collateral, it is anticipated that this will provide rural farmers 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
José Gomez de Leon & Rodolfo Tuirán, “La Migración Mexicana Hacia Estados Unidos, Continuidad y Cambio”. Grafica 14, Tasa Global de Fecunidad, CONAPO, 1996. United Nations, Case Studies in Population Policy: Mexico. New York, 1989, p. 2. Gomez de Leon & Tuirán, supra, note 70, at p. 13 of the English translation, p.16 of the Spanish original. Id. Olga Lopez-Rios “Efecto de los servicios de salud y de factores socioeconomicos en las diferencias especiales de la mortalidád mexicana.” Salud Publica de Mexico: Vol. 39 no.1, Jan-Feb 1997. Id. Gomez de Leon & Tuirán, supra, note 81 at p. 18 of the English translation, pp. 22 & 23 of the Spanish original, also grafica 17.
89
11
greater access to sources of credit to purchase agricultural inputs, improving their productivity. By opening the agricultural sector to outside investment and increased participation in markets, the government expects agricultural production to become more efficient. Preliminary research demonstrates that response to these reforms has been highly heterogeneous.90 It is still uncertain to what extent land reform policies will stimulate greater access to credit to improve the quality and productivity of the lands. Some predict that reforms will lead to decreased land values (less capital on which to obtain credit) in rainfed areas and to increased land values in irrigated areas. In the rainfed regions, the decrease in land values may spawn additional migration.91 However, there is no guarantee that simply owning title to land in rural areas of Mexico will stimulate the sale of the lands in ejido communities, as some anticipate, since much of the land owned by subsistence farmers in these communities may be of marginal quality for crop production. In addition, it is uncertain whether the lands will be of value to the larger farms or agribusinesses which are predicted to grow in the wake of NAFTA. It is suggested that the uncertainty in property rights and communal land use contributed to the relatively little investment in agriculture.92 For the ejido sector, the land tenure system created difficulties to invest as land could not be used as a collateral to access loans and because ejidatarios were subjected to a host of constraints on what they could do and not do. It has certainly influenced land use practices, particularly in the ejido sector which comprises a majority of Mexico's farmers. In 1981 the Mexican Agricultural Census indicated that some 70% of Mexican farmers were working on ejido land (the 1994 survey indicates this figure is closer to 60%), which constituted 52% of arable land in Mexico and 50% of irrigated land. In 1990, 73% of national corn output was produced in the ejido sector.93 Article 27 also affected large commercial farmers, limiting them to 100 hectares of irrigated land for grain and crop production, 300 hectares for orchards, and only enough land to maintain 500 head of cattle. Many, however, evaded these limits by having family members own the land individually while farming it jointly.94 Professor Alain de Janvry has suggested that migration might worsen the inequality in the distribution of land in a given community if households with migrants use remittances to buy land from small landholders.95 Indeed, many studies suggest that purchasing land is indeed an important goal of international migrants.96 Moreover, if land becomes more concentrated in the
90
91 92 93 94 95 96
to legal reforms undertaken in the 1930's and those promoted by Lazaro Cardenas after the revolution, which established a structure of communal land ownership known as the ejido system. As ejido members, farmers have "user" rights to their land, but do not have the right to sell or rent their property. Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution, which served as the basis for these restrictions, created uncertainty in private ownership and land use. Exacerbating this circumstance, the provision also allowed the government to expropriate and then redistribute what it considered "excess" lands. There is extensive ongoing research on the impacts of ejido and non-liberal reforms on rural Mexico, including a major research effort of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California at San Diego. This information is derived from draft reports circulated at an August 1995 workshop held in preparation for a book assessing the rural reforms in Mexico, to be published by Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. Presentation by J. Edward Taylor at NHI Roundtable meeting, November 14, 1995. Id. Expropriations were always possible for lands held in the private sector, thus deterring investment. Alain de Janvry, E. Sadoulet, G. De Anda, NAFTA and Mexico's Maize Producers, 23 World Development No.8 (1995). P. Martin, "Emigration Dynamics in Mexico and Central America: The Case of Agriculture," p. 25 supra note 23. Appendix 1, p. 4. Reichert Joshua S., The migrant syndrome: Sea Human Organization 40: 56-66 (1981); Mines, Richard. “Network migration and Mexican rural development:A case study”, in Richard C. Jones (ed.), Patterns of Undocumented Migration: Mexico and the United States. Totowa:Rowman and Allanheld, pp. 136-155 (1984); López, Gustavo. La Casas Dividida: Un Estudio de Caso Sobre Migración a Estados Unidos en un Pueblo Michoacano. Zamora, Michoacán:El Colegio de Michoacán, pp. 125-134 (1986); Massey, Do
12
community, sources of employment are lost for those who sold land, causing them to migrate. Ownership of land by families with migrants may also lead to extensification of land use. For example, remittances are commonly used to purchase livestock as a store of value, to compensate for insurance market failures.97 If land is used to raise livestock instead of more labor-intensive crops, then agricultural production in the community may decline, reducing sources of employment and creating an incentive to migrate. Alternatively, when remittances are invested in capital-intensive technological improvements such as mechanization, they may also reduce local employment opportunities and induce others to migrate.98 On the other hand, if investment in agriculture is attractive, remittances may be used to purchase yield-increasing inputs and to shift land to labor intensive high value crops. E.
Agricultural Economic Reforms, NAFTA, and Migration
Like many countries, Mexico is currently facing an array of serious social and economic challenges. As a signatory to the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA"), Mexico has initiated a series of broad-sweeping economic and political reforms aimed at modernizing the country. While per capita yearly income has risen, gaps between rich and poor have widened. The overall impacts expected from the implementation of NAFTA by the U.S., Canada and Mexico are still being debated. Some experts argue that the NAFTA, through the associated economic reforms in Mexico, has stimulated inequality, favored urban-centered development policies at the expense of rural production and therefore negatively impacted rural Mexicans. Others argue that NAFTA may promise the greatest leverage for Mexico's development, which in turn will raise incomes nationwide.99 It is uncertain to what degree and how quickly agricultural investment in Mexico will increase because of NAFTA. For example, it is expected that Mexico can produce winter vegetables because of its favorable climate. Challenges Mexico faces are technological and institutional, and high marketing and production costs.100 These obstacles currently make agricultural investment in Mexico less profitable than the United States. Thus, the shift to Mexico for winter vegetable production may not occur as rapidly as expected. In addition, economists have predicted that new economic reforms will result in lower maize prices because of the United State's comparative advantage in maize production and a phasing out of the Mexican government's (CONASUPO) price supports and other agricultural subsidies.101
97 98
99
100
101
237:733-738 (1987); Grasmuck, Sherri and Patricia R.Pessar. Between Two Islands: Dominican International Migration. Berkeley: University of California Press (1991); Taylor, J. Edward and T.J. Wyatt. “Migration, assets, and income inequality in a diversified household-farm economy: Evidence from Mexico”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Society, Orlando, (Aug. 3-5, !993). Id., Taylor and Wyatt. Fletcher, Peri and J.E. Taylor, “Migration and the transformation of a Mexican village house economy,” paper presented a the Conference on New Perspectives on Mexico - U.S. Migration, University of Chicago Center for Latin American Studies, pp. 23-24 (1992). See, e.g., Martin, P. Trade and Migration: NAFTA and Agriculture (October 1993), Institute for International Economics. Certain economists contend that jobs can be created in rural Mexico even without an increase in exports because there is likely to be an increase in domestic consumption as Mexican incomes are raised. P.L. Martin, p. 103. Too, it is believed that "while labor rates are lower in Mexico, labor is frequently less productive, due to restrictive work rules and other factors. Consequently, total labor costs per crop are frequently not as low as the wage rates would suggest." Id. citing, R. Cook, C. Benito, J. Matson, D. Runsten, K. Shwedel, and T. Taylor, "Fruits and Vegetable Issues," NAFTA: Effects on Agriculture: Vol. 4)(Parkridge, Il.: American Farm Bureau Foundation) (1991). A. de Janvry, E. Sadoulet, and G. Gordillo de Anda. "NAFTA and Mexico's Maize Producers." World Development:Vol. 23, No. 8. (1995).
13
Mexican farmers are already experiencing the affects of the substantial reforms in agricultural subsidies. As a precursor to NAFTA, the Mexican government restructured parastatals, and thus privatized much of the agricultural industry, such as fertilizer, seed, insurance, and water management corporations. As these inputs are privatized, farmers will experience a further reduction in their agricultural subsidies.102 One recent survey of farmers in rural Mexico, for example, found that "two thirds of the farmers questioned...reported that their incomes had been reduced by a NAFTA-induced influx of corn, processed meat and milk products that lowered the prices they received for farm products in Mexico."103 On the other hand, the devaluation of the exchange rate raised the price of imported corn. After December 1994, it is hard to blame eventually lower farm level prices on import prices. However, the perception that poor farmers will not survive reduced agricultural subsidies and price supports may lead to added migration.104 The success of small farmers will likely depend on their ability to diversify crops and gain access to state or private supportive institutions for market, credit and technical assistance. This appears to be a significant challenge for rural farmers and government leaders. Credit reforms in the wake of economic modernization have had severe impacts on rural farmers. One expert observes: "The January 1992 modifications to Article 27 were preceded and followed by other agricultural and agrarian policy reforms that continue to contribute substantially to the reconfiguration of state-campesino relations currently underway in Mexico. One of the most notable of these policy shifts is found in the sphere of rural finance, where since 1989 the state has profoundly redefined how it provides loans to campesinos to underwrite crop production, to increase stocks of farm animals and equipment, and to facilitate the adoption of improved farming practices. After decades during which expansion of the supply of official agricultural credit was central to state efforts to organize both rural production and politics, recently hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers have found their access to loans from the official rural financial institutions severely reduced or even cut off completely. In response, many have mobilized to contest the new agricultural credit policies which they characterize as anti-campesino and a violation of what they understand to be the Mexican state's revolutionary obligation to support agrarian economy and society.. . . . Discarding incremental policy making, state officials have implemented credit policies that rapidly and simultaneously unsettle the established agricultural production strategies of vast numbers of campesinos. . . ."105
Credit extended to farmers by the state had often been tied to the adoption of "productivityenhancing" technological changes, though in some cases borrowers were forced to implement technological changes which proved inappropriate to the ecological conditions of the affected farm.106 The potential displacement of those dependent upon employment in rural agriculture has been the subject of some debate. In the long term, at least in principle, the development of commercial, export-oriented agriculture, stimulated by NAFTA, should create employment and help reduce migration. In the short term, however, NAFTA and associated economic reforms are expected to increase migration within Mexico and from Mexico to the U.S., or cause the "migration hump" described by Economist Philip Martin,107 as open trade bankrupts activities 102 103 104 105
106 107
Id. "Congressional Action on Immigration," Migrant News: Vol. 2, no.11, November 1995, p. 3. P. Martin, "Emigration Dynamics," supra note 75. D. Myhre, "The Achilles Heel of the Rural Reforms: The Inadequate Rural Financial System," p. 1, presented to the workshop "Assessing the Rural Reforms in Mexico, 1992-1995," Ejido Reform Research Project, Center for U.S.Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego (Aug. 25-26). A revision of this paper is currently being published in an edited volume by Laura Randall entitled Reforming the Mexican Agrarian Reform. Id., p. 3. See, P. Martin, "Emigration Dynamics in Mexico and Central America: The Case of Agriculture" (April 12, 1996,
14
unable to compete with U.S. imports. Some have predicted that the significant changes in the agricultural economic sector of Mexico may result in the displacement of as many as 15 million rural farmers.108 More capital-intensive farming may lead to a substantial loss of jobs, and the concentration of land ownership may work to displace peasant households. Employment in NAFTA-spurred commercial farming operations is also likely to provide information to workers about work conditions in the U.S., and to help develop skills for U.S. employment, thereby creating more opportunities for migration. Finally, commercial agriculture may provide comparatively stable and secure employment opportunities for women and children from landless peasant households, freeing male household members to migrate. It is suggested that trade and labor are not perfect substitutes, as classical economics has often held. Because of market imperfections and inequalities between the U.S. and Mexico, NAFTA policies may not immediately affect the demand pull of high wages in the U.S. or infrastructure networks that link laborers to jobs, but are likely instead to increase the "push" factors from rural Mexico.109 The length of this outmigration increase is uncertain, though it could last more than a decade. In the long term, trade stimulated economic growth should reduce the amount of rural Mexican workers from migrating to the United States. Those farm households that do produce traditional crops (maize and beans) for the market, however, will be most affected by NAFTA.110 Non-diversified maize producers depend heavily on the market price for their survival and constitute a large percentage of the rural population. For example, certain states surveyed indicate that this group includes 27.8% of growers in Sinaloa; 39.8% in Michoacan; and 42.9% in Veracruz. Fruit and vegetable production may be able to absorb some of the excess labor from the maize producing sector, but the potential is still unknown and is expected to be small.111 In addition, there may be a lag time between when fruit and vegetable producers can absorb the excess subsistence-level maize laborers and when their jobs are initially cut. This could pressure migration from rural areas. The long-term effect will likely depend on Mexico's ability to decentralize labor-intensive activities toward its rural region.112
108
109 110 111 112
awaiting publication by the International Organization for Migration and available from NHI); P. Martin, Trade and Migration: NAFTA and Agriculture, Institute for International Economics (October 1993). Calva, J.L.Probables Efectos de un Tratado de Libre comercio en el Campo Mexicano (Mexico, D.F.: Distribuciones Fontamara, 1991)(cited in A. de Janvry, E. Sadoulet, G. De Anda, "NAFTA and Mexico's Maize Producers," World Development, Vol. 23, No. 8 (1995). The number of people likely to be displaced due to economic reforms is controversial. See, supra, A. de Janvry, E. Sadoulet, G. De Anda, "NAFTA and Mexico's Maize Producers." See, P. Martin, "Emigration Dynamics in Mexico and Central America: The Case of Agriculture,"supra note 23. A. de Janvry, E. Sadoulet, G. De Anda, "NAFTA and Mexico's Maize Producers," World Development, Vol. 23, No. 8 (1995). Id. See Appendix 1.
15
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND MIGRATION
The socio-economic factors discussed in the preceding section are widely acknowledged to have contributed substantially to cross-border migration from Mexico to the U.S., and will likely continue to play significant roles in future migratory patterns. Our research indicates, however, that the role of agricultural land degradation in spurring migration in Mexico has been seriously under-studied and remains poorly understood. Our analysis of data from the 1994 Survey, crosstabulated with data on environmental stress and population pressure, reveals that poverty is associated with high levels of environmental stress and high population pressure. As poverty is a major determinant of migration (as discussed in earlier sections of this report), environmental stress, caused by deforestation or the erosion of lands, can influence migration through its impact on poverty. Population growth was found also to be a determinant of migration.113 Given that hundreds of thousands of people are leaving the drylands each year, as discussed below, any attempt to address the root causes of migration must include an effective means to address the widespread and deepening problem of land degradation, population trends and poverty in Mexico's rural drylands. Following this, section IV presents a discussion of our recommendations which could serve as a starting point in this regard. A.
Degradation of Mexico's Agricultural Lands, Forests, Climate, Biodiversity and Water
Mexico shares with the U.S. a high rate of land degradation and soil erosion: the North American continent has the highest proportion of eroded and desertified drylands in the world, with 74% of its topsoil affected.114 The international Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought, which entered into force in December 1996, defines desertification as land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry subhumid areas resulting from various factors including climatic variations and human activities. In Mexico, the problem is severe. A national assessment of soil degradation has identified the main desertification processes in Mexico to be the loss of topsoil through wind and water erosion, the loss of soil microorganisms (biological degradation), nutrient loss, salinization and sodification. These processes are estimated to affect up to 85% of the national land area.115 Fully seventy percent of Mexico’s agricultural lands are affected and 1,000 square miles (260,000 hectares) of potentially productive lands are taken out of production and 400 square miles are abandoned each year. It is estimated that as much as 46.8% of the national land area is located in arid, semiarid or dry subhumid zones, and as much as 23.6% of Mexico s land consists of the hyperarid zone. Only 29.6% of the land is located in the humid zone. (See Map on Aridity attached). In the United States, the western states are most affected: between 500,000 and 1,000,000 acres of potentially productive cropland in California alone are threatened by salinization and soil erosion.116
113 114
115 116
Id. at p.12. In comparison, the African continent suffers degradation of roughly 70% of its surface area, though the socio-economic repercussions in Africa are often more extreme. see Lean, Geoffrey. Down to Earth. The Centre for Our Common Future, 1995. Plan de Acción para Combatir la Desertificación en México, Ch. 2, Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 (Working Document, Oct. 1993)(hereinafter Desertification Plan), Comisión Nacional de las Zonas Aridas. G. Thomas, M. Leighton Schwartz, R. Roos-Collins, "Legal and Institutional Structures for Managing Agricultural Drainage in the San Joaquin Valley: Designing a Future" (Prepared for the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program by NHI, 1990).
16
1.
Agricultural Land Degradation
Three quarters of all lands affected by soil erosion and other forms of desertification in Mexico are agricultural. Lands in arid or semi-arid areas that have been stripped of their vegetative cover are perilously susceptible to erosion from harsh winds or rains. This degradation may irreversibly alter the ability of the soils to sustain crops or vegetation. The most critically affecting (in order of severity) Oaxaca, Tamaulipas, Yucatan, Veracruz and Chiapas. In addition, salinization (caused by application of poor-quality water and improper drainage) affects 30% of all irrigated lands in the country, a figure which totals as much as 20% of Mexico s cultivated land.117 Additionally, other activities have added to the problem of desertification: overcultivation, excessive grazing, deforestation and overpumping of the aquifers are the primary causal factors.118 Salinization and sodification of soils are of particular interest because they are caused primarily by irrigation which is otherwise considered to be a beneficial practice. Overapplication of water in highly saline soils can raise the water table containing high levels of salts that threaten the crop root zone and other vegetation needed to sustain wildlife habitat. This can become an acute problem when combined with improper draining of irrigated lands and the application of poor quality water. An estimated one fifth of Mexico's cropland is irrigated,119 and ten percent of these lands are now highly salinized.120 Our investigations suggest that this type of desertification problem is particularly notable in arid states such as Sonora, where irrigation is relied upon for the production of crops in the absence of significant rainfall.121 The chart below shows the states with the greatest rates of land degradation.122
117
118
119 120 121 122
Some estimate that only about 15% of Mexico's total land area is suitable for agriculture. Personal Interview with Dr. Jose Gomez de Leon, Secretary General of the National Population Council (CONAPO), Mexico City, October 13, 1995. CONAPO is a Council composed of numerous Mexican state agencies, including the Ministries of Government, Foreign Relations, Social Development, Public Education, Health, Labor, and Agricultural Reform. (Hereafter "Interview with Dr. Gomez de Leon.") Schwartz, M. and Jessica Notini, “Desertification and Migration: Mexico and the United States.� (U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Washington, D.C., 1995). See also Livermore, D. and K. O'Brien, "Global Warming and Climate Change in Mexico" Global Environment Change. Butterwirth-Heinemann LTD, ed. p. 351 (1991). D. Liverman and K. O'Brien, "Global Warming and Climate Change in Mexico" in Global Environmental Change, p. 35. Butterworth-Heinemann LTD,ed.(1991)(hereafter "Liverman and O'Brien"). Desertification Plan, Ch. 2, Section 2.3.4, supra, note 115. Personal interview with L. Arguelles (December 3, 1993). Mr. Arguelles is an agrarian lawyer with substantial experience and knowledge of conditions in the Sonora area. Desertification Plan, Ch. 2, supra, note 115; for additional statistics and GIS mapping, see, M. Leighton Schwartz, J. Notini, Desertification and Migration: Mexico and the U.S. (Congressional Commission on Immigration Reform 1995).
17
TYPE OF DEGRADATION
AREA(S) AFFECTED
SURFACE AREA AFFECTED (%)
Water Erosion
Aguascalientes Coahuila Guanajuato Jalisco
Michoacan Nuevo Leon San Luis Potosi Zacatecas
more than 45%
Wind Erosion
Baja California Hidalgo Morelos Nuevo Leon
Queretaro San Luis Potosi Zacatecas
more than 60 %
Salinization
Baja California Chihuahua Coahuila
Colima Sonora Tamaulipas
Campeche Mexico Morelos Quintana Roo
Sonora Tabasco Yucatan
Sodification
Physical Degradation
Hidalgo
Veracruz
more than 10% of irrigated lands between 13% and 40%
40-90%
Biological Degradation
Chiapas Colima Jalisco Michoacan Morelo
Nayarit Sinaloa Tabasco Veracruz Yucatan
more than 90%
Chemical degradation
Campeche Nayarit Oaxaca
Tabasco Veracruz
20-67%
States which are experiencing nearly all of these types of degradation are: Chihuahua, Coahuila, Colima, Jalisco, Mexico, Sinaloa and Sonora.123 Our investigation indicates that there may also be considerable land degradation in Puebla and Guerrero. Given the extent of arid and semi-arid areas in Mexico, a significant portion of the lands in Mexico are vulnerable to or are presently undergoing desertification at some level. The attached map identifying soil erosion in Mexico depicts this phenomenon. We were unable to obtain detailed information on all municipalities of Mexico, where soil and vegetative deterioration have resulted in an irreversible decrease or destruction of the biological potential of the land. The Mexican environmental agency (SEMARNAP) is due to complete its first comprehensive national inventory on soil erosion later this year, however. Experts have found that serious desertification usually exists along the borders of deserts, such as Northern Mexico and in the
123
Desertification Plan, Ch. 2, Sections 2.3.2 - 2.3.7, supra, note 115
18
areas of transition between semi-arid and subhumid or tropical zones.124 Our observations of the borders of the Chihuahuense Desert in the San Luis Potosi area were consistent with this finding. 2.
Deforestation
Worldwide, deforestation is a major contributor to land degradation and desertification. In Mexico this is also true. Deforestation is the result of several factors, including the clearance of land for crops and grazing, and the felling of trees for timber, which in many cases is illegal. Mexico s strong tradition of central government often means that decisions regarding the management of forests may be made without the effective participation of local forestdependent communities. Our research indicates that this occurs with some frequency despite the country’s efforts to decentralize environmental regulations. In some areas of the country, laws are not enforceable because basic implementation tools, such as survey lines, have not been made and/or the forest-dependent communities choose not to abide by the forest management laws. The precise amount of native forests remaining in Mexico is uncertain. Some have estimated that Mexico has only about 130,000 square kilometers of forest remaining.125 Each year about 1% of temperate forest and almost 2.5% of tropical forest are lost.126 Forests were assessed in Mexico both in 1980 and 1990 through studies developed by Klaus Deininger at the World Bank. These are presented in the attached maps. This data indicates a rate of deforestation of between 24% to 31% in Mexican ejido communities between 1980-1990. Deforestation is also an important symptom of population pressure. The majority of the Mexican forests are located in the ejido sectors of the country - as much as 75% - and are therefore part of the common property resources. In a large number of these communities, lack of cooperation in management of these resources inevitably leads to overuse, a typical tragedy of the commons.127 In certain northern, very arid states such as Sonora, loss of vegetative cover and desert ecosystems are better indicators than deforestation given that natural dearth of forests in these regions. Reliable data on these regions in time series format and at a scale which could be integrated into the model analysis was unavailable to NHI at the time of running our models. Further analysis of this issue for states such as Sonora is warranted. 3.
Climate Change as a Cause and Consequence of Land Degradation
There is evidence linking the processes of land degradation and desertification to climate change on both the local and global level.128 This evidence suggests that desertification and climate change are significant reciprocal contributory factors.129 The impacts of human-induced changes 124 125
126 127 128
129
J. Ballin-Cortes, Estudio Preliminar de la Desertificación en el Limite Sur del Desierto Chihuahuense (Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi, 1990), p. 158. JeanGeográfica Programa EPOMEX, Universidad Autónoma de Campeche)(1996). Accounts of forest cover differ. A 1994 inventory estimates there are 50 million hectares remaining, though the inventory is still being calculated at the municipal level. 1994 Inventorio Forestal Periodico de Mexico, suggested in written comments of Gonzalo Chapela, Semarnap, November 1997. Id. Appendix 1 p.17. See M. Hulme and M. Kelly, "Exploring the links between Desertification and Climate Change," Environment, July/August 1993 for discussion of these issues. Hulme is Research Climatologist and Kelly is Atmospheric Scientist with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England. Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Paper, "Scope and Preliminary Operational Strategy for Land Degradation"
19
in drylands on the earth's atmosphere and global energy balance have begun to be modeled with some success.130 For example, numerical models have demonstrated that changes in soil moisture levels can determine the amount of solar energy absorbed by the evaporation and transpiration processes, and thus the amount that radiates as heat into the ground or air.131 In addition, changes in land surface topography resulting from desertification can alter near-surface wind speeds and turbulence levels further influencing evapotranspiration rates.132 These phenomena can result in changes to atmospheric composition affecting the immediate atmosphere's temperature structure, vertical stability, and propensity to precipitate.133 These localized changes in climate that may result from desertification appear to vary according to the aridity of the area in question. In the most arid regions, desertification may lead to a cooling affect.134 In less arid regions, however, lands undergoing desertification may show warming because of reduced evapotranspiration.135 Such localized climate changes in turn can have major impacts on the dryland soils themselves, since the soils' low levels of biological activity, organic matter, and aggregate stability render them highly responsive to the erosive effects of hydro and atmospheric climatic variability.136 On the global level, the inherently large year-to-year variations in dryland precipitation levels that contribute to desertification have been shown to be interrelated with the natural and internal variations occurring within the entire global-scale climate system.137 Climatologists have identified linkages between local and regional interannual precipitation patterns and antecedent soil moisture conditions, large-scale ocean-surface temperature patterns such as El Ni単o, and the position of major general atmospheric circulation features.138 As understanding of these linkages grows, seasonal predictions of dryland rainfall anomalies extending to several months are likely to become more common.139 Many scientists believe, however, that climate changes in drylands over the next century will also be driven in some part by the continued buildup of greenhouse gases. Numerical models project that drylands, particularly in the higher latitudes, may warm substantially as a result of the greenhouse effect over the course of the next century, thereby becoming more arid.140 Degrading drylands may themselves be a substantial source of carbon emissions. Dryland soils are important storehouses of carbon, and prolonged or frequent drought and resulting land degradation may undermine the soils' storage capacity, resulting in the release of carbon into the atmosphere.141
130 131 132 133 134
135 136 137 138 139 140 141
(1995), at 4. The paper describes the relationship between land degradation and biodiversity, climate change and water resources, for the Council of the GEF and as preparation for the GEF Council's meeting Feb. 22-24 1995, and for the Council decision regarding operational strategy for land degradation. M. Williams and R. Balling, "Interactions of Desertification and Climate" (April 1994), p. 2. Id., p. 2. Id. Id. This is because the surface albedo term (the fraction of electromagnetic energy that is reflected from the land surface rather than absorbed) appears to dominate the climate response. "Scope and Preliminary Operational Strategy for Land Degradation", p. 4, Global Environment Facility. Id. Williams, M. and R. Balling, "Interactions of Desertification and Climate". (April, 1994), p. 3. Id. Id. Id. Id., p. 5. GEF, "Scope and Preliminary Strategy for Land Degradation" supra, pp. 4-5.
20
Although dryland input to global carbon emissions may currently be modest, it is expected to grow, particularly as firewood remains the single most important energy source for the majority of people living in drylands.142 Periodic burning of grasslands, a traditional practice in many dryland areas, along with slash-and-burn agriculture, contribute significantly to carbon emissions and particulates.143 With growing populations and inadequate access to other energy sources, CO2 emissions from firewood, coal, and charcoal will likely increase.144 In fact, models project that there may be a doubling of CO2 emissions in Mexico by 2025.145 The loss of forests also contributes substantially to carbon emissions. When trees are felled not only are significant amounts of carbon released into the atmosphere, but the trees cease to serve as means of converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen. Moreover, once forests are cleared, the land becomes more and more arid, the soil continues to lose its natural capacity to store carbon and even more carbon is emitted into the atmosphere.146 Climate change in the United States and Mexico may substantially affect agricultural land and water resources. In Mexico, it is believed that periodic droughts and generally dry conditions in the arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid regions have contributed to the advance of desertification. However, some believe that climatic events have played only a small role in the desertification process, noting that mean temperatures have not varied notably to date, and that the low rainfall experienced in dry years in the arid and semi-arid regions has usually been within the expected range of precipitation.147 Where climate change has occurred in Mexico, experts suggest that it has been caused or exacerbated by human activity. One study examining the differences between Arizona and Sonora along the United States/Mexico border found that variations in temperature could be explained by differences in vegetation and soil moisture on the two sides of the border.148 On the Mexican side, vegetation and soil moisture were depleted due to heavy overgrazing, resulting in temperatures that were 2-4 degrees centigrade warmer than on the Arizona side where grazing was practiced in a controlled, sustainable manner.149 The authors of the study also believe that the conditions on the Mexican side of the border may actually decrease the amount of rainfall, though this postulation has yet to be verified.150 It is widely understood, however, that the degraded condition of land on the Mexican side of the border exacerbates the erosion caused by rainfall. It is also becoming apparent that the impacts of climate change on the environment often depend more on the characteristics of the region and people affected than on the nature of the climate change itself.151 Thus, for example, one study found that the lands vulnerable to drought in two different regions of Mexico corresponded much more closely with mismanagement of ejido 142 143 144 145 146 147 148
149 150 151
Id. Id., p. 4. Id. Presentation by Dr. Karen O'Brien, NHI Roundtable (November 14, 1995). See, e.g., GEF, “Scope and Preliminary Operational Strategy for Land Degradation,� at p.4, (Feb. 1995)(Global Environment Facility). Interview with Ballin-Cortes and Vasquez Rocillo, supra note 31. R. Balling, "The Climatic Impact of a Sonoran Vegetation Discontinuity" pp. 106-07, Climatic Change, 13:99-109 (1988), Bryant, et al, "Measuring the Effect of Overgrazing in the Sonoran Desert" pp. 260-61 Climatic Change, 17:243-264 (1990). Id. Telephone interview with R. Balling, Professor at Arizona State University, on November 19, 1993. D. Liverman, "Regional Impact of Global Warming" supra, note 36 pp. 44, 57.
21
lands, lack of irrigation, lack of high yielding seed varieties and lack of fertilizer than with physical climate conditions.152 Various models on the effects of global warming in Mexico project that Mexico may experience warmer and drier conditions in the next two decades.153 Such conditions could significantly increase the severity and effects of drought, exacerbate the processes of desertification, and devastate a significant portion of Mexican croplands and farmers relying on low and variable rainfall.154 In addition, global warming in the United States is likely to affect the flow and quality of water resources in the border region of Mexico. One study has indicated that the warming of temperatures in the Colorado river basin may lead to a degradation of water supplies in Mexico and other users in the lower Colorado river basin, particularly given the decrease in runoff and associated increase of salinity.155 An increase of salinity in regions where the soils are already naturally saline can seriously threaten crop production on agricultural lands, affect biological resources and impair wildlife habitat.156 Many of Mexico's farmers are engaged in rain-fed corn production, making them particularly vulnerable to climate changes. As indicated, Mexico's climate is variable: every five years, a drought is experienced by one or more regions, taking a profound toll on crop yields and rural productivity. If the modeled projections hold true and nothing is done to offset negative impacts of climate changes, crop yields could be decreased by up to one third, making life even more difficult for the millions of rural Mexicans dependent on agriculture. At the local level, this will have differential impacts on people, with farmers lacking access to credit, infrastructure and technologies most likely to suffer negative impacts.157 4.
Agricultural Land Degradation and Biodiversity Loss
While much international attention has been focused on loss of biodiversity in humid subtropical areas, similar processes of degradation in dryland areas warrant greater attention. Dryland areas contain ample genetic diversity: for example, in Central Chile, some 1500 species have been identified in an area smaller than 100,000 square kilometers. Because of the conditions under which they have evolved, dryland species often have strong resistance to environmental stress and disease, making them an important resource for plant breeding efforts. In fact, many of humanity's most important food crops, such as barley and sorghum, originated in drylands. The virus-resistant gene of the US$160 million barley crop comes from an Ethiopian yellow dwarf variety of barley.158 As global climate changes continue, dryland species will be an essential resource for crop production researchers. Dryland species also provide drugs, resins, waxes, oils, and other commercial products, particularly for the pharmaceutical market. In addition, drylands 152
153
154 155
156
157 158
Id., p. 60. The correlation with ejido land management appeared to be based on the facts that more marginal land was given to ejidos in land reform efforts and that ejidos are socially more vulnerable because they have less access to irrigation, credit, improved seeds and other resources. Id. p. 61. Dr. Karen O'Brien, in a presentation for the NHI Roundtable November 14, 1995, mentioned that five different models all projected similar patterns of warming. Further research to measure the impacts of climate change on Mexico is currently being conducted by the Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (Funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), the CICESE research institute in Ensenada, and the Centro de Ciencias de la Atmosfera at UNAM. Id. p. 364; Liverman, "Regional Impact of Global Warming" supra, note 36 pp. 45, 65. Nash, L. and P. Gleick, The Colorado River Basin and Climatic Change, The Sensitivity of Streamflow and Water Supply to Variations in Temperature and Precipitation, Pacific Institute for Studies in the Environment, Development, and Security, (Prepared for the U.S. EPA, Dec. 1993). See, e.g., information on the serious agricultural and environmental problems associated with salinity increases in the Central Valley of California discussed in, G. Thomas and M. Leighton Schwartz, (eds. and contributors) The Legal and Institutional Structures for Controlling Agricultural Drainage in the San Joaquin Valley: Designing a Future (Prepared by NHI for the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program-U.S. Department of Interior and California water and wildlife agencies, 1990). Dr. Karen O’Brian, Remarks at NHI Roundtable (November 14, 1995). Global Environmental Facility, "Scope and Preliminary Operational Strategy for Land Degradation", p. 6.
22
provide critical habitats for wildlife, including large mammals and migratory birds. When properly managed, the drylands can also be a sustainable environment for human populations, providing resources for rural livelihoods. Mexico has a high concentration of biological diversity, ranking fourth in the world in terms of estimated number of species, including about half of U.S. migratory birds. This biodiversity is threatened by rapid changes in Mexican land use and land cover. At the beginning of the century, forests covered 33% of the total land area; today they cover only 25%.159 When trees are logged and forests cleared, the entire ecosystem of the forest may be destroyed. Plant and animal species die as a result of the widespread loss of vegetation. 5.
Water Resource Degradation and Scarcity
In addition to problems associated with agricultural land management, Mexico faces serious challenges related to water use. Most of the country's large cities, industrial facilities and irrigated lands are located in these dryland areas, in which lies only one-third of the country's water resources.160 Only about 12% of the nation's water is on the central plateau where 60% of the population and 51% of the cropland are located.161 Given the scarcity of surface water supplies, Mexico depends heavily on groundwater resources, which provide about 1/3 of all water consumption in the country (urban, agricultural, and industrial). Urban water use is dependent on groundwater for more than 70% of its water requirements. In Mexico City, 72% of the City's water supply comes from the Mexico City Aquifer.162 Irrigation constitutes over 90% of total water consumption, both surface and groundwater resources. This has caused overpumping of aquifers throughout Mexico, with total groundwater withdrawals now at about 43% of the country's renewable water supply each year. Water distribution is still quite uneven in the country, with 14% of the population lacking access to drinking water and 29% without access to sewerage. In addition, only about 21% of municipal wastewater is treated.163 There is evidence to suggest that many of Mexico's existing aquifers will not maintain current levels of pumping and water scarcity will increase in certain regions. Groundwater levels in some aquifers are dropping at rates of 1-3 meters per year. Research in other countries suggests that this leads to significant declines in access to groundwater, especially for the rural poor who cannot afford the high costs associated with "chasing the water table."164 Thus, changes in access to irrigation water, particularly groundwater, are likely to significantly influence agricultural incomes and therefore the incentives of local populations to migrate.
159 160 161 162
163
164
Interview with Dr. Jose Gomez de Leon, CONAPO, Mexico City, October 13, 1995. Gonzalez-Villarreal and Hector Garduño, "Water Resources Planning and Management in Mexico," International Journal of Water Resources, Vol. 10, no. 3, 1994. D. Liverman, "Regional Impact of Global Warming in Mexico: Uncertainty, Vulnerability and Response," p. 45 (in J. Schmandt and J. Clarkson (1992)). The Joint Academies Committee on the Mexico City Water Supply, Mexico City's Water Supply: Improving the Outlook for Sustainability (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1995). The Joint Academies Committee is comprised of Water Science Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council, and Academia Nacional de la Investigacion Cientifica, A.C., and Academia Nacional de Ingenieria, A.C. The investigation found that overexploitation of this acquifer has resulted in the lowering of the groundwater table by 0.1 to 1.5 meters a year, causing serious land subsidence in some areas of the City. Gonzalez-Villareal and Hector Garduño, p. 240. See also, Agua, Salud y Derechos Humanos, México, D.F., Comision Nacional de Derechos Humanos, and Sistemas Hidráulicas, Modernización de la Agricultura y Migración, México, D.F., Universidad Iberoamericana. This has been documented in other Natural Heritage Institute investigations, particularly on India's groundwater management.
23
Low and variable rainfall, as well as drought, continue to be of serious concern to rural farmers in Mexico. During a recent trip to Oaxaca, field interviews suggested that decreasing rainfall over the past 5-7 years has played a significant role in farmers' decisions not to plant.165 In addition, lack of access to improved seeds, fertilizers, and other inputs meant that many farmers were not able to make their land productive enough to justify planting. Most of those interviewed stated that this has not always been true; that land had degraded and productivity decreased throughout the last decade. Research in the Mexicali Valley demonstrated that migration was associated with the quantity and quality of water available to growers dependent upon the flow from the Colorado River. When the U.S. began to discharge water which was highly saline, the cotton crop in the Mexicali Valley was severely affected, resulting in a large exodus of the population.166 Rehabilitation of these lands has meant that some people have resettled the area. This not only illustrates the correlation between water resource degradation, lack of sustainable farming and migration, but also suggests that implementation of effective resource management schemes may spur resettlement of migrant-emitting areas.167 To address the country's water problems, the Mexican government has initiated a series of reforms in water policy, planning and law, including the passage of a new water law in December 1992. The goals of these programs are to improve existing water infrastructure, to increase efficiency of water uses and to control and reduce water pollution. Research on the impacts of these reforms is currently underway, but because the reforms have not had sufficient time to be fully implemented, evidence is still inconclusive. B.
Land Degradation as a Determinant of Migration
Our research indicates that for many of the 30 million Mexicans living in rural arid and semi-arid regions, the land degradation crisis may contribute to lower, already insufficient levels of household income. The correlations between loss of productive lands and migration appear to be strong with most migration flowing from rural to urban areas in Mexico, and from rural areas in Mexico to the U.S.168 Analyses by Professor de Janvry of the 1994 National Survey of ejido households with other economic and environmental variables substantiates the correlations between high environmental degradation and poverty; poverty being an important determinant of migration. Our research further indicates that much of this migration remains seasonal rather than permanent. Often, the heads of households return to their lands in time for their own harvest. This may be changing as permanent migration increases. The methodology for analysis of these variables is as follows. Reliable data on rates of soil erosion for all municipalities of Mexico are at this time not available.169 Thus, two indicators 165 166
167 168 169
Personal interviews with a random sample of farmers at a land titling ceremony in San Miguel Ejutla, Oaxaca, October 15, 1995. Whiteford, Scott, Francisco A. Bernal, Heliodoro Diaz Cisneros and Esteban Valtierra, "The Struggle for Land and Water: Arid Land Ejidos Bound by the Past, Marginalized by the Future" paper prepared for conference on Assessing the Rural Reforms in Mexico, 1992-95, University of California San Diego, August 25-26, 1995. Presentation by Professor Scott Whiteford, NHI Roundtable meeting, November 14, 1995. See, M. Leighton Schwartz and J. Notini, Desertification and Migration: Mexico and the United States. (U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Washington, D.C., 1995). Though detailed data for all municipalities in Mexico on soil erosion and desertification are not yet available, researchers and officials in Mexico, specifically at SEMARNAP, have general data on the seriousness and scope of
24
were used as proxies for environmental stress: 1) the municipal level rate of deforestation over the 1980-90 period obtained from GIS observations. While rates of deforestation may be imperfect substitutes for actual data on rates and degree of soil erosion, it is the best nation-wide data currently available for this analysis. Deforestation is a significant contributor to land degradation in Mexico, with 1% of temperate forest and 2.5% of tropical forests lost each year. It is particularly relevant to our analysis because 75% of Mexico's forests are located in the ejido sector; 2) the degree of population pressure in a municipality. Population pressure here is measured as the product of the average farm size in the municipality multiplied by the average rainfed corn yield in that municipality. This indicator has the advantage of combining the role of population pressure with that of production potential of the land which is in turn affected by environmental stress. In addition, the degree of marginality, determined from a poverty index developed by the National Population Council in Mexico which measures poverty and other social characteristics of community members is also a determinant of migration, is used as a variable for our analysis,170 (see Map on Marginality attached). In our empirical analysis of the determinants of migration to the United States, we find that both variables suggest that environmental stress and population pressure contribute to migration out of rural areas. 1. Impacts of Land Degradation on Household Incomes Our research indicates that the level of household income in Mexico is determined by the household's control over income-generating assets, particularly agricultural assets (qualityadjusted land area), human capital assets (combining number of working-age adults and levels of education achieved), migration assets (the number of permanent migrants from the household and the extended family to whom a migrant has access), institutional and organizational assets (access to restricted sources of credit and existence of producers organizations in the region), and social assets (ethnicity).171 Household income is also influenced by other contextual characteristics, such as where the household is located geographically, the level of socio-political marginality in the household's municipality, and, significantly, the level of environmental degradation (See Table 6). Environmental stress variables in Mexico, when analyzed with data on ejido households, in fact show a systematic inverse relation with income level, and poverty throughout the country is associated with high environmental degradation and high population pressure on the land.172 The environment appears to play a major role in influencing migration through its impact on poverty. Aside from analysis of the 1994 ejido survey, our research has found that, in particular, the quality of farmlands, the availability and reliability of water supply, and unsustainable land management practices can dramatically impact agricultural productivity and, in turn, income.173 Declines in land quality thus can contribute directly to the level of migration from rural areas, as farmers are often led to cease cultivation or abandon lands altogether to avoid economic ruin. Dr. Philip Martin, an agricultural economist, has found:
170
171 172 173
the desertification problem at the municipal level. The marginality index is measured at the municipality level (CONAPO, 1994). It is an index that summarizes different aspects of poverty: illiteracy, quality of housing, dispersion of habitat, and poverty rate. It is used here to represent the quality of the social environment in which a particular ejido is located. See, Appendix 1, p. 13. Alain de Janvry, Report for NHI: "Determinants of Mexico-U.S. Migration: The Role of Household Assets and Environmental Factors," (1997) (Appendix). Id. This has been raised as a consistent theme in our discussions during the past three years with experts and interviews with farmers in rural areas in Mexico.
25
"Individuals and households change their behavior in response to price changes. If land degradation makes farm land less productive, and if agricultural policy reform, plus trade agreements that promise different prices, change the outlook for particular crops, then land and crop prices will change, and rural households will respond, in part by migrating. It should be emphasized that the option to migrate for work -- seasonally or permanently -- may discourage investments in sustainable agricultural practices that are justified only if a person believes he will be farming for another 50 years. [Âś] Mexico made changes in the 1990s that altered prices in rural Mexico in a manner that signaled rural Mexicans to get out of agriculture."174
It is important to emphasize that productive agriculture is in many respects the primary component of household income across all income levels in Mexico, either thorugh agricultural and livestock incomes or indirectly through wages earned on the agricultural labor market. Classifying households by income quintiles, the data in Table 6 show that income derived from agriculture and wages are the two main sources of income for both the lowest and the highest income quintile of ejido households. Livestock-raising is also very important for the poor, since they derive 27% of their income from this activity. The data also show that migration plays a major role for the middle income groups, but is less important for both the relatively poorer and richer households. This implies that migration is not able to erase extreme poverty and that it is not the source of the highest incomes in the social sector. Significantly, income from microenterprises is not a source of income-differentiation, remaining relatively constant as a share of total income across income quintiles. Altogether, nonfarm income is most important for the middle income quintiles, while on-farm income is most important for the poorest and richest households. The relative importance of farm-income to Mexican households across the economic spectrum gives cause for concern, because the amount of arable land in Mexico is diminishing. Between 1985 and 1992, the amount of land under cultivation in Mexico decreased by between 9 and 15 percent.175 While some suggest this reduction in cropping was due largely to erosion and loss of arable land, local-level research can further clarify this relationship. 2.
Poverty: the Nexus Between Land Degradation and Migration
These observed relations lead to a hypothesis regarding the role of environmental factors on migration. Higher environmental degradation and greater population pressure on the land increase the level of poverty, which in turn increases the expected income gain from migration.176 (See Table 7 attached).177 The result is more migration, as long as individual characteristics permit (i.e., the individual can afford the cost of migration, which itself declines with accumulation of community-level migration capital). Observation of this land degradationmigration spiral is not new. In discussing the historical role that land quality and distribution has played in decisions to migrate from rural Mexico, Professors Massey and Durand concluded: "Although the common wisdom is that adopting cash crops and capital intensive production methods led to greater out-migration via displacement of rural workers, 174 175 176 177
P. Martin, "Emigration Dynamics in Mexico and Central America: The Case of Agriculture," paper prepared for the International Organization for Migration, April 1996, p. 32. Interview with Dr. Gomez de Leon, Director of CONAPO (1996). Appendix 1, p.11. This is Table 10 in Appendix 1.
26
comparative studies suggest that the process was more complex. Displacement did occur in communities with poor quality land and in places where land was unequally distributed, but in communities where land was of high quality and more evenly distributed among families, the advent of commercialized farming increased rural incomes, lowered risks to farm households, and thereby reduced pressures for migration to the United States."178
In 1978, for example, experts examining the desertification problem in Mexico concluded that approximately 600,000 people abandoned the countryside every year as a direct result of their inability to subsist on the land.179 These experts attributed the inability to survive in the countryside in large part to the process of desertification, which continually reduced the fertility of soils and farming potential, impoverishing many Mexicans.180 They also noted that arid and semi-arid areas were the principal sources of these rural migrants.181 In addition, a recent study undertaken by the Mexican government indicates that there is still a strong tendency for people to migrate from arid and semi-arid rural areas, which contain more than 20 million inhabitants with scarce possibilities for work.182 According to Mexican official estimates, between 700,000 and 900,000 people now leave the rural drylands annually.183 As suggested in earlier studies, a significant portion of the migration from arid and semi-arid rural areas is likely attributable, at least in part, to desertification and its elimination of hundreds of thousands of acres of land for farming; it is estimated that 400 square miles of this farmland is abandoned every year in Mexico.184 Some experts have concluded that recent upsurges in migration from Mexico's rural areas, caused by land degradation and rising population levels, are pushing small farmers onto marginal lands, causing an "agricultural squeeze."185 Professor J. Edward Taylor, in his investigation of Michoacan, has found a strong link between environmental degradation and migration. These observations have been confirmed by other studies of Mexico and Latin America.186 NHI's investigation of the San Luis Potosi region, and more recently of Oaxaca state, confirmed a strong relationship between the inability to earn a living in the drylands due to climate and eroded soils, and the decision to migrate, at least seasonally.187 The people stated that on those 178 179 180 181 182 183
184 185
186
187
D. Massey and J. Durand, Mexican Migration to the United States: A Critical Review (Spring 1992) p. 35 (hereinafter, "Massey and Durand." La Desertificación en México (F. Medellin-Leal ed 1978), Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi: Instituto de Investigación de Zonas Desèrticas pp. 59, 71. Id. pp. 59, 65, 71. Id. p. 73. Desertification Plan, Ch. 2, Section 2.1. Id. at Sections 2.1 and 2.5. In the final version of the National Action Plan, the government notes that the largest part of emigration is from municipalities that are predominantly rural in character. Desertification Plan, Ch. 2, Section 2.5. Mexico's Director of SEMARNAP, Julia Carabias Lillo, recently stated that around 700,000 people each year abandon Territorio Na 1997. Mexico, D.F. See, La Desertificación en México (F. Medellin-Leal ed.1978) p. 59, Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi: Instituto de Investigación de Zonas Deserticas. Richard E. Bilsborrow and Pamela F. DeLargy, "Land Use, Migration, and Natural Resource Deterioration: The Experience of Guatemala and the Sudan," in Natural Resource Deterioration, pp. 128-29, in Population and Development Review, Supplement to Vol 16. (The Population Council, N.Y. and Oxford University Press (1991)). It should be noted that population growth is greater in rural than urban areas. L. Mendez y Mercado, Migracion: Decision Involuntaria, p. 14 (Instituto Nacional Indigenista, 1985). See Richard E. Bilsborrow and Pamela F. DeLargy, "Land Use, Migration, and Natural Resource Deterioration: The Experience of Guatemala and the Sudan," pp. 128-29, in Population and Development Review, Supplement to Vol 16. (The Population Council, N.Y. and Oxford University Press (1991)). Interviews with officials, demographic experts and villagers in Oaxaca, October 1995; NHI interviews with random
27
frequent occasions when their corn and bean crops were inadequate and grazing was poor, one or two family members would be forced to migrate in search of work to supplement the family income. They generally attributed the failure of crops and grazing to lack of rainfall and the absence of irrigation systems. Some experts attribute these deficiencies to the inability of the land to sustain corn and bean crops, the poor management of grazing, and overall land degradation resulting from these practices.188 Others contend that the problem is rooted in certain failed Mexican agrarian policies that encouraged agriculture on lands not suited for growing crops due to eroded soils and climate uncertainty.189 3.
Correlation Between Land Degradation And Population Trends
In general, there are two conflicting understandings of how population growth impacts the environment. The "neo-Malthusian" theory holds that increases in population are not sustainable, especially in places where population growth occurs far more rapidly than economic growth. In such places, population growth places increased stress on land and water resources, and causes subdivision of land, lowered incomes, social fragmentation, and displacement through migration. The second prevailing theory states that increases in population lead to the adoption of new technologies and new forms of social organization that allow societies to adjust to their greater numbers. Proponents of this theory emphasize that the poor are not the major contributors to environmental degradation, that the poorest are often those least likely to migrate, and that the international economic system is a far greater contributor to local social restructuring than is the number of people living in a particular place. It is difficult to determine which scenario will be borne out as Mexico's population continues to grow in the coming decades. Very little research has been conducted within Mexico to clarify how the rural way of life has changed as population has grown; what factors are impacting or provoking the changes; and how people have worked to create new survival strategies for themselves and their families. In addition, it is unclear whether migration patterns in Mexico contribute to sustaining higher levels of population growth. Migration flows in some areas may lead to higher birth rates, both because children are seen as human capital which can be drawn on for future migration, and because remittances allow more people to live in a certain area than would otherwise be possible. Research demonstrates that regions of traditionally high emigration show consistently higher birthrates - 3.7 children per woman - than the national average - which stood at 3.3 in 1990.190 As discussed in Section II, about 60% of Mexico s population live in towns of more than 15,000 people.191 Rapid increases in the densities of urban areas is exacerbating environmental degradation in surrounding agricultural areas. (See Map attached on Aridity and Density of Rural Population).
188 187
190 191
sample of rural workers in San Luis Potosi area on December 5, 1993; Interview with Ballin-Cortes and Vasquez Rocillo, November 1993. Interview with Ballin-Cortés and Vasquez Rocillo of UAM San Luis Potosi, November 1993. Comments of Hector Arias, Cideson, Sonora, Mexico, to NHI September 9, 1997. Some farmers were paid to grow corn in desert type conditions under the Programa de Apoyo a Zonas de Alta Siniesralidad (“PAZAS”) and Fideicomisco de Riesgo Compartido (“FIRCO”) where rangeland farmers were paid half the cost of producing corn and loans were not guaranteed if crops subsequently failed. Id. Gómez de León & Tuirán, supra, note 70, Grafica 16. CONAPO y SEMARNAP “Las Relaciones Poblacion-Medio Ambiente, Resumen del Proyecto”, p. 9.
28
Professor Alain de Janvry's analysis ejido survey data and certain environmental indicators evidences that environmental factors and changes play significant roles in the patterns of migration. When land degradation combines with growing population pressures to lower household incomes in an area, affected people resort to migration as the best alternative source of income.192 According to de Janvry, when this occurs the result is a direct association among poverty, high environmental degradation, and heavy population pressures in a particular area. The results of Professor de Janvry’s study (referenced in Table 10 in the attached appendix) demonstrate that population pressure, measured by the negative of the average rainfed corn yield in the average farm in a municipality, induces households to decide to send migrants and increases the number of migrants that a household sends to the United States.193 The analysis indicates that if environmental stress results in declining land quality, and hence in declining yields in rainfed agriculture, it contributes to more migration. Simultaneously, if population pressure results in declining average farm size in the municipality, it also contributes to more migration. This suggests that technological and environmental interventions to improve yields in rainfed agriculture can deter migration at the source, and that efforts at either reducing growing demographic pressure and/or at creating off-farm sources of employment and income can also help deter migration.194 The study also indicates that in some cases, too, deforestation may lead to the opening of fertile agricultural lands. In this case, deforestation would help reduce migration. In Mexico, however, lands that now remain under forest cover are increasingly likely to belong to this category. In other cases, lack of deforestation may mean that it is simply not worthwhile to exploit forest resources because it is not economical to do so. If so, lack of deforestation would be associated with high migration as the land is unable to absorb population pressure. This may be what is occurring in some of the Southern states of Mexico. Forests tend to be under greater stress when other sources of income are lacking.195 Results reported in Table 10 in the attached Appendix indicate that a faster pace of deforestation is associated with migration of a larger number of household members. Until a better indicator of environmental pressure becomes available in a reliable and time series format, we can take this as an indication that environmental stress appears to contribute to larger migratory flows from the rural areas. Research which links population and migration trends over time with local productive conditions and natural resource availability will improve our understanding of the environmental impacts of increasing population.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY REFORMS AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
192
Alain de Janvry, Elisabeth Sadoulet, Benjamin Davis, Kevin Seidel and Paul Winters, “Determinants of Mexico-U.S. Migration: The Role of Household Assets and Environmental Factors�, University of California at Berkeley, p. 6 See Appendix attached to this report, p. 15. Id. Id. at pp. 15-16.
193 194 195
29
The goal of NHI's investigation has been twofold. First, we wish to provide a better understanding of what is becoming an increasingly apparent and significant root cause of Mexican migration: rural land degradation or desertification. Second, we hope to demonstrate how official programs, initiated at local, national, and binational levels, can begin to address this problem more concretely. Our study indicates that environmental phenomena and associated population and migration flows cannot be addressed through short-term fixes initiated by the U.S., such as additional border security and employment related sanctions. Rather, official and private, or nongovernmental programs within Mexico to address these problems is warranted. The U.S. can play a catalyzing role for these reforms through binational, cooperative programs with Mexico’s private and public sectors. As discussed below, the U.S. has technology and expertise that can serve in facilitating these programs. To date, these opportunities have been little advanced beyond the physical border area. It is anticipated that the following conclusions and recommendations can serve as a framework for the development of cooperative programs between Mexico and the United States in the areas of research and official and private program development. This section is accordingly divided into two categories: Potential for U.S. Action and Opportunities for Policy Reform. The latter is related to specific programs on environment, agriculture and community development. A.
Potential for U.S. Action: Policies and Programs
1.
Cooperative Programs
Our findings demonstrate a strong correlation between land resource degradation, poverty among rural households, the lack of capacity to farm, and migration both within Mexico and across the U.S. border. The pervasive deterioration of lands in Mexico in the rural drylands should be viewed as an important contributor to migration flows (whether seasonal or permanent). Yet, U.S. policies and programs related to Mexico do not address this problem in an integrated fashion. Most programs, both private and public, seek to address only one facet of the problem, such as deforestation and loss of biodiversity in Mexico. Some of these have begun integrating population related issues but only in a few circumstances. Generally, community development issues are targeted through unrelated channels and carry different priorities and agendas from those related to environmental preservation. The link between these issues and the policy of reducing rural migration, where it is considered at all, is often more rhetorical than a factor influencing program development. U.S. bilateral assistance and funding from private foundations generally follows this pattern. U.S. policies and programs related to migration or immigration, similarly do not readily consider the root causes related to environment or population trends. Most of the U.S. immigration policy initiatives center on the physical border area. Yet, opportunities exist for binational program development in all of these areas. Our findings suggest that targeting official program development and assistance in a more innovative and integrated fashion may not only yield positive results for environment and community development in Mexico, but may prove a more sound long-term investment in reducing migration than those focusing soley on prescriptions along the border. The recommendations in this report are not meant to serve as a panacea for all migration, environment and development problems noted. Rather, they are meant to serve as a framework for debate on policy reform. Given the scarcity of bilateral resources, cooperative U.S.-Mexico 30
programs should address improved rural development and agricultural productivity. In terms of assuring improvements in land degradation, poverty, and migration, this can be considered on two tracks: 1) the new migrant emitting states with extensive marginality and poverty, substantial soil erosion problems and, in some cases, high population growth rates: Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatan, Quintana Roo and Chiapas. This is warranted because raising the rural income in these areas may have a significant impact on migration;196 and 2) the states or regions where migration is already well-established. These areas will require significant investment in scope and magnitude in order to have enough of an impact to compete with the opportunity costs of migration in those sending areas.197 Specific opportunities are discussed in Section B, below, related to areas for policy reform. As a jurisdictional matter, there are several opportunities for U.S. binational program development along these lines. For example, in 1997 the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between SEMARNAP (Mexico’s environmental agency) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture was amended to include a framework for cooperative cross-border program development to address forest and soils management issues, including desertification. Joint program development under this MOU should be strongly supported by the United States, particularly as the Department of Interior’s Bureau for Land Management, and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation and Forest Services, have extensive experience in dryland management issues and can provide a wealth of technical and institutional expertise in cooperative programs undertaken between Mexico and the U.S. Funding has not been provided for program development yet. Agencies in both countries should identify collaborative action programs within this framework. Another immediate opportunity is for the U.S. to ratify the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought. That Convention also provides a substantive framework within which both countries and nongovernmental organizations can develop action plans. Mexico has already ratified. U.S. leadership on the treaty could ensure that the U.S. works more closely with Mexico in Mexico’s development of land management programs, perhaps emphasizing attention to migrant emitting states with high desertification rates, such as the southern states of Mexico. 2.
Integrating U.S. Environment, Population, Migration Policies
As noted earlier, current U.S. programs and policies address environmental, population and migration problems separately as a matter of foreign policy. For example, though these program areas are housed within Global Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, there is little practical or programmatic integration of these issues. The U.S. Ambassador to Mexico has indicated these interrelated problems are critical for U.S. foreign policy.198 Too, Mexico's agencies with the separate mandates of protection of natural resources, improvement of agriculture, population initiatives, and migration have traditionally not considered how best to address such integrated issues. President Zedillo’s “Alliance for the Countryside,” discussed below, may be a start. The 196
Areas where migration is well-established have already lowered their transaction costs of migration making the opportunity costs of migration much greater (A. de Janvry report, Appendix, p. 16). The newer areas have not yet reduced the transaction costs of migration (Id., p. 16). Consequently, rural development efforts in the newer areas may have a greater impact in reducing migration: improved development opportunities could effectively compete with the opportunity costs of migration (Id., p. 16).
197
See Appendix 1, p. 16.
198
Internal Communique from U.S. Ambassador Jones to the White House, U.S. Department of State and other federal agencies, January 1997 (on file with the Author).
31
following discusses potential reform of U.S. policies and programs as a beginning point for addressing the issues that touch upon U.S. foreign policy interests. Given the findings that there are strong links between environment, poverty, population trends and migration, U.S. foreign policy should better define policies and programs which serve to both better understand and address these links. Failure to do so may lead to conflicting agendas and policy responses in these areas. An inter-departmental task force, not just within the State Department but across agencies with expertise in the various areas, should be convened on a regular basis to identify where there may be gaps in current policies to address these issues or conflicts. An interagency task force on these issues within the US Administration could be developed to involve U.S. Department of Interior Bureau for Land Management, Department of Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, State Department Bureaus of the Environment and of Population, Refugees and Migration. The sharing of data and information would go a long way to sensitizing US policies and programs directed toward Mexico. One example of where inter or intra-agency coordination in U.S. policies and programs can be better targeted in addressing these issues is with regard to the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID). In reviewing program work in Mexico, for example, AID programs in population, economic development and the environment do not address the relationship between land degradation, population, or migration problems. In fact, they appear not to address migration. One reason may be that migration issues are sensitive or, in some cases, highly controversial as related to cross-border foreign policy. Nonetheless, there is little in AID programs presently that seeks to address the environmental issues of agricultural land degradation in dryland areas. The environment program is focused on climate change and biodiversity, two important programs to say the least, but which, without linkages to agricultural dryland management issues, will do little to address the significant problems identified in this report. The economic development program similarly does not address land degradation in rural areas which is contributing to low agricultural productivity and marginalization of rural drylands. Education programs supported by AID also lack reference to these issues. Population programs are being cut entirely, though there AID is now requesting an extension to the year 2000. Part of the problem appears to lie in the fact that within the U.S. AID bureaucracy there is a clear separation between agricultural programs and environmental programs. As the Mexico case study illustrates, unsustainable agricultural land management can lead to severe soil erosion and deforestation, or clearing of lands for additional grazing or crop cultivation. This affects the quality of both land and water resources. Yet, the separation of these programs tends to support the separation of projects to address these issues and within the Mexico program there are now no agricultural land management issues targeted for funding except as ancillary efforts to a few biodiversity projects. Moreover, there is no concerted vision to utilize U.S. funding programs to target areas in Mexico where environmental improvement and education may serve to improve community development and limit growing levels of out-migration. Given the limits of urban infrastructure to assimilate rural migrants in many of Mexico's fastest growing cities, this is a critical issue for the Mexican government. It could serve as a foundation for U.S.-Mexico cooperation.
32
In sum, there is an urgent need for better integration of U.S. sponsored policies and programs, both in terms of foreign policies and assistance. Agencies could begin with a serious review of how current programs and policies can be better integrated. 3.
Use of Remittances for improving Local Development and Institutional Capacity
One innovative means by which the U.S. can catalyze environment and development initiatives to reduce migration may be through the use of remittances, which now total anywhere between 1.5 and 4 billion US dollars depending on which statistics you rely on. According to International Monetary Fund figures, for example, remittances to Mexico totaled 4.3 billion dollars in 1995 and 40 billion dollars between 1975 and 1990. Remittances can enhance the productivity of land use by reducing poverty199 and overcoming market and institutional failures and lack of investment in public goods. The large scale of such transfers makes the use of these funds a potentially potent opportunity to improve rural land management development, and to reduce migration. This potential has been largely untapped. For example, the U.S. and Mexico can do more to reduce the cost of transferring remittances to Mexican rural areas, though these transfers are generally handled through private, rather than official, channels. Currently, these transfers are in small amounts, less than $300 dollars, and there are high fees to the sender and recipient usually associated with these transfers, often as much as 20% of the amount transferred.200 This means that nearly 1 billion dollars per year of the IMF’s estimated remittance transfers is used to pay transfer fees. An innovative program between the U.S. and Mexico could seek to facilitate reduced transfer fees where funds were invested in community programs that would improve local development and environmental assets. Given that much rural development depends on agricultural productivity and marketing, the incentive program could be combined with bilateral programs making investment in agriculture more attractive (such as by price policies that do not discriminate against agriculture), or alternatively, encouraging the development of local entrepreneurial businesses. Channeling remittances toward local investment may decrease poverty by creating employment in emitting communities, thereby reducing incentives to migrate.201 There are large opportunities for this in the rural agricultural sector. Ejido communities are suffering from market failures and institutional gaps with the result that many are neither able to obtain access to credit nor reduce transaction costs in accessing markets and information.202 Recent reforms by the Mexican government have reduced subsidization of regional and local agricultural production.
4.
Support for Research That Can Identify Solutions in an Integrated Fashion
199
Id., p. 6.
200
Information was provided by several commentators on this, including in written comments of Professors Philip Martin and David Myhre, Fall 1997. Professor Martin has identified that for a US$300 transfer, Western Union charges 10% and on the Mexican side, Electra exchanges the money into pesos at a very high rate.
201
Appendix 1, p. 16
202
Id., p.17.
33
There is an immediate need for research on the environmental causes and consequences of migration--particularly in rural agricultural regions of Mexico. Most of the research on migration to date has focused largely on sectoral issues--e.g. research on agricultural productivity has not traditionally focused also on related environmental degradation, such as deforestation, or on contributors to migration, such as lack of education or family planning programs. This in turn has led to policies that do not approach these problems in an interrelated fashion. The inverse is also true--when programs to arrest deforestation are implemented, they do not readily integrate issues of community development. We have observed that this dynamic is beginning to change. Further research will help identify opportunities for integrated programs on the field level, and can suggest how best to harmonize policies and programs at the national or binational level. The further development of methodologies for integrating environmental, population pressure and migration predictions is of particular importance in addressing the issues of poverty and migration among Mexican farmers and laborers. Data shows that environmental stress variables are of significant importance because they can create incentives to migrate. Population pressure on the ejido population and the increasing rate of deforestation may also result in increased migration. Policies targeting the amelioration of environmental stress and population pressure on the land could play pivotal roles in reducing incentives to migrate to the North. If implemented properly, they would work by retaining migration B. Opportunities for Policy Reform and Program Development 1.
Environment and Agriculture
a.
Promoting Improved Land and Water Management Practices
Our findings demonstrate a strong correlation between land resource degradation, poverty among rural households, the lack of capacity to farm, and migration both within Mexico and across the U.S. border. The pervasive deterioration of lands in Mexico in the rural drylands should be viewed as an important contributor to migration flows (whether seasonal or permanent). Though research is not conclusive in documenting the number of people migrating, the Mexican government has estimated that somewhere between 700,000 and 900,000 people a year are leaving rural dryland areas which are threatened by or undergoing desertification processes (processes of soil erosion).203 The high levels of marginality,204 low levels of education, and continued population pressures in rural areas also play a role in this dynamic. This suggests the need for improved and more widespread education and training programs in the rural areas, including but not limited to programs to improve agricultural management practices, soil conservation and water use. There is also a need to promote the use of good fertilizers, high yield seeds and a substantial variety in crops. Emphasis should also be placed on the reduction of water-intensive dry land crop cultivation and substitution of drought resistant crops in areas where salinization is a problem, and where the land and climate can support some form of cultivation. Development of incentive programs to support transition to water conserving irrigation systems is also warranted. Conservation serves to protect scarce water 203 204
See discussion in earlier sections of this report. Marginality is measured by CONAPO at the municipal level through an index that eights low levels of education, poor housing conditions, high percentage of the population in communities of less than 5000 inhabitants, and a high incidence of households in poverty.
34
supplies which are critical in arid areas, particularly central and south Mexico; in the north, replacing inefficient systems could reduce salinization of land and water resources by limiting the application of water which tends to mobilize salts naturally present in the soils. The Mexican government has undertaken efforts in many of these areas, including its establishment of a Soils Conservation Service in 1995 within the natural resources agency, SEMARNAP. One effective area for the new Conservation Service is farmer to farmer training programs in which successful small farm management is documented and demonstrated to other small farmers. Unfortunately, soils conservation education and training programs now receive little financial and political support. The new conservation agency should be strongly supported by the Mexican government and, where appropriate, U.S. programs developed in cooperation with Mexico in this regard. One area in need of immediate attention is the development of an environmental monitoring system which allows for continued information gathering and analysis of social and economic impacts in rural areas. This could serve as an early warning system for areas most critically affected by environmental and socio-economic changes. With regard to activities of other agencies, program development is uncertain. The budgets for certain agencies involved in education and training have been severely cut in recent years, such as the Secretary for Agrarian Reform ("SRA") which interacts with the ejido farming sector in Mexico. It has seen its staff reduced by nearly two-thirds. There are other opportunities. Capital flows into Mexico are increasing with the likely result of an appreciation of the peso and a decrease in the real farm price of corn, thus creating more poverty and displacement among smallholders who are net sellers of corn.205 To circumvent these effects, modernization of agriculture and crop diversification among these producers should be promoted.206 For modernization to be successful there should be investments in infrastructure and institutional reconstruction.207 Displacement may be avoided by the use of Procampo transfers (this is a program which pays small land owners a certain amount per hectare to support investment in agricultural modernization and diversification) as opposed to sustaining household consumption. For this to occur, the transfer of financial resources should be timely relative to the liquidity needs for agricultural production and be accompanied by technical assistance.208 An additional option may be to develop access to off-farm complementary sources of employment that can be accessed without abandoning a part-time farming activity.209 b.
Improving Forest Management and Land Tenure
Most of the Mexican forests, many of which are threatened by over-harvesting, are located on ejido land (see deforestation maps presented in this report), where much of the property is communal and cooperation in with other communities in forestland management has been problematic. This lack of cooperation has led to the overuse of land, including overharvesting and soil erosion. One solution may be to direct policy efforts at resolving property rights on these lands and enhancing the ability of these communities to cooperate and effectively manage common property resources.210 Part of this solution must include continued regulation of forest 205 206 207 208 209 210
Appendix, p 17. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id., p. 16.
35
management and improved enforcement of laws/policies.211 According to some experts, adequate forestland management requires trained, equiped personnel that can utilize integrated and mulitpurpose forestry products and which involves local communities or local nongovernmental organizations.212 2.
Population and Rural Development
a.
Population and Other Demographic Initiatives
Research indicates that population trends in growth and movement in Mexico's rural areas are correlated with poverty and land degradation, particularly in ejido communities. Population pressure on natural resources, measured by the rate of deforestation are important determinants of migration (see analysis described in Appendix to this report). Reducing this pressure should be part of efforts to reduce migration at the source. Comprehensive evaluation of Mexico's population programs is beyond the scope of this report. Proposed policy initiatives are based upon the information presented in this report and attached Appendix which suggest further need to integrate population related policies and programs with environment and agricultural policies and programs, as discussed below. Further analysis of population related programs in Mexico, and their strengths and weaknesses, may be appropriate in other contexts. Given the scarcity of good farmland in Mexico and the large size of the farm population , increasing the productivity of labor in farming offers a limited solution. It may be more important to focus on the development of decentralized non-farm activities. Specifically, activities which lead to greater decentralization away from the border and the main cities of the benefits created by NAFTA in labor intensive manufacturing are warranted. Professor de Janvry identifies the industrial development of Campeche as an example of successful decentralized industrialization. As with any development strategy, balancing protection of the environment with project development initiatives will be critical to preserving Mexico's natural resources. In addition, more in-depth research of the correlations between population trends and migration is warranted to quantify this contribution and identify more concretely the extent to which population growth leads to further subdivision of and pressure on lands. Deforestation may well be a symptom of population pressure,213 though some argue that it is the inverse. The Mexican government has succeeded in reducing population growth rates, though the rates still remain quite high in rural areas and in indigenous communities may often reach a figure double the national average. Education programs need to be expanded to the more remote rural areas. These programs can require long maturation periods in order to achieve long-term results and require a longer-term commitment of resources. In Mexico, these programs may be subject to greater volatility related to the Presidential cycle. Budgets for such programs are not as robust as they will need to be to effectively address this problem. Moreover, U.S. AID efforts to address population problems are being canceled. U.S.-Mexico cooperative programs in the population area should be revisited to determine how integration of these programs with other environmental and economic development programs can serve to address the root causes of migration identified in this report. 211 212
213
Id. Written comments of Hector Arias, Cideson, Sonora, Mexico, to NHI September 8, 1997. One problem he notes is that large consortia of timber companies exploit the resource. Yet, the lands are owned by local individuals or ejidos and the local people bear the responsibility for reclamation at a practical level. As reclamation is generally expensive and requires training, it is often not undertaken effectively. Id.
36
Because good farmland is scarce in Mexico and Mexico s farm population is large, increasing the productivity of labor in farming may offer only a limited solution in reducing population pressure.214 As discussed above, community development programs to stimulate alternative livelihoods must be pursued as complimentary to improved farming practices. b.
Community Development Initiatives
Poverty, which in rural areas is exacerbated by the inability to productively farm, or by the farming of marginal lands, is an important factor in the decision to migrate. Municipalities with high levels of marginality also have high rates of migration, indicating that the lack of local opportunities and poverty are important determinants of migration. Community development programs established in rural areas should focus on the reduction of crop cultivation where the soil and/or climate are unsuitable for cultivation and the institution of controlled grazing practices. Moreover, it is recognized that there is a need for employment creating new investments to expand from the border area into the interior regions of Mexico. Many of the benefits created by NAFTA in labor intensive manufacturing have been focused on the border and some have called for more aggressive efforts to attract development further south. Small producers face the threat of displacement by more competitive farmers due to land titling reforms that may create a market where only the most competitive landholders will succeed.215 While this may not undesirable in terms of pure economic theory, it is likely to have a tremendous impact on migration--there is likely to be a surge in migration out of the rural agricultural areas as this economic transition takes place. Improved farming productivity from soils conservation and related programs may not only result in better environmental resource management, but allow, where appropriate, for a slower and more equitable transition toward an ultimately more urbanized Mexican society. Moreover, soils conservation and agricultural training can be directed at the marginal and subsistence producers to increase sustainability of their livelihood and reduce involuntary migration. In the longer-term, both financial institutions and producers associations should be created for smallholders in order to enhance smallholder competitiveness and fill the void that remittances are currently filling in providing access to financial liquidity and sources of insurance. 216 To achieve this, there should be an increase in the profitability of investment in labor intensive agricultural activities. One avenue is through the cultivation of fruits and vegetables which acquire competitive advantage in the context of NAFTA. Most of rural central/southern areas of Mexico remain highly dependent on extensive corn/maize production and transition would take some considerable effort, financially and otherwise. This high front-end investment may provide more-lasting long-term benefits. Too, this would require public investment in infrastructure (irrigation and roads), and organizational and institutional development of these areas so that farmers can invest profitably in agriculture. In addition, developing financial institutions on both sides of the border that will channel remittances to the emitting areas and make migrants savings available for borrowing by other community members with investment plans would also help create employment.217
214 215 216 217
Id. See Appendix 1, pp. 16-17. Id. Id.
37
The Mexican government has recognized the need for implementation of substantial efforts to address rural development. In 1995, Mexico created "Alliance for the Countryside" to address socio-economic problems affecting the agricultural sector. It comprises the following Secretariats: SAGAR, Hacienda y Credito Publico, Comercio y Fomento Industrial, Reforma Agraria, Desarollo Social, SEMARNAP and Trabajo y prevision Social. The Alliance s general goals are to increase the income of agricultural producers and agricultural production to a level above population growth, produce sufficient basic foods for the population, promote the export of products from the countryside, preserve natural resources and increase rural housing. These policies are to be implemented by facilitating access to new technologies, promoting the inflow of capital into the countryside, and improving human resources through training. There are 64 initiatives proposed by many different agencies in the Alliance but it is uncertain which are being undertaken. Our investigation revealed agency funding cuts have led to little improvement, especially for natural resource and agricultural management programs.218 In addition, Mexico's National Development Plan (1995-2000) includes a three-point plan established by the Mexican National Science and Technology Council, in association with SEMARNAP, to improve soil management as follows: 1) conduct a national soils inventory (currently underway); 2) develop new soil legislation to revise legislation as appropriate, including connecting property and usufruct rights with the responsibility of conserving and restoring the soil, and develop soil management and restoration standards with the aim of producing clear standards that protect investments while maintaining a low level of bureaucratic red tape; and 3) persuade agricultural producers to modify their management practices to better assure sufficient income and sustainability of soil resources. The government has yet to make substantial funds available for these reforms. However, there is much that can be done in terms of training of campesinos, civil servants and governmental and non-governmental promoters.
As a final note, many of the needed initiatives discussed could be further catalyzed by U.S.Mexico cooperation and assistance. These opportunities are described above in this section on Conclusions and Recommendations. Importantly, NHI’s findings suggest that targeting program development and assistance in rural environmental and agricultural settings, in association with public or private localized programs, can serve as a potentially potent investment in reducing 218
Some have criticized these programs. Paredes Rangel, General Secretary of the National Campesina Federation, indicated that the most important aspects of program were technology transfer and training (1995); Mazon-Rubio, President, National Agriculture Council, is concerned that the subject of stable income was not addressed and proposed that a follow-up schedule to deal with pending issues be created (1995); for Bonilla-Robles & Gonzalez Quiroga (1995), land ownership issues were of paramount importance; to Bonilla- Robles (President, NationalFederation of Small-plot Owners: rural credit and commercialization issues are important; Gonzalez Quiroga has indicated that rural training programs sponsored by institutions have yet to reach rural areas. Programs are needed that will generate rural jobs and maintain sale prices of agricultural products above production prices. Rural credit programs are not working and the rural sector needs the government to guarantee loans so that producers with un-paid debts will be eligible for new loans. Un-paid debt is far from being resolved. New monies should not be used by just a few individuals or by the banks themselves, but instead should be managed fairly.
38
migration. This will not be a daunting task as both private and official institutions in the U.S. possess environmental resource and agricultural expertise that can be utilized in approaching cooperative program development with counterpart institutions in Mexico. Nongovernmental organizations on both sides of the border have already begun to work together on these issues. Official leadership is needed to move beyond these initial efforts. We strongly urge exploration of these issues and opportunities by Congress and the Administration.
39
BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahlers, T. 1979. A Microeconomic Analysis of Rural-Urban Migration in Haiti. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Alba, F. 1993. El Tratado de Libre Comercio Y la Emigracion de Mexicanos a Estados Unidos. 43 Comercio Exterior 8. Alvargonzalez, R. 1984. O Desenvolvimento do Nordeste Árido. Fortaleza: Ministério do Interior, DNOCS. Arizpe, L. 1981. The Rural Exodus in Mexico and Mexican Migration to the United States. International Migration Review 15(4):626-649. Bhagwati, J and H.E. Daly. 1993. Debate: Does Free Trade Harm the Environment? Scientific American, November: 41-57. Ballin-Cortes, J.R. 1988a. Desertificacion, Eminente Peligro para los Ecosistemas de México. Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi. Ballin-Cortes, J.R. 1988b. Recuperación de Agostaderos en la Zona de Villa de Arriaga, S.L.P. Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi. Ballin-Cortes, J.R. 1990a. Desertificacion: Comentarios y posibilidades de control. Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi. Ballin-Cortes, J.R. 1990b. Estudio Preliminar de la Desertificacion en el Limite sur del Desierto Chihuahuense XII. Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi. Balling, R. 1988. The Climatic Impact of a Sonoran Vegetation Discontinuity. Climatic Change 13:99-109. Barkin, David. 1994. The Specter of Rural Development. NACLA Report on the Americas, 28(1):29-34. Blaikie, Piers. 1985. The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. New York: Longman. Bryant, et al. 1990. Measuring the Effect of Overgrazing in the Sonoran Desert. Climatic Change. Bustamante, J. 1992. Undocumented Migration from Zacatecas to the United States. Colegio de la Frontera Norte, paper presented at Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia E Informatica y La Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas Symposium (July 6). Cardenas, Gilbert. 1975. United States Immigration Policy Toward Mexico: An Historical Perspective. Chicano Law Review 2:66. 40
Catanese, A. 1990/91. Haiti's Refugees: Political, Economic, Environmental. Paper 17. Published cooperatively by the Natural Heritage Institute and Universities Field Staff International. San Francisco and Indianapolis. Centre for Our Common Future. 1987. From One Earth to One World: An Overview by the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Centre for Our Common Future. 1995. Down to Earth: A Simplified Guide to the Convention to Combat Desertification, why it is necessary and what is important and different about it. Geneva. Comision Nacional de las Zonas Aridas. 1993. Plan de accion para combatir la desertificacion en Mexico. [working document] San Luis Potosi. Comision Nacional de las Zonas Aridas. 1994. Plan de accion para combatir la desertificacion en Mexico. [final] San Luis Potosi. Comision Nacional de Poblacion (CONAPO). 1995. Programa Nacional de Poblacion: 19952000. Mexico: D.F. Commission on Agricultural Workers. 1992. Final Report. Washington: Government Printing Office. Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development. 1990. Unauthorized Migration: An Economic Development Response (July). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Congressional Research Service. 1990. Temporary Worker Programs: Background and Issues. Prepared for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (February). Corwin, A. 1978. Early Mexican Labor Migration: A Frontier Sketch, 1848-1900. In: (Ed.) A. F. Corwin, Immigrants --- and Immigrants: Perspectives on Mexican Labor Migration to the United States. Westwood, CT: Greenwood Press. Corwin, A. and L. A. Cardoso. 1978. Vamos Al Norte: Causes of Mexican Migration to the United States. In: (Ed.) A. F. Corwin, Immigrants --- and Immigrants: Perspectives on Mexican Labor Migration to the United States. Westwood, CT: Greenwood Press. Cuthbert, R. and J. Stevens. 1981. The Net Economic Incentive for Illegal Mexican Migration: A Case Study. International Migration Review 15(3): 543-550. Davila, A. 1986. The Seasonality of Apprehensions of Undocumented Mexican Workers. International Migration Review 20(4):986-991. de Janvry, A., E. Sadoulet, B. Davis, and G. Goridllo de Anda. 1995a. Ejido Sector Reforms: From Land Reform to Rural Development. Paper prepared for the Conference on the Reform of Mexican Agrarian Reform, Colombia University, April 1995. Forthcoming in Laura Randall, ed., Reforming Mexico's Agrarian Reform, Armonk, N.Y.. 41
de Janvry, A., E. Sadoulet and G. Gordillo de Anda. 1995b. NAFTA and Mexico's Maize Producers. World Development 23(8):1349-62. Declaration of Cartegena, (approved at Colloquium on International Protection of Refugee in Central America, Mexico and Panama: Legal and Humanitarian Programs, Cartegena, Colombia, Nov. 19-22, 1984). Desertificacão do Nordeste é Tema de Debate. Jornal do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, April 1, 1991. Desertificacão do Nordeste já Atinge uma Átinge do 50 mil km2. Jornal do Brasil, May 15, 1991. Durand, J. and D. Massey. 1992. Mexican Migration to the United States: A Critical Review. Latin American Research Review 3(42). El-Hinnawi, E. 1985. Environmental Refugees. United Nations Environmental Program, Nairobi. Espiell, H.G., S. Picado and L.V. Lanza. 1990. Principles and Criteria for the Protection of and Assistance to Central American Refugees, Returnees and Displaced Persons in Latin America. International Journal of Refugee Law 2(1). Esty, D.C. 1994. Making trade and environmental policies work together: lessons from NAFTA. Aussenwirtschaft 49:59-79. Fonseca, V. 1979. A População Nordestina até 1970. In: Desenvolvimento do Nordeste: Diagnóstico e Sugestôes de Políticas. Fortaleza: Banco do Nordeste do Brasil. Fox, A.B. 1995. Environment and trade: the NAFTA case. Political Science Quarterly 110(1):49-68. Global Environmental Facility (GEF). 1995. Scope and Preliminary Operational Strategy for Land Degradation. Goldman, P. 1993. How NAFTA jeopardizes health, safety and environmental standards. Multinational Monitor 14 (10):21-25. Gómez de León, José and Rodolfo Tuirán. 1997. La Migracion Mexicana Hacia Estados Unidos: Continuidad y Cambio. Mexico: Consejo Nacional de Población (CONAPO). Gonzalez-Villareal and H. Garduño. 1994. Water Resources Planning and Management in Mexico. International Journal of Water Resources 10(3):239-255. Graham, W. 1991. MexEco?: Mexican Attitudes Toward the Environment. Environmental History Review 15(4):1-17. Gregersen, H., S. Draper, and D. Elz (Eds.). 1989. People and Trees: The Role of Social Forestry in Sustainable Development. Washington, D.C.: Economic Development Institute of the World Bank. 42
Hathaway. 1990. A Reconsideration of the Underlying Premise of Refugee Law. Harvard International Law Journal 39(129). Heath, J.R. 1992. Evaluating the impact of Mexico's land reform on agricultural productivity. World Development 20(5):695-711. Hulme, M. and M. Kelly. 1993. Exploring the links between Desertification and CLimate Change. Environment. 35(6):5-45. Hutcheson, R. 1991. Fighting for Survival: Insecurity, People and the Environment in the Horn of Africa. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resource, Glands, Switzerland (November). Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990, 101(a)(42)(A) [8 U.S.C.A. 1101(a)(42)(A)]. International Educational Development Inc. 1991. Human Rights and the Environment. Statement submitted to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1991/NGO/44 (Sept. 2). International Organization for Migration and Refugee Policy Group. 1992. Migration and the Environment. June. Geneva and Washington, DC. Kane, H. 1993. Managing Through Prices, Managing Despite Prices. In Trade and the Environment: Law, Economics and Policy. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Kraly, E. P. 1995. U.S. Immigration and the Environment: Scientific Research and Analytic Issues. U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Washington, DC. Kurlansky, M. 1988. Haiti's Environment Teeters on the Edge. International Wildlife (March/April) 34-38. Lewis, L. and W. Coffey. 1985. The Continuing Deforestation of Haiti. Ambio 14(3). Limwando, G. 1990. Report on Malawi's State of Environment. National Research Council, Lilongwe. Liverman, D. 1990. Drought Impacts in Mexico: Climate, Agriculture, Technology, and Land Tenure in Sonora and Pueblo. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 80(1):49-72. Liverman, D. 1992a. The Regional Impact of Global Warming in Mexico: Uncertainty, Vulnerability and Response. In: (Ed.) J. Schmandt and J. Clarkson. The Regions and Global Warming: Impacts and Response Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liverman, D. 1992b. Global Warming and Mexican Agriculture: Some Preliminary Results. In: (Ed.) J. Rilley, M. Anderson. Economic Changes in Global Climate Change. Boulder, CO: Westview.
43
Liverman, D., and K. O'Brien. 1991. Global warming and climate change in Mexico. In: Global Environmental Change. Butterworth and Heinemann Ltd.: 351-364. Lundahl, M. 1979. Peasants and Poverty: A Study of Haiti. New York: St. Martin's Press. McGraw, D. 1994. NAFTA's repercussion's: Is green trade possible? Environment 36(2):14. Mainguet, M. 1991. Desertification: Natural Background and Human Mismanagement. New York: Springer-Verlag. Maloney, C. 1990/91a. Environmental and Project Displacement of Population in South Asia Part I: Development and Deracination. Paper No. 18. Published cooperatively by the Natural Heritage Institute and Universities Field Staff International. San Francisco and Indianapolis. Maloney, C. 1990/91b. Environmental and Project Displacement of Population in South Asia Part II: Land and Water. Paper No. 19. Published cooperatively by the Natural Heritage Institute and Universities Field Staff International. San Francisco and Indianapolis. Martin, Philip L. 1990. The Outlook for Agricultural Labor in the 1990s. U.C. Davis Law Review 23:499. Martin, Philip L. 1993. Trade and Migration: NAFTA and Agriculture. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics. Martin, Philip L. 1996. Emigration Dynamics in Mexico and Central America: The Case of Agriculture. Unpublished Paper. Massey, D., R. Alarcon, J. Durand, and H. Gonzalez. 1987. Return to Aztlan: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press. Massey, D., L. Goldring, and J. Durand. 1994. Continuities in Transnational Migration: An Analysis of 19 Mexican Communities. American Journal of Sociology 99(6):1492-1533. Massey, D., J. Arango, G. Hugo, A. Kouaouci, A. Pellegrino, J.E. Taylor. 1994. An Evaluation of International Migration Theory: The North American Case. Population and Development Review 20(4):699-751. Massey, D., and K. Espinosa. 1995. What's Driving Mexico-U.S. Migration? A Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Analysis. To be published in American Journal of Sociology. Medellin-Leal, F. (Ed.) 1978. La Desertificaci贸n en M茅xico. Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi: Instituto de Investigacion de Zonas Deserticas. Mello, J.A. 1994. The environmental cost of free trade. Business and Society Review 91:18-28. Mendez y Mercado, L. 1985. Migracion: Decision Involuntaria. Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
44
Myers, N. 1995. Environmental Exodus: An Emerging Crisis in the Global Arena. Washington D.C.: Climate Institute. Myers, N. 1993. Mexico, Ultimate Security: The Environmental Basis of Political Stability. New York: W.W. Norton. Mines, R. 1991. A Case Study of the Evolution of Mexican Migration to the United States: Las Animas, Zacatecas. Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California. Moss, A.H., Jr. 1993. Free trade and environmental enhancement: are they compatible in the Americas? In Trade and the Environment: Law, Economics and Policy. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Nafziger. 1984. A Commentary on American Legal Scholarship Concerning the Admission of Migrants. Journal of Law Reform 17(2). Nash, L. and P. Gleick. 1993. The Colorado River Basin and Climatic Change: The Sensitivity of Streamflow and Water Supply to Variations in Temperature and Precipitation. Pacific Institute for Studies in Environment, Development and Security, Oakland, CA. Organization of African Unity, 1969 Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, entered into force June 20, 1974, reprinted in 691 UNTS 14. Raju, K.V. and C. Maloney, 1992. Environmental Refugees in India. prepared for Meeting of Experts, Nyon, Switzerland, (January). Refugee Policy Group, 1992. Report on Migration and the Environment. Conclusions from experts meeting in Nyon, Switzerland. (January). Washington, DC. Refugee Policy Group. 1991. Human Rights Protection for Internally Displaced Persons Conference Report. (June 24-25). Washington, DC. Repetto, Robert. 1987. Population, Resources, Environment: An Uncertain Future. Population Bulletin 42(2). Repetto, Robert. 1994. The Second India Revisited: Population, Poverty and Environmental Stress Over Two Decades. World Resources Institute, (August). Washington, DC. Ribeiro, A. and B. Blecher. 1991. Erosão Ataca Várias Regiões do Brasil. Folha de São Paulo, Agrofolha, April 9. Ritchey, P.N. 1976. Explanations of Migration. Annual Review of Sociology 2:363-404. Rowley, A. 1994. Mexico's legal system of environmental protection. The Environmental Law Reporter 24(8):10431-10448. Sanders, T. 1990/91a. Northeast Brazilian Environmental Refugees: Part I: Why They Leave. Paper No. 20. Published cooperatively by the Natural Heritage Institute and Universities Field Staff International. San Francisco and Indianapolis. 45
Sanders, T. 1990/91b. Northeast Brazilian Environmental Refugees: Part II: Where They Go. Paper No. 21. Published cooperatively by the Natural Heritage Institute and Universities Field Staff International. San Francisco and Indianapolis. Schwartz, M. Leighton. 1993. International Legal Protection for Victims of Environmental Abuse. Yale Journal of International Law 18(1). Schwartz, M. Leighton and J. Notini, 1995a. Desertification and Migration: Mexico and the United States. U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Washington D.C. Schwartz, M. Leighton and J. Notini. 1995b. Preliminary Report on Desertification and Migration: Case Studies and Evaluation. In: (Eds.) Puigdefabregas and Mendizabal. Desertification and Migrations. Logro単o: Geoforma Ediciones. Simon, Joel. 1997. Endangered Mexico and Environment on the Edge. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Sohn, L., and T. Buergenthal (Eds). 1992. The Movement of Persons Across Borders, The American Society of International Law, Studies in Transnational Legal Policy, No. 23, (October). Stern, P. C., O. R. Young, and D. Druckman (Eds). 1992. Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Stonich, S. C. 1989. Dynamics of Social Processes and Environmental Destruction: A Central American Case Study. Population and Development Review 15:269-296. Tamondong-Helin, S., and W. Helin. 1990/91. Migration and the Environment: Interrelationships in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paper 22. Published cooperatively by the Natural Heritage Institute and Universities Field Staff International. San Francisco and Indianapolis. Thomas, G., 1993. Centralized Versus Decentralized Approaches to Groundwater Management and Allocation in the Context of Overdevelopment, Prepared for Water Management: India's Groundwater Challenge Workshop. December 14-16. Thompson, G.D., and P.N. Wilson. 1994. Ejido reforms in Mexico: conceptual issues and potential outcomes. Land Economics 70(4):448-465. Timberlake, L. 1986. Africa in Crisis: The Causes, The Cures of Environmental Bankruptcy. Philadelphia: Earthscan, New Society Publishers. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 1991. Land Resources: Desertification and Drought, Chairman's Summary and Proposal for Action. Doc. A/CONF.151/PC/WG.1/L.29, August 29. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 1992a. Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Combating Desertification and Drought, Agenda 21, Chapter 12, Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. II), August 13. 46
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 1992b. Combating Poverty, Changing Consumption Patterns, and Demographic Dynamics and Sustainability, Report of the Secretary-General of the Conference. Doc. A/CONF.151/PC/100/Add.2, January 14. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 1992c. Secretary General's Report to Fourth Preparatory Committee of UNCED. Doc. A/CONF.151/PC/100/Add.2. United Nations General Assembly, 1993a. Elaboration of an International Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa: Compilation of Government Views, Statements and Drafting Proposals, Doc. A/AC.241/12, August 12. United Nations General Assembly, 1993b. Elaboration of an International Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa: Negotiating Text of the Convention, Doc. A/AC.241/15, November 19. United Nations Population Fund. 1987. Population Images. New York. United Nations Population Fund. 1991. Population, Resources and the Environment: The Critical Challenges. New York. United Nations Population Fund. 1993a. Briefing kit on population issues. New York. United Nations Population Fund. 1993b. Safeguarding our Future. New York. U.S. Committee for Refugees. 1991. World Refugee Survey 1991. American Council for Nationalities Service, Washington, D.C. Warren, G. 1992. A Study of Selected Refugee and Migration Issues, Report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, (June). Williams, M. and R. Balling, 1994. Interactions of Desertification and Climate, (April). Working Group on Solutions and Protection, 1991. Report of the Working Group on Solutions and Protection, Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme, Sub. Commission of the Whole on International Protection. 42nd Session, U.N. Doc. EC/SCP/64.
47
The World Bank. 1985. Haiti Agricultural Sector Study. Report No. 5375-HA, Vol. I-III, (June). Washington, DC. Worldwatch Institute. 1995. State of the World Report, 1995. Washington, D.C.. Zabin, Kearney, Garcia, Runsten, and Nagengast. 1993. A New Cycle of Poverty, Mixtec Migrants In California Agriculture. Davis, CA: California Institute For Rural Studies.
48