Too small to count? Making Land Use Transformations in Chiquitano communities of San Ignacio de Velasco, East Bolivia, visible

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of the empirical basis.

Category	Total number
Communities for which data have been collected Communities visited	38 15
Interviews with local representatives:  • Local authorities  • Indigenous People/Farmers Unions  • Cooperatives  • Private agribusinesses  • Farmers  • Young people	75
NGOs / Civil Society Organizations approached Experts interviewed	20 62
Academic institutions Experts interviewed	2 7
Governmental institutions Experts interviewed	15 13
Workshops and focus groups organized Number of participants	5 78
Cooperative/Community/Farmers’ Unions assemblies attended Number of participants (incl. multiple-attendance)	11 344
Total recorded time (hours)	64.6

Table 2. Comparative data on deforestation in Bolivia.

Source	Estimated forest cover	Estimated deforestation	Estimated deforestation rate
MMAyA & ABT (2018)	52.2 Mha in 2018	ca. 7 Mha cumulated deforestation till 2017 (6% of national territory)	219,501 ha/yr (2012–2017)
Müller et al. (2014)	ca. 50 Mha in 2014	ca 4.6 Mha (1976–2010)	Rising from 0.12%/yr (1976–1986) to 0.53%/yr (2006–2010)
FAO (2015)	54.7 Mha in 2015 (50.6% of total land area)	8.03 Mha (1990–2015) (12.79% of 1990 forest area)	0.5%/yr (1990–2015)
Global Forest Watch (2020)	62.7 Mha in 2010 (58% of national territory)	4.83 Mha (2001–2018)	0.42%/yr (2001–2018) (7.5% decrease since 2000)

Table 3. Deforestation in San Ignacio de Velasco (2013–2017) and area affected by the 2019 forest fires in the Velasco Province in relation to land tenure.

Deforestation (2014)	Surface (ha) (% of total at national level)	Cumulated authorized forest clearance (2013–2017)	Surface (ha) (% of total at district level)	Area affected by forest fires (2019)	Surface (ha) (% of total at district level)
National level Distributed as follows:	112,971.23	San Ignacio de Velasco Distributed as follows:	82,940	National level Santa Cruz Velasco Province San Ignacio de Velasco Distributed as follows:	ca. 5 Mha ca. 3.6 Mo 729,411 678,834
Private property Including: Large private property Medium private property Small private property	67,571.91 (59.81%) 24,549.48 (21.73%) 9,948.72 (8.81%) 33,073.71 (29.28%)	Private property	66,395.24 (80.1%)^a	Private property Including: Large private property Medium private property Small private property	276,802 (38%)^b 202,494 (27.8%) 59,205 (8.1%) 15,103 (2.1%)
Communal tenure	32,426.83 (28.60%)	Communal tenure Including: Andean peasant communities Chiquitano Indigenous communities	16,544.83 (20%) 15,241.84 (18.4%) 1,302.99 (1.6%)	Communal tenure^c	102,403 (14.0%)
TCO/TIOC	12,972.49 (11.48%)			TCO/TIOC	16,338 (2.2%)
				Public land available for distribution	329,011(45.1%)

Source: (ABT, 2016, 2018; Tierra, 2019)

^a% of total authorized forest clearance area.

^b% total area affected by the 2019 forest fires in the Velasco Province.

^cTierra (2019) specifies that most areas affected are located in Andean communities formerly associated with the Landless Movement.

Table 4. Estimated land distribution per tenure rights in 2009 and 2019 (FAN, 2019).

Tenure category	Estimated for 2009^§		Estimated for 2019*
	Area (ha)	%	Area (ha)	%
Protected Areas, including:
National Park Noel Kempff Mercado	1,472,153	30	1,523,446	31
Municipal Reserves**	81,137	2	146,748	3
Ramsar Site ‘Pantanal’**			9,575	0.2
Public land, including:
Public land	1,195,862	24	582,663	12
Forest and mining concession**			1,155,336	24
Private properties	1,382,149	28	475,437	10
Indigenous Territory
TCO (Bajo Paraguá)	378,000	8	362,154	7
Chiquitano indigenous & Andean peasant common land
including:
Communities with collective land tenure	309,055	6	367,578	8
Parcelled communities	77,544	2	272,964	6
TOTAL	4,895,900	100	4,895,900	100

Sources:

^§ (GAMSIV – FCBC, 2011) based on estimates.

* Updated by Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza (2019) based on 2017 data from Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria.

** Areas consolidated after 2001.

Table 5. Generic categories of agricultural productive systems.

	Land Use	Income sources	Influencing factors
Residual swidden system	• Shrinking plot size (1–2 ha) • Simplified crop mix (Food staples) • Abandoned plots (→ secondary growth) • Plots may be converted to other uses (e.g., residential if population pressure increases)	• Off-farm agricultural employment provided by bigger, more successful farmers/cattle ranchers • Increasingly non-agricultural work (e.g., in transport sector) • Employment outside the community (commuting/temporal migration)	• Proximity of large private properties (Employers) • Proximity of city/Brazilian border • Transport infrastructure • Demographics • Land availability
Surplus-oriented swidden system (incl. pasture)	• Plot size 3–5 ha, with rotation/fallow • Centred on local food staples • Largely manual labour • Cattle ranching on natural pasture/communal land	• Sale of surplus • Public subsidies • Off-farm employment	• Local market demand • Land availability • Labour force • Proximity to local markets • Transport availability and price
Conversion to commercial, monoculture agriculture	• Expansion of plots (maximum legally allowed: up to 20 ha on Land categorized under Permanent Forest Production → Deforestation) • Incorporation of cash crops • Conventional intensification methods (more recently introduction of organic seeds) • Reduction in fallow period	• Sale of harvest (direct sale and to intermediaries) • Public subsidies • Temporary off-farm employment	• Land availability • Investing power • Public programs/Agro-industry companies (provide access to mechanization, seeds and agro-chemical inputs, agricultural extension) • Access to regional markets/intermediaries • Price set by intermediaries • Transport infrastructure • Global demand for agricultural commodities
Conversion to commercial agroforestry (incl. pasture)	• Initial 3 years include annual crops • 3 to 5 years to establish the agroforestry system, which reaches maturity approximately after 8 years • Incorporation of cash crops of high added value • Tree/shade management • Organic intensification and certification • Cattle ranching on natural & cultivated pasture	• Public subsidies • Sale of harvest (direct sale and to intermediaries. Higher prices if certification) • Temporary off-farm employment	• Land availability • International cooperation/NGOs/public programs (provide access to seeds, organic inputs, agricultural extension) • Access to regional markets/intermediaries • Access to processing infrastructure • Price set by intermediaries • Transport infrastructure • Investing power • Labour force • Global demand for agricultural commodities

Table 6. Factors affecting changes in producers’ adaptive capacity.

Structural factors

Factors that affect the agency of local farmers

policy (e.g., trade agreements on cattle, international, tropical timber certification) forest protection and enforcement presence of protected areas rural development programs road infrastructure proximity to markets, cities and/or international borders characteristics of the land (soil fertility, restrictions related to planning instruments) environmental constrains (climatic conditions, water availability, forest composition, wildlife) singular events dramatically affecting the resource basis (e.g., droughts, catastrophic forest fires)

policy and enforcement land availability (determined largely by history of access to land, but also ethnic origin and political allies) land management constrains access to basic services access to agricultural/market/price information access to agricultural extension know how and technology access to processing, storage, transport infrastructure and markets entrepreneurship investment capacity (e.g., to acquire land and access agricultural extension technology) lobby representation and political lever through unions, cooperatives and networks capacity to circumvent LU regulations (e.g., restrictions on deforestation) participation to specific rural development programs (incl. intensification measures, mechanization, introduction of cattle ranching, organic certification schemes, irrigation)

Sources: Fieldwork and de la Vega-Leinert, Brenner & Stoll-Kleemann, 2017.

Figure 1. Geographical distribution of deforestation in, and around, San Ignacio de Velasco until 2015 (Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza, 2019). Reproduced with permission from FAN.

Figure 2. Cumulative Deforestation in San Ignacio de Velasco until 2018 (adapted from Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza, 2019).

Figure 3. Areas affected by the 2019 forest fires according to land tenure classes (Tierra, 2019). Reproduced with permission of Tierra.

Figure 4. Example of an agroforestry system (adapted from Ayala Becerra, 2016).

Figure 5. Changing land management approaches (based on fieldwork).

Figure 6. Trajectories of change in Chiquitano productive systems. (Arrows indicate possible directions of change).

Figure 7. Possible LU changes associated with changing Chiquitano agricultural systems.

Figure 8. Examples of Land Use succession.

Photo 1. Socio-cultural change in Chiquitano communities. Andean dances and traditional clothing during a school celebration in a Chiquitano community. Note the abundance of smartphones. Photo Credits: the author (2018).

ABT (2018). Desmonte de gestión 2013 a gestión 2017. CE-ABT-SIV-0905-2017. Autoridad de Fiscalización y Control Social de Bosques y Tierra.

 Google Scholar

Müller, R., Pacheco, P., & Montero, J.C. (2014). The context of deforestation and forest degradation in Bolivia Drivers, agents and institutions. Occasional Paper 108, (pp. 79). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

 Google Scholar

Food and Agricultural Organization [FAO] (2015). The global forest resources assessment 2015 -desk reference. Rom: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. www.fao.org/3/a-i4808e.pdf (30.04.2020)

 Google Scholar

Global Forest Watch. (2020). Country specific data - forest change - bolivia. Retrieved from https://www.globalforestwatch.org/ (30.04.2020)

 Google Scholar

ABT. (2016). Procedimiento de autorización de desmonte hasta 20 hectáreas para pequeñas propiedades y propiedades comunitarias o colectivas para actividades agricolas y pecuarias con sistemas productivos integrales. [Directriz ABT-005/2016]. Autoridad de Fiscalización y Control Social de Bosques y Tierra.

 Google Scholar

Tierra. (2019). Informe especial – Fuego en Santa Cruz – Balance de los incendios forestales 2019 y su relación con la tenencia de la tierra (pp. 96). La Paz, Bolivia: Fundación Tierra .

 Google Scholar

Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza. (2019). Informe Final — El cambio de uso del suelo y sus efectos actuales y futuros en el municipio de San Ignacio de Velasco. Unpublished Technical Report (pp. 40). Santa Cruz, Bolivia: FAN; Universidad Greifswald.

 Google Scholar

GAMSIV – FCBC. (2011). Plan Municipal de Ordenamiento Territorial – San Ignacio de Velasco (2009 – 2019) (pp. 309). Santa Cruz, Bolivia: Gobierno Autónomo Municipal de San Ignacio de Velasco & Fundación para la Conservación del Bosque Chiquitano.

 Google Scholar

de la Vega-Leinert, A.C., Brenner, L., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2017). El café de sombra: ¿una alternativa viable para campesinos en regiones marginadas? El caso de la Reserva de la Biosfera Los Tuxtlas, México. In M. Genet Guzmán Chávez, L. Tyrtania Geidt, & C. Garibay Orozco (Eds.), Conocimiento, Ambiente y Poder. Perspectivas desde la Ecología Política. El Colegio de San Luis — Fondo Editorial, CONACyT.

 Google Scholar

Ayala Becerra. (2016). Plan de Gestión Integral de Bosque y Tierras (PGIBT). Unpublished Technical Report.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

This paper is based on empirical, qualitative data collected through participatory methods, field excursions and observations. Audio files, transcripts and coding results are archived by the corresponding author.