Influences on Land Tenure

Here is where it starts getting technical. When examining the issues of land tenure in Guatemala, both prior to and after the agricultural reforms of the mid-twentieth century, it is necessary to also consider the socio-political and economic systems which are associated with, if not responsible for such inequalities in land distribution. Political control of the Ladino landed elite over the rural peasantry was largely exerted through political repression and suppression of land reform movements ultimately resulting in a civil war.Technological control was also exerted, as it was the government and landed elite who have both promoted and subsidized technology and research to their political and economic advantage. Agricultural expansion in Guatemala has consistently sought to promote export production over domestic food production; diminishing autonomy and access to land without providing either the intended sustainable economic development or the food security needed by large portions of the rural population.

By 1810, fifty years after the Central Americagained its independence from the crown, the desire for a lucrative export crop was met by the emergence of coffee. The lands best suited for coffee production were those at moderate elevations, the majority of which were inhabited by subsistence peasants. Confiscation of communal lands was enacted as land titling reforms, and reallocation of such lands was based upon the expansion of coffee production, which required substantial capital unavailable to peasant farmers. Yet again, export potential was limited largely by labor; which was consequently assured through legalized forced labor such as mandamientos and debt peonage.

Foreign Banana Companies

Though coffee production continued successfully, another export crop was established in Central America by the end of the Nineteenth Century. Large tracts of coastal lowlands were ceded to foreign banana companies in exchange for infrastructure developments, such as regional railroad lines, which were necessary for both banana production and distribution as well as for growing industrialization efforts.At the time these grants were made they presented no real conflict with land tenure patterns, but the vastness of such landholdings ultimately came in conflict with the land needs of growing rural populations. Additionally, the extreme power that these companies held in Central American politics and economies had direct effects upon the opportunities facing rural indigenous populations. The United Fruit Company was Guatemalas largest land holder, though 85% of their holdings were not under production.During the massive land reforms of the 1950s under President Arbenz, 2.7 million acres of uncultivated lands was expropriated from multi-nationals and Ladino elite in an attempt to return that land to food production through distribution to over 100, 000 families (Healy, 2003).Because of the international power of The United Fruit Company and the allegations of communistic leanings of the Arbenz government, the U.S. launched a destabilizing campaign which resulted in the resignation of President Arbenz and the return of the majority of the expropriated land (Barraclough and Scott, 1988).

Boom/ Bust cycles of Post World War II Expansion

By 1964 the largest 3.7% of farms in the Pacific lowlands occupied 80.3 % of the land, and within fourteen years the amount of land under cotton increased ten-fold (de Janvry, 1981). Cotton was in the tradition of the boom/ bust cycle of production and exploitation, particularly because of its annual life cycle, which allowed for fluctuations of annual acreage based upon varying demand. Consequently, cotton producers increasingly used indiscriminate amounts of pesticides without focusing on sustainable production practices, and often converted to sugarcane production when cotton prices bottomed out.

The Seventies and Eighties presented yet another potential export commodity, and rapid conversion to beef production was also largely promoted by governmental and external loans.It is estimated that during this period over half of the loans made to Central America promoted the production of beef for export markets. The beef industry played a significant role in further deforestation through its continued search for grazing lands. Uncleared land was often rented out to subsistence farmers at minimal prices and then converted to beef production once the land was cleared.

Political control has been characteristic of all periods of Ladino rule in Guatemala, but this control became increasingly violent in the second half of the 20th century. From the Fifties on, the majority of Guatemalan presidents had a military background and gained support of the army through relegating a large degree of power to it. Proletariat leanings of many of the peasant movements hastened the almost complete repression of social organizations, trade unions, and political parties.The calls for land reform were largely restricted and consequently began to take on illegal forms. Counterinsurgency campaigns of the early Eighties aimed at depopulating areas of guerilla control and support. Over 440 whole villages were destroyed, with more than 100,000 civilians either dead or missing (Healy, 2003).Such destruction not only reduced rural populations,displacing them through massive relocation programs, but also affected further deforestation and environmental damage through an attempt to minimize physical groundcover available to the guerillas ( Healy, 2003).

Technological Control of the Landed Elite

Technological control of the landed elite was exerted through policies determining technological and agricultural research and subsidization (de Janvry and Dethier, 1985). The rural landless lacked the political power to demand innovations which would be applicable to their needs. Consequently policies promoted expansion of large scale export production in search of economic growth and international markets. Farm research by organizations such as NARS was based almost exclusively on the fertile farmlands of the lowlands, and was therefore inappropriate to the vast numbers of subsistence farmers (Bebbington et al, 1993).

In addition to the self-serving interests of Ladino farmers were the self-serving interests of foreign investors who played a key role in determining which technologies and crop productions would be subsidized ( Tucker, 2000 ). Reliance upon foreign aid for internal development proved highly unreliable in developing sustainable agricultural systems because such support could be withdrawn quickly, as was seen in Guatemala in the late 80s when spending on public research and extension declined by 48 per cent and 60 per cent respectively between 1989 and 1991 (Bebbington, 1993).Similarly, export promotion aid from the U.S. totaled 82 million dollars for the entire period of 1954 through 1982, and in 1983 alone this number rose to 32 million dollars drastically shifting the Guatemalas agricultural economy with out sustained commitment to continue such trends.

Bimodal Agricultural Systems

By 1980 Guatemala had the most skewed distribution of land in Latin America (Healy, ), a framework which has come to be referred to as bi-modal or dualistic in reference to the vastly different production and consumption patterns characterizing the two separate components of the economy. By 1983 88% of the total number of farms occupied a mere 14% of the land, and were considered sub-family farm units unable to provide adequate food supplies for the families who farmed them (Brockett, 1998). Another significant component of the minifundio and latifundio bimodal system is the role of foreign aid as food imports,which discouraged domestic production of food crops through cheap food prices. U.S. food aid to Guatemala totaled 93 million for the entire period between 1954 and 1984, where as in 1985 alone it totaled 20 million. Lacking the capital needed for the higher technological inputs of competitive export production, and no longer able to sell staple crops at competitive prices many subsistence farmers were obligated to seek off-farm incomes in the export market. Additionally, technological advancements on large landholdings were not managed solely in an attempt to maximize profit, market share. Because landholdings were viewed as low-return and low-risk investments, largely valued as maintaining economic and social security, they were often not managed with land efficient production practices (de Janvry, 1981). This inverse relationship between farm size and efficiency of production is increased when an analysis of the quality and environmental marginality of subsistence and commercially productive lands is included.

Agriculture in 1998 accounted for 23 percent of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), and food products represented 61 percent of Guatemalas exports in 1998. Coffee has been Guatemalas most important export for more than a century, and despite considerable diversification, in 1999 the country produced 204,300 metric tons. Sugar has been rising in importance, and Guatemala harvested 18 million metric tons of sugarcane in 1999. Bananas remain important and are grown in the tropical lowlands, mainly by foreign corporationsincluding Chiquita (formerly United Fruit and United Brands), Fyffes, Dole, and Del Monte. But as world demand for bananas has declined, as soil has been depleted, and as other crops have been developed, banana production has become a much smaller percentage of total exports than formerly.

    Since the 1970s Guatemala has been the leading exporter of cardamom, a spice popular in Arab countries. Falling prices for this crop, however, have diminished its importance, and in 1995 it accounted for only 2 percent of Guatemalan exports. In 1999 fresh fruits , oilseeds , and vegetables were significant crops. Guatemala no longer exports cotton, which until recently was a major export. Cotton output dropped dramatically from 165,698 metric tons in 1985 to a mere 7,500 metric tons in 1999, because of both production problems and wide competition from other regions and synthetic fibers.

    Export agriculture has absorbed so much of Guatemalas limited arable land that food production has suffered. Corn remains the principal crop for domestic consumption, but significant amounts of rice, beans, sorghum, potatoes, soybeans, and other fruits and vegetables, as well as livestock, are also raised.

    Guatemalas large forests, estimated at 9.5 million acres in 1995, have been declining at an average rate of 2 percent annually, as trees are cut for firewood and construction timber. Some valuable stands of mahogany and cedar remain. In 1998 timber production reached 478 cubic feet.

    The commercial shrimp and fish industries have grown in the 1990s, with the yearly catch increasing from 2,782 metric tons in 1985 to 11,303 metric tons in 1997. Domestic seafood and freshwater consumption is small and growing smaller with overfishing areas that may have had a high yield five years ago.

Considering that populations growth is inherent in the future of developing countries, land demographics is an unavoidable issue and vital to both the economic and environmental health which will face future generations. The largest threat to Guatemalas environment is continued deforestation as well as the soil erosion associated with the exhaustion of marginal lands. Capitalistic perusal of export crops by the landed elite, starting in the Colonial Period and continuing through the Twentieth Century, has failed to provide a sustainable model of development for the country at large. The world trade also affects the local farming in that selling prices fluctuate drasitcally enough to make or break a farmer once they have invested all their money into one type of crop. The efficiency of agricultural production practices are contextual and must be considered in terms of the demographic, political, and cultural effects on the country at large. Consequently, environmental solutions must take all components of rural economies into consideration when attempting to affect comprehensive and sustainable solutions. Solutions may be one of educating locals as to what is unique to the natural environment here and assisting them in marketing in a world market for those products.

 

Barraclough, Solon L.; Scott, Michael F. 1988. The Rich Have Already Eaten Roots of Catastrophe in Central America. Pp 2-20, 23-25. The Kellogg Institute for International Studies, Notre Dame.

 

Barry, Tom; Garst, Rachel. 1990. Feeding the Crisis: U.S. Aid and Food Policy in Central America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

 

Bebbington, Anthony; Thiele, Graham. 1993. Non-Governmental Organizations and the State in Latin America. Pp 13-28, 60-74. Routledge, New York.

 

Brockett, Charles D. 1998. Land, Power, and Povery: Agrarian Transformations and Political Conflict in Central America, second edition. Pp 1-128. Westview Press, Boulder.

 

Burns, Bradford; Muybridge, Eadweard. 1986. Eadweard Muybreidge in Guatemala, 1875. Pp 32, 100. The University of California Press, Berkeley.

 

de Janvry, Alain. 1981. The Agrarian Question and Reformism in Latin America. Pp 200-223, 144-148, 211-213. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

 

de Janvry, Alain; Dethier, Jean-Jacques. 1985. Technological Innovation in Agriculture. Pp 16-19, 56-45. The World Bank, Washington D.C.

 

Geocities website. January 30, 2001. Overview of the threats of deforestation, pictures and maps. www.geocities.com/blancaveliz/Agriculture.htm , Accessed April 8, 2003.

 

Healy, Mark. 2003. Harper college website with articles pertaining to economic, and geographic conditions in specific countries and regions. http://harpercollege.edu/~mhealyg101ilec/midamer/mme/mmelan/mmelenaa.htm , Accessed April 8, 2003.

 

Helwedge, Ann; Twomey, Michael J. 1991. Modernization and Stagnation. Pp 121-140. Greenwood Press, New York.

 

McCreery, David. 1994. Rural Guatemala 1760-1940. Pp 49-84, 295-322. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

 

Rainforest education website. 2002. Pictorial overview of threats to the rainforest. www.rainforesteducation.com, Accessed April 8, 2003.

 

Reilly, Elena. 1999. Agribusiness and the Land Crisis in Guatemala. An overview of current and past patterns of land tenure in Guatemala. http://cjd.org/paper/agri.html, accessed April 8, 2003

 

Tucker, Richard P. 2000. Insatiable Appetite. Pp 120-179. The University of California Press, Berkeley.

 

World Resource Institute. 2003. Recent data on environmental and agricultural conditions in individual countries. http://earthtrends.wri.org , Accessed April 8, 2003