<%BANNER%>

Socio-Environmental Consequences of Market Integration among the Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador


PAGE 1

SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MARKET INTEGRATION AMONG THE CHACHIS OF ESMERALDAS, ECUADOR By JULIANNE ADAMS HAZLEWOOD A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Julianne Adams Hazlewood

PAGE 3

To the Chachis of La Ceiba and Loma Linda, w ho have shared with me their rainy worlds of laughter and welcomed me into their homes.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I want to thank my family, especially my mom and dad, who have admitted difficulty in understanding exactly what it is that I research. Nonetheless, by letting me go, being there when I needed them, and hoping for my growth and happiness, they have supported me. They have taught me the true meaning of keeping an open mind. Without their belief in the importance of education, I would not have experienced the opportunities that led me to the University of Florida. Second, I would like to express my thanks to all the Chachis and to my friends who lived with me in Ecuador over the years. They have left me with memories and lessons that will continue to sparkle like emeralds in the river of my life. Thanks to Nicole Marchan for her friendship and company in Loma Linda during my initial visit. I am especially grateful to Ladna Miller who took care of me when I was sick, who made me laugh when I wanted to cry from frustration, and who did an excellent job as a photographer and field assistant in Loma Linda when we were crunched for time. Additionally, I am indebted to Samuel Aapa, Hidalgo San Nicolas, and the other translators for their guidance and patience as they translated interviews and explained to me the Chachi ways. I also appreciate the support I received from Ecociencia and Altropico during my summer of field work. And Todd Smith and Neil and Ruth Wiebe must be recognized for their dedicated work with the Chachis. Within the academic world, I would like to begin by creditting Dr. Gerald Murray. Without his encouragement I may not have found myself in the Latin American Studies iv

PAGE 5

program at all. Although it was clear he believed in my abilities and the merit of this project from the beginning, he simultaneously challenged me to refine my academic skills. Additionally, he reminded me not to lose focus of sight of the forest for the trees. Furthermore, I would like to express my most profound appreciation to Dr. Charles Wood, the chair of my thesis committee. I am grateful that despite our different ways of thinking, he was able to recognize our commonalities as well as my capacity and passion for learning. My ability to push limits and question was something in which he took joy, but which also required his patience. He trained me to be critical of academic culture while guiding me through the development of the skills necessary to succeed in this business (which I am still learning). He taught me the importance of weeding the superfluous and highlighting the kernels. My academic experience at UF was made all the more enjoyable due to his accessibility, our talks about academia and research, and his stories. I am much obliged to my other committee members as well. I thank Dr. Hugh Popenoe for his friendship and support. Whenever I was feeling discouraged, I knew I could go to his office and he would inevitably make me feel better. He exposed me to remote, diverse cultures and encouraged me to develop useful skills that may assist me in those places one day. He reminded me to focus on topics that are useful to indigenous people, thus highlighting an important life lesson: El sencillo es lo mas profundo (the simple things in life are the most profound). Lastly, Dr. Popenoes ability to objectively learn from other cultures and their farming systems reminds me of a quote by 19 th century poet Ramn Campoamor that he told our ethnoecology class: En este mundo traidor nada es verdad, ni mentira; todo es segn el color del cristal con que se mira (In this v

PAGE 6

deceptive world there is neither truth nor lies; everything depends on the color of the lens through which you look). I must also acknowledge Dr. Marianne Schmink. She has been and will remain a great role modelsomeone who makes tremendous investments in her students, her community field site, and the pedagogy of teaching. She is someone who is constantly refining her ever-dynamic role in a multiplicity of realms, including that of professor and researcher. She teaches as part of her own quest for learning. Her ability to plunge into the social matrix, navigate through the interconnectedness of the system, and retain a strong foundation of compassion and sensitivity is formidable. I would also like to express my appreciation to all the professors with whom I have taken classes and have interacted here at UF. Each of their perspectives and class materials has added many new dimensions to my perception of Latin America and graduate education. In addition, I am beholden to the Center for Latin American Studies, the Tropical Conservation and Development program, the Tinker Foundation Summer Field Research award, and the FLAS Summer Fellowship for funding my research, allowing me to improve my skills, and enabling me to learn more about the Chachis. Further thanks go to Chris McCarty and Kuniko Chijiwa. They both took time to walk me through statistical analysis. My appreciation extends to Percy Peralta, Geraldine Slean, Patricia Prevatt, Tina Remy, Byron Real, Jun Concha, and the people at the ETD lab for their collaboration. Finally, I am grateful to my friends who showed me the ropes in the program, helped me when I was discouraged, and encouraged me to laugh, dance and release when vi

PAGE 7

it was time to take a break. I get by with a lot of help from my friends. I am really going to miss the community created here in LAS and TCD. vii

PAGE 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................xii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................xiv ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................xvi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Impressions of Change.................................................................................................1 Organization of Thesis..................................................................................................4 2 PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF MARKET INTEGRATION......7 Introduction...................................................................................................................7 Market Integration and the Disruption of Indigenous Social-Ecological Systems.......9 Market Integration and the Resilience of Indigenous Social-Ecological Systems.....14 Economic Development and Social Capital...............................................................17 Historical Evolution of Social Capital.................................................................17 Social Capital and Resiliency..............................................................................19 Higher bonding social capital; higher potential for development................20 Higher bonding social capital; lower potential for development (the need for bridging and linking social capital)...................................23 Greater development; lower bonding social capital.....................................24 Applications of Social Capital.............................................................................25 Statement of the Problem............................................................................................27 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION................................................29 Introduction.................................................................................................................29 Site Selection..............................................................................................................29 Methods of Data Collection........................................................................................30 Sample Selection.................................................................................................30 Informally Structured Interview..........................................................................30 Formally Structured Interviews...........................................................................30 viii

PAGE 9

Time Frame.................................................................................................................34 Measuring Market Integration....................................................................................34 Measuring Social Capital............................................................................................35 Structural Social Capital......................................................................................35 Cognitive Social Capital......................................................................................36 Conclusions.................................................................................................................36 4 COMPARABILITY OF THE TWO COMMUNITIES.............................................38 The Choc...................................................................................................................38 La Ceiba......................................................................................................................40 Loma Linda.................................................................................................................41 Environmental Features..............................................................................................42 Climate and Rainfall in the Ecuadorian Choc...................................................42 Physical Features.................................................................................................44 Vegetation............................................................................................................47 Socio-Cultural Features..............................................................................................48 Population............................................................................................................49 Chachi Cultural History.......................................................................................50 Historical and Socio-political Background of the Chachis.................................57 Historical and socio-political background of La Ceiba................................59 Historical and socio-political background of Loma Linda...........................63 Conclusion..................................................................................................................66 5 SUBSISTENCE AND MARKET ORIENTED LIVELIHOODS IN LA CEIBA AND LOMA LINDA.................................................................................................67 The Evolving Chachi Economy..................................................................................67 Contemporary Market and Subsistence Activities.....................................................73 The Predicament.........................................................................................................77 Traditional and Subsistence-oriented Activities.....................................................85 Agriculture...........................................................................................................85 Cycles: planting, weeding and harvesting....................................................89 Tools and technology...................................................................................92 Pests and other problems in the system........................................................93 Gender and Agricultural Production...................................................................93 Womens role in agriculture.........................................................................93 Mens role in agriculture..............................................................................95 Mingas..........................................................................................................95 Fishing.................................................................................................................96 Hunting................................................................................................................99 Canoe-making....................................................................................................100 Craft-making......................................................................................................101 Market-oriented Activities........................................................................................103 Agroforestry......................................................................................................104 Cattle-ranching..................................................................................................107 Logging..............................................................................................................109 ix

PAGE 10

Contract Labor...................................................................................................112 Public Service Jobs............................................................................................112 Conclusion................................................................................................................114 6 TESTING COMMUNITY DIFFERENCES IN MARKET INTEGRATION.........116 Time Spent on Market and Subsistence Activities...................................................116 Traditional and Subsistence-oriented Activities.......................................................120 Craft-making......................................................................................................120 Agriculture.........................................................................................................120 Raising Chickens and Pigs................................................................................121 Fishing...............................................................................................................122 Hunting..............................................................................................................122 Canoe-making....................................................................................................123 Market-oriented Activities........................................................................................123 Agroforestry......................................................................................................123 Cattle-ranching..................................................................................................124 Logging..............................................................................................................124 Contract Labor...................................................................................................125 Public Service....................................................................................................125 Discussion.................................................................................................................125 Conclusion................................................................................................................128 7 TESTING COMMUNITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MARKET ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL CAPITAL........................................................................................129 Methods of Social Capital Data Analysis.................................................................134 Logistic Regression...........................................................................................134 Cross Tabulations..............................................................................................137 Cognitive Social Capital...........................................................................................137 Trust about Money Matters...............................................................................137 Honesty and Personal Trust...............................................................................139 Level of Cooperation.........................................................................................139 Personal Help.....................................................................................................143 Economic Help..................................................................................................144 Structural Social Capital...........................................................................................145 Land Disputes....................................................................................................146 Political Disputes...............................................................................................146 Religious Disputes.............................................................................................147 Influence in Community....................................................................................151 How Inter-village Problems are Resolved.........................................................153 Number of People Known Outside a Village....................................................153 Most Important Organizations...........................................................................154 Social Capital and Community.................................................................................156 Cognitive Social Capital and Community.........................................................156 Structural Social Capital and Community.........................................................158 Social Capital and Age, Education Level and Sex...................................................159 x

PAGE 11

Cognitive Social Capital and Age, Education Level, and Sex..........................160 Structural Social Capital and Age, Education Level, and Sex..........................161 Conclusion................................................................................................................162 8 REFLECTION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS.......................................................164 Reflections................................................................................................................164 Limitations................................................................................................................170 Contributions to Literature.......................................................................................172 Market Integration.............................................................................................172 Social Capital.....................................................................................................173 Practical Implications...............................................................................................174 Future Directions......................................................................................................176 APPENDIX A ECONOMIC QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................179 B GENERAL SOCIAL QUESTIONNAIRE...............................................................191 C SOCIAL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR KEY INFORMANTS......................................204 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................223 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................231 xi

PAGE 12

LIST OF TABLES Table page 6.1 Average amount of time spent on market and subsistence activities in two chachi villages........................................................................................................118 7.1 Summary table: Logistic regression (models 1-8).................................................136 7.2 Trust about lending and borrowing money in the community regressed on community, age, education level, and sex, The Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador (Logistic regression: exponentiated B coefficients)...............................................140 7.3 Community members that are honest and deserve to be trusted regressed on community, age, education level and sex...............................................................141 7.4 Cooperation level in the community regressed on community, age, education level and sex...........................................................................................................142 7.5 Personal help cross tabulations..............................................................................144 7.6 Economic help cross tabulations............................................................................145 7.7 Land disputes regressed on community, age, education and sex regressed on land disputes...................................................................................................................148 7.8 Political disputes regressed on community, age, education level, and sex............149 7.9 Religious disputes regressed on community, age, education level, and sex..........150 7.10 Influence in the community regressed on community, age, education level, and sex...........................................................................................................................152 7.11 How problems are resolved cross tabulations........................................................153 7.12 Number of people known outside the village cross tabulation..............................154 7.13 Most important organizations cross tabulations.....................................................155 7.14 Community cognitive social capital.......................................................................157 7.15 Community structural social capital.......................................................................158 xii

PAGE 13

7.16 Cognitive social capital by age, education and sex................................................160 7.17 Structural social capital by age, education level and sex.......................................161 xiii

PAGE 14

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1.1 Construction of the road that branches from the San Lorenzo-Ibarra highway and leads to La Ceiba (1997)............................................................................................2 1.2 Chachi children from La Ceiba ready to hit the road in their home-built bus...........4 2.1 Social capital model.................................................................................................22 3.1 Map of Ecuador. The Esmeraldas province, which is the area of study, has a box around it....................................................................................................................31 3.2 Map of Chachi village locations; La Ceiba and Loma Linda are circled in red.......32 3.3 Author conducting a formally structured interview.................................................32 3.4 Respondents during an interview.............................................................................33 4.1 The Choc Region....................................................................................................39 4.2 Chachis from La Ceiba on the Tululb River...........................................................41 4.3 Loma Linda on the Cayapas River...........................................................................42 4.4 Average monthly rainfall at Zapallo Grande during the period 1961-1984.............43 4.5 Average rainfall of the Choc. The dots indicate study sites...................................45 4.6 Kaa shinbu (Chachi woman) in traditional dress.................................................52 4.7 Traditional Chachi single-family dwelling raised on guayacn posts with woven tagua palm fronds as the roof.......................................................................54 5.1 Map of resource extraction in Choc, made in 1954 by Robert West: Southern Colombia and northern Ecuador..............................................................................69 5.2 Chachis from Loma Linda buying produce from the mobile market.......................73 5.3 Household participation in market activities............................................................74 5.4 Household participation in subsistence activities.....................................................76 xiv

PAGE 15

5.5 Principal income-generating activities.....................................................................77 5.6 Principal activity......................................................................................................78 5.7 Highest expenditure per month................................................................................80 5.8 Investment preferences given a windfall profit........................................................81 5.9 Responses to whether or not wood extraction is improving their quality of life.....83 5.10 A Chachi from La Ceiba resting in his platanal with some papaya trees in the foreground................................................................................................................88 5.11 A Chachi girl from Loma Linda taking the panda harvest home............................91 5.12 A Chachi from La Ceiba preparing fertilizer mix in the village to take to his swidden plot.............................................................................................................92 5.13 A Chachi woman from Loma Linda is tying on a banana-stem strap......................94 5.14 A Chachi boy from Loma Linda with one of the Chachis favorite fish, known as sbalo (Spanish) or avili (Chapalaa).......................................................................97 5.15 Chachi women from Loma Linda with a goggle collecting freshwater shrimp or aabishu (Chapalaa), and guaa (Spanish) or quivilo (Chapalaa)..........................98 5.16 Chachis from Loma Linda canoeing down the Cayapas River..............................100 5.17 A Chachi woman from Loma Linda weaving a purse strap...................................101 5.18 Chachis from Loma Linda selling baskets to a Colombian middleman................103 5.19 Chachi children from La Ceiba enjoying breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) from the agroforestry project................................................................................................104 5. 20 Chachis from La Ceiba packing boroj marmalade...............................................106 5.21 Boroj marmalade label from La Ceibas communal marmalade factory.............107 5. 22 Hardwood that the Chachis from La Ceiba have carried from the forest..............111 5.23 School children playing soccer on a cement playing field in Loma Linda............113 6.1 Household participation in significant market-oriented activities.........................127 8.1 Sunset on the Cayapas River..................................................................................175 8.2 Chachi children of Loma Linda..............................................................................177 xv

PAGE 16

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MARKET INTEGRATION AMONG THE CHACHIS OF ESMERALDAS, ECUADOR By Julianne Adams Hazlewood August 2004 Chair: Charles Wood Major Department: Latin American Studies Indigenous people often live on land that conservationists value for biodiversity. While social science and natural science researchers continue to argue over the validity of the Noble Savage and the integral nature of indigenous contributions to conservation, communities become more integrated into local, regional, and national markets. A key question thus arises as to whether the economic activities performed by indigenous communities in these areas are detrimental to the conservation of the rainforest and its biodiversity. I address internal socio-economic and socio-environmental dynamics of post-market integration that may determine whether or not indigenous communities will successfully collaborate in sustainable forest management. My investigation focuses on the Chachis, an indigenous group who live in the buffer zone of Cotocachi-Cayapas National Park in the Choc region of Northwestern Ecuador. Their lives and livelihoods are in flux as a result of their increasing market integration. xvi

PAGE 17

The design of the thesis project is based on a comparative analysis of two Chachi villages, La Ceiba and Loma Linda, which predominately differ in terms of their relative isolation from urban centers and access to markets. I used qualitative and quantitative methods to determine empirically whether market integration creates a greater concentration on market activities (versus subsistence activities) and alters internal social dynamics and organization (social capital). The results show that the village closer to an urban center (La Ceiba) spends more time on logging and cattle ranching (newer, environmentally threatening activities). The more isolated village (Loma Linda) spends more time working in schools and craft-making and sales (environmentally benign market activities). The concentration on distinct income generating activities in the two communities correlates with divergent levels of different aspects of social capital, or norms and social bonds that may contribute to the capacity to self-organize and sustainably manage natural resources. On a theoretical level, the results can contribute to the literature on market integration and the determinants of social capital. On a more practical level, understanding the complexity of the shifting indigenous livelihood and social systems may be essential to design and implement natural resource management plans that will be conducive to the indigenous development and nature conservation. A better understanding of shifting market activities and social dynamics/organization of indigenous groups with improved market access may simultaneously foster environmental and cultural resiliency. xvii

PAGE 18

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Chachis are an indigenous group whose lives and livelihoods in the Ecuadorian coastal rainforest are in flux, especially as the communities become more integrated into local, regional, and national markets. I embarked on my research among the Chachis because I was fascinated by my different experiences living in two of their communitiesLa Ceiba in 1997 and Loma Linda in 2000, which differ in terms of relative isolation from urban centers and access to markets. Currently, La Ceiba is located one hour by car from San Lorenzo and has a logging road traversing the village. Loma Linda, on the other hand, is moderately isolated. Located on the Cayapas River, it lies four hours by motorized canoe from the nearest town, Borbn. I have returned to both villages many times since I first lived in each, and I have witnessed many of the transformations that the Chachis have undergone. In particular, as logging roads criss-cross the forest, the lives of the Chachis have inevitably become more intertwined with the outside world. Impressions of Change In 1999, the residents of La Ceiba had negotiated with a logging company, CODESA (Contrachapadas de Esmeraldas S.A.), to construct a one kilometer road connecting the community to the logging road 1 and the San Lorenzo-Ibarra highway. 2 1 SETRAFOR, another logging company based in the nearby town of San Francisco, began to construct this timber extraction road in 1997. 2 The construction of the San Lorenzo-Ibarra highway was constructed in 1995 and paved in 2002. 1

PAGE 19

2 When I first arrived in La Ceiba in 1997, the community was only accessible by a two-hour canoe ride or an hour-and-a-half trek. Yet, when I returned to La Ceiba in 1999 I learned that, linked to the new road, were a host of changes. For example, the forest from San Lorenzo to the village had been replaced with African Palms. Sounds of machinery Photograph by author. Figure 1.1. Construction of the road that branches from the San Lorenzo-Ibarra highway and leads to La Ceiba (1997). and chainsaws were heard all day long from the surrounding forest. The Chachis of La Ceiba used the river less because they had the road. There were more visitors to the village. The community members went to San Lorenzo much more often. More people

PAGE 20

3 played their stereos late into the night and before dawn. Residents had bicycles. They sold araz (Eugenia stipitata), boroj (Borojoa patinoi), rolinio (Rollinia deliciosa), and other tropical fruits from the fruit forest that they planted in collaboration with a Peace Corps member 3 between 1993 and 1997. Finally, they seemed to spend all their time cutting trees, and they had sold hundreds of hectares of trees to SETRAFOR (Servicios y Trabajos Forestales) Lumber Company. Other aspects of La Ceiba also became especially vivid once I compared them to my experience of living and working in Loma Linda in 2000. Unlike Loma Linda, households in La Ceiba cooked their meals with gas stoves. Moreover, La Ceiba residents had more stereos and televisions. Houses with walls, doors with locks, and tin roofs were more common. In addition, community members had more plastic chairs and women used plastic containers for washing their clothes. La Ceiba appeared to exhibit a different village dynamicone that was characterized by more problems, less solidarity between people, and new priorities for how people spent their time. Furthermore, when I went back to both Loma Linda and La Ceiba in 2001, I noticed that in one years time Loma Linda had changed to a much smaller degree than La Ceiba. I wondered what made my experiences in these villages so divergent. What was it that accelerated change so dramatically in La Ceiba? I believe what distinguished my experiences in the two places were their differing degree of market integration, which appeared to go hand in hand with logging. This is what led me to the premise of my comparative fieldwork in the summer of 2002. The foundational hypothesis in this thesis project is that the lives of the Chachi households and communities are not rearranged by 3 The name of the Peace Corps member is Todd Smith. He also helped with the implementation of the marmalade factory beginning in January 2000.

PAGE 21

4 the roads themselves, but by access to the market and other socio-economic systems that roads entail. Photograph by Author. Figure 1.2. Chachi children from La Ceiba ready to hit the road in their home-built bus. Organization of Thesis This thesis is organized into eight chapters. The next chapter reviews the literature from which my hypotheses are drawn. This second chapter introduces resilience theory, which is part of the Panarchy framework. Resilience theory is employed to review two bodies of literature concerning the social and ecological consequences of market integration. The first body of literature addresses the disruption or the increased resilience of indigenous social and ecological systems facing market integration. The second presents the literature on how development correlates with levels of social capital and vice-versa. These two bodies of literature are joined in a framework that guides the specific problems investigated in this thesis.

PAGE 22

5 Chapter 3 explains the research design and presents the overall hypothesis. It is as follows: The village with greater market integration will have more environmentally destructive money-generating practices and a lower level of bonding social capital. In addition, I discuss why I chose the sites that I did, the methods of data collection that I used, and how I operationalized and measured market integration and social capital. The fourth chapter lays out the environmental and the social context of the comparative analysis. The purpose of this chapter is to provide the ecological and social background that demonstrates that the two research sites vary mainly in terms of the degree to which they are involved in local and regional markets, and that they do not differ significantly in terms of other relevant variables. Although no two geographic places are identical, the fact that the people in both sites share a similar bio-geographical context, historical background, and ethno-linguistic heritage contributes greatly to the comparability of the two places, as noted in chapter 3. Such a comparison would be invalid if each were populated by a different cultural group since it would be impossible to know whether observed differences were due to market integration (the primary independent variable) or to cultural factors. Chapter 5 discusses the Chachis' livelihood system. The first two sections of the chapter describe the Chachis' subsistence base and their past and present participation in the market. This leads to an explanation of the Chachis current predicament of how to earn an income without participating in logging in a place that has few other options. I conclude this chapter with a description of the contemporary market and subsistence activities.

PAGE 23

6 In chapter 6, I measure and compare the extent of market integration within and between La Ceiba and Loma Linda. The degree of market integration in these two villages establishes the basis for the rest of the thesis. Chapter 7 presents the qualitative and quantitative analyses of the social dynamics and organization of the Chachis of La Ceiba and Loma Linda. Based on the results in chapter 6, I use logistic regression to test the principal hypothesis and other secondary hypotheses. I analyze the relationships between each villages participation in certain market activities and social capital. I run eight models in which I control for age, education, and gender. Cross tabulations are also run between the independent variables and other social capital variables. The thesis concludes with chapter 8 in which I integrate and interpret the results from the proceeding chapters. I close with a discussion of the implications and potential applications of this research.

PAGE 24

CHAPTER 2 PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF MARKET INTEGRATION Thus the global pattern of humanity and nature is a combination of a stormy atmosphere, swirling ocean, slowly cycling earth, life cycles of living organisms, ecological adaptations, and the complex interactions of human societies. (Odum and Odum, 2001, p. 5) Introduction Indigenous people often live on land that conservationists value for biodiversity. They are often removed or restricted from nationally-declared protected areas that have been their ancestral homelands for thousands of years. A key question that arises is whether, or, to what extent the economic activities performed by indigenous communities in these areas are detrimental to the conservation of the rainforest and its biodiversity. Pretty (2003, p.1913) asks, Could local people play a positive role in conservation and management of resources? Variants of this question query: under what conditions could local people play a positive role in conservation and management of resources as their lives become more intertwined with demands of local, regional, national, and global markets; and how could biodiversity conservation efforts be designed to benefit indigenous communities by providing economic alternatives to environmentally harmful practices? Researchers who investigate social and economic transitions within the theoretical context of cultural and environmental resilience have an important role in answering these questions. Holling and Gunderson (2002, p. 28) define ecosystem resilience as the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure by 7

PAGE 25

8 changing variables and processes that control behavior. The Panarchy framework put forward by Holling, Gunderson and Ludwig (2002), which includes resiliency theory, links social and ecological systems under the assumption that humans have expanded their influence over nature so thoroughly that neither nature nor humans can be understood in isolation. Instead, nature and humans relate to one another in a feedback process: the economy imposes stress on the ecosystem, and the societal response depends on the state of the ecosystem and the economy. A communitys nature-society system can be either adaptive, maladaptive, or a combination of both. A community can develop sustainably if its cyclical processes can create, test, and maintain environmental and social resilience, thereby enhancing diversity by incorporating changes at low levels. If it is maladaptive, each swing of the cycle requires more extensive and expensive inputs and can, therefore, be seen as non-sustainable (Holling and Gunderson, 2002). The concept of resilience can be invoked to sharpen the analyses of the consequences of market integration. Researchers findings on the effects of market integration on indigenous communities (and their environments) fall along a continuum with respect to resilience or flexibility. The perspectives at one end of the continuum conclude that isolated indigenous communities, with their diverse livelihood strategies, tend to be more sustainable as self-sufficient and self-governing entities, and that these attributes are undermined by a greater integration into market exchanges (Bedoya Garland, 1995; Berkes et. al., 1998, Bodley, 1999; Jodha, 1998; Rappaport, 1971; Schmink and Wood, 1987; Stonich, 1995; Wentzel, 1989). At the other end of the continuum there are those who believe that local or indigenous communities must remain open and flexible, or they

PAGE 26

9 will become maladaptive to the changes in the outside world and will eventually collapse (Begosi, 1998; Garcia Canclini, 1997; Holling, Gunderson, and Peterson, 2002; Schefer, Westley, Brock, and Holmgren, 2002;). Most scholars positions on this topic fall somewhere between the two extremes, depending on the emphasis given to the various factors involved. In the first and second sections of this paper, I will discuss these different positions on market integration relative to ecological and socio-cultural resiliency. I will then conclude this chapter with a discussion of social capital. Literature on this topic examines the potential relationships between communal social organization and economic development. 1 The positive and negative aspects of social capital can also be interpreted as the advantages and disadvantages of closed communities and social systems. The foundation of cultural and ecological resilience, as well as economic success, may rest on how indigenous communities re-organize their social structures as they become integrated into the market. Market Integration and the Disruption of Indigenous Social-Ecological Systems The authors who view the transition from subsistence oriented to market oriented economies as a disruption of indigenous social-ecological systems focus on the negative impacts and the potential shift to a maladaptive state of evolving socio-ecological systems. In Rappaports (1971) ethnoecological study of the Tsembaga indigenous group of Papua New Guinea, he explains how the shift from subsistence-based to market-based agricultural systems (and how agricultural societies interact with these systems) leads to problems. Among the traditional intensive and diversified agricultural systems, subtle 1 In this study development is defined as the gradual incorporation of market activities into the Chachis' subsistence-oriented economy.

PAGE 27

10 signs of rapid environmental degradation are easily detected; therefore, the systems are likely to be self-correcting. Nevertheless, he claims that when the Tsembaga began to grow cash-crops, their agro-ecosystem became more vulnerable to pests and diseases because it became increasingly more simple and less diverse. The system lost its ability to self-correct. And changes in the social system reflected those of the agro-ecosystem, as social systems are open to economic and political stress of distant events over which they have no control. Other authors (Bedoya Garland, 1995; Bodley, 1999; Jodha, 1998; Schmink and Wood, 1987; Stonich, 1995; and Wentzel, 1989) conclude that the transition from a local livelihood system into a larger socio-economic system usually leads to maladaptive social and environmental practices. Their general view is that market integration is disruptive to a stable and socially and environmentally resilient system. Once a community is intensively integrated into the market, market activities reinforce themselves by leaving little time for subsistence activities. With less time for these subsistence activities, the indigenous people are compelled to buy products they would usually produce themselves. They then need to work more to earn money to buy these outside products, thus, introducing a cycle of dependence. The authors contend that it is partially this dependence on goods that is leading small rural communities to human impoverishment, environmental destruction and social instability. An indigenous groups subsistence foundation and internal economy is weakened because less time is devoted to subsistence activities. Simultaneously, in the larger market, the pressure to engage in price competition with bigger firms (that policies favor) creates a stress on the forest. In time, a communitys socio-economic and ecological

PAGE 28

11 foundations eventually break down. Consequently, these authors conclude that cultural systems become maladaptive when they are integrated into the socio-economic policies and internal logic of capitalism (Schmink and Wood, 1987). For Stonich (1995), the cycles described in the previous paragraph are inherent to the production of exported non-traditional and traditional cash crops. Yet, she takes the aforementioned conclusions a step further by describing how export crops create a split between rich and poor within peasant communities. Even if an introduced export crop is successfully grown in small communities, the sale of the commodity will be co-opted by large land holders, while small producers will be eliminated or marginalized to fragile lands (also leading to greater environmental degradation). Due to market fluctuations, local people are not guaranteed a steady salary, and communities lose their self-sufficiency. In sum, the majority of self-sufficient communities become low paid forest producers (Bodley, 1999, p.198). Jodha (1998) provides an example from the Hindukesh-Himalaya Region of Southeast Asia. He notes that isolated, traditional societies are involved in a two way adaptation cycle: they adapt their communities to the harsh conditions of the Himalayas and they adapt their natural resource bases needs into their society. Completely dependent upon their ecosystem, pre-market communities have a high stake in its health, and often maintain the integrity of the ecosystem with folk knowledge, appropriate technology, and community control over resources. According to Jodha (1998, p. 298), because of rapid and major changes, the local communities are left without sufficient lead time or control over their resources and community affairs to amend their age-old coping strategies or to evolve new ones. The

PAGE 29

12 dissolution of communal decision-making and social cohesiveness creates a rift between the community and resource use. As local autonomy becomes obsolete, external relationships play a bigger part in communal decisions over resources. This transition results in the modification of the two way adaptation process, which then produces a one-way adjustment of the resources being stretched to meet human demands. Ultimately, Jodha acknowledges that because people are no longer as intimate with their environment, they lack the driving force to recognize their stake in abandoning their once-sustainable resource use. To gain a better understanding of the effects of market integration, Bedoya Garland (1995) shows how market integration affects four communities with different cultural backgrounds in lowland Peru. He compares three indigenous tribes (all in different stages of market integration) and colonists of the Central Selva. The results support his hypotheses: the colonists clear more land than all three indigenous tribes; and the more market-oriented an indigenous group becomes, the less the diversity of its subsistence activities become and the more forests are cleared. Although the most market-oriented indigenous group cleared more land than the less integrated groups, Bedoya Garland claims that indigenous cultures generally cut short the logic of capital accumulation. The indigenous logic is based on satisfying the biological and cultural needs of the domestic unit. When able to do so, indigenous people become economically disengaged and no longer clear the forest. The more land that colonists have, on the other hand, the more forest they will clear. The colonists are generally more migratory and leave or sell their lands when they become unproductive.

PAGE 30

13 Indigenous groups, however, are involved in a swidden agricultural system with rotating successive plots. In another comparative study done in the Bolivian lowlands, Wentzel (1989) examines how market integration affects the two Amerindian Tacana communities of Santa Ana and Tumupasa, as well as one highland migrant community (of colonos or colonists) known as 25 de Mayo. The conclusions of Wenzels work demonstrate that market integration leads to a lack of sustainable land practices and/or lower quality of life, depending on the community. Wentzels findings show that although market integration endangered the dynamism of land use systems to an even greater extent among the colonos, who live in a different historical, cultural, and socio-economic context, it did help them attain a better quality of life. Yet among the Tacana, she finds that market integration decreases both the quality of life and the prospects for sustainable land use. 2 Based on Hollings new science of surprise, Berkes et. al. (1998, p.11) describe how negative consequences of market integration unfold in a community: Typically, there is a sequence of events which starts with efficient exploitation that eventually leads to inadvertent loss of ecosystem resilience. To supply markets, resource management tries to control a target resource (e.g. supply of fish or timber) by reducing the variability of the target resource. This helps to meet production targets and economic objectives (e.g. revenue and employment). This management policy is successful in the short term, but in the long term its very success causes inadvertent changes in functioning and resilience of the ecosystem. Over a period of time management emphasis shifts to improving the efficiency of resource utilization, and the need for ecosystem support and services (e.g. water regulation capacity of a forest) and the loss of resilience is not perceived. 2 Wentzel also demonstrates that all three communities still participate to a certain extent in subsistence farming. She claims that this provides a secure foundation and a certain level of autonomy, and can be interpreted to be a form of daily resistance to market integration.

PAGE 31

14 In other words, as local communities integrate into larger scaled markets, the environment becomes more vulnerable to surprise. Management becomes tied with rigid economic patterns that are less responsive to the environments needs. In summation, the lack of resiliency of the market-based socio-environmental system (Bedoya Garland, 1995; Berkes et.al.,1998; Bodley, 1999; Jodha 1998; Schmink and Wood, 1987; Stonich, 1995; Wentzel, 1989) is caused by the following conditions: involvement in markets increases vulnerability to market fluctuations; markets open up resources to be exploited; a market economy creates social inequalities in the community; and social and environmental problems that accompany markets produce communal stress and, therefore, more pressure for increased development, which in turn only deepens the socio-economic and environmental problems. Bedoya Garland (1995), Bodley (1999), and Stonich (1995) contend that by making markets more sensitive to their cultural systems, the negative impacts of market systems may not be completely inevitable. Bodleys stance is that if indigenous people are truly in control of their own resources, they can relate to the global culture on their own terms (Bodley, 1999, p.198). Bedoya Garland states that indigenous people have specific roles in preventing environmental degradation. In sum, they view pre-market indigenous and local rural economies as reciprocally-based and stable. They become more vulnerable and less resilient with the incorporation of capitalist markets. We must ask if a worldwide human organization can persist and elaborate itself indefinitely at the expense of decreasing the stability of its own ecological foundations (Rappaport, 1971, p. 132). Market Integration and the Resilience of Indigenous Social-Ecological Systems In the Panarchy framework, Holling and Gunderson (2002) contend that society-nature relations create and are created by an ever-changing landscape of fast and slow

PAGE 32

15 variables that link micro to macro scales. These scales are all connected, and each scale has its own threshold of adaptive change and its own distinct cycles. Holling, Gunderson and Ludwig (2002) emphasize the necessity of a mixture of livelihood strategies (characteristic of more self-sufficient communities) over a dependence on any one strategy for communal sustainability. Yet, the more ritualistic a society is and the more a community tries to close itself off from interaction with larger socio-economic systems, the more their system has potential of eventual collapse (Begosi, 1998; Garcia Canclini, 1997; Holling, Gunderson, and Peterson, 2002; Schefer, Westley, Brock, and Holmgren, 2002). In other words, the more closed a community is, the more conflict arises when the community finally confronts the changes that accompany the incorporation these larger systems into their own. Begosi (1998) compares the resiliency of indigenous cultures with that of the Caiaras (from the Atlantic forest of Brazil) and the Caboclos (Amazon, Brazil), both cultures of mixed heritage. He not only speaks of cultural resilience, but also of biological resilience. He claims that because the Caiaras and the Caboclos are of mixed heritage there is more genetic variability within the communities and this creates immunity to diseases. Begosi (1998) claims that neo-traditional cultures (Caiaras and Caboclos) have the advantage of mixing both traditional (indigenous) and newly emergent social systems. The joining of two cultural traditions allows them to maintain variability, to be open to new values, and to incorporate change. Therefore, the Caboclos and Caiaras adapt more easily than traditional indigenous people. Begosi further points out that indigenous people experience an additional disadvantage in that their first language is not Portuguese.

PAGE 33

16 Begosi perceives the lack of flexibility of indigenous people as a problem leading to maladaptation and/or the disappearance of their cultures when confronted with outside cultures or diseases. He points out that the indigenous peoples that have survived are those that are more flexible, while still maintaining their ethnic identity. His opinion is opposite to that of Bedoya Garland (1995), Berkes et.al.(1998), Bodley (1999), Jodha (1998), Rappaport (1971), Schmink and Wood (1987), Stonich (1995), and Wentzel (1989). Instead of thinking that integration into the economy creates dependence, exploitation, and breakdown, he believes that flexible responses to market forces increase a communitys ability to cope with socio-economic and environmental changes, and ensures communal survival and evolution. In short, like the Caiaras and the Caboclos, indigenous people need to develop the ability to continually reorganize themselves. Others are more agnostic on the matter. For instance, Godoy (2001) investigates the effect of greater market integration on the life and habitat of indigenous people. His conclusion is: markets seem to produce unclear, sometimes benign, and sometimes harmful effects on the quality of life and the environment (Godoy, 2001, p. 204). At the same time, he makes two points: market integration generally worsens conservation before improving it; and regardless of the degree of market integration, if there is formal schooling in an area, there is less deforestation. Garcia Canclini (1997) also notes that market integration (via the craft-making and performance in this case) in indigenous communities acts as a gradual process with different stages. He observes that communities change their ideologies and social structures, and they must constantly renew their dominant ideology by incorporating the new product in systems and social conflicts. According to this author, this process may

PAGE 34

17 be necessary for indigenous communities as they reorganize and define themselves in relation to the outside world. My thesis research conducted in La Ceiba and Loma Linda during the summer of 2003 investigates the ways and the extent to which market integration produce(s) unclear, sometimes benign, and sometimes harmful effects(Godoy, 2001, p. 204) in social and socio-environmental dynamics within these villages. Economic Development and Social Capital Social capital has been described as a new language for an old debate (Portes, 1998; Putnam, 2001, p. 24). The two-century-long debate to which Putnam and Portes refer encompasses two additional controversies over the importance of the individual relative to the community, and society relative to the economy. 3 A recent and generally accepted definition of social capital is offered by Robert Putnam 4 (2001, p. 67) as features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. The following sections address the historical evolution of social capital and the various ways it has been approached and defined. Historical Evolution of Social Capital The root of social capital lies in the progressive era of WWI as capitalism was just reaching maturity and people were migrating in increasing numbers to industrial cities looking for work (Roe, 2002). Noting the proximity of city neighbors as advantageous to 3 The debates about the importance of the individual to the community and the society to the economy (and vice-versa) date back to the nineteenth century writings of Durkheim (1893) and Marx (1894). 4 Social capital as a network concept owes its inspiration to theories of Robert Putnam. Knack and Keefer (1995) have gone as far as to name the associations that facilitate growth by increasing trust as Putnam effects.

PAGE 35

18 social intercourse, Lyda J. Hanifan (1916) referred to social capital as goodwill, fellowship of neighbors, and mutual sympathy (and essentially concluded that greater development would lead to higher social capital). Addressing the tension between individual and community, she noted that in urban environments individuals not only benefited from positive associations with others, but also developed a greater sense of community. The term, social capital, was not used between 1916 and the 1950s. When it arose a second time, it was used to describe the associations of immigrant suburbanites in Canada (Putnam, 2000). In 1961, Jacobs came up with the idea that social connections improved human and/or individual economic capital. He described neighborhood networks and how they led to the opportunity to borrow a cup of sugar during hard times. According to Portes (1999), the first contemporary analysis of social capital was produced by Pierre Bourdieu as early as 1980. Bourdieu stressed the importance of social interaction or the profits that accrue from membership in a group and on the deliberate construction of sociability, which makes them possible (Bourdieu, 1985, p. 249). His interpretation of social capital was based on the idea that social networks led to individual economic benefits 5 but that uncertain time scales upon the return of investment distinguished social capital from a plain market exchange (Bourdieu, 1979, 1980). Loury (1977, p. 1981) and Coleman (1988; 1990), who followed a few years later, also described social capital as generating human capital. 5 Bourdieu argues that elites reproduce the symbols and wealth that serve their own interests, keep them in a more powerful position, and give them the ability to manipulate others. Therefore, he concludes that social capital actually perpetuates class interests and divisions. This aspect of Bourdieu is not included in the social capital literature written by the World Bank. They have adopted and promoted Putnams and Colemans definition of social capital, which promotes it as a collective asset.

PAGE 36

19 Today, Pope (2000) warns that because there are so many definitions and interpretations of social capital indicators, the measures of social capital all imply different things about a community. She demonstrates this by taking an example from Portes (1998) in which he defines three functions of diverse social contexts: 1) as a form of social control (e.g. to control the actions of children and youth); 2) as a source of family support (e.g. family and kin support for the raising of children) and; 3) as a source of benefits through extrafamilial networks. Social Capital and Resiliency Although the precise definition and benefits of social capital are highly debated, social networks and reciprocity have been identified as essential components. One of the principal arguments in social capital literature is whether or not facilitating cooperation is mutually beneficial for individuals and communities. There are three basic stances on this debate. One position hypothesizes that higher investments or stocks of social capital produce a greater ability to attain collective goals such as economic development or collective resource management. This perspective concentrates on the public goods (Portes, 1998, p.12) that result from high stocks of social capital, or greater reciprocity and cooperation (cognitive social capital) that then influence the creation of more closed social networks. The second stance notes the downside of social capital (Portes and Landolt, 1996; Portes, 1999) and the exclusionary consequences of some networks. From this viewpoint, social capital is not a political concept to be promoted but rather a phenomenon to be discouraged. This position reveals the influence that outside connections may have over a communitys ability to self-organize and self-manage its inner village dynamics.

PAGE 37

20 Together these two stances suggest three types of social capital. The first type is an exclusive form of intragroup association called bonding social capital. It emphasizes the relations of trust that act as a lubricant to ease the continuation of reciprocity and exchanges, and offering them common rules, norms and sanctions, and connectedness in inner group networks. Advocates of bonding social capital are in a category of their own because they reinforce the idea that these intergroup associations are key to development. The second and third types of social capital (known as bridging social capital and vertical social capital respectively) recognize that bonding social capital can be limited. Their proponents emphasize the strengthening of outer group networks as the key to development. Researchers who emphasize these types of social capital often take separate positions regarding the benefits and costs of social capital. Bridging social capital emphasizes horizontal or intergroup associations. Lastly, linking (or vertical) social capital (Narayan, 1999; Putnam, 1995;) also encompasses intergroup associations, but it includes the ability to interact, draw useful resources, and influence policies of external agencies. The third stance turns social capital on its head and uses social capital as the dependent variable. Researchers who take this position state that social capital erodes with economic development. Higher bonding social capital; higher potential for development The World Bank exemplifies the first stance on social capital. The bank has identified social capital as an integral component of economic development because it leads to an improvement in the economic standard of living by mobilizing resources and working for common goals (World Bank, 2000c). Reinforcable trust is a concept described by Portes (1998) as obligations that are enforceable through the power of

PAGE 38

21 community and bounded solidarity that guarantee repayment and group approval. This reinforcable trust is an essential aspect of a type of social control that may also have the potential to be limiting. Bonding social capital, or tightening inter-communal networks, is promoted to enhance economic success. An example of this is Colombian rural agro-enterprises that use the information networks of social capital to build trust and strengthen forces of collective action to further the economic goals of the firm itself (Johnson et al., 2002). Here bonding social capital is stressed and there is little preoccupation about whether the strengthening of the company structure will be inflexible and/or open to outside networks. More recently, conservation researchers (Bray, 2003; Narayan, 1999; Pretty, 2003; Schefer et al., 2002;) have treated bonding social capital as a resource to be tapped to strengthen the capacity of communities to collectively manage their resources. The World Bank (2003) has indicated social capital to be important in sustainable development and conservation because human organization and trust can help turn natural resources into physical assets and protect common property from degradation. Pretty (2003, p. 1912) explains: The term social capital captures the idea that social bonds and norms are critical for sustainability. Where social capital is high in formalized groups, people have the confidence to invest in collective activities, knowing that others will do so too. Nearly half a million groups have been established since the early 1990s for watershed, forest, irrigation, pest, wildlife, fishery, and microfinance management. These offer a route to sustainable management and governance of common resources.

PAGE 39

22 Figure 2.1. Social capital model.

PAGE 40

23 Bray (2003) also cites the importance of cooperative village social dynamics as the responsibility for resource management is passed from bigger agencies to the communities themselves. He uses the 290 to 479 Mexican community forest enterprises as examples of communities that are able to harness their social capital to gain social and economic justice, good forest management, and biodiversity protection. Adopting a definition from Fox (1995; 1996), he describes social capital as the capacity for self-organization and ability to respond to outside organizing efforts. Higher bonding social capital; lower potential for development (the need for bridging and linking social capital) For Portes (1999), the over-enthusiasm and unrealistic expectations about bonding social capital can be problematic. He lists the following four negative effects of the closed networks: ) the exclusion of and lack of connection to outsiders; 2) the prohibition of individual success as certain individuals seek a free ride and demand equality; 3) restrictions on individual freedoms and creation of inequity via social control; 4) the collective adversity to mainstream norms and a solidarity based on the experience of subordination, and thus the self-reinforcement downward leveling norms. (Portes, 1998, p. 12; Pretty, 2003) Some examples mentioned are inner-city gangs, prostitution, gambling rings, and other social circles that have turned out to have less than socially desirable ends (Portes, 1998, p.12; Pretty, 2003). Robert D. Putnam (1993a; 1995; 2000) claims that through participation and reconnection we can reverse the erosion of social capital that presumanly began in the U.S. in the 1960s. He proposes that social capital is a collective asset and a public good that cannot be appropriated by individuals. His logic is that this may bridge the gap between the rich and poor by spreading GNP more evenly through greater political

PAGE 41

24 participation and expanding social networks. This position could, thus, conclude that closed or bonding social capital is less likely to lead to economic development than bridging social capital and is therefore less resilient. As mentioned in the previous section, Bray (2003), Narayan (1999), Pretty (2003), Schefer et al. (2002), and some researchers from the World Bank (2003) agree that social capital may contribute to common property resource management by encouraging cooperation among community members and even among various communities. Scheffer et al. (2002) highlight that bridging social capital (particularly social networks) is key to conflict resolution and conservation. These researchers have pointed out that the social capital dynamics of a community can adapt to a changing ecosystem by scattering (implying the inclusion of outside organizations and stakeholders), remobilizing and redefining community, polarizing, and institutionalizing. The recreation of collective values and norms as communities experience socio-economic transitions may reduce surprises, and therefore, contribute to the resiliency of a system. The World Bank encourages the transcendence of closed networks to access additional resources and achieve common goals. This is a necessary aspect of development and of the poor lifting themselves out of poverty (World Bank, 2000b; World Bank, 2000c). The World Bank draws on the example of the Secoya Amerindians of lowland Ecuador who have mobilized local social capital. They have also formed alliances and have made valiant efforts at protecting their lands and cultures from oil exploitation. Greater development; lower bonding social capital The third stance is exemplified by Pena and Lindo Fuentes (1998) who compared social capital with levels of poverty among indigenous rural people, mestizo rural communities and inner-city mestizo communities in Panama. They found that indigenous

PAGE 42

25 people, who lived in the greatest poverty and with the least access to public services, had the highest levels of social capital. They explain this by noting the importance of collective identity and cultural norms in indigenous communities, which lead to more and stronger communal organizations. They describe social capital as an asset or resource of the poor people. Within rural communities, they show how poorer, less educated rural individuals (who have attained primary education or lower) participate in groups that work for the well-being of the community; while the wealthier and more educated people participate more in co-ops that provide individual economic returns. In conclusion, Pena and Lindo Fuentes demonstrate that higher levels of economic development correlate with lower levels of bonding social capital. This position parallels the conclusions of the researchers who state that market integration leads to a disintegration of traditional social organization (or social resilience). It is also the foundation of my hypotheses about social capital, which will be elaborated in chapter 7. Applications of Social Capital The World Bank has developed a packet of methods called the Social Capital Assessment Tool (SCAT) 6 which measures quantitatively and qualitatively both cognitive and structural social capital (Uphoff, 2000) across macro and micro levels. 7 Structural social capital analysis examines information and material exchange via peoples established roles, social networks, and other social structures. Cognitive social capital analysis develops indicators of values, beliefs, behavior, and social norms. Godoy (2001) examined one measure of cognitive social capital: indigenous peoples tendencies 6 The SCAT was used as a reference in the development of the social capital questionnaire implemented in interviews with the Chachis. 7 SCAT is an attempt to create universal measures of social capital. Krishna and Shrader (1999) argue that social capital is only a useful concept if a universal measure can be established.

PAGE 43

26 to practice reciprocity in times of medical need as people become more integrated into the market. He found weak support for the idea that markets erode inner village reciprocity, but he urges that further research be done. Social capital can be critiqued for reducing the social dimensions of life into the economic concept of capital, reducing economic factors to social networks, ignoring the importance of social class (Durrenberger, 2002; Lin, 1999), and relying on circular logic (Portes, 1998). 8 Nonetheless, social capital is a concept that reemphasizes the debates on the relative importance of: individuals versus communities; and economic versus social values. Identifying social capital as the main glue that holds communities and greater societies together, Narayan (1999) and Portes (1998) stress that social capital should be used as a systematic way to untangle and analyze social forces at work. Since economic growth models are no longer satisfactory in explaining inequality between groups of people and their countries, social capital holds particular promise. The authors acknowledge the importance of the term, social capital, because it attempts to encompass and value social phenomena (such as networks and reciprocity), and it gets away from purely individualistic and economic explanations of and contributions to success. In summary, Narayan emphasizes the value of social relationships and their contribution to a positive economic outcome. The analysis of social complexity and its value may be crucial for two reasons. First, it may be useful to catalyze discussions about and emphasize the importance of: 8 Portes (1998) notes that Putnam (1993b) introduces social capital as both the dependent and independent variable in relation to political organization and participation (civicness), as well as economic development. Another example of this is how the World Bank promotes the investment in social capital as rooted in social networks and the product as reciprocity, social inclusion, trust, and shared values and norms (World Bank, 2000c).

PAGE 44

27 pre-market social conditions and social consequences of market integration in local communities; and how these changes contribute to or take away from conservation and development efforts. A better understanding of social dynamics may be crucial to efforts to eliminate poverty, and may also represent prerequisites for long-term improvements in natural resources (Pretty, 2003, p. 1914). Secondly, indigenous groups and/or communities may find it useful to create a self-awareness of their socio-cultural circumstances and processes as they integrate into a more market-oriented economic system so they can self-organize more efficiently and effectively. The social capital literature provides a useful set of empirical indicators that can be used to measure the nature and the degree of social change within a community. By comparing social capital indicators in the two Chachi communities, it is possible to draw inferences regarding the effect of market integration on the social networks and cultural values that influence the relationships between people and the natural environment. Statement of the Problem Though today the Chachis still depend largely on subsistence agriculture, fishing, and hunting, the purchase of Western goods has increased with their growing involvement in the market. The earliest documentation of their involvement is from the 1920s with the harvest and sale of tagua nuts, commonly known as plant ivory, which were used for European buttons. Similar cycles of exploitation included the rubber boom, the post-WWII Ecuadorian banana boom, and the demand for coffee and cacao. The Chachis report that they have always exploited wood, but for the purpose of making and selling canoes, which is one of the principal ways that their grandfathers participated in the market (along with the sale of pigs). Today logging, cattle ranching, working as school teachers, and the sale of womens craftwork take center stage in Chachi cash

PAGE 45

28 generating activities. Based on the debates in the literature, this thesis addresses the question of whether or not greater participation in market activities causes intensification of land exploitation and negative social effects. The design of the thesis research will be discussed in the subsequent chapter.

PAGE 46

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION Introduction This study is a comparative analysis of two villages (La Ceiba and Loma Linda) in the Choc rainforest along the Northwest coast of Ecuador. This chapter outlines the design and methods of data collection used among the Chachis in the summer of 2003. After explaining why these particular sites were selected for research, this chapter will detail the methods used in data collection and the strategic decisions made. The chapter will then end with the operationalization of two terms used frequently throughout the text: market integration and social capital. Site Selection La Ceiba is located on the Tululb River, a tributary of the Santiago River. The communitys land borders the Aw Ethnic and Forest Reserve. Loma Linda is located on the Cayapas River and within the buffer zone of Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve. Loma Linda is four hours by motorized canoe from the nearest town, Borbn. After the implementation of a logging road in 1999, La Ceiba is now less than one hour from San Lorenzo. Both the residents of La Ceiba and Loma Linda live mostly from subsistence activities. Yet, with a greater need for income generation as social and ecological circumstances change, the people in both villages participate in market activities more and more. These two villages were selected for research because it was thought that the differences between the two sites could be attributed to the greater degree of market integration in La Ceiba. Hence, in keeping with a natural experiment design, a 29

PAGE 47

30 comparative analysis of the two places generates empirical evidence of the various ways (and the degree to which) involvement in the market influences behavior, attitudes, and internal organization. Methods of Data Collection I used two main methods of data collection: a two-part formal interview; and formal and informal interviews with key informants from both villages. Moreover, I drew on previous years experience in the communities and the three month period when I was researching this topic. Sample Selection The sample was chosen randomly, using a two digit table of random numbers. I chose twenty-two out of thirty three households in La Ceiba and twenty out of thirty-nine households in Loma Linda. Informally Structured Interview The informal and unstructured interviews consisted of in-depth conversations. We talked about a range of topics including: the mines in the area, forestry networks and laws, the effectiveness of logging, and changes in seasonal fishing techniques. Formally Structured Interviews The formally structured interviews included economic and social questionnaires. The economic interviews were held jointly with the household head and the spouse. The social interviews were conducted with the household head and the spouse separately. The economic questionnaire included various measures and indicators of market integration. Key indicators were the productive activities performed, the time devoted to each, and the income earned for their efforts. Measures of subsistence and market activity were based on: the amount of time spent on each activity; where materials were

PAGE 48

31 Figure 3.1. Map of Ecuador (United States Central Intelligence Agency, 1991). The Esmeraldas province, which is the area of study, has a box around it.

PAGE 49

32 Source: adapted from Medina, 1992. Circled dots indicate study sights. Province of Esmeraldas Figure 3.2. Map of Chachi village locations; La Ceiba and Loma Linda are circled in red. obtained and how much they cost; the frequency of the sale of goods; and the estimated income generated from the sales. The section on agriculture and logging contained many more questions further discussed in the fifth chapter. Photograph by Ladna Miller. Figure 3.3. Author conducting a formally structured interview.

PAGE 50

33 The general social questionnaire had four main sections. The first section asked about housing and the tools and household items owned. 1 The second section asked about respondents demographics and level of education, as well as that of their parents. The third part measured structural social capital (organizational density, networks and mutual help organizations, networks with NGOs and other outsiders, exclusion, collective action, and conflict resolution). The last section focused on cognitive social capital, which includes inter-community solidarity, trust, reciprocity, and cooperation. The general questionnaire that began with sixty-seven questions was reduced to forty-one questions due to time constraints. Photograph by Author. Figure 3.4. Respondents during an interview. A separate formally structured interview was used with key informants. Four leaders in each village (two women and two men) were asked detailed questions about 1 This section could have been part of the economic interview, but because the economic questionnaire was so extensive already, I decided to make it part of the social interview.

PAGE 51

34 the social organization and dynamics in the village. The questions in section three on structural social capital that were cut for the majority of households were used for key informants. These detailed questions dealt with the organizational history and social structure of the village. Key informants were also qualified to answer questions on general knowledge (i.e. instances of collective action in the last year) and more qualitative issues. Time Frame Certain activities, such as logging, making canoes, making crafts, and hunting, do not fit into the weekly schedule. After pre-testing the questionnaire, I concluded that the best way to capture the time frame perceived by respondents was to use one standard time frame for all activities. A month was chosen because it was a good compromise between the activities that can be measured on a weekly basis, and the activities practiced more infrequently such as canoe-making and logging. Measuring Market Integration Market integration is measured by Godoy (2001) as the sale of goods or services, the portion of annual crops sold, value of credit, and earnings from wage labor. Other ways of measuring the degree of market interaction include taking inventory of the number and kind of household items such as radios, guns, kitchen knives, tin roofs, and rubber boots (Henrich, 1997). 2 In this thesis, a market activity is defined as an activity in which goods and/or services are given a certain value and exchanged for money. In the 2 Henrich chooses to measure market incorporation in this manner based on the fact that thirty-nine of the forty respondents who he interviewed said that they bought things they need and listed such items as those above with the money they earn. Godoy (2001) discusses how this measure of market integration overlaps with and could also be confused with a measure of acculturation, modernization, and urbanization. The measure of market integration employed by Heinrich would not be appropriate to the Chachis who responded they spend the majority of their money each month on food (as demonstrated in chapter 5).

PAGE 52

35 comparative analysis of the two sites, the degree of market integration is a community-level concept that can be operationalized in terms of one empirical indicator: time spent on market activities versus subsistence activities. Measuring Social Capital The varying definitions of social capital mean that a single, true measure is neither possible nor desirable (World Bank, 2000a, p.1). In this study I have adopted two measures of social capital drawn from the World Banks social capital assessment tool (SCAT). The indicators refer to structural and cognitive social capital. Structural social capital assesses the degree of organization within a group and with other people. Cognitive social capital refers to the bonds between humans. Structural Social Capital In keeping with the social capital literature and the World Bank questionnaire, I integrated selected aspects of structural social capital analysis into the surveys. The original questionnaire that was later geared towards key informants included fourteen questions on organizational networks, mutual benefit networks, egocentric networks, exclusion, collective action, and conflict resolution. Aspects of structural social capital that were included in the general questionnaire pertained to organizational density, exclusion, and conflict management. Organizational density included the internal and external organizations that are important to a village. Coupled with the external social networks in nearby towns (number of friends they have via organizations or market exchanges), these indicators measured differences between the villages in terms of dependence on external people or organizations in their day to day lives.

PAGE 53

36 The section on exclusion and conflict management asked respondents about differences between people that may divide the village. Examples include levels of education, ownership of material possessions and land, religion, politics, and age. I then asked if current problems mentioned also existed ten years ago, but these results were not conclusive and were excluded from the final analysis. I also asked the interviewees how they resolve these problems; if they think their village is generally peaceful or conflictive; and how much influence they believe they have to make a change in the village. Cognitive Social Capital Measures of cognitive social capital were taken from the questionnaire written by the World Bank. The indicators of cognitive social capital included the following concepts: solidarity, trust, reciprocity, and cooperation. The solidarity questions asked respondents who they could rely on in case of personal or economic emergency. The section on trust queried participants on: whether people in the village generally trusted one another; if the level of trust had changed in the last ten years; if the majority of people are honest and deserve trust; and whom they would leave their farm and children with if they had to go on a trip. In the section on reciprocity and cooperation, only two questions were asked: 1) all in all, what do you think of the level of cooperation in this community? 2) ten years ago, what do you think of the level of cooperation in this community? Conclusions The research methods described in this chapter are used to systematically compare La Ceiba, the village with road access to the market, and Loma Linda, the more isolated village. In chapters 5 and 6, I will test the following overall hypothesis: The village with

PAGE 54

37 greater market integration will have more environmentally destructive money-generating practices and a lower level of bonding social capital. Because it is necessary to test more specific hypotheses to draw overall conclusions about the relationships between market integration, environmentally destructive activities, and social capital, other more specific hypotheses follow: Hypothesis 1 (tested in chapter 6). People living in the Chachi village nearer to a town center and connected by road will spend more time on market rather than non-market activities, and will be engaged in a less diverse range of subsistence activities. Hypothesis 2 (tested in chapter 7): The Chachi village that spends the most time on logging and cattle ranching (environmentally destructive market activities) will have lower levels of both structural (social networks) and cognitive (norms and levels of trust) types of bonding social capital. 3 Hypothesis 3 (tested in chapter 7). The effect of market integration on levels of bonding social capital will vary by gender (sex and age) and level of education. 4 This next chapter will discuss the comparability of environmental and the social contexts of the two communities. The comparability of the two research sites is a necessary condition for a research design that seeks to test the general and specific hypotheses noted above. 3 Simultaneously, communal bridging and linking social capital (both of which include external cognitive and structural) will increase. 4 In a study done by Bolaos (2003), there is a striking difference between men and womens relationships with the environment. There may be a difference between older and young people who have differing levels of education and different degrees of interaction with the market. Godoy (2001) notes that higher levels of education lower deforestation rates.

PAGE 55

CHAPTER 4 COMPARABILITY OF THE TWO COMMUNITIES While no two geographic places are identical, the cornerstone objective in this study is to verify that the main difference between the two communities is the degree to which they are integrated into the market. Before comparing the degree of market integration between the two sites, it is important to examine the socio-environmental context in order to verify that the two sites do not differ significantly in terms of soil quality, temperature and humidity gradients, rainfall, proximity to the river, and other variables that could affect environmental characteristics, agricultural output, and the socio-economic system. Secondly, it is important to review the historical background and the cultural heritage of both villages, as well as the political and economic structures in each context. The Choc The bottom tip of the Choc Rainforest comes down from Panama and Colombia into the northeast of Esmeraldas, the northernmost province of Ecuador that stretches from the Western flank of the Andes Mountains to the Pacific and includes seven counties. The Ecuadorian Choc, an area of 4500 square km., is also referred to as the Region Noroccidental (Valverde, 1998). It was once known as la provincia verde, the green province, and thus its name, Esmeraldas, meaning emerald. Although the Ecuadorian Choc officially includes some of the Andean foothills, the lowland evergreen rainforest will be the section of the region that is referred to in this document. 38

PAGE 56

39 Source: West, 1957. Figure 4.1. The Choc Region. Study dots indicated study sights.

PAGE 57

40 The Ecuadorian Choc has been marginalized from the Colonial Period until the middle of the twentieth century (Arguello, 1995). Due to its harsh climate and remote location, it was classified as unsuitable for the settlement of colonists and economic development. In 1958, the construction of highways began (Juncosa, 1988). At this same time, the Agricultural Reform and IERAC-Instituto Ecuatoriano de Reforma Agraria y Colonizacin (now INDAInstituto Nacional y Desarrollo Agrario) promoted colonialization in these areas, which accentuated forest destruction (Dodson and Gentry, 1991; Ecociencia et al., 1996; Sierra, 1999). The area was most affected from 1960-1980 with the construction of roads and population growth. The Choc of Ecuador has been pinpointed as one of the two most important places for biodiversity in this rapidly changing and highly diverse country. In the Esmeraldas province there are 341 endemic species, which represent 45.8 % of the endemic coastal species in Ecuador (Valencia et al., 2000). Currently, this diversity is at great risk due to the massive extinction of plant species resulting from deforestation and other human activities (Dodson and Gentry, 1991; Josse et al., 2001). Only 19% of this lowland area of the Choc remains, and it has been declared a biodiversity hotspot by the World Bank and the World Wildlife Fund (Dinerstein et al.,1995; Sierra, 2002). The lowlands of Esmeraldas have been promoted as a provider of domestic timber in the last decades. According to McIlvaine (2000, p.92), approximately 80% of Ecuadors domestic timber is extracted from the lowland communities surrounding the Reserva Ecologica Cotacachi-Cayapas. African palm plantations and gold mining have also affected the area. La Ceiba La Ceiba is legally a commune (as opposed to a community that must be part of a center that unites various communities). It is located in San Lorenzo County, on the

PAGE 58

41 Tululb River, an hour from San Lorenzo by bus or truck. As of 1999, La Ceiba has benefited from a road that was constructed by CODESA (Contrachapadas de Esmeraldas S.A.) 1 a logging company with whom the community made their first communal wood sale. The land owned by La Ceiba borders the Aw Ethnic and Forest Reserve (1300 square km.), a binational reserve. 2 Photograph taken by Author. Figure 4.2. Chachis from La Ceiba on the Tululb River. Loma Linda Loma Linda is situated within the county of Eloy Alfaro. It is 75 km. southeast from the nearest town of Borbn. It takes on average four-and-a-half hours to travel upriver from Borbn to Loma Linda by motorized canoe. Consequently, the people of Loma Linda go to town much less frequently than those of La Ceiba. The community 1 CODESA and SETRAFOR are the main logging companies in the San Lorenzo area. 2 Both Colombia and Ecuador work with the Aw on conservation and development projects (Neill, 1997).

PAGE 59

42 borders the biggest natural reserve in the Northwest of Ecuador, the Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve (2040 square km.). 3 Photograph taken by Author Figure 4.3. Loma Linda on the Cayapas River. Environmental Features Both villages differ only very slightly in terms of environmental features. The key indicators to be discussed are rainfall, humidity gradients, temperature, topography, soil quality, and proximity to the river. Climate and Rainfall in the Ecuadorian Choc The lowland Choc is the wettest lowland forest in tropical America and the world. Its climate is created because the El Nio 4 current holds sway over the cold Humboldt 3 The park includes Andean paramo, cloud forests of the Cordillera Occidental (the western flanks of the Andes that traverse Ecuador), and humid evergreen ecosystems that are at the altitude of 200 m. Forty percent of the reserve is below 900 m in the lowland forests (Neill, 1997).

PAGE 60

43 current in the Pacific Ocean. El Nio creates warm air that blows across cool land. As the warm air hits the Andes Mountains, it cools, produces rain and, therefore, a humid rainforest climate (Forsyth and Miyata, 1998). The relative humidity is 87% with 78% cloudiness; this means that this area almost always has cloud cover (Ecociencia et al. 1996). Source: DeBoer, 1996. Figure 4.4. Average monthly rainfall at Zapallo Grande during the period 1961-1984. Unlike Colombian sections of the coastal rainforest, the climate of the Ecuadorian Choc includes a definite dry season. Figure 4.4 shows that the average monthly rainfall varied between 25 cm (250 mm.) and slightly less than 70 cm (700 mm.) at Zapallo Grande (half-hour by canoe from Loma Linda) during the period 1961-1984. The heavy rains fall at Christmas time and continue until June. Although the climate of Esmeraldas is becoming drier due to greater deforestation, rain falls year-round on both 4 Centuries ago, El Nio, meaning the boy and referring to Christ child, was named by the fishermen of Piura, Peru due to its activity around Christmas time. They recognized the warm current especially because it brings a different catch of fish, more tropical fish and declines of local stock. During El Nio years, the current that originates off the coast of Colombia, forces the Humboldt Current out to sea. It causes more rain and flooding further south along the Pacific coast, and even to Ica, Peru. Only recently has its sporadic oscillating movement, which in El Nio years is an exaggeration of usual seasonal cycles, been recognized as a phenomenon or an event. The term phenomenon (often referred to as the ENSO phenomenon) took hold when El nios cycles were understood to work through the trans Pacific (indeed global) Southern Oscillation. (Earls, John, pers. comm.; Gommes et. al.; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2004 )

PAGE 61

44 the Tululb and the Cayapas Rivers, with the most rainfall in April and the least rainfall in November. During the winter months there is heavy rainfall (which usually occurs daily from the late afternoon through early morning) and strong sun. Consequently, the rivers rise and carry increased sediment. The rainfall map (Figure 4.5) shows that La Ceiba and Loma Linda are in the same rainfall zone. Rainfall estimates for this area are said to be between 4000 mm and 8000 mm per year (Sierra, 1996), with the average rainfall in Borbn at 3,486.9 mm/year. Other estimates have been more conservative. One NGO employee who has worked with communities in the Choc for the last 12 years reported that the climate in the Esmeraldas province is becoming much drier with deforestation. He explained that the farther south one travels from the Colombian border, the less rainfall there is, but really rainfall varies from hillside to hillside. He estimated that La Ceiba has an average of 2700 mm. per year and that Loma Linda has perhaps 2,500 mm. per year. He explained that the climate of La Ceiba is actually a bit more humid than that of Loma Linda, which is why cacao is widely cultivated in Loma Linda rather than La Ceiba. 5 The average temperature on the Cayapas River is 25.6 degrees Celsius (McIlvaine, 2000). It has been estimated to be the same in the San Lorenzo area. Physical Features The Choc reaches 900 meters and has landscapes varying from deep river beds and canyons, flood lands with moderate slopes, and flat lands. The altitude of La Ceiba is 80 m above sea level. Yet, the land in their territory quickly rises to steep ridges with an altitude of 120 meters. On the other hand, Loma Linda is located slightly higher at an 5 Apparently, cacao is a good indicator of relative humidity because they rot in areas that are too humid.

PAGE 62

45 altitude of 90 m, but local ridges are thought to rise more gradually to a height of 100 meters. Source: West, 1957. Figure 4.5. Average rainfall of the Choc. The dots indicate study sites.

PAGE 63

46 Footpaths still follow these ridges throughout the Choc. The forested slopes are residual remains of the esteros (varying from large streams to small creeks). As the esteros branch out, criss-cross, and twist through the forest, they have shaped the landscape. The slopes can be as steep as 70 degrees, and contain shallow and acidic soils (McIlvaine, 2000). The Chachis generally do not plant on these steep slopes; they have chosen strategically to settle on the banks of the rivers, including the residents of both La Ceiba and Loma Linda. The rivers act as a system of transport, exchange, a place of bathing, a place to wash clothes, a source of sustenance, and a source of valuable strips of fertile alluvium (DeBoer, 1996, p.12). La Ceiba and Loma Linda are located in two different geological zones. Loma Linda is located on Quaternary diluvial soils as well as soils from the Tertiary geologic period that formed during the last ice age (Solis, n.d.). These latter soils are predominately marine soils from the Pliocene and Miocene time periods. Soil types include Entisols and Oxisols, except along the rivers where one may find Inceptisols. McIlvaine (2000) 6 explains that alluvial soils found by river banks are one of the two major soil types in the Cayapas-Santiago area, which were classified by a French-Ecuadorian team of ORSTOM-PRONAREG (Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique OutreMer Acuerdo Mag-Programa Nacional de Regionalizacin Agraria) as Distropepts, suborder Tropepts, order Inceptisols (McIlvaine, 2000). These Inceptisols are sedimentary soils that contain clays, sandstone, conglomerate slime, and small, water-rounded pebbles. 6 McIlvaine did her comparative fieldwork in San Miguel, a negro commune, and Loma Linda during the summers of 1996 and 1997.

PAGE 64

47 The second type of Tropepts, Oxisols, contain sandstone, clays, slime and no pebbles, and are susceptible to water-logging and aluminum toxicity. DeBoer (1996) suggests that when choosing an agricultural plot (which the Chachis most commonly refer to as a chacra), the Chachis especially avoid these yellow to red, clay soils, and search out sandy or black earth (in their own terminology tierra llena de humo). These soils are located inland and along the rivers. The inland black soils occur frequently enough and in conjunction with archeological sites, so that DeBoer suspects they are in part anthropogenic. La Ceiba is located on lands formed in the Quaternary geological period, which has alluvial soils with the most recent terrestrial and marine sediments (Solis, n.d.). This means that one is more likely to find Inceptispols and Entisols, but Oxisols are still predominant away from the riverbanks. The former are rich for agriculture, which makes sense since the Chachis of La Ceiba said the reason their grandfathers left the Cayapas River and settled on the land where La Ceiba is located is because they were looking for better agricultural lands. Vegetation The forests of the Choc lowlands have three stories, or strata. The top story has trees that rise up to 40 meters and have buttressed roots. It is dominated by five families: Myristicaceae, Moraceae, Arecaceae, Fabaceae, and Meliaceae (Sierra, 1999). Some common species are chanul (Humiriastrum procerum) 7 cedro (Cedrela odorata), guayacn (Tabebuia guayacan)used for the foundations of houses and often remains when all other wood has rotted, damagua (Poulsenia armata)the source for bark cloth, 7 Chanul, a slow growing species, has been greatly affected by deforestation.

PAGE 65

48 and ceibaafter which La Ceiba is named (McIlvaine, 2000). The second story includes abundant species of palms that prove to be very useful for construction. Examples include: vegetable ivory or tagua (Phytelephas auquatorialis), which is used for palm thatching; and pambil (Socratea sp.), which is used for the floors of their homes. The third stratum, namely the understory, has a great deal of plants from the Rubiaceae plant family and palms. Tree trunks are covered by epiphytes that are in the Cyclanthaceae and Araceae families, woody vines, ferns, mosses, and lichens (Neill, 1997). Other species characteristic to the area are: moral bobo (Clarisia biflora), rubber or caucho (Castilla elastica), cuangar (Otoba gordoniifolia), guadaripo (Nectandra guadaripo), jigua (Ocotea floccifera), ice cream beans or guaba (Inga spp.), and flor de mayo (Brownea multijuga) (Sierra, 1999). Just as rainfall and humidity vary based on the topography of the Choc, so too does the vegetation vary slightly from hillside to hillside and from ridge to ridge. Consequently, in La Ceiba and Loma Linda, there are distinct forests some variation. Nevertheless, forests surrounding both communities have similar vegetation, as mentioned in the aforementioned paragraph. Socio-Cultural Features After confirming that La Ceiba and Loma Linda only differ slightly in their environmental features, it is important to examine their socio-cultural background. The following sections will describe the Chachi population, their cultural history, and their socio-political organization, as well as the specific socio-cultural and political backgrounds of both La Ceiba and Loma Linda.

PAGE 66

49 Population The most recent census conducted by the Chachi Education Department estimated the Chachi population to be 9,500 people, spread throughout the coastal province of Esmeraldas in Ecuador (Wiebe, Neil, pers. comm.). 8 Although they were often referred to as the Cayapas in the last century, in 1978 the Chachis declared that they prefer to call themselves the Chachi, which means people in their language (Aapa Cimarron, 2003). 9 Although many live along the banks of the Tulub, Verde, Canand, and Muisne Rivers and in cities, an estimated 2000-2500 of the Chachis live along the banks of the Cayapas River and its headwater effluents, the San Miguel, Onzol, and Grande Rivers (Deboer, 1996; Medina, 1992). In 2002, La Ceiba had 33 families and 160 people. There were 90 males and 70 females. The majority of the population consisted of children under 9 years old. There were three times as many people under 9 years old as as there were people aged 40 to 69 (Altropico, 2000). According to the 22 households interviewed during fieldwork in the summer of 2003, the average number of people per household in La Ceiba was 5.7. Loma Linda is slightly bigger than La Ceiba. The community has 39 families and about 256 people. The average number of people per household is also slightly bigger. There is an average of 6.3 people in each family. 8 The exact population size is questionable, as different sources give different numbers. For example, Medina (1992) gives the approximation of 4,776 Chachis. 9 The Chachis have referred to themselves as the Chachis since they can remember. One informant believed that they (and the main river on which they live) were called the Cayapas because a priest may have thought that was their name when he heard them referring to one another as kaa ap, meaning little father. According to the informant, the Chachis speak to another in these diminutive and affectionate ways.

PAGE 67

50 Chachi Cultural History The Chachis are a branch of the Chibcha tribe that today includes such tribes as the Aw and Tschila of Ecuador, the Kuna of the San Blas Islands of Panama, and the Kogui of the Sierra Madre of Colombia. Chibcha origins began in Bogota, Colombia and spread north into Nicaragua and Panama (Von Hagen, 1939). This cultural group arrived to Ecuador via the Putamayo and Pimampiro Rivers in the Amazon Basin. Once in Ecuador, they mixed with the Caribes and Hazauacos, settled near Ibarra, and populated the coast and the Ecuadorian Amazon (Aapa Cimarron, 2003; Medina, 1992). The Aw (the Kwaiker or Coaiquer) and the Tsachila (the Colorados) are other Amerindian groups of the western lowlands of Ecuador. Their languages, Awap and Tsfiqui, respectively, are related to Chapalaa, the Chachislanguage. All languages are part of the Barbocoan linguistic group. Barbacoa, sometimes called Malla, is a Sindagua dialect of the Chibcha language (Moya, 1998; West, 1945). 10 When conducting field research interviews in 2003, household heads were asked what language they spoke in their homes. In La Ceiba, the village that is connected to San Lorenzo by road, all households spoke Chapalaa at home except one. In Loma Linda, the majority of households also speak their native language in the home with the exception of five household heads who sometimes speak Spanish to their children. Among the Chachis of Loma Linda, Spanish is emphasized as important as education takes a priority. According to one professor, one must be bilingual to graduate. Ethnographic studies of the Chachis include different versions of their history (Aapa Cimarron, 2004; DeBoer, 1996; Medina, 1992;). Exactly when the Chachis 10 Karsten (1924) suggests that Chapalaa Awap and Tsafiqu are simply different dialects of the principal Chibcha language, although they cannot understand each others language.

PAGE 68

51 began to identify themselves as a distinct cultural group from the Chibchas, and how long it took them to arrive from Nicaragua to the Western flank of the Ecuadorian Andes, are unknown. Perhaps what is best known about the Chachis is their move from the Andes region to the Ecuadorian Choc about 200 years ago. Although they are considered indigenous to the lowland Choc area, in a sense they represent some of the first colonists (bringing their own culture and learning from the other cultures in the area to which they have migrated) to the Santiago-Cayapas area. Chachi culture today represents a recent adaptation of the Chachi people to the coastal lowlands. This cultural image is as follows: If one had to give a thumbnail sketch of the Chachi ethnography, one should emphasize that they are river people, equally at home in a dugout canoe as on land, that they tend to live in single-house settlements dispersed along rivers, that plantains and fish are staples of their diet, and that they speak a language related to the Colorado and Kwaiker. (DeBoer, 1996, p. 176) Upon arrival in the Andes, the Chachis first settled near Ibarra (2250 m), which is located north of Quito (2850 m) (Barrett, 1925; DeBoer, 1996;). Yet, there is further uncertainty as to when or why the Chachis left Ibarra to migrate to Pueblo Viejo (Tutsa in Chapalaa). It is unknown whether they moved in response to the Inca, or in fear of the Spaniards horses, or because of modifications of lifestyle due to colonization (DeBoer, 1996). The Chachis lived communally in Pueblo Viejo and grew mostly corn and potatoes. This is the earliest Chachi village that is documented. 11 It was located at the head of the Santiago River. 11 It is also documented that some of the Chachis left Tutsa because Catholic priests wanted to cut their hair. Today the Chachis refer to those who left Tutsa as the Paj unduula, shamans who speak different dialects. The Paj unduula are believed to walk around at night and to have the ability to hypnotize people or turn themselves into bamboo if they are in danger of being seen (Aapa Cimarrn, 2003).

PAGE 69

52 Figure 4.6. Kaa shinbu (Chachi woman) in traditional dress. Barrett (1925) reports that when the Chachis lived in Tutsa (Pueblo Viejo), their biggest threat was the Malabas or Malaguas (called this on a map drawn by Maldonado in 1750). 12 The Chachis called this indigenous tribe the Wats or los Indios Bravos, and the mestizos called them the Caribes. (DeBoer, 1996; Von Hagen, 1939). Often, the Malabas have been described as cannibals (Salazar, 1979; West, 1945), and the Chachis report that they were often attacked and preyed upon by this group. Sometime between 1749 (when missionary records last show the Chachis living in Espiritu Santo, or Pueblo Viejo) and 1809, the historically peaceful Chachis put together war bands (which according to the Chachis were guided by jaguars). Armed, they entered the Cayapas River basin by way of the Zapallo River, the San Miguel River, and then down the other headwater rivers. 12 In 1809, Stevenson (1825) took two Chachis to speak with the Malaguas and he reported that their language seemed like Quichua. He believed they were descendents of the Puncays of Quito who escaped the Incas or corralled by the Christian priests.

PAGE 70

53 They expelled or killed the Indios Bravos along the way, removing their crops by the root to make sure they would not return (Barrett, 1925). An Englishman named Stevenson reported that the Malabas moved to the San Miguel River in 1809 (DeBoer, 1996). The Malabas have now disappeared, and the land where they once resided is now Chachi land. Yet, according to the Chachis, smoke seen in the hills provides evidence that the Indios Bravos may still be found on the Grande River (DeBoer, 1996). The first Chachi village in the lowlands was called Punta Venado, where they installed a bell they had brought from their village near Ibarra; the bell remains today. The Chachis adapted a whole new way of life when they settled in single-family households in the lower Cayapas River (Barrett, 1925). Upon arriving in the Cayapas basin, the Chachis concentrated on fishing and agriculture more than hunting (Holm-Nielson et al., 1983). Thought to be primarily hunters, fisherman, and foragers, they gradually focused more on fishing and horticulture. They also shifted from growing corn and potatoes near Ibarra to principally growing plantains and other crops introduced by the Spanish and other cultural groups of Ecuador (e.g yuca, Manihot esculenta, comes from the Amazon Basin). It has been reported that in the beginning of their time in the Cayapas Basin, the Chachis also settled near La Tolita and Pampa de Oro on the upper banks of the Cayapas River near the Pacific Ocean. Villavicencio (1858) reported that the Chachis there were wealthy from the gold 13 and pitas (a plant from the Bromeliaceae family that they used 13 West points out that there is a narrow belt of placer deposits of gold that are at the foot of la Cordillera Occidental, the Western Flank of the Andes in Colombia and finishes in Esmeraldas. It is in now buried in streambeds, and the Santiago Drainage is named as an important mining district. In February 2000, with the backing of the Catholic Church, FECCHE (the Chachi Federation) and the Federation of the African Ecuadorians organized against the presence of a gold mining company in the Santiago-Cayapas River Basin, and the company was forced to leave.

PAGE 71

54 for fiber). At that time they still communicated back and forth with small villages from Cotocachi and Otovalo, and the Chachis went back and forth between Photograph by Tanya Fisher. Figure 4.7. Traditional Chachi single-family dwelling raised on guayacn posts with woven tagua palm fronds as the roof. The Chachis use no nails in the construction of their traditional homes. Tutsa and their new location. San Miguel de los Cayapas, which is a half-way point, was also one of their earliest establishments. 14 By 1908, the Chachis no longer lived along the headwaters of the Santiago River in Pueblo Viejo (Tutsa) or in La Tolita; instead, they had settled in Punta Venado, Zapallo Grande, and San Miguel (Barrett 1925). Nevertheless, Aapa Cimarrn (2003) states that a Chachi named Ambu Rucu, meaning good old man, was the last man to leave Tutsa in 1935. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many Africans were brought to work in gold mines around Cartegena, and they began to settle on the Esmeraldas shores 14 Chachis lived at the head of the Zapallo and San Miguel Rivers (Basurco, 1844). San Miguel de los Cayapas was recorded on a map of the Esmeraldas province done by Wolf in 1879 (Altropico, 2000).

PAGE 72

55 (Thurston, 1997). During the late 1700s, the Negros, marooned Africans, escaped from a slave ship. In the late nineteenth century more Negros migrated to the Cayapas/Santiago area from Colombia, which may explain why the Chachis gradually moved upriver to their present location. Today it is said that 85 percent of the Ecuadorian Choc population are maroons from Africa (Thurston, 1997). Historically the Chachis and the Negros have always had problems and even violent disputes over land (Medina, 1992). Despite their differences, both groups have learned to live together and have adapted some aspects of one anothers cultures. Between the tributaries of the nzole River and the San Miguel River, the Chachis and the Negros both reside along the Cayapas River. Some Negros speak Chapalaa, and the Chachis play African marimba music at their most important celebrations. They trade with another and in some ways live interdependently (sometimes even in the same village and even intermarrying), but each group still maintains distinct traditions. Because of further changes (due in part to population and logging in the area) in the Cayapas basin, the Chachis now fish and hunt as supplemental subsistence activities (Medina, 1992). Instead, they depend more on their plantain-based chacras. These chacras are called platanales in Spanish and panda pala in Chapalaa. The Chachis boil the plantains-verdes in Spanish and panda in their native language-and then, with a flat river rock, smash them into a sticky mass (called bala in Spanish and pandalujta in Chapalaa). All meals include pandalujta, and everyone in the village knows when other families are eating because they can hear the rocks smashing the verdes. Today the majority of Chachis identify themselves as agriculturalists, but they also claim to do un poco de todo (a little of everything) (McIlvaine, 2000: 97). Within their

PAGE 73

56 complex livelihood systems, the acquired lowland agricultural practices allow them: to provide the bread of each day (the plantains), to be relatively self-sustaining, and to also produce cash crops (McIlvaine, 2000). Shifts from the rainforests of Nicaragua and Panama to the Amazon, the Andes, and then the Ecuadorian Choc, demonstrate that the Chachis have not had a static culture. What is considered Chachi culture is actually a hybrid of ideas and livelihood practices adopted from the many cultures they have encountered. For example, in the 1500s (well before the Chachis arrived), Pedro Cieza de Leon and Miguel Cabellos de Balboa described the traditional Chachi homes with stilts. They also reported the use of slash and mulch techniques (called tapado in Spanish). Since the Chachis arrived later, they obviously adopted the traditions of the tribes that Pascual de Andagoya called the Barbacoas 15 in 1540 (West, 1945). The Barbacoas lived in the Choc before the arrival of the Chachis (Patino, 1965). Another example of the Chachis adaptive culture involves the Spanish-introduced plantains, which now dominate their slash-mulch system. Their religion, too, is a mixture of myths based on the jungle environment and Catholicism. Their first documented contact with priests and missionaries was in Pueblo Viejo. Over the last century, and especially with the advent of schools, religious groups have had a big impact on the Chachi culture. The Chachis have constantly mingled with other cultures. While they have exchanged ideas and traditions, their language, Chapalaa, is still commonly spoken and they strongly identify themselves as Chachis. Their language seems to be the common 15 Contrary to Stevenson (1825), West (1945) reports that the linguistic group to which the Malaguas (or the Indios Bravos) and the Chachis belong is called Barbacoa.

PAGE 74

57 thread that weaves them together as a culture and ties them to the past. All of their migrations and imports (e.g. belief systems, musical instruments, agricultural systems, and food plants) indicate that the Chachis have always been a culture that is open to change and diversity. Their ability to live in different environments, adapt to the people around them, and import what will benefit their livelihoods and enhance their culture, is further evidence of the resilience and dynamism of Chachi culture. Historical and Socio-political Background of the Chachis The Federation of Chachi Centers of Ecuador (FECCHE: Federacin de Centros Chachi del Ecuador) is the unifying political body of the centers, and its office is located in Esmeraldas City. They were established in 1978. The communities were then divided into zones and centers. The Chachis are divided into three major zones within the Esmeraldas province: the North, Central, and Southern zones. Each of these zones contains a number of centers that include a number of villages. Today there are 28 centers. Each center has a president, a vice president, a secretary, a treasurer, and representatives for the board of health, education, and commerce. The centers government is in charge of the political organization of the communities that lie within its boundaries. A general assembly elects new officers to the community center every two years. At the village level, the traditional governor or un is the leadergenerally a village elder. This position is not rotational. The North zone includes the Tululb River (with only one community, La Ceiba) and the Cayapas and Onzol Rivers (19 centers). The Central zone includes four rivers: the Canand River (four centers), the Viche River (the center of Chorera Grande), the Verde River (the center of Mediana), and the Esmeraldas River. The Southern zone

PAGE 75

58 includes two centers and one community in Muisne County. One center is called Nueva Esperanza and it is located on the River Balzar. The other center is called San Salvador and it, along with the community of San Jos, are on the Sucio River. The Chachis function as single-family households especially in terms of agriculture. The Chachis traditionally farm individual plots and maintain communal forests for hunting and extraction activities (McIlvaine, 2000). Land is passed down from one generation to the next and divided between the sons in a family. Women usually move to other villages to marry. Consequently, household land holdings are getting smaller. Currently four different types of land tenure affect the Chachis: Patrimonio Forestal or ancestral forest, communal non-legal tenure, private legal tenure, and communal legal tenure (McIlvaine, 2000). Ancestral forest refers to government-owned land that has been designated as a protected area. The Chachis of Loma Linda are in the process of trying to gain ownership of a great deal of this land. Communal non-legal tenure is land that is illegally designated for household use. Up until 2001, Loma Lindas 4,524.69 hectares were under this type of land tenure and incorporated 81% of all households (McIlvaine, 2000) 16 The other 19% of households legally owned private lands (the third type of land tenure) because they were the only three families in the community during the land reforms of the 1960s and 1970s. These families are free to 16 Actually, at the time of McIlvaines study, the land of Centro San Miguel was all illegal communal land tenure, but CARE helped them legalize their communal land and an ex-peace corps member who lived in Loma Linda helped them legalize 800 more hectares. Now they legally and communally own 5500 hectares. Before this legalization of land, some of the conclusions of McIlvaines study showed that 100% of the Loma Linda households reported harvesting timber in non-legal communal tenure land versus only 20%of the households on private legal tenure in the year-long period from July 1997 to July 1998 (note that this is before the certification law was passed by CARE/Subir).

PAGE 76

59 buy and sell land plots without the consent of the community. The fourth type of land is communal legal tenure, of which the Chachis of both La Ceiba and Loma Linda now take part. Historical and socio-political background of La Ceiba According to Altropico (2000), Juan Nio lived in Majua on the Cayapas River and raised pigs. Apparently, he was having problems in doing so. After asking permission of the First Lieutenant in Borbn, he moved to and settled on the banks of the Palab River (which is now part of Aw territory) in 1930. Together with Juan Nio came Cristobal de la Cruz, Manuel San Nicols, Jos Maria Nio, and Chapiro Aapa. Although they did not form a community center and lived as separate families, they did act as a community. After a while, the men searched for better soils for growing plantains. They bought four hectares from a man named Casanova and all the families moved there and established themselves. Due to land invasions, in 1979 descendants surveyed and legalized 1530 hectares and received a land title from IERAC (INDA). At that time the Chachis of San Lorenzo County decided to call their community La Ceiba after a stream by the same name. In 1982 Juan Nio officially founded the village of La Ceiba. La Ceiba is legally a recinto as opposed to being part of a center like Loma Linda. Currently none of the original inhabitants of the Tululb River are still alive. The principal questionnaire translator in the study, Samuel Aapa, explained that it would be much more advantageous for all villages to become their own centers. According to Aapa, a commune has affiliated laws that are outdated by 60 years, and a recinto has laws that are even more outdated. La Ceiba wanted to be a recinto because they wanted an inspectora, a connection to the countys public administration system.

PAGE 77

60 The basic difference is that being a center, commune, or a recinto creates different power structures in relation to the state, to FECCHE, and even within the community. Each also abides by different laws. For example, under La Ceibas present legal status as a recinto or a commune, the presidency rotates on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, by the time a president is accustomed to his office the term is over. Within the village, all land is owned communally, except for 640 hectares that are divided evenly among the households; so that each household owns a 20-hectare lot that may be returned to communal hands if it is not worked. Because of the equal allocation of land, land distribution is currently a minimal problem (certain community members were not there when the land was allocated because they were out working in other parts of Ecuador and so they were not given land). In 1999, each household sold the majority of their lots primary forest. The sale of lumber and timber, communally and individually, is exacerbated in La Ceiba, as it is in all of the county of San Lorenzo. Many Chachi neighbors are selling their timber to wood companies and their land to African palm companies. This is leading to many social problems, not only in the village, but with their neighbors as well. With a road connecting them to the outside world, the social, economic, and environmental problems of all the other cultural groups have now begun to affect the lives of the Chachis of La Ceiba. There are land tenure struggles among different ethnic groups who live in the vicinity of La Ceiba. People of these communities sell their land to logging and oil palm companies. In 1999, the Chachis had to bring in the military to remove squatters from their territory. In addition, as more land is deforested by logging companies and planted with African oil palms, these companies put more pressure on the

PAGE 78

61 Chachis. As one teacher in La Ceiba said, we are surrounded. We are surrounded by palm companies and they do not let us leave 17 African palm companies 18 are especially problematic in terms of deforestation and creating land pressures. These companies actually want to buy land from the communities, not just the trees, and they put pressure on communities to sell. Another reason is because, as a man from SETRAFOR told me, they want the forest gone once and for all in order to expand their plantations. He explained to me that the difference between African palm companies and wood companies is that the latter will only cut trees over 50 cm. Their goal is to keep the forest producing so that they can cut trees again in ten years. The wood companies usually work in conjunction with the African palm companies. For instance, if an oil palm company buys land that is still forested, they sell the trees to the wood companies by giving them an allotted amount of time to cut as much as they can. With all these outside pressures, the Chachis of La Ceiba seem to be isolated and unsure of who to trust. In La Ceiba, there is miscommunication within the village and a willful lack of communication with the outside agencies and NGOs on which they simultaneously depend. There are questions of corruption and distrust in the community as community presidents make deals with outside institutions. Ironically, the sale of their forest to logging companies constitutes one of the principal bases of their individual and communal decisions. In fact, since 1988, the 17 I think what he is trying to say is that the Chachis feel blocked in. 18 African palm oil is used for cooking oil and soap. The first African palm company entered the lowland coastal area in 1953 in Santo Domingo de los Colorados. The Aw and the Chachis have denounced the African palm companies to the Ministry of Agriculture for illegal deforestation.

PAGE 79

62 Chachis have sold 1100 hectares of their trees from the 1500 hectares of communal forest reserve that borders the Aw Ethnic and Ecological Reserve. During the summer of 2003, the Chachis received $54,768 for the sale of 200 hectares of trees ($16 per cubic meter x 3423 cubic meters) to SETRAFOR. $16,500 of this money went back to SETRAFOR for payment on a truck. One week before they were to receive the $54,768 they called a meeting to decide how they should spend the money. They decided to give $500 to each household head and use the rest of the money to buy a house in San Lorenzo so the young people would have a place to live while they study. Students could also sell fruit and juices from the first floor to pay for living expenses. Their communal agroforestry project provides another context where community members have had to collaborate with outside institutions as well as with one another. This project was established by a Peace Corps member and has 22 hectares with 103 species. With the assistance of UTEPA, the Chachis and the Peace Corp member began planting fruit trees in 1992. In 2000, with the assistance of the World Wildlife Fund and International Organization for Migration (OIM), a marmalade factory was constructed. Boroj marmalade has become one of their major products. However, the Chachis of La Ceiba still struggle to market these products. Field research questionnaires showed a continued lack of planning and organization for the future by the Chachis. The majority of households did not reinvest the money they received from previous forest sales. They just bought clothes for their children, pots and pans, and stoves. A few people bought chainsaws and cattle, which are an investment, but definitely do not contribute to forest conservation.

PAGE 80

63 Historical and socio-political background of Loma Linda Like La Ceiba, Loma Linda is in the Northern zone but within Eloy Alfaro County. Yet, Loma Linda is part of the Centro de (center of) San Miguel. The Center of San Miguel is made up of seven communities and covers an area of approximately 4524.69 hectares (Marchan, 2001). The Community of Loma Linda includes thirty-nine households. Loma Linda is one of seven villages that participate in the larger political group of El Centro Chachi of Loma Linda/San Miguel, through which all major political decisions must be passed. Families who were living in Loma Linda in 1974 had their land demarcated and legalized by IERAC with the help of SIL International (formerly known as the Sumer Institute of Linguistics) and the Evangelist Mission of Zapallo Grande. At the time there were only nine or ten families living there. Therefore all the people who live in Loma Linda today are borrowing land from these original landowners. Loma Linda was originally called Lema P, named for the estero that branches off from the river where the community was located. The community was named Loma Linda 1963 when the SIL International established the first bilingual school in Chachi territory. The school was funded by the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education, and it was supervised by the SIL International with the help of John and Carrie Lindskoog. In 1970, when Loma Linda became an association del centro (center association), Neil and Ruth Wiebe took over as supervisors; they have been translating the bible into Chapalaa and studying their language ever since. With the establishment of the school, more people moved to the community so that their children could attend school. It became a legal village center in 1992 when the school was moved from the north bank to the south bank of the river. At the time there were only two houses on the south bank, where the

PAGE 81

64 majority of the thirty-nine Loma Linda households are now situated. The center of San Miguel began to demarcate their land in 1996. As mentioned earlier, the center received a land title in 2001. (Aapa, Santiago, pers. comm.) Although the Centers land is now legalized, everyone, except the few private landowners, borrows land from the community and/or center or from the private owners, who have the right to usurp the land at any time. Land problems were pinpointed as one of the major causes of social differences in the community, and this will be discussed in chapter 7. One development in Loma Linda is that in 2001, the son of one of the Chachis married a woman from Los Angeles, where they currently live. They are in the process of creating a luxury ecotourism lodge that is privately owned by their family. They decided to manage it this way because of the potential organizational complications of working with the entire community. To proceed with this lodge, it will be necessary to move two families, whose livelihoods have been dependent on cultivating that land for decades. Currently, many Chachis are working for this family by helping to build the lodge for $5 a day. The goal is for all Chachis to benefit. The lodge will bring tourists to their village and residents will earn a certain percentage of the profits if they agree to maintain a green tourist attraction. In addition, the lodge will expand the market for selling handicrafts and other products. Because of in the strength of their cultural practices, the women still weave baskets from rampira (Carludovica palmata), weave cloth, and even process rampira for sale to Panama hat makers in Cuenca (a project initiated by EcocienciaFundacin Ecuatoriana de Estudios Ecologicos, a local partner to CARE). Women also make purses, tablecloths,

PAGE 82

65 wallets, tapestries (which are derived from traditional skirts), and belts. The women are well organized in a co-op called Maria de Sol, which is considered one of the more important communal organizations. Handicraft production makes a significant contribution to a households economy. Yet, just recently, middlemen come less frequently for the baskets they used to demand regularly. Now the price has fallen to $0.50 for each basket, which takes one day to make. CARE/ Proyecto Subir was funded by US AID and the World Conservation Society, and they established a ten-year project in the Cayapas and Santiago River basins (1992 until 2002). Local organizations such as Ecociencia and Fundacin Jatun Sacha took part in the project. In 1997, with the support of German technical assistance, CARE, Jatun Sacha, and an Ecuadorian governmental organization helped to create the Community Forest Network for Sustainable Management (Red Forestal Comunitaria para el Manejo Sustenible). The organizations associated with the network promoted a series of courses and training, as well as an exchange of experiences with Quintana Roo, Mexico. In 2000, there was a reformation of the law of conservation of natural areas and wildlife that was established in 1982. The new law was called la Normativa para el Manejo Forestal Sustentable para el Aprovechamiento de Madera de Bosque Hmedo y Plantaciones Forestales. The latter required a certified forest management plan on lands where timber is extracted. Therefore, a Chachi informant reported that most people who sell wood in the Santiago-Cayapas River Basin are currently selling wood illegally because they cannot afford the investment in initial certification fees. There are currently other changes on the Cayapas River. CODESA, the principal logging company in the area, has moved up from the river mouth and has made deals

PAGE 83

66 with Chachi communities on the way. Part of these deals includes roads and electricity access. Just in the last three years, electricity has been put into villages extending to Santa Maria, which is three hours from Borbn. When this author left Loma Linda in 2003, having finished fieldwork, there was a timber deal in the process of negotiation with Zapallo Grande, a half-hour away by canoe. If this deal goes through there will be a road out of Zapallo Grande that will create major lifestyle changes in Loma Linda as well. In addition, CODESA has begun to move downriver from the headwaters. On October 17, 2003, FECCHE put an embargo on all logging on the river, and companies were only allowed to remove the wood that had already been cut. This embargo has been lifted. Conclusion This chapter describes the similarity between Chachis of La Ceiba and Loma Linda in their climatic, geographic and ecological features. Regardless of some expected differences in their historical and social contexts, the two villages are enough alike to be compared systematically. The next chapter provides the descriptive background of both villages livelihood activities.

PAGE 84

CHAPTER 5 SUBSISTENCE AND MARKET ORIENTED LIVELIHOODS IN LA CEIBA AND LOMA LINDA Since at least the mid seventeenth century, local indigenous communities have participated in an economic system in which part of the production satisfies subsistence needs while the rest, the surplus, enters circuits of commercial exchange. Contemporary indigenous communities are thus not uncontaminated citadels of precapitalist economy. They ruled first by the system of moral economy founded on the logic of reciprocity and on the right to subsistence, and second, by the necessity of exchange with the surrounding capitalist market. (Kearney and Varese, 1995, p. 215) Because the Chachis livelihood system is complex and seasonally variable, this chapter describes how market and subsistence activities are intertwined in the daily lives of the people of La Ceiba and Loma Linda. In sum, an informal descriptive analysis of Chachi activities will be presented. The first section discusses the history of market integration within the Chachi culture and the peoples perception of change. In the second section the contemporary livelihoods of the Chachis will be addressed, noting the present predicament in which the Chachis find themselves. Moreover, information on how they spend and invest their household money is included as well as data on whether or not logging is improving their quality of life. The third section discusses activities such as agriculture, fishing, hunting, craft production, and canoe production. The fourth portion will describe newer and more market-based activities such as agroforestry, cattle-ranching, logging, contractual labor, and school employment. The Evolving Chachi Economy West (1957) documents that, at least for the last century, people of the Pacific Lowland areas have supplemented their subsistence livelihoods by gathering forest 67

PAGE 85

68 products for international markets. He comments that gathering industries in tropical rainforest areas have been unstable and included boom and bust periods. Figure 5.1 shows the presence of three industries-rubber, tagua nuts, and wood-in the Santiago Cayapas River Basin in 1954. West concluded that rubber-gathering in the Choc began around 1858, after the Goodyear vulcanization process created a demand for caucho negro (Castilla panamensis). This demand ended with the success of the Malaysian rubber plantations at the turn of the twentieth century. Tagua-gathering in the Choc began around 1850 and lasted until the development of synthetic buttons in the 1930s. Initial logging is documented as early as the turn of the twentieth century, but apparently tropical hardwoods were exported at a greater rate after the 1930s. West (1957, p. 166) notes, lumbering of tropical woods is the latest phase of forest exploitation, but its life may be shortened by the rapid depletion of forest reserves. According to McIlvaine (2000), the communities of the Cayapas region have also long experienced a type of integration into the market that includes periods of expansion and contraction; these periods correlate with the aforementioned market demands as well as the political and economic conditions at the local, national, and international level. The Chachis participation in the tagua market has been documented as early as the 1920s with the harvest and sale of vegetable ivory or tagua nuts (Phytelephas auquatorialis), for use as European buttons. Similar cycles of exploitation of the Chachis can also be applied to the rubber boom, wood extraction, the post-WWII, Ecuadorian banana boom, and the demand for coffee and cacao. What currently makes the Chachis interaction with these processes more pertinent is the increased intensity and frequency of present economic, conservation, and political interests.

PAGE 86

69 Source: West, 1957. Figure 5.1. Map of resource extraction in Choc, made in 1954 by Robert West: Southern Colombia and northern Ecuador. It indicates that around this time there were lumber mills, latex-gathering areas, and tagua-nut-gathering areas within the vicinities of the two study sites, La Ceiba (the dot above) and Loma Linda (the dot below). In interviews with household heads, many individuals from both villages reported that they had always exploited wood for making and selling canoes, bateas (wash trays), and canaletes (paddles). These wooden crafts were thought to be one of the principal ways that their grandparents participated in the market. In Loma Linda, however, household heads said their grandfathers did not sell timber or lumber because there were no buyers, chainsaws, or logging companies in the area at that time. In La Ceiba, when answering why their grandfathers did not sell timber/lumber, they spoke about their logging market context. La Ceiba residents believed that a limited timber market was due to: a lack of buyers, an absence of tractors, roads, and logging companies. One

PAGE 87

70 household head mentioned that his grandfathers only knew which trees were good for canoes, not for lumber. An elder of La Ceiba laughed while explaining the following: when they (his grandfathers) made their farms the cow tree or Sande (Brosimum utile), one of the most marketable woods of the present, rotted because they did not sell them. The new generation has contacts. Answers from household heads in La Ceiba and Loma Linda indicated different market participation by each communitys grandparents. In Loma Linda, residents reported that earlier generations had sold plantains and bananas (Musa x paradisiacal), vegetable ivory or tagua (Phytelephas aequatorialis), the source of bark cloth in the Pacific lowlands or damajagua (Poulsenia armata), cacao (Theobroma cacoa), coffee (Coffea arabica), and crafts and baskets. Some reported that they had extracted rubber (Castilla elastica). One Chachi from Loma Linda, in particular, said that the banana company came and bought bananas. This informant told me that before there had been a plentiful amount of fish and meat, so they needed less money in the past. Another claimed they needed less money because they bought less food and the children did not study then. Yet, others disagreed and explained that their grandfathers needed as much money as they need now, and that things in the past cost less. The governor of the community (in the traditional government) surprisingly responded, Before they needed money, and in the present we need money. How can we live without money? A few household heads in Loma Linda told me that their grandfathers had sold trees, but only soft woods as trunks four meters long. Moreover, they indicated that their grandfathers had sold trees to mestizos in Limones (an island where the delta of the

PAGE 88

71 Santiago River meets the Pacific) and San Lorenzo. They said that the city of Borbn had not existed then, so they had sold and traded goods in Limones. No one in La Ceiba mentioned the sale of these large trunks, and this may be due to the fact that La Ceiba grandfathers would have had to travel a greater distance along the river to reach Limones. Before the late 1960s and early 1970s there were no roads in Northern San Lorenzo. Altropico (2000) reports that when the Chachis first settled on the Tulub River, they sold pineapples, manioc, rice, corn, sweet potatoes, and rascadera (Xanthasoma ssp.) in Limones, which was then a two-day trip downriver and a three-day trip upriver. They continued to sell products in Limones until the railroad was finished in 1959. Elder members of La Ceiba report that once the train began running, residents began to travel to San Lorenzo (taking first a one-day canoe trip to La Boca and then a half-hour train ride to their destination). Yet, since the early 1970s La Ceiba inhabitants have traveled three hours by canoe to Ricaurte and taken a truck into San Lorenzo. It is only since 1997 that people from La Ceiba have begun to walk out to the San Lorenzo-Ibarra Highway to get transportation. In La Ceiba it seems that pig sales were also a large part of their previous economy, which was confirmed by various informants. One of the teachers who moved to La Ceiba from the southern zone, Muisne, said that a decade ago his grandfathers worked as day laborers and sold plantains, manioc and cacao. Yet, only two other people in this village mentioned the sale of plantains. Instead, every household, except two, seems to have focused on making and selling canoes. One household head said, through canoes they received their economy, since there is no economy without money. Another declared that carving canoes from Copal or Pulgande (Dacryodes spp.) was an art. A few

PAGE 89

72 household heads also mentioned that they had mined gold with their bateas or wash trays (perhaps these trays became marketable for this reason as well as their utility for washing clothes). 1 Currently, the outside economy and the Chachis economy are in flux and largely inseparable. The average household in La Ceiba earns $247 per month, while households in Loma Linda earn about $252 per month. 2 This means that, despite the distance to market, households are probably earning approximately the same. Although, in La Ceiba the distribution of income between households is more even. Most households earn between $200 and $350 monthly. No households earned less than $25 per month, and only one home reported earning $500/month. In Loma Linda, on the other hand, the distribution is much more skewed. There were three households that reported earning less than $25/month and four houses that reported earning over $500/month. These high salaries might be due to the fact that: one of these households contains two schoolteachers; two households transport passengers to Borbn for $12/one-way ride; and the fourth home includes a school teacher who sells canoes and many other goods. Low incomes are probably due to the fact that it is easier to live off the land in Loma Linda if one chooses because there is more game meat and bigger fish. Another indicator of communal market incorporation is how often residents go to town to buy or sell products. On average, household heads of La Ceiba go 5.47 times per 1 The first time I traveled up the Tulub River in 1997, I remember hearing African Ecuadorian womens singing voices coming around the bends. The Chachis who moved the canoe with palanka (a long stick) told me they were mining gold as the Chachis also used to do. There is more gold mining on the Tululb River than on the Cayapas River in the present. 2 These numbers are calculated without including investments, which definitely vary, especially if a person is paying four people $5/day for four days to carry wood. It was too complicated to include the investments, which is the reason why income was not chosen as the main measure of market integration.

PAGE 90

73 month, while in Loma Linda household heads travel 1.17 times per month. These numbers show that, on average, household heads of both villages interact often with the outside market. But, due to the convenience of the road, La Ceiba household heads travel to the market four times more than their Loma Linda counterparts. At the same time, however, middlemen frequent the Cayapas River. People can buy and sell produce from these mobile markets. The next section will discuss the constituents of the present Chachi economy in greater detail. Photograph taken by Author. Figure 5.2. Chachis from Loma Linda buying produce from the mobile market. Contemporary Market and Subsistence Activities Market-related activities are defined as those in which goods, labor, or services leave or enter the household with their exchange value determined by a pricing mechanism, the market (Godoy, 2001; Korten, 1996; Wentzel, 1989;). In both Loma Linda and La Ceiba, people participated in nine different principle market activities. These included families and raising small animals, fishing, hunting, carving out canoes,

PAGE 91

74 making crafts, raising cattle, logging, working for the community schools, and contractual labor (see Figure 5.3). Only La Ceiba had a communal agroforestry plot of 22 hectares in which all the households participated; and only in Loma Linda were there households that sometimes sold fish. n = 22 n = 2065%50%25%18%15%59%55%0%10%14%95%0%86%35%5%10%14%15%9%50%0%20%40%60%80%100%La Ceiba (near) Loma Linda (far) community% of households craft production cattle ranching agriculture fishing hunting agroforestry logging canoe making contract labor public service jobs Figure 5.3. Household participation in market activities. Figure 5.3 demonstrates that out of the 22 La Ceiba households that were interviewed, the most predominant market activities were the community forest project and logging. Almost all of the households participated in the community fruit forest project (95%) and in selling wood (86%). More than half of the household heads from La Ceiba participated in raising and selling cattle (59%) and selling certain agricultural products (55%). And less than half of the households participated in: making and selling crafts (18%) and canoes (5%), selling game (14%), and working as contracted labor (14%) and teachers (9%).

PAGE 92

75 As a village, Loma Lindas manner of integrating itself into the market varies more among households; there are no activities in which almost all the 20 households that were interviewed participate. Most households participated in craft production (65%), while 50% of households worked in market-oriented agriculture and public service jobs. Less than one-third of the households in this farther village participated in all other activities (raising cattle, working as contracted labor, and selling fish, game, canoes and wood). Subsistence activities are those activities that contribute to household reproduction. Under subsistence-oriented agricultural and extraction systems, individuals usually have goals of food security and the minimization of labor (Varese, 2001; Baksh and Johnson, 1990). In both La Ceiba and Loma Linda, it was found there were no longer any activities that everyone in the village did purely for home consumption. Craft production, cow, chicken, and pig production, fishing, hunting, farming, and canoe-making were and continue to be primarily subsistence activities. Nevertheless, in both villages, there were always a few people who sometimes sold some of their surplus products. By comparing Figures 5.3 and 5.4, it is clear that there is less diversity of household subsistence activities than there is of market activities. Figure 5.4 shows that in both communities almost all households participated in agricultural production (100% in both villages) and fishing (100% in La Ceiba and 95% in Loma Linda). A majority also participated in making and using crafts in the household (73% in La Ceiba and 90% in Loma Linda) and hunting (55% in La Ceiba and 65% in Loma Linda). The least common subsistence activity among households was raising cattle for household consumption (18% in La Ceiba and 10% in Loma Linda).

PAGE 93

76 What is notable is the divergence between the number of households in La Ceiba that raise cattle for market (59%) and the number that produce cattle for subsistence use (18%). In Loma Linda 15% of households produce cattle for market and 10% also consume the meat. In La Ceiba all the households sell (except one household that is not officially a member of the project) and consume the fruit from the communal agroforestry project. As mentioned earlier, in Loma Linda there is no communal fruit project. n = 22 n = 2018%10%73%90%100%100%95%100%60%55%0%100%0%20%40%60%80%100%La Ceiba (near) Loma Linda (far) community% of households craft production cattle ranching agriculture fishing hunting agroforestry Figure 5.4. Household participation in subsistence activities. As far as division of labor in regards to the different activities, women participate with men in the main subsistence activities, fishing and agriculture. Men alone are solely involved in logging, raising cattle and pigs, hunting, communal agroforestry cleanings (in La Ceiba), contract labor, and working for the school (except in one case). The women raise chickens, harvest crops, take care of all reproductive activities, and do crafts. (There is one case in Loma Linda where a male household head also does crafts.) Together,

PAGE 94

77 household heads and their spouses participate in both market and subsistence livelihood activities, which allow them to create functioning households. The Predicament The majority of households in Loma Linda and La Ceiba participate in most subsistence activities and largely depend on subsistence agriculture, fishing, and hunting as their food sources (as shown in 5.4). Nevertheless, people in both communities search for the means to meet the changing socio-economic requirements of their families, such as paying for food, transportation, health, and education. Some of the most common products they report buying are oil, salt, sugar, vegetables, spices, noodles, rice, kerosene, tuna, sardines, eggs, dried fish, cookies, popsicles, and matches. To buy these items they sell timber, lumber, and cash crops, take on contract labor and jobs in schools, and n = 22 n = 2073%9%9%0%10%5%5%5%5%45%5%30%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%loggingagriculturepublic servicejobscontract jobscanoe makingtransportbusinessactivity% of households La Ceiba (near) Loma Linda (far) Figure 5.5. Principal income-generating activities.

PAGE 95

78 generally do whatever they can to earn money. With the recent advent of roads and improved access to the market, some Chachis rely less on diverse subsistence activities and more on environmentally destructive market-oriented activities, such as logging and cattle-ranching, to meet their needs. n = 22 n = 2041%5%5%30%15%5%5%0%0%5%9%36%0%0%5%40%0%10%20%30%40%50%loggingagriculturepublic servicejobscontract jobscanoe makingmarmelademakingmotor repairtransportbusinessactivity% of households La Ceiba (near) La Ceiba (far) Figure 5.6. Principal activity. Consistent with past studies that found that men principally earned their money through timber extraction (Ecociencia et al., 1996; Marchan, 2001; McIlvaine, 2000), Figure 5.5 shows that one of the main money-generating activities in both communities is logging. La Ceiba is much more integrated into the market via lumber/timber extraction than Loma Linda. In La Ceiba, 73% of household heads principle income-generating activity is logging, compared to only 30% in Loma Linda (which is most likely due to road access and the ease of logging and transportation). In Loma Linda, there are15%

PAGE 96

79 more household heads who earn money by working as professors. 3 Of the forty-two households in both villages interviewed about their economic situation, the main money-generating activity for twenty-two households (or 52.4%) is logging. Although 73% of the household heads in La Ceiba and 30% of the household heads in Loma Linda responded that their principle income-generating activity was logging, when asked to which activities household heads are generally dedicated, only 41% of households in La Ceiba and 5% of households in Loma Linda listed logging first (see Figure 5.6). Respondents in the service industry were those in which there was the greatest consistency between the main source of income and the activity to which the respondents dedicate most of their time. Part of the reason for difference is some household heads in Loma Linda just work for the schools. All teachers dedicate themselves mostly to teaching. Note that all the remaining correlations between the main money-generating activity and the job to which households were most dedicated fluctuate. In each village only 5% of household heads earn their money mostly from agriculture. Yet, 36% of household heads in La Ceiba and 40% of respondents in Loma Linda responded that they are generally dedicated to agriculture. 4 This means that in more than a third of the households in both villages, food-generating activities still take 3 Although many people raise cattle, when they were asked to which job they are generally dedicated or in which activity they make the most money, people did not respond cattle ranching. They did not respond that they are generally dedicated to raising cattle (see Figure 2.4) because actually only a small amount of time is spent on cattle-raising (see Table 2.1 later in the chapter). They also did not respond that cattle ranching brings in the most income (see Figure 2.5) because raising cattle is based more on the investment of money for times when they may be in financial need (Loker, 1993) and often does not bring immediate or frequent returns. 4 In a workshop done with Altropico in 2000, six members of La Ceiba acted as key informants. They said los hombres se dedican a la agricultura y pesca y de vez en cuando, tambien buscan oro (the men dedicate themselves to agriculture and fishing, and once in a while they also look for gold). Neither panning for gold nor fishing was mentioned by anyone in either La Ceiba or Loma Linda.

PAGE 97

80 about as much precedence as their main money-generating activities (except in the cases of professors). When asked about their biggest expenditure per month, 93% of household heads interviewed in La Ceiba named food (see Figure 5.7 above). In Loma Linda, 84% of the n = 14 n = 190%0%7%84%5%11%0%93%0%20%40%60%80%100%foodhousehold itemsmedicineeducationhighest expenditure% of households La Ceiba (near) Loma Linda (far) Figure 5.7. Highest expenditure per month. interviewees spend the majority of their money on food each month. Reasons why food represents the greatest monthly expenditure in villages where 100% of households practice subsistence agriculture need to be further investigated. Figure 5.8 illustrates how household heads would spend two thousand dollars if they won it. By looking at the diversity of choices, it is clear that peoples needs and wants greatly vary by village. What is interesting is that 36% of households in La Ceiba

PAGE 98

81 n = 22 n = 2023%23%14%5%40%35%5%36%20%0%0%10%20%30%40%50%homeimprovementreinvestmenteducationcommunalactivitiesfood andnecessitiesinvestment preference% of households La Ceiba (near) Loma Linda (far) Figure 5.8. Investment preferences given a windfall profit. said that they would first buy food and basic necessities, while only 20% of household heads in Loma Linda said they would do the same. In Loma Linda, the most popular choices were home improvement 5 and savings. This figure reflects that given a sudden windfall of $2000, more household heads in La Ceiba would immediately consider their immediate needs; while in Loma Linda, more household heads would think of investment (35% compared to 23% in La Ceiba) or of buying non-necessary articles for their homes (40% compared to 23%). Perhaps the reason is because many houses in La Ceiba have already been able to buy stoves and tin roofs and rebuild their houses. Regardless, the 5 Home improvement included the purchase of gas stoves, refrigerators, stereos or televisions, kitchen supplies, and fixing the house. Loma Linda responded mostly gas stoves (3), fixing the house (2), kitchen supplies (2), and the only refrigerator. La Ceiba answered mostly kitchen supplies (3) and one response for each of fixing the house and purchase of a stereo.

PAGE 99

82 fact that a large number of households in La Ceiba would spend prize money on basic necessities does not correlate with responses from the next question. It is clear that a large majority of the households participating in market activities would spend prize money to pay largely for food. Thus, they were spending their money earned in part from cutting wood on subsistence products they once grew or collected themselves (as opposed to buying products that might ameliorate their lifestyles). Household heads were, therefore, asked if they believed cutting trees improved their quality of life. In total, twenty-six of the forty-two respondents said wood extraction did not improve their life. In La Ceiba, more than half of the respondents (55%) thought that wood extraction was improving their quality of life (see Figure 5.9). In La Ceiba, every household that admitted that cutting wood improved their quality of life said that the reason was because logging allowed them to generate money they could not earn otherwise. By cutting wood, household heads could buy necessities for their children. For example, one man indicated: yes (cutting wood improves the quality of life), it creates money for food, clothes for the children, stuff for the kitchen, all that we lack. Another expressed: yes, a little better. There is no other work source. There are no other options. One elder in La Ceiba who said that their quality of life was just slightly improving said the following: They have made the cultural house, bought the car, but we do not see anything else. You only see the people buying groceries and the money goes outside the village. The future generations are going to live badly. They are not going to have resources. They take out artifacts like stereos and chainsaws by credit. The money is not enough.

PAGE 100

83 n = 22 n = 2055%45%16%84%0%20%40%60%80%100%yesnoresponse % of households La Ceiba (near) Loma Linda (far) Figure 5.9. Responses to whether or not wood extraction is improving their quality of life. Of the twenty-two people interviewed in La Ceiba, 45% (or nine households) mentioned their worries over the quality of life for future generations. A community member said, no, the quality of life is not improving. The forest is ending; cutting wood is destroying everything. One of the professors in La Ceiba expanded on these ideas: Cutting wood is not improving the quality of life of the community. To sell plywood or logs is satisfying the immediate necessities. If we think of the future, there is going to be no more wood. To improve the quality of life is to look for associated alternative work. In Loma Linda, only three (16%) of the twenty household heads interviewed believed it was improving their quality of life, and 84% worried about future generations. One of those individuals said, Yes, cutting wood is improving the way of life; one has to buy things for the childrenfood and clothes. Another Chachi from Loma Linda

PAGE 101

84 agreed: I do not cut wood now, but when I cut wood before I lived better; I could buy all our necessities. The majority of people in Loma Linda who said that cutting trees was not improving their quality of life, generally seem to have had clear ideas and strong feelings about cutting wood. This perspective was also seen in the professors of La Ceiba. For example, one individual commented: We are not improving the quality of life. It is only for the moment. One cuts wood and one uses the money for ones necessities, but it does nothing to help us live better. And then we are left without wood. Someone else in Loma Linda was able to explain the environmental effects that he had noticed: We are not improving the quality of life because before there were more animals and fish. Now there is contamination. The plantains dont produce as before and there are no animals to hunt. Part of the reason there is such a disparity between villages over whether or not cutting the forest improves the way of life, involves the fact that La Ceiba receives greater economic benefits from treefelling due to their location. In Loma Linda, cutting wood has few communal benefits and it is much more difficult to do. Thus, fewer households of the latter spend their time on logging a topic that will be expanded later in the chapter. In order to meet increasing needs in their immediate environment, the Chachis have reorganized their manipulation of the natural resource base and their production efforts. This, in turn, has forced the reorganization of the social foundations of their culture. Market activities may further alter social and environmental behavior and economic priorities, which could lead to further deforestation of the remaining Ecuadorian coastal rainforest as well as cause major alterations to the Chachi culture. To examine these

PAGE 102

85 latter questions, the degree of market integration between the two villages can be compared, which will be undertaken in chapter 6. The following two sections of this chapter will detail the various types of subsistence activities and market activities in which each village participates. Traditional and Subsistence-oriented Activities These activities are defined as efforts that are necessary for the maintenance of the household, regardless of whether surplus items are sold or not. Although recently these activities are undertaken with an eye towards market participation, the products generated also continue to fulfill the day-to-day needs of the Chachi people. These activities include agriculture, fishing, hunting, craft production, and canoe production. Agriculture Although subsistence agriculture is a fundamental basis of the Chachi livelihood system, just about half of the households that were interviewed in each village sell their surplus items. Figure 5.4 shows that all households participate in agricultural production for the household. Yet, 55% of the households in La Ceiba and 50% of the homes in Loma Linda participate in agricultural production for the market (Figure 5.3). 50% of Loma Linda households also work in public service jobs. And, all of the households in Loma Linda participate in subsistence agriculture. The Chachis use a system of shifting agriculture. Harold Conklin defines shifting agriculture as: any continuing agricultural systems in which impermanent clearings are cropped for shorter periods in years than they are fallowed (Thurston, 1997: 10). Shifting agriculture is also known as swidden agriculture, in which the swidden is the impermanent plot. In Spanish, the Chachis refer to all swidden plots as chacras.

PAGE 103

86 Swidden sizes typically tend to be less than one hectare (Medina, 1992). Most residents can easily walk to theirs, but some must cross the river or take a canoe to their plots. Some households also travel seasonally up-river to chacras at varying distances (McIlvaine-Newsad, 2000). Excavations of soil in the area have been free of charcoal, which indicates that the more well-known slash and burn practices have not been used in this region. Because of heavy precipitation and lack of a real dry season, the Chachis use a method called slash and mulch. 6 Slash/mulch, unlike the slash/burn method, is a system in which cultivators broadcast some of the seeds, cut back the vegetation, and allow the decomposed vegetation to serve as mulch (or fertilizer) for seed germination. 7 After this process has been completed, seeds generally begin to appear in a week to ten days (Deboer, 1996). Slash and mulch is used to produce plantains (platano or verde in Ecuadorian Spanish; panda in Chapalaa), which are planted after the vegetation is cut back. A verde-oriented 8 slash/mulch chacra involves a carefully designed planting scheme with carefully designated roles for men and women. Multiple functioning components and intercropped swiddens indicate that the Chachis emphasize saving energy while 6 Slash and mulch systems have a long history in the Choc Region of the Colombian and Ecuadorian coasts and are thought to have been invented by the indigenous people. (Thurston, 1997) cites Patino (1965) when describing the first report of slash and mulch by Pedro Cieza de Leon in the Colombian Choc in the 1500s. 7 This differs from slash and burn in that the vegetation is cut back and burned, and then the seeds are planted. The mulch is a layer on top of a planting area made up of matter different than the components of the soil (Thurston, 1997). Some of the other positive benefits of mulching are cited by Thurston (1997) as follows: water absorption rates in the soil increase; there is less evaporation and moisture is contained during dry periods; the soil is covered and thus erosion, soil temperature, and water runoff is reduced; soil nutrients are increased; young seedlings are protected from too much sun or rain; rain splashing is reduced and thus the growth of fungi and bacteria is discouraged; weeds are shaded and outcompeted; nematodes sometimes can be suppressed; and organic matter and earthworm populations are increased. 8 Since the plantains are cut when they are still green to avoid losses to the birds and bats, they are given the Spanish name, verde. These plantains are boiled and eaten with salt.

PAGE 104

87 producing sufficient food for the household (which differs from the market-oriented goal of high-yield production). These planned and intensive strategies better assure the family of food throughout the year and for years to come. The Chachis plant up to twenty varieties of food crops on their chacras. The Chachis plant up to seven varieties of plantain. They also plant cassava (Manihot esculenta), corn (Zea mays), beans, rascadera (Xanthosoma ssp.), chirma (an unidentified local root crop), naranjilla (Solanum quitense), and sweet potatoes for home consumption. In addition, they plant sugar cane (Saccharum sinense) to make Gaurapo, the base of aguardiente, and achiote or lipstickplant (Bixa Orellana), to name just a few important species (Allum, 1997). Fruits are also an important part of the Chachi diet and agricultural systems. Holm-Nielson and Barford (1984) collected 48 different species that the Chachis enjoy in their households. Some are domesticates, some are transplanted into their agricultural plots, and some are eaten from the wild (Allum, 1997). They plant pineapples along the paths or in open areas on the way to or between swidden plots. Avocados (Persea Americana), pepe pan or breadnut or seeded breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis), chontaduro or peach palm (Bactris gasipaes), tagua (Phytelephas aequatorialis), caimito or golden fruit of the Andes (Chrysophyllum caimito), papaya (Carica papaya), and other more durable tree crops are also planted in the chacras. The women of Loma Linda plant rampira (Cardulorica palmeta) along the paths closer to the village in order to acquire weaving material for their baskets, sleeping mats, hats, and fans. Specific cash crop activities on a chacra consist of growing cacao and coffee (McIlvaine-Newsad, 2000; Medina, 1992). Cacao, which has been grown and sold since at least the turn of the twentieth century, has a sweet white flesh around the seeds that can

PAGE 105

88 Photo by Author. Figure 5.10. A Chachi from La Ceiba resting in his platanal with some papaya trees in the foreground. be made into drinks. Then the dried seeds are sold to make chocolate. The Chachis have not planted coffee for over five years due to low coffee prices. Cash crops and subsistence crops are usually inter-planted but not necessarily in the same area. Usually cacao (one of the principal market crops in Loma Linda and the Cayapas River area) is planted with the other tree crops in a separate field. In Loma Linda, some have abandoned their cacao because of the low prices. In La Ceiba, residents do not grow much cacao because they claim it does not produce well.

PAGE 106

89 The Chachis also have home gardens that surround their houses. These gardens are complex and intensive, and serve multiple uses, and are cared for by women. Gardens often contain fruits from the Passiflora genus (one endemic to the area and the others not), coconuts, limes, oranges, naranjilla, hot peppers, and other commonly eaten fruits like madrona (Rheedia madruno), a relative to the mangosteen and mamey. These plots may also include medicinal herbs, herbs for cooking, seedlings that need to be cared for, and some vegetables like squash, garlic, and onions. Gardens supply perishable fruits, vegetables, and herbs, while chacras provide food that can be stored. Contrary to the research of McIvaine (2000), the Chachi women on the Cayapas River also use canoeras, which are either old, bored canoes or interlaced, bamboo straps in a trough-like shape. The advantages of planting in canoeras include protection from floods and improved drainage. In Loma Linda, most houses have canoeras, while in La Ceiba this practice is less common. Cycles: planting, weeding and harvesting In September or October, when the rainier season begins, families broadcast corn and bean seeds. That same day they cut back vegetation with machetes and chainsaws so that the forest rat and other small rodents will not eat the crops. The next step involves planting the plantain and banana corms (that are brought from other fields). Cultivators choose September and October to plant so that they can cut weeds and plant at the same time. Moreover, apart from nourishing the seeds, the additional rainfall makes the herbaceous growth easier to remove. Chachi chacras have four stories. According to Medina (1992), the Chachis leave big bushes and trees untouched in the aforementioned cutting process because they provide shade and humidity for the smaller plants. The Chachis, themselves, have

PAGE 107

90 another reason. They do not cut trees from which they may be able to harvest wood later. These trees, which form the highest story, are used for timber/lumber and act as banks for times of need (McIlvaine, 2000). Medina reports that the people of Loma Linda also do not cut other useful trees (like cacao, coco, avocado, or lime) that were planted in previous swidden cycles; these trees form the third story. Maize can be intercropped with the bananas twice, which form the second story, before the bananas begin to block the sunlight (DeBoer, 1996). The Chachis start to harvest the beans and corn (that form the first story along with the root crops) four months after planting, during the second limpieza (or field cleaning). At this time they also plant cassava cuttings, sweet potatoes, chirma roots, and rascadera rhizomes (DeBoer, 1996). The Chachis plant three varieties of cassava that can be harvested in four months, six months, and eight months, respectively. They also make a point of completing the limpieza, planting the root crops, and harvesting the beans and maize together so that cultivators return home with food. The plantain and banana plants usually take nine to eleven months to yield a crop (DeBoer, 1996). The women always cut the entire fruiting stem so that the remaining baby shoots can continue to grow and be harvested after an additional few months (Barrett, 1925). Generally, families combine limpiezas and harvests every four months (although harvest takes place every one to two weeks).

PAGE 108

91 Photograph by Author. Figure 5.11. A Chachi girl from Loma Linda taking the panda harvest home. One swidden usually yields crops for about two-and-a-half to three years, which correlates with optimal plantain productivity. Depending on family size, the Chachis of Loma Linda plant a new swidden every one to two years so that there is a continual supply of verdes and other staples. Again, depending on family size, households usually have two to three fields in various stages of development at the same time. When families transition to a new plot, men will often plant some cacao and other useful trees in the new plot and set up traps to catch small mammals in an old one. Medicinal herbs and other wild foods can also be found on old plots, which are usually left fallow for ten years. There are no agricultural celebrations in Loma Linda. Nevertheless, during Lent, Christmas, and on Sundays, the Chachis do not work the fields for fear that they will not get a good harvest.

PAGE 109

92 Tools and technology According to McIlvaine (2000) as well as this authors field observations, the Chachis of Loma Linda generally do not use any chemical inputs (e.g. commercial fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) and do not need to invest cash into their systems. Yet in La Ceiba, residents do use fertilizers and pesticides. The Chachis from both villages collect seeds and cuttings from previous harvests. Although they rarely buy seeds, they do like to trade within and between villages. Photograph by Author. Figure 5.12. A Chachi from La Ceiba preparing fertilizer mix in the village to take to his swidden plot. The Chachis tend to leave for their chacras before sunrise and return to their homes before lunch (unless the men are working on an all-day project like tree-cutting, in which case they take their lunch or the women take it to them). They try to finish what they can in the early morning because it often rains in the afternoon. The only energy source in the system is human energy, and the work is extremely labor intensive, especially in the hot sun.

PAGE 110

93 The only tools used are machetes, sticks for holding back vegetation, hoes, axes, and chainsaws (McIlvaine, 2000). The Chachis never go into the forest or to their chacras without their machetes, which are utilized in almost every task. Children, both male and female, seem to have a mastery of how to use a machete by the age of six. Pests and other problems in the system Medina (1992) notes that the Chachis lose 50% of their crops to pests. He also mentions that because they plant their coffee and cacao so close together, both crops cannot grow fully. The main pest problems involve nematodes in banana or cassava plants, and leaf cutter ants that eat fruit tree seedlings. The Chachis have not really developed any techniques to combat these problems, except through the occasional use of pesticides by some La Ceiba families. Gender and Agricultural Production Division of labor between males and females within a household is important in providing for the needs of all family members. The division of labor is particularly important in agriculture as this activity represents the cornerstone of the Chachi subsistence system. Womens role in agriculture The women of Loma Linda are the principal food gatherers in the family. They are in charge of the production and harvest of plantains. Depending on the size of a family and how many women are available for work, women may harvest panda (plantains) anywhere from twice a week to every two weeks. In order to carry plantains: women cut banana leaves, shave off a layer of the stem, and attach both ends of each leaf to a bunch of plantains. This way women (depending on age and strength) can carry up to four

PAGE 111

94 bunches of plantains draped around their forehead, but resting on their back. Surplus verdes may be sold. Photograph by Tanya Fisher. Figure 5.13. A Chachi woman from Loma Linda is tying on a banana-stem strap. This will wrap around her forehead as she carries the plantains back to the house. Although women are generally in charge of harvesting plantains, it can be a family event. Apart from plantains, women plant and harvest cassava and pineapple, and they collect wild edible plants in the chacra. Although rare, sometimes pigs are kept in pens, and these animals are also taken care of by women. Furthermore, women are in charge of household gardens as well as the production and harvest of rampira used in crafts. Women are also responsible for apuntalandothe bracing up of bananas or plantains with a long stick. Apuntalando involves cutting a two to three-meter stick from a nearby tree, and jabbing the stick into the banana plant so that it supports the weight of the panda bunches. This procedure keeps the plant from falling over in the wind and

PAGE 112

95 exposure to the forages of the raton de monte (forest rat) and churin (a smaller forest rat). Women usually undertake this activity when they are harvesting and/or cleaning. Womens other duties also include feeding and caring for chicken. Some families buy balanceado, a mixed grain meal for their chickens, while others feed them a small variety of bananas (called chiros) or corn. Regardless, all the Chachis throw feed around their homes twice a day to roaming chickens. In Loma Linda, residents mostly sell chickens to other families; whereas in La Ceiba, people often sell their chickens in San Lorenzo to make more money. The womens group in La Ceiba organized a chicken-raising project in 2001, but it fell apart less than a year later for unexplained reasons. Mens role in agriculture Men usually help in clearing an area, planting, and clearing the weeds from the chacras. Specifically, they help plant cassava and plantains. Men are also in charge of the production and harvesting of cash crops such as cacao. When coffee was in higher demand and had a better price, men were also in charge of this; although women sometimes helped with the harvest. Both men and women grow and harvest rice. As mentioned before, the Chachis of both communities reported that their grandfathers economy was greatly based on the sale of pigs. It appears that pig-raising is the responsibility of the male head of household. Mingas A minga, a cooperative labor group, is usually called together in order to help a family accomplish a task. It is a tradition that has been adapted by the Choc Amerindians and the African Ecuadorians from the Andean groups (Thurston, 1997), and it is very likely that the Chachis brought this Andean tradition with them from Tutsa'.

PAGE 113

96 In return for work, the family usually provides a meal for the labor participants or supplies gasoline for the motor generator during a community dance. Generally, the Chachis only call together mingas when a family has missed a field cleaning or when the weeds are too tall and dense for a family to eliminate alone. Mingas are now becoming less and less common. As of now, three out of sixteen Loma Linda respondents pay other people in the village to help them clean their fields. (These three individuals are professors who do not have time to accomplish this task alone.) In La Ceiba, there is only one household head (out of ten) that pays other people to clean his fields; he is not a professor. There are seven people (out of sixteen) who hire others to help them haul plywood (that they cut with chainsaws) to the road for sale to intermediaries. Fishing The Chachis have also been described as a fishing culture (DeBoer, 1996). This is partly due to the great diversity of fish found in tropical Ecuador (Allum, 1997). This section describes the Chachis fishing and crustacean-collecting practices. All of the households interviewed in La Ceiba participate in subsistence fishing, and all but one of the households interviewed in Loma Linda (95%) fish for the same reason. Two households in Loma Linda participate in fishing for the market (10%), but no households in La Ceiba practice this (See Figures 5.3 and 5.4). Hence, subsistence fishing is fundamental to the everyday life of the Chachis, while the sale of fish is sporadic.

PAGE 114

97 Photograph by Ladna Miller. Figure 5.14. A Chachi boy from Loma Linda with one of the Chachis favorite fish, known as wakuko (Spanish) or waawalu (Chapalaa). Fishing greatly differs from summer to winter since wintertime witnesses a rise in water level and sediment. As a result, household heads spend much less time fishing in the winter than in the summer. Both men and women fish (often together), and they use three types of nets and fishing lines (Allum, 1997). At sunrise they place the nets and return in the afternoon to retrieve their catch. Otherwise, both men and women will use fishing poles. Sometimes they (mostly women) will trap freshwater shrimp in the tributaries with baskets. In La Ceiba, residents also use nets and fishing poles, but their practices are not as influenced by the winter rains.

PAGE 115

98 In the summer, the Chachis of both villages also: use hooks to fish, wear goggles to look for freshwater shrimp in shallow areas; search for shrimp under rocks; and go out with their petromax (gas lamps) at night to spear bigger fish (called mariscar). One key informant from Loma Linda told me that in the last ten years, people go out to mariscar much more often because the modern gas lamps attract much more fish than the old kerosene lamps. On the other hand, some people reported that they no longer went out at night because they were afraid of being bitten by a snake. Photograph by Ladna Miller. Figure 5.15. Chachi women from Loma Linda with a goggle collecting freshwater shrimp or aabishu (Chapalaa), and guaa (Spanish) or quivilo (Chapalaa). There are also additional methods that are used in summer and winter, such as the use of fish poisons. The Chachis cultivate four different plant species for this purpose. After grinding up the required plants, the Chachis place the poison under a rock or in a log, and then wait for an intoxicated fish to float to the surface (Allum, 1997). A more recent fishing practice involves the detonation of dynamite.

PAGE 116

99 Medina (1992) reports that many fish have been wiped out because of the use of dynamite. Allum (1997) suggests that the increasing frequency with which the Chachis eat river shrimp is directly related to the increasing difficulty of finding fish, as opposed to an innate preference for shrimp. Some people in La Ceiba reported that many fish were dying because a gold extraction company was polluting the water upstream. According to the questionnaire responses, people in Loma Linda went out in their canoes many more times per week than their La Ceiba counterparts. A greater dependence on the nearby road may be influencing responses and behavior in La Ceiba. Hunting In both villages men reported that they were hunting much less now than they did before because the destruction of the forest has led to scarcer animals. Nevertheless, Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show that in both villages more than half of the household heads that were interviewed hunt (55% in La Ceiba and 60% in Loma Linda). Yet, only three household heads in La Ceiba hunt for the market (14%), while five households in Loma Linda participate in hunting for the market (25%). In both villages men hunt mostly on weekends. One of the most successful hunters in La Ceiba (who always brought back the most game during my visits since 1997) is an exception since he combines hunting with mariscando in the summertime. Hunting is very seasonal. Unlike fishing, the Chachis hunt more during the winter when animal tracks are easier to see. (This complementarity between fishing and hunting is beneficial for the Chachis as it supplies protein during both seasons). Although they rarely sell the meat they have captured to markets, the Chachis do sell (or exchange) meat within both villages. Game meat almost always merits a gathering of many community members, and there is rarely enough to go around.

PAGE 117

100 Canoe-making As mentioned above, according to the interviews in both villages, selling canoes was a big part of the economy of the interviewees grandfathers. They did not (and do not) use chainsaws, but instead rely on axes, brushes, big fishhooks, chisels, and galopas. It is a craft of patience, and Altropico (2000) recorded that it takes a Chachi 15 days to finish making one canoe. Currently, in La Ceiba one household head carves canoes for the market (5% of the interviewees); while in Loma Linda 10 % of household heads carve canoes for the market. At the same time, with fishing and transportation Photograph by Ladna Miller. Figure 5.16. Chachis from Loma Linda canoeing down the Cayapas River. being so important, canoes represent an essential aspect of subsistence life. Yet, canoes do last a long time, which may be why no one reported making a canoe in the last year, unless it was for sale. A few key informants told me that the only time they make new canoes is when the river takes them. In La Ceiba, there are actually very few owners of

PAGE 118

101 canoes. Residents go out on the river less and less because they now rely on road transportation. Craft-making Craft production is a Chachi livelihood activity that is mostly done by women. They use rampira (Carludovica palmata) to make baskets, different sized mats for sleeping, and fans for the fire. In Loma Linda, women also make woven bags, belts, wallets, placemats, and tapestries to sell; but this requires capital to buy the yarn, so it is Photograph by Ladna Miller. Figure 5.17. A Chachi woman from Loma Linda weaving a purse strap. done less often. In the past, women used to also weave skirts, and men used to make drums and marimbas. However, these traditions are quickly fading. Only elderly men

PAGE 119

102 know how to play the aforementioned instruments, and of the forty-two men interviewed, only one reported making drums and marimbas. Four households (18%) in La Ceiba participate in craft production for the market, while ten households (73%) participate in craft production for the household. Thirteen (73%) of the twenty households in Loma Linda participate in craft production for the market, making craft production the activity in which the greatest number of households participate. Eighteen households (90%) participate in craft production for the household (See Figures 5.3 and 5.4). The small number of households participating in the craft market in La Ceiba may be due to their location. Although La Ceiba is closer to San Lorenzo, residents reported that there is not much of a demand for their crafts there. In Loma Linda there is a mobile market for baskets, which means that every two weeks a man comes from Colombia to buy baskets for $0.40 each. As a result, Loma Linda women are constantly making baskets. Noticing the difference between the low price that the women were earning for the baskets and their market potential, CARE/Subir (1992-2002) encouraged the women of San Miguel (the CENTRO of seven villages of which Loma Linda is part) to form a craft co-op. The creation of this co-op fostered traditional craft revitalization. Women were given money to create la casa de las mujeres (the womens house)a traditional Chachi house on stilts with tagua palm fronds located in Loma Linda. Along with many other projects, Ecociencia organized a workshop (to learn how to process the rampira in a particular way) and established a connection to sell paja toquilla to Panama hat makers in

PAGE 120

103 Cuenca (located in Southern Ecuador). Ecociencia also set up classes for revitalizing old designs and teaching younger Chachi women how to weave. In addition, simply being a part of a center (Centro San Miguel), or in other words, being closer and more influenced by other Chachi villages, may provide positive reinforcement for the continuation of womens craft production in Loma Linda. La Ceiba is at least an hour-and-a-half by car to the closest Chachi village, and craft production there seems to have lost its central place in the daily lives of women. Photograph by Ladna Miller. Figure 5.18. Chachis from Loma Linda selling baskets to a Colombian middleman. Market-oriented Activities These activities are those that the Chachi households began primarily to generate cash to buy products that they do not produce themselves. These activities include agroforestry, cattle-ranching, logging, contractual labor, and school employment.

PAGE 121

104 Agroforestry As mentioned earlier, only La Ceiba has a communal agroforestry project and this is the activity in which the most households participate (95%). The project was implemented as part of a UTEPA (Unidad Tecnica para el Ecodesarrollo de la Amazonia y region Aw, a governmental organization of the Department of Foreign Affairs) project from 1992-1996. The agroforestry project was coordinated by Todd Smith, a Peace Corps volunteer. Located a half-kilometer from the village center, the fruit forest contains 105 different species of tropical exotic fruits that have brought much joy to La Photograph taken by Author. Figure 5.19. Chachi children from La Ceiba enjoying breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) from the agroforestry project. Ceiba. Of these 105 species, only 22 are harvested, and only 3 (araz, Eugenia stipitata; rolinia, Rollinia deliciosa; and boroj, Borojoa patinoi) are commonly marketed. Of these three, the Chachis mostly just sell boroj or boroj marmalade.

PAGE 122

105 As mentioned earlier, all twenty-two of the respondents in La Ceiba participate in the community fruit forest for subsistence, and twenty-one of the twenty-two (95%) households sell the products in the market (see Figures 5.3 and 5.4). As a community, the Chachis supposedly rotate obligations so that five households are in charge of the harvest each week. These five households are responsible for packing the boroj in boxes and sending the produce to Guayaquil every Monday. What has actually happened, however, is that the Chachis have abandoned the rotation scheme. Instead, they bring fruit to the village on their way home from their other daily activities, which may be more efficient. Their market connection to Guayaquil was established via a friend, who brought a journalist, who then wrote an article on the Chachis agroforestry project. The Chachis maintained this market in Guayaquil with the assistance of an NGO called Altropico. It was also with the assistance of Altropico that they created a micro enterprise around the establishment of a communal marmalade factory. The idea is that they will make and ship boroj marmalade domestically each month. Altropico sent some marmalade to Spain but has not heard anything since. One problem centers around the Chachis inability to uphold strict health regulations. Although the community earned $2150 from September 2001 to November 2002, no marmalade was shipped from November 2002 through June 2003. The community members and the NGOs who work with them have expressed a great deal of frustration in relation to the fruit forest and the marmalade production because the village has had a hard time organizing itself. Both outsiders and community members recognize the

PAGE 123

106 potential benefits, but the Chachis are not willing to dedicate their time to an activity that may help feed their families. While the villagers claim they cannot find more markets for their marmalades, they also recognize that markets will bring more benefits through better organization. As of now, they sell small amounts to small businesses in the Esmeraldas province. One community member expressed frustration saying: before the fruit rotted. Now we have invested in a truck and there is no fruit being harvested. What more do you want? Photograph by Author. Figure 5. 20. Chachis from La Ceiba packing boroj marmalade. Members of the village only reported spending time working in the fruit forest when it was time to have a minga (communal work exchange). Such mingas occur every three months to cut back the weeds and give the trees fertilizer. There have also been added problems because community members take the boroj to their houses and sell them in

PAGE 124

107 Figure 5.21. Boroj marmalade label from La Ceibas communal marmalade factory. San Lorenzo. If confronted, residents claim that the boroj came from their land (since individual households have now planted boroj on their land as well). Cattle-ranching Cattle-ranching, which began in the early 1990s, is a recent introduction to Chachi livelihood systems. As noted earlier, Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show that of the twenty households interviewed in Loma Linda, only three (15%) spent time on raising cattle for the market, and thirteen out of twenty-two households in La Ceiba (59%) spent time on cattle-raising. In La Ceiba, 18% of these twenty-two households consume the meat in the household, while in Loma Linda 10% of the aforementioned twenty households consume the beef they raise. This may be because in La Ceiba residents sell the cattle to buyers who purchase whole animals (because they have a road), while in Loma Linda the Chachis sell the cows within the community There were more cattle in La Ceiba than in Loma Linda because of the proximity of the market and the easy access to buyers. Since men tend to the cattle, more often than not these animals are owned between fathers and sons of a family (including sons-in-law). Relatives often pool their money, purchase cattle, and put all the animals in one persons pasture in exchange for

PAGE 125

108 agricultural land or wood from the other relatives. In one of the cases noted in Loma Linda, two brothers and a father raise cattle on the fathers land. There are also two cases where cattle are owned individually. In La Ceiba, although thirteen households claimed to spend time on raising cattle, no one raises cattle by themselves. There are actually only eight family-owned operations/pastures among the people interviewed. One of these eight households in La Ceiba first acquired cattle a medias more than ten years ago. A medias means that a man borrows some cattle from a cattle owner, and then he breeds them and takes care of them on his land. He is able to keep the offspring, but he must give back one calf for every cow borrowed. Two household heads in La Ceiba acquired cattle a medias over twenty years ago and one just five years ago. No household heads in Loma Linda reported acquiring their cattle a medias. La Ceiba, as a community, has sold 1100 of their 1500 hectares of forest to a logging company from SETRAFOR in three different stages. They have also sold much of the trees on their individual lots to SETRAFOR, which then allows more space for cattle. The questionnaires asked each household what they had done with the money from the three tree sales in 1998, 1999, and 2000. Eight of the twenty-two household heads invested their money in buying more cattle in those years. Cattle-ranching has the largest impact on the environment because cattle need pasture, which means a greater invasion of monocots and longer term deforestation than if this land were used for selective logging or swidden farming. Wood describes cattle-ranching in the frontier region of the Amazon as follows: the small and mostly temporary clearings made by traditional Amazonian dwellers, like the roads and clearings made by loggers, stand in sharp contrast to the clear-cutting carried out by newly arrived

PAGE 126

109 settlers who deforest large areas of land for annual and /or perennial and crops and for pastures to raise cattle (2002: 11). The large areas of cleared land can be demonstrated when comparing the cattle-raising in La Ceiba and Loma Linda. In La Ceiba, the average amount of land per cow is 1.19 hectares, with about 72 cows in the village. The average amount of land per cow in Loma Linda is 0.67 hectares, with 12 cows in the village. That means that in La Ceiba approximately 85.68 hectares is used for pasture, while in Loma Linda 8.04 hectares is destined for pasture. In other words, La Ceiba uses twice the amount of land for pasture per cow, and over eleven times more land has been cleared for pasture in La Ceiba than in Loma Linda. Logging In both La Ceiba and Loma Linda, soft wood is usually taken to the market as timber (log sections called trozas) and hard wood is taken as planks of various sizes (called tablones, tables, or tabletas). To process the hard wood trees (and certain soft woods, such as Sande, for local markets) the Chachis use ink to mark the fallen trees and chainsaws to cut the trees into planks. Both hardwood planks and softwood logs must be moved from their location in the forest, thus, they are tied to balsa trunks to form a raft. The Chachis then paddle the rafts down stream. With bigger rafts on Cayapas River, the local people sometimes attach a motor (if they have access to one). At one time La Ceiba household heads took their rafts to Ricaurte, a few hours downriver from La Ceiba. More recently, the custom of making balsa rafts has been replaced by placing the wood at a roadside for intermediaries to take to the market. Loma Lima residents still make rafts or sell wood to middle men who make balsa rafts and take the wood to Borbn, located two

PAGE 127

110 to three days downriver. In the latter case, they build a temporary shelter on the raft, and the women often come along and cook (they also bring racks of plantains to sell). Figure 5.3 demonstrates that due to the difficulty of certification and because of distance to the market, only seven out of twenty respondents (35%) reported selling wood in Loma Linda. It is much less a priority for Loma Linda than La Ceiba. As of 1998, selling wood on the Cayapas River, where Loma Linda is located, has been illegal unless land is certified, which people do not have the capital to do. In contrast, nineteen out of twenty-two respondents in La Ceiba reported selling wood. Clearly, the majority of the households in La Ceiba participate in logging, and it is the activity in which the second most households participate (86%). Another factor that might add to the difference in number of households that participate in logging between the two villages is that in Loma Linda, people usually extract soft wood only in the winter (when the creeks are high enough to transport the large trunks more easily). Surely this limitation is accentuated when compared to the road access in La Ceiba, which allows household heads to sell wood year-round to logging companies who extract wood with greater ease and convenience. This road (built by CODESA in 1998, but connecting to the road built by SETRAFOR) leads directly to the front door of many households in the village and connects La Ceiba to the main San Lorenzo-Ibarra highway. It also establishes a direct relationship between La Ceiba and SETRAFOR.

PAGE 128

111 Photograph by Author. Figure 5. 22. Hardwood that the Chachis from La Ceiba have carried from the forest. It is then sent down a small river, and brought up to this roadside, where intermediaries will come get it. As mentioned in the section on cattle, since the implementation of this road, La Ceiba has worked in partnership with SETRAFOR to sell 1100 of the 1500 hectares of their communal land. In 2003, they were advanced a new communal truck that cost $20,000, which they paid for in trees. In the summer of 2003, the community received another $60,000 check from SETRAFOR. Most households have also sold most of their trees from their individual plots. In La Ceiba, few households said they reforested in 1997 when SETRAFOR brought them some trees from the Andes; most of these trees have already died. In Loma Linda, the only time many of the households reforested was in conjunction with Proyecto

PAGE 129

112 Subir in 2000. Otherwise household heads have not reforested their land in Loma Linda, except in one case where a single household head reforested in 1988. Contract Labor Three households in both Loma Linda and La Ceiba (15% and 14%, respectively) participate in outside labor exchanges (see Figure 5.3). A colono (migrant peasant) who owns all the land to the east of La Ceiba has a huge amount of cattle and pigs. He pays a few of the La Ceiba Chachis $5/day to cut back the secondary growth in his pastures. In La Ceiba, lives a Chachi whose son married an American woman from Los Angeles, California. This family has decided to work in partnership to build a privately-owned, luxury ecotourism resort that is meant to be beneficial to the village. Eight of the Chachis from Loma Linda work for the owners six days a week for five dollars a day. Public Service Jobs Education has always been an essential part of all indigenous cultures, just not in its current form (with paid teachers and students in uniforms sitting at desks). The role of the current education and teaching has important consequences in the Chachi livelihood system and culture on a household and communal level. First, the Chachis who earn a salary from school positions then buy their household products, partly because they have less time to contribute to other activities. People who attend school and teach in schools also have less time to participate in logging. Such employment can be considered apart of the service industry because teaching contributes to the subsistence of the communities culture as well as to their understanding of the outside world. Public service jobs include: working as teachers or substitute teachers; and building and doing maintenance. The first school in the Chachi territory was established in Loma Linda in 1963 by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (now called the SIL International),

PAGE 130

113 who sent a couple of Loma Linda residents to the Amazon to study to become professors. In Loma Linda, there are currently three schools, and people come from up and down the river to attend. Of the twenty households interviewed, there were seven respondents that teach in schools. In one of these households, both the husband and wife work as teachers. In another three homes, the household heads work for the schools (one builds desks, one substitute teaches, and one does odd jobs around the schools). In sum, Figure 5.3 shows that 50% of the interviewees work in schools in Loma Linda. Yet, beyond the limited population of the questionnaire respondents, there are actually eleven male and four female professors that are trained by the Ministry of Education in Loma Linda. Photograph by Ladna Miller. Figure 5.23. School children playing soccer on a cement playing field in Loma Linda. The closest structure and the two farthest structures to the right are all school buildings. In general, then, education is a high priority for the heads of the households in Loma Linda. In 2002, the Chachis from six centers, including the Centro San Miguel of which Loma Linda is a part, formed an organization called the Education Network or the

PAGE 131

114 Friends Network (Red de Educacin y Red de Amigas, respectively). They were given a loan of $180,000 from the Interamerican Bank in order to improve their educational facilities and San Miguel received $30,000 in 2003, for institutional infrastructure. Loma Linda has two elementary schools, one high school, and even classes for adults. Currently, there are more than 200 students, and 15 of the 39 households in Loma Linda make their living by working for the school system. La Ceiba, on the other hand, has one school with only two professors. In 1981 with the help of the Ministry of Social Well-Being, the first president of the community, Crisencio Tapuyo, and the people of La Ceiba established the first school called Estero Bartola 9 In 2000, there were forty-four students (Altropico, 2000). Only 9% of the household head respondents there work in schools (see Figure 5.3). Although La Ceiba is considered a Chachi center as well, they are isolated from the center and have yet to see the money for Red de Amigas. In general, men usually have more opportunities and a greater probability to further their education. This is because women need to take care of the house and be with their children. Conclusion Chapter 5 demonstrates that inter-village and intra-village networks and social networks with outsiders and NGOs, influence the number of households that participate in particular market activities. For example, agroforestry, contract labor, and cattle-ranching are practiced more frequently in La Ceiba due to social connections with outsiders. The agroforestry project and the accompanying marmalade factory exist 9 Before 1981, the children had to travel one and a half hours by canoe down river and three hours upriver to Ricaurte or La Boca to study

PAGE 132

115 explicitly because of the assistance of the Peace Corps volunteer and UTEPA. People are able to do contract labor because their neighbor needs assistance in pasture maintenance. One could also conclude that logging and cattle-ranching are activities in which more people in La Ceiba, than Loma Linda, participate because of the convenience the road provides. Also because of the road, La Ceiba has tighter connections with SETRAFOR and cattle buyers. In Loma Linda, women are well organized and sell crafts because of the middlemen and the project with Ecociencia. Residents are able to work in contract jobs because one Chachi married an American and established a resort. A few house holds occasionally sell fish because the fish are bigger and more of them are found in the nearby river. (La Ceiba is especially limited now because Tululb River is being contaminated by a gold mining company upstream.) Loma Lima sells less wood than La Ceiba because of the certification laws and the difficulty of hauling large logs without easy road access. Yet in Loma Linda, cacao can be grown, whereas in La Ceiba cacao trees do not produce well. While chapter 4 demonstrated that there were some expected differences in the historical, socio-political, and environmental contexts of La Ceiba and Loma Linda, this chapter has shown that the livelihood backgrounds of La Ceiba and Loma Linda are also divergent in some regards. It has revealed that residents of both villages participate in the same market and subsistence activities, but household heads from each village concentrate on different activities to provide for their families needs and earn money. The next chapter will examine the concentration on divergent market activities in La Ceiba and Loma Linda, while testing the difference in the degree of market integration (the number of hours dedicated to market activities) between these two communities.

PAGE 133

CHAPTER 6 TESTING COMMUNITY DIFFERENCES IN MARKET INTEGRATION This chapter compares the degree of market integration of two Chachi villages, La Ceiba and Loma Linda. I hypothesize that the degree of integration of the market, measured by the hours spent on trading goods and/or labor in exchange for money, is the principal difference between La Ceiba and Loma Linda. This chapter will highlight the more pertinent findings, and show how they lead to the discovery that these two Chachi villages do not differ in terms of degree of market integration so much as the type of market activities in which they participate. Time Spent on Market and Subsistence Activities An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was applied to the economic data to test the statistical significance of the difference between the amounts of time spent on market activities versus the time spent on subsistence activities in each village. Although the analysis achieved the principle goal of comparing household-level market integration in each village, it also permitted the identification of the particular activities that connect the Chachi households to the market. Specifically, the following hypothesis was tested: The Chachi village that is nearer to a town center and connected by road will spend more time on market activities and will decrease time spent on and diversity of subsistence activities. Table 6.1 shows the average amount of time household heads spend on market and subsistence activities per month in the two Chachi villages. The statistical significance indicates the probability of finding the observed difference by random error. The 116

PAGE 134

117 conventional limit is .05 or less. This means that if repeated random samples were drawn from the population, 95 out of 100 times, one would find the observed differences between the two villages. By this criterion, only six of the twenty-two principal market and subsistence variables showed statistically significant differences between communities. Regarding market activities, the differences between villages on the time spent on crafts, communal agroforestry, cattle-ranching, logging, and school are all statistically significant. This means the hypothesis can be accepted with respect to these specific activities. Yet, it is interesting that community differences in the total hours spent on market and subsistence averages were not statistically significant. This reinforces the idea that the two villages spend more or less the same amount of time on market activities. Especially interesting is the fact that the market activities on which the people of La Ceiba spend the most time (logging, cattle-ranching, and agroforestry) are mostly extended-family-oriented and/or community or group-oriented. The market activities (teaching and craft-making) that are statistically significant in Loma Linda are not group-activities, although there is a teachers committee and a womens craft co-op. The major difference between La Ceiba and Loma Linda is that people in La Ceiba spend more time on communal agroforestry (communal activity), cattle (extended family activity), and logging (communal activity). Residents of Loma Linda spend the most time on crafts (through the womens co-op, Maria del Sol) and working in service industry jobs. (The teachers as a group form an important communal resource: el comite

PAGE 135

118 de professors.) In sum, it is not market integration per se that distinguishes the two villages from one another; rather, is the type of market activities on which they depend. Table 6.1. Average amount of time spent on market and subsistence activities in two chachi villages. Activities La Ceiba (near) Loma Linda (far) Significance Subsistence Agriculture 61.73 53.01 0.340 Crops 56.31 46.8 0.298 Chicken 4.19 6.04 0.028 Pig 1.23 0.18 0.216 Fishing 52.92 63.77 0.338 Hunting 17.5 15.2 0.72 Communal agroforestry 3.13 0.001 0.001 Cattle-ranching 2.3 0.34 0.145 Craft-making 6.15 14.27 0.046 TOTAL 143.74 146.58 0.88 Market Agriculture 9.03 14.09 O.389 Crops 4.67 13.3 0.086 Chicken 0.9 0.26 0.086 Pig 3.45 0.53 0.326 Fishing 0 1.23 0.135 Hunting 1.7 1.08 0.582 Canoe 3.64 0.5 0.417 Craft-making 5.53 18.77 0.019 Communal agroforestry 10.17 0 0.001 Cattle 23.73 1.41 0.019 Logging 39.7 5.74 0.001 Public Service 9.09 50.2 0.014 Contracted Labor 20 28.8 0.645 TOTAL 122.57 121.8 0.972 Completed in the province of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, 2003. ** Number of cases: 42; 22/33 households in La Ceiba and 20/39 households in Loma Linda. What the results also demonstrate is that household heads of both villages spend more time on subsistence activities (La Ceiba 143.74 hours and Loma Linda 146.58 hours) than on market activities (122.57 hours and 121.48 hours, respectively). Hence,

PAGE 136

119 both villages are still highly dependent on a subsistence economy based on agriculture and fishing. As far as time spent on subsistence activities is concerned, the null hypothesis can be rejected and my hypothesis can be accepted for three out of eight variables. Households in Loma Linda devote more time to crafts and chicken-raising for subsistence use, compared to people in La Ceiba. Again, because there is no agroforestry project in Loma Linda, people in La Ceiba spend more time on communal agroforestry. These are the only three subsistence variables that are statistically significant. Households in both villages spend time on an equally diverse amount of subsistence activities. The hypothesis that stipulates that the diversity of subsistence activities decreases with greater market integration can be rejected. This may be because both villages are still adjusting to the market system. Further into the market integration process, there may be less time for certain subsistence activities, especially as they specialize on producing certain commodities. This process may be more accentuated by the fact that with better market access and greater incomes, they may be able to buy the household products they now produce themselves. The following discussion, and the remaining chapters of this thesis, will concentrate primarily on the different types of market activities in which the communities participate. The original hypothesis is reworked and the new hypothesis supposes that: the principal differences between the two villages involves increased participation in certain kinds of market activities, and this divergence between La Ceiba and Loma Linda influences levels of social capital. What directly follows is a discussion of the results from the analysis between more subsistence-based activities versus market-integrated activities.

PAGE 137

120 Traditional and Subsistence-oriented Activities This section focuses on the original subsistence and market activities that were the first activities through which the Chachis interacted with the market. These are essential aspects of what is considered today as Chachi culture. They include craft production, agriculture, fishing, hunting, and canoe-making. Out of these activities, only subsistence and market craft production are statistically significant. Craft-making The results show that the women of Loma Linda spend three times more time on market-oriented craft production and more than twice the amount of time on subsistence-oriented craft production than the women of La Ceiba. In La Ceiba, they spend almost the same amount of time doing subsistence and market crafts each month, and in Loma Linda the women spend more time on market goods than on subsistence crafts (which are sometimes traded in San Lorenzo or Esmeraldas for clothes for their children). The average household time spent on making crafts for the market in Loma Linda is 18.77 hours per month, while the average in La Ceiba is 5.53 hours per month. The results also demonstrate that in Loma Linda the household average for making crafts for the household is 14.27 hours per month, and the average for La Ceiba is 6.15 hours per month. The differences between the villages as well as the differences between market and subsistence production results may be due to various factors. These factors were discussed in earlier sections about crafts and will be expanded upon in subsequent chapters. Agriculture Originally it was thought that crop production, chicken production, and pig production were three separate categories because each activity results in separate

PAGE 138

121 marketable commodities. However, the Chachis grow corn, bananas, and manioc to feed their chicken and pigs. This example emphasizes the interconnections that exist between the aforementioned practices. Therefore, it was decided to combine all three categories and test for statistically significant differences. Results indicated no significant differences between the two communities in terms of average household times in agricultural subsistence or market activities. When focusing on crop production, the average amount of time spent per La Ceiba household is 4.67 hours per month on market production and 56.31 hours per month on subsistence. The average household in Loma Linda spends 46.8 hours on crop production. Yet, in Loma Linda they spend an average of 13.3 market hours on market crops. The comparatively large amount of time dedicated to market agriculture in Loma Linda is mostly because of the sale of cacao, which they grow primarily with CAREs influence. As mentioned already, cacao is not reported to grow as well in La Ceiba. The market and subsistence agricultural averages spent by households are not statistically significant. Raising Chickens and Pigs Table 6.1 shows that women in La Ceiba spend 0.9 hours and women in Loma Linda spend .26 hours dedicated to chicken-raising for marketing purposes. The difference between the villages is not statistically significant. And this is somewhat surprising considering that the commencement of the womens group in La Ceiba in 2002 was based on the production of chickens to sell in San Lorenzo. Yet, many chickens died and then the women of La Ceiba embarked on a new type of project. Perhaps for this reason very little time is spent on raising chickens in both villages.

PAGE 139

122 In both villages they mostly produce chickens for household consumption, but in Loma Linda more time is dedicated to raising chickens than in La Ceiba. In Loma Linda the household average is 6.04 hours a month on raising chickens for subsistence, while in La Ceiba they spend 4.19 hours per month dedicated to chickens for household consumption. As the numbers on Table 6.1 reveal, currently very few people interviewed in La Ceiba or Loma Linda had pigs or spent any time on pig-raising for sale or consumption. This may be due to the fact that pigs take very little care, regardless of their present or previous importance in each village. Fishing The data reveal that the majority of livelihood time is spent on fishing in Loma Linda, and that in La Ceiba the average household time spent on subsistence fishing (since nobody sells fish) is only four hours less than subsistence agriculture. In Loma Linda they spend much more time fishing for home consumption (the household average is 63.77 hours per month) than for sale (1.23 hours per month), while in La Ceiba they only spend a household average of 52.92 hours per month fishing for home consumption. Again, the differences between the household averages spent on fishing are not statistically significant. Hunting In both villages households spend more time subsistence hunting than hunting for market. In La Ceiba the Chachis spend more time on both subsistence hunting (17.5 hours per month) and market hunting (1.7 hours per month) than in Loma Linda (15.2 and 1.08 hours, respectively). The differences between the two communities are not statistically significant.

PAGE 140

123 Canoe-making In La Ceiba, the household average for hours spent on making and selling canoes was 3.64, whereas in Loma Linda the average amount of time per household spent on canoe making and marketing was 0.5 hours per month. The differences between the average household times dedicated to market-oriented canoe-making in the two villages are not statistically significant. Actually more people reported selling canoes in Loma Linda, but less frequently. In La Ceiba there was just one man who reported canoe-making, but he made two small canoes (because he said there are no large trees left) every other month. Market-oriented Activities This section will discuss subsistence and market activities that have come about as a result of increasing Chachi interaction with the outside world in the last fifty years. These include participation in the communal agroforestry project, contract labor, logging, cattle-ranching, and working in schools. As market activities, these are all statistically significant except contract labor. Agroforestry and cattle-ranching are not statistically significant when the products are used for subsistence ends. Agroforestry Although agroforesty has been practiced by people living in the forest for about as long as the Chachis have lived in the Choc, the idea of a community coming together to produce communal commodities is new. All together, the average household time per month dedicated to the communal agroforestry project in La Ceiba for market production was 10.17 hours, while households dedicated 3.13 hours to subsistence production (which is why it is included in the more market-based activities). Due to the lack of a communal

PAGE 141

124 agroforesty project in Loma Linda, the difference in time spent on agroforestry activities per month is statistically significant. Cattle-ranching The results show that La Ceiba spends much more time on both subsistence and market-oriented cattle raising activities than Loma Linda. La Ceiba spends an average of 2.3 hours per month on subsistence cattle-raising, while Loma Linda spends an average of 0.34 subsistence hours per month on cattle-raising. This difference in time spent on subsistence cattle-ranching is not statistically significant. In both villages, more time is dedicated to market cattle-raising than subsistence cattle-raising. As far as market-oriented time spent on cattle, La Ceiba spends 23.73 hours per month on cattle-raising activities, while Loma Linda only spends 1.41 hours per month; the divergence between villages of the average amount of time dedicated to cattle-ranching for the market is statistically significant. The large difference in average hours spent on market cattle-raising compared to subsistence cattle-raising in La Ceiba was discussed earlier in the chapter. To reiterate, it is due to the fact that La Ceiba cattle owners mostly sell their cows to buyers in San Lorenzo, who purchase entire cows. As a result, owners and their families usually do not eat the meat from the cattle they sell. In Loma Linda, the smaller difference between the amounts of time spent on market versus subsistence cattle-ranching is due to the fact that the few families that do own cattle sell beef within the village and smoke it for their family as well. Logging In the past year, the average time spent per household on cutting wood in La Ceiba was 39.7 hours per month, whereas in Loma Linda it was only 5.74 hours per month. These results are statistically significant. Causes for these differences were discussed in

PAGE 142

125 earlier chapters; the primary being access to market via the road from La Ceiba to the Ibarra-San Lorenzo highway. Contract Labor In Loma Linda, the average household time spent on contracted labor is 28.8 hours per month, while in La Ceiba it is 20. The variance between Loma Linda and La Ceiba is not statistically significant. Public Service In Loma Linda, the average amount of hours per month per household spent on public service is 50.2 and in La Ceiba the average is 9.09. The difference between La Ceiba and Loma Linda regarding the average time dedicated to working in schools per month is statistically significant. Discussion The data in Table 6.1 demonstrates that the main difference between the villages is not the overall degree of market integration, and therefore my hypothesis is not accepted. However, taking into account the variance between villages of the different activities that are statistically significant, Table 6.1 demonstrates that the principal difference between La Ceiba and Loma Linda is the type of market integration. This is a crucial finding because this means that market integration is not just one vector of outside influence that affects a village. Instead, market integration may come in different forms and each village may choose to integrate into the market in different ways, depending on their socio-environmental context. Since the results show that it is the type of market activities that creates the major difference between the villages, statistically significant market activities are also of primary importance as factors that influence social capital. Thus, the remaining parts of

PAGE 143

126 this chapter will concentrate on the differences between the amounts of time dedicated to the particular statistically significant market activities: craft production, cattle-ranching, the agroforestry project, timber/lumber extraction, and school employment (see Table 6.1). Figure 6.1 shows the percentage of households that participate in the five statistically significant market activities in each village. It shows that in La Ceiba 95% of households participate in the communal agroforestry project, 86% participate in logging, and 59% participate in cattle-ranching. This figure highlights those households in Loma Linda that concentrate on other market activities. In the latter community, 65% of households participate in craft production and 50% work in public service jobs. A discussion of the findings about the significant and diverse livelihood activities will lead into the final observations about the variance in forms of market integration between La Ceiba and Loma Linda. This figure also demonstrates that a far greater percentage of households in La Ceiba participate in market activities than in Loma Linda.

PAGE 144

127 n = 22 n = 2018%59%0%86%9%65%15%95%35%50%0%20%40%60%80%100%La Ceiba (near) Loma Linda (far) communityparticipation in market activities craft production cattle ranching agroforestry logging public service jobs Figure 6.1. Household participation in significant market-oriented activities. Activities that are statistically significant are shown in Table 6.1 and are highlighted again in Figure 6.1. Important observations about the communal and household differences in market activity participation between Loma Linda and La Ceiba are as follows. 1. The people of La Ceiba concentrate on market-based activities such as logging and cattle-raising (more environmentally destructive activities) and agroforestry. The main market activities in Loma Linda are working in schools and crafts, which are potentially culturally relevant and less environmentally destructive. 2. The activities in which most households in La Ceiba spend the most time and earn the most money (e.g. cattle-ranching, logging, and participation in the agroforestry project) are extended-family and communal projects. Craft-making and working in schools, which are the main activities of Loma Linda do not require family or community collaboration (although there are community groups for both of these activities). 3. Since subsistence and market-oriented craft production play such a major part in the Loma Linda economy, women play a larger role in market integration.

PAGE 145

128 One can see from the results of the ANOVA tests that, indeed, the road in La Ceiba seems to make access to certain kinds of markets (such as timber/lumber and cattle) easier. Moreover, these newer activities tend to occur on a larger scale. Yet, some newer and market-based activities have the potential to be more environmentally benign. Clearly, working for the school system, or an extractive activity, or even a communal agroforestry project are activities that are less damaging than clear-cutting and setting-up large areas of forest as cow pasture. 1 Therefore, Loma Lindas main activities may be considered more environmentally benign, whereas La Ceibas activities are more environmentally harmful. Conclusion This chapter showed that the two communities differ in terms of the type of market activities in which each participates (by economic activities). The next step in the analysis is to explore the social consequences of market integration. The chapter that follows tests the statistical significance of the differences between the communities (and individuals within them) in terms of social capital. 1 Of course, whether an activity is environmentally benign may also depend on how wages are invested or whether craft materials are harvested sustainably. Extraction techniques and wage investments will not be explored further in this thesis because in this case we know wages are going towards food and the craft materials that come from plants that women grow in their chacras.

PAGE 146

CHAPTER 7 TESTING COMMUNITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MARKET ACTIVITIES AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Now navigating their way through the context of contradictions by negotiating the permanent contradiction between the culture of use value and the culture of exchange value (profit), the question becomes how much of the indigenous social principles and logic are still present in contemporary indigenous societies? In other words, how much and in what ways has the capitalist economy and world view affected indigenous groups? (Varese, 2001) This chapter focuses on the social consequences of market integration. Previous pages have shown that the two communities that are the focus of this researchLa Ceiba (the closest village to an urban center) and Loma Linda (the farthest village to an urban center)do not differ in terms of the number of hours that that people devote to market versus non-market activities. Despite this overall similarity, the two do differ significantly in terms of the kinds of market activity that prevail. People in La Ceiba are much more likely to engage in ranching and logging for income. The concern here is whether the economic differences between the two places are associated with significant difference with respect to social capital. The notion of social capital can be conceptualized in at least two different major ways. Cognitive social capital refers to values, beliefs, behavior, and social norms. Structural social capital refers to the degree to which informational and material networks organize social interactions. Bonding social capital, which includes both structural and cognitive 129

PAGE 147

130 social capital, refers to intra-village cohesiveness and is the overall type of social capital that I address in my hypothesis. 1 Using various measures of social capital as dependent variables, the objective is to test the hypothesis that, other things being equal, people in La Ceibathe community in which ranching and logging are more evidentwill have lower levels of both forms of bonding social capital. If the data support this hypothesis, we can conclude that social capital is a unitary concept that is affected by the kind of economic activities that are performed. Alternatively, if the hypothesis is supported for some measures of social capital, but not others, the results suggest that the processes that link economic activity to social organization may be more complex. The following itemsand the questions from which they were derivedserve as operational definitions of social capital. Cognitive social capital: Trust about money. Do you think that in this community the people generally have trust in eachother in questions of borrowing and lending money? 1. Yes, they have trust 2. Some 3. There is no trust 4. I do not know/ I am not sure 5. No response Personal trust. How many people in this community are honest and deserve to be trusted? 1. the majority are honest and deserve to be trusted.la mayora son honestas y merecen confianza 2. some are honest and deserve to be trusted 1 The other two types that also include cognitive and structural forms of social capital are bridging and linking social capital. Bridging social capital is intra-village cohesiveness and linking is multi-scaled organizational cohesiveness. See Figure 2.1 in chapter 2.

PAGE 148

131 3. only a few are honest and deserve to be trusted 4. people are not honest nor deserve to be trusted Level of cooperation. All in all, how does the level of trust in the community seem to you? 1. very low 2. low 3. normal 4. high 5. very high Personal help. Suppose that something unfortunate happened to you youre your father or your child suddenly died (something that makes you feel sad), who could you ask for personal help (to talk about your sadness). 1. nobody would help 2. family 3. friends 4. neighbor 5. a religious leader or group 6. a community leader 7. a marketing or business leader 8. a political leader 9. a community organization to which you belong 10. a community leader to which you do not belong 11. governor or traditional government 12. other 13. I do not know/ I am not sure 14. no response Economic help. Suppose that you lose a lot economically, for example a crop failure, who could you ask for economic help? 1. nobody would help 2. family 3. friends 4. neighbor 5. a religious leader or group 6. a community leader 7. a marketing or business leader 8. a political leader 9. a community organization to which you belong 10. a community leader to which you do not belong 11. governor or traditional government 12. other

PAGE 149

132 13. I do not know/ I am not sure 14. no response Structural social capital: Most important organizations. Of these organizations, choose three that are the most important for you. 1. Catholic Religion 2. Evangelist Religion 3. the centers government 4. FECCHE 5. agricultural cooperative 6. womens cooperative 7. parents comittee 8. health committee 9. cultural association 10. environmental association 11. traditional government LA CEIBA ONLY 12. Altropico 13. OIM 14. SETRAFOR 15. Plan Choc 16. COMOFOR 17. forestry committee 18. sports committee 19. agroforestry committee 20. marmalade committee 21. water committee LOMA LINDA ONLY 22. professors assocation 23. youth sports club 24. Redes Amigas Number of people known outside. How many people (friends) that are not Chachis do you know in the following places? 1. On the Tululb River (or San Miguel for Loma Linda) ________ 2. San Francisco (Borbn)________ 3. San Lorenzo ________ 4. Esmeraldas_______ 5. Quito_________ 6. Other places (Santo Domingo)________ In the places 1-6 above how many people do you know through the following?

PAGE 150

133 1. Through ONGs? 2. Through government positions? 3. Through selling agricultural products? 4. Through selling crafts? 5. Through logging? Influence. How much influence (ability to imfluence or motivate) do you believe you have to make this community a better place to live? 1. a lot 2. some 3. not much 4. nothing 5. I do not know/ I am not sure Land, Political and Religious disputes. Many times there are different positions among people who live in the same village. How much do you believe that these differences divide the people? A little Some A lot Land disputes _____ _____ _____ Political disputes _____ _____ _____ Religious disputes _____ _____ _____ How problems are resolved in-village. How do people resolve problems? 1. There are no problems 2. Differences do not cause problems 3. The people resolve their problems by themselves 4. The family or household intervenes 5. The neighbors intervene 6. The community leaders intervene 7. Religious leaders intervene 8. Political leaders intervene 9. violence 10. governor or traditional government 11. all the community 12. someone from the outside 13. I do not know/ I am not sure 14. No response

PAGE 151

134 Methods of Social Capital Data Analysis To measure bonding social capital is to measure the degree of group cohesiveness. Procedures for testing the differences of bonding social capital between the two communities fall into two general categories: logistic regression and cross tabulations. Between the two, I tested community and other differences in 12 bonding social capital variables. Logistic Regression Logistic regression is the appropriate technique when the dependent variable is a dichotomy (coded 1 when the attribute of interest is present, and coded 0 when it is not). In this case the measures of social capital were recoded into dichotomous variables, even though the questionnaire originally allowed for a greater number of responses. The decision to dichotomize the dependent variables was based on an analysis of the distribution of the responses (which were often highly skewed), and because ordinary least square analysis (OLS) does not perform well when the number of categories is small. Like OLS, logistic regression allows the introduction of multiple independent variables. In this case, the independent variable of primary interest was place of residence (La Ceiba, coded 1; and Loma Linda, coded 0). Additional variables were introduced as controls, such as age, sex, and years of education. Logistic regression produces a set of b coefficients that predict the probability of an outcome (e.g., the presence of a particular kind of social capital). When the coefficients are exponentiated (exponent B), the b coefficients can be interpreted as an odds ratio. More specifically, an odds ratio of 1 for a given independent variable shows that the independent variable has no effect on the odds of the dependent variable. An

PAGE 152

135 odds ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that the independent variable is associated with a greater probability of social capital. Thus, an exponentiated coefficient for, say, community of 1.37 means that odds of finding social capital in the community that is coded 1 is 37% greater than the odds of finding social capital in the community coded 0 (after removing the effects of other variables in the equation). Similarly, an odds ratios of less than one, say, .80, means that the probability of finding social capital in the effect community is reduced by 20%. The odds ratios produced by logistic regression are therefore an easy way to assess the association between the independent variable (e.g. community of residence) and a number of dichotomous dependent variables (various indicators of social capital). The tests for each of the dependent variables were carried out in eight consecutive steps. An efficient way to explain the logic of the research design, and to present the hypotheses, is to construct a summary table, as follows. The cognitive social capital variables tested by logistic regression include trust about money matters, honesty and personal trust, and levels of cooperation. Structural social capital variables tested by the same method of analysis include land disputes, political disputes, religious disputes and the amount of influence the household heads and their spouses believe that they have in a community.

PAGE 153

136 Table 7.1. Summary table: logistic regression (models 1-8). Model Independent variables Predicted effect (Exponent B) Rationale 1 Community of residence (La Ceiba=1 Loma Linda=0) <1 The closer village (coded 1) will have less social capital. 2 Age (15-40=1 41-65=0) >1 The older generation will spend more time in households and therefore have lower social capital. 3 Community Age <1 >1 Tests if the community diffemces in social capital remain after controlling for age. 4 Education (7-16=1 0-6=0) >1 Greater education is associated with greater ability to act collectively rather than individually. 5 Community Education >1 >1 Tests if community differences in social capital remain after controlling for educational level. 6 Sex (Male=1 Female=0) <1 Men are more likely to participate in market activities, and therefore have lower social capital. 7 Community Sex <1 >1 Tests if community differences in social capital remain after controlling for sex. 8 Community Age Education Sex <1 Tests if community differences in social capital remain after controlling for all variables.

PAGE 154

137 Cross Tabulations Cross tabulations are used to test the relationship between two nominal variables. Chi Square tests the significance of each relationship. As with the logistic regression tests, to be significant the Chi Square must be 0.10 or below. The cognitive social capital variables tested using cross tabulations and Chi Square include who household heads and their spouses would refer to if in need of (1) personal help, and (2) economic help. Structural social capital includes other variables: which organizations hold the most importance in each village, the number of people residents consider to be friends outside the village, and how inter-village problems are solved when they arise. Cognitive Social Capital This section discusses the factors associated with cognitive social capital the norms of trust and the feeling of confidence among group members. Specific characteristics of cognitive social capital include values, beliefs, behavior, and social norms. The cognitive social capital variables tested in this chapter are trust in money matters, presence of honesty and trust in each village, and existence of cooperation. Two cognitive social capital variables are tested using cross classifications and Chi Square tests: who provides help in times of personal need; and who provides help in times of economic need. Trust about Money Matters Trust is an important concept in the literature on social capital. In this study, one of the items in the questionnaire asked respondents whether they trust others in their community when it concerns money. Tests for community difference are presented in Table 7.2.

PAGE 155

138 The analysis begins by including only the dummy variable for the community. As predicted, the exponentiated B of the community dummy variable is less than 1.00, and is statistically significant. Hence, the odds that individuals trust one another in matters of money is about 62% lower in the community that is engaged in ranching and logging (La Ceiba). The key question at this point is whether the community effect is actually the result of the effects of other variables hypothesized to influence trust in monetary affairs. Model 2 shows that age has an independent effect on trust. However, the effects of education (model 4) and sex (model 6) are not statistically significant. For the purposes of this study, the most important model is the last one, model 8, which controls for all of the independent variables simultaneously. The findings indicate that the community variable continues to be statistically significant, other factors being equal. In fact, the odds of finding trust in La Ceiba are 78% lower compared to Loma Linda. The pattern of results suggests additional conclusions worth noting. First, age is the most important predictor of trust in money matters. The exponentiated B coefficient for age (model 2) is nearly 4 times greater for younger compared to older individuals. This means that the younger people are 4 times more likely than the older generation to trust their fellow members in the community specifically in terms of money matters. The effects of being younger actually increase when the community variable is added to the equation. Note that the R square for Model 3 is 13.6 percent, which is nearly identical to the R square for the full model (model 8).

PAGE 156

139 Honesty and Personal Trust Table 7.3 shows that the likelihood that households will perceive other community members as honest and trustworthy is affected by living in a certain community. Control variables include age group, education level, and the sex of the respondent. Model 1 demonstrates that people in La Ceiba are three times more likely than people in Loma Linda to believe that the people of the village are honest and deserve to be trusted. Models 2, 4 and 6 show that the effects of age, education, and sex are not significant there. And models 3, 5, 7 and 8 demonstrate that even after controlling for other variables (age, education, and sex), the effect of living in La Ceiba remains more than three times greater in terms of the levels of personal trust. These coefficients remain statistically significant. This means that in terms of this variable, La Ceiba has higher bonding and cognitive social capital. In sum, belonging to one community or the other is the only variable associated with indicators of honesty and trust. When taking into account all the variables, the R square in model 8 is nonetheless low (only 7%). Level of Cooperation Table 7.4 shows that the likelihood of cooperation in La Ceiba is about 7.4 times higher than in Loma Linda (model 1). Like Table 7.2, with the exception of community, none of the other independent variables is significant. When controlling for age and sex in models 3 and 7, the perceived cooperation level increases in La Ceiba. Model 5 shows that the relationship between place of residence and the likelihood of cooperation is not statistically significant. Similarly, when the effects of age, education, and sex are included in the logistic regression analysis in Model 8, the difference in cooperation level between villages is no longer statistically significant. Yet, living in La Ceiba as opposed to Loma Linda is an important and significant factor in four of the eight models.

PAGE 157

Table 7.2. Trust about lending and borrowing money in the community regressed on community, age, education level, and sex, The Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador (logistic regression: exponentiated B coefficients). Model Independent variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Constant 3.214** 2.375** 2.546** 3.225** 3.148** 3.010** 3.282** 2.457** Community La Ceiba 0.387** .254** 0.364 0.386** 0.223** Loma Linda (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Age 15-40 years 3.916** 5.643** 5.886** 41-65(ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Education 0-6(ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 7-16 years 1.538 0.880 0.782 Sex male 0.644 0.639 0.980 female (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 R square 1 .039 .075 .136 .007 .039 .009 .047 .137 ** Statistically significant at 0.10 or less. 140 Note: La Ceiba is the village closest to the market and Loma Linda is more isolated.

PAGE 158

Table 7.3. Community members that are honest and deserve to be trusted regressed on community, age, education level and sex, The Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador (logistic regression: exponentiated B coefficients). 141 Model Independent variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Constant 2.327** 2.169** 2.317** 2.084** 2.366** 2.244** 2.321** 2.303** Community La Ceiba 3.143** 3.137** 3.315** 3.136** 3.193** Loma Linda (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Age 15-40 years 1.176 1.018 1.071 41-65 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Education 0-6 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 7-16 years 0.589 1.113 1.051 Sex male 1.160 1.140 1.146 female (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 R square .065 .001 .065 .014 .065 .001 .065 .066 ** Statistically significant at 0.10 or less. Note: La Ceiba is the village closest to the market and Loma Linda is more isolated.

PAGE 159

Table 7.4. Cooperation level in the community regressed on community, age, education level and sex. The Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador (logistic regression: exponentiated B coefficients). Model Independent variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Constant 0.074** 0.107** 0.076** 0.077** 0.069** 0.096** 0.063** 0.050** Community La Ceiba 7.398** 7.527** 6.308 7.510** 4.460 Loma Linda (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Age 15-40 years 1.154 0.879 1.305 41-65 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Education 0-6 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 7-16 years 0.269 0.703 0.375 Sex male 3.171 3.242 4.086 female (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 R square .060 .000 .060 .023 .061 .026 .084 .091 ** Statistically significant at 0.10 or less. 142 Note: La Ceiba is the village closest to the market and Loma Linda is more isolated.

PAGE 160

143 Personal Help Question 5.1 in the social questionnaire asked respondents the following: suppose that something unfortunate happened to you, such as hurt feelings because your husband or wife left you or something similar to this, to whom could you refer for personal help? The results of the cross tabulation in Table 7.5 indicate that there is a statistically significant relationship between people living in different communities. However, there are no significant differences in responses to the personal help question when the respondents are classified by age, education, or sex. In La Ceiba (the close community), as opposed to Loma Linda (the far community), almost two times more respondents said that they would not go to anyone (31% compared to 18.4%). In turn, in La Ceiba 38.1% of people compared to 13.2% of people in Loma Linda said that they would go directly to the community. Yet, more than twice the number of respondents in Loma Linda responded that they would go to family and friends (63.2% as opposed to 26.1%). Furthermore, 2.6% of Loma Linda residents, and 4.8% of La Ceiba inhabitants, said they would turn to outsiders if they were in need of personal help. In terms of measuring bonding social capital, the five different categories can be reduced to two: insiders and outsiders. The village with the most people who refer to family and friends and community is the village that has the most bonding social capital. In Loma Linda, 76.4% look to family and friends and community in the case of a personal problem, while in La Ceiba 64.4% refer internally if they have a personal problem. In other words, people in the farther community are more inclined to look to families and friends for help with personal problems.

PAGE 161

144 Table 7.5. Personal help cross tabulations. Esmeraldas, Ecuador. Community Age education sex close far 15-40 >41 0-6 7-14 male female nobody 31.0 18.4 31.0 9.1 22.2 30.8 26.8 23.1 family/friends 26.1 63.2 41.5 50.0 42.6 46.2 36.6 51 community 38.1 13.2 24.1 31.9 31.5 15.4 29.3 23.1 outsiders 4.8 2.6 3.4 4.5 3.7 3.8 4.9 2.6 religious groups 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.5 0.0 3.8 2.4 0.0 Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Chi square .009 .172 .358 .622 Economic Help Table 7.6 shows the results of asking the Chachis of La Ceiba and Loma Linda a similar question, this time in terms of economic help: suppose that you lose a lot economically, for example a crop failure, to whom would you turn for help? The cross-tabulation results are parallel to those in Table 7.5. The only statistically significant differences are associated with place of residence. In La Ceiba, the close community, almost four times the amount of respondents said they could not ask anybody (28.5% as opposed to 7.9%). While just about the same amount of respondents in both villages said they would talk to family and friends, almost six times the amount of people in La Ceiba than in Loma Linda said they would ask the community. Although the table shows that one-third of La Ceiba does not want to ask anyone for help, the other third would ask the community. Consequently, 47.7% of the respondents in La Ceiba would look internally to family and friends and community, as opposed to only 21.1% in Loma Linda. In turn, in Loma Linda one-third would refer to outsiders and more than a third will turn to religious groups. There are clearly differences between the villages in terms of this aspect of bonding and cognitive social capital when it concerns economic assistance. Nevertheless, there are various potential historical and social explanations that may influence the responses

PAGE 162

145 in both villages. First, La Ceiba has a community fund from selling communal trees while Loma Linda has very little money. Loma Linda has a much tighter relationship with the Catholic and Evangelist organizations in the area; both churches have provided economic help in times of need. Table 7.6. Economic help cross tabulations. Esmeraldas, Ecuador. community Age education Sex close far 15-40 >41 0-6 7-14 male female nobody 28.5 7.9 20.7 13.6 22.2 11.5 19.5 17.9 family/friends 16.7 15.8 17.2 13.6 16.6 15.4 12.2 20.6 community 31.0 5.3 19.0 18.2 20.4 15.4 19.5 17.9 outsiders 16.7 31.6 19.0 36.4 20.4 30.8 29.3 17.9 religious groups 7.10 39.4 24.1 18.2 20.4 26.9 19.5 25.7 Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Chi square .000 .585 .653 .678 Structural Social Capital This section discusses the effects of living in La Ceiba on structural social capital variables. Structural social capital refers to the degree to which informational and material networks organize social interactions. It includes roles, social networks, and other aspects of social structure. The structural capital variables tested by logistic regression in this chapter include: the perception of the incidence of land conflicts, political strife and religious disputes, and the amount of influence an individual perceives that he or she has in the village. Structural social capital indicators that were subjected to cross tabulations and Chi Square are the following: how inner-village problems are solved, number of people known outside the village, and the most important organizations in the village (whether they are internal or external organizations).

PAGE 163

146 Land Disputes The logistic regression results presented in Table 7.7 indicate very large differences between La Ceiba (close to the market) and Loma Linda (more distant) with respect to the perception of the severity of land disputes. The values in Model 1 suggest that the odds that people perceive land disputes is 99 percent lower in the closer village. This effect is not influenced by the introduction of other variables, which are statistically insignificant (except for education in model 4). Moreover, the R square reaches 55.1 percent, which is the highest variance explained in the entire study. What these findings clearly show is that spatial location has a decisive effect on peoples perception of land disputes (and, presumably, on the actual incidence of land disputes). Although both communities have legal titles, struggle over land is a much greater problem in distant places where land assets are poorly demarcated and there is a lower degree of control. The need for greater regulation and the lower incidence of land disputes are evident in places that are distant from market and other population centers. Political Disputes The regression analysis that includes political disputes shows greater differentiation between independent variables (see Table 7.8). Once again, the probability that one will perceive political disputes in their community when living in La Ceiba as opposed to living in Loma Linda stays statistically significant after controlling for age, education, and sex. Model 1 demonstrates that the people of La Ceiba are 80% less likely to think that political disputes are a problem. This result could be related to the fact that representatives of political parties are more likely to visit those villages located on the larger rivers.

PAGE 164

147 In terms of age, education level, and gender category, people who are between the ages of 15 and 40 were 65.4% less likely than the older generation to respond that there were political disputes (Model 2). Household heads and spouses were 271% more likely to report political disputes if they had received education beyond the seventh grade (Model 4), and the odds remain the same for women and men (Model 6). The only statistically significant effect is the coefficient for community. Model 8 shows that there is a 73.8% increased chance of finding political disputes in Loma Linda than in La Ceiba, and 16% of the variance is explained. Religious Disputes Table 7.9 shows that a researcher is about two-and-a-half times more likely to encounter religious disputes in La Ceiba when testing for this variable without any controls (Model 1). The same is true when controlling for age, education, and sex separately (Model 3, Model 5, and Model 7). Yet, none of these independent variables are significant in relation to religious disputes. After controlling for all three variables (age, education, and sex) together, even the effect of living in one community as opposed to the other is no longer significant. Still, it is safe to conclude that by belonging to La Ceiba one is more likely to find religious disputes; therefore, one has greater odds of encountering higher bonding and structural social capital in Loma Linda in terms of this specific characteristic. Because both villages have Catholics and Evangelists, it is unclear why there are more people who perceive religious disputes in La Ceiba. This is an area that merits further research.

PAGE 165

Table 7.7. Land disputes regressed on community, age, education and sex regressed on land disputes. The Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador (logistic regression: exponentiated B coefficients). Model Independent variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Constant 1.124 1.104 1.154 1.483 1.198 0.975 1.118 1.204 Community La Ceiba 0.009** .009** .010** .009** .010** Loma Linda (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Age 15-40 years 0.584 0.890 0.919 41-65 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Education 0-6 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 7-16 years 8.799** 1.455 1.352 Sex male 1.053 1.323 1.185 female (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 R square .550 .014 .550 .196 .551 .000 .551 .551 ** Statistically significant at 0.10 or less. 148148 Note: La Ceiba is the village closest to the market and Loma Linda is more isolated.

PAGE 166

Table 7.8. Political disputes regressed on community, age, education level, and sex. The Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador (logistic regression: exponentiated B coefficients). Model Independent variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Constant 0.466** 0.605** 0.522** 0.564** 0.478** 0.50** 0.466** 0.610 Community La Ceiba 0.195** 0.208** 0.215** 0.195** 0.262** Loma Linda (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Age 15-40 years .366** 0.417 .361** 41-65 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Education 0-6 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 7-16 years 2.714** 1.205 1.546 Sex male 1.000** 0.993 0.672 female (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 R square .127 .046 .154 .050 .128 .000 .127 .160 ** Statistically significant at 0.10 or less. 149149 Note: La Ceiba is the village closest to the market and Loma Linda is more isolated.

PAGE 167

Table 7.9. Religious disputes regressed on community, age, education level, and sex. The Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador (logistic regression: exponentiated B coefficients). Model Independent variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Constant 0.988 0.945 0.960 0.947 1.024 0.990 0.978 0.923 Community La Ceiba 2.5** 2.465** 2.811** 2.498** 2.438 Loma Linda (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Age 15-40 years 1.286 1.140 1.301 41-65 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Education 0-6 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 7-16 years 0.714 1.263 1.008 Sex male 1.495 1.493 1.582 female (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 R square .050 .003 .051 .006 .052 .010 .059 .062 ** Statistically significant at 0.10 or less. 150150 Note: La Ceiba is the village closest to the market and Loma Linda is more isolated.

PAGE 168

151 Influence in Community Table 7.10 shows that, after controlling for age and testing for community effects in Model 3, the probability that younger respondents believe they can influence decision-making in the community is 2.4 times higher than among older people. Even more prominent in the table are the B coefficients of Models 4, 5 and 8, in which education is a main predictor of the respondents belief in his or her ability to influence decision-making in the community. These models reveal that the people who received a seventh grade education and above are 4.5 to 7 times more likely to believe that they can influence community decisions than those with less education. Interestingly enough, after controlling for community, age, and sex, education takes even more of a priority in relation to residents believing they have influence, while everything else becomes insignificant. Therefore, education is an important predictor of bonding and structural social capital.

PAGE 169

Table 7.10. Influence in the community regressed on community, age, education level, and sex. The Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador (logistic regression: exponentiated B coefficients). Model Independent variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Constant 1.454** 1.212 1.209 1.975** 1.996** 1.430 1.460** 1.834** Community La Ceiba 0.572 0.497 1.153 0.574 1.225 Loma Linda (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Age 15-40 years 2.114 2.422** 2.124 41-65 (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 Education 0-6 (ref) 4.523** 4.896** 1.00 7-16 years 1.00 1.00 7.004** Sex male 0.799 0.806 0.536 female (ref) 1.00 1.00 1.00 R square .018 .027 .053 .097 .098 .003 .021 .144 ** Statistically significant at 0.10 or less. 152152 Note: La Ceiba is the village closest to the market and Loma Linda is more isolated.

PAGE 170

153 How Inter-village Problems are Resolved There are 14 possible responses to this question of how problems are resolved on page 134. I grouped these responses into three categories to demonstrate the dependence on inside and outsise people. Religious group was kept as its own category to show the number of responses (especially in comparison with the questions of to whom one refers for economic or personal help). The cross tabulation results of Table 7.11 indicate that the differences between the two communities, as well as differences by age and education, are not significant. What the cross classification does point to is that females are more likely than men to turn to their respective communities when a problem arises (89.9% versus 70.7%, respectively). Men are five times more likely to turn to outsiders to solve problems. One potential explanation is that the majority of women in both La Ceiba and Loma Linda do not speak Spanish very well because they often drop out of school earlier than men to take care of their children. Sex is nonetheless a more important determinant than community in terms of this measure of bonding social capital. Table 7.11. How problems are resolved cross tabulations. Esmeraldas, Ecuador. community age education gender who close far 15-40 >41 0-6 7-14 male female community 81.0 78.9 77.6 86.4 85.1 69.2 70.7 89.8 religious group 0.0 7.9 3.4 4.5 1.9 7.7 2.4 5.1 outside 19.0 13.2 19.0 9.1 13.0 23.1 26.9 5.1 Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Chi sq. .153 .559 .196 .029 Number of People Known Outside a Village Table 7.12 investigates the amount of people known outside the village. This serves as a measure of the degree of linking and bridging social capital. Greater linking and bridging social capital (external networks) does not necessarily correlate with lower

PAGE 171

154 bonding social capital (internal networks). Nevertheless, this variable was included to investigate if there is a positive or negative relationship between these types of social capital. The results show that none of the independent variablescommunity, age, education, or sexhave a significant relationship with the number of people known outside the village. Table 7.12. Number of people known outside the village cross tabulation. Esmeraldas, Ecuador. community age education sex number close far 15-40 >41 0-6 7-14 male female zero 9.5 23.0 16.9 13.6 16.6 14.8 11.9 20.5 0 thru 5 26.2 43.5 33.9 36.4 35.2 33.3 26.2 43.6 6 thru 10 26.0 10.3 20.3 13.6 22.2 11.1 18.9 17.9 11 thru 20 23.7 15.4 16.9 27.4 18.5 22.3 31.0 7.7 21 thru 30 4.8 2.6 3.4 4.5 3.7 3.70 4.8 2.6 31 thru 50 4.8 2.6 3.4 4.5 1.9 7.4 4.8 2.6 50 or more 4.8 2.6 5.2 0.0 1.9 7.4 2.4 5.1 Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Chi square. .212 .854 .625 .163 Most Important Organizations Table 7.13 identifies the most important external and internal organizations in each village. The organizations listed in this table are based on the responses to the questionnaire. The cross-classification results show that the only statistically significant difference is between communities. Yet, the differences between La Ceiba and Loma Linda are slight. While 73% of the respondents in La Ceiba consider external organizations more important than communal organizations, only 68.4% of the respondents in Loma Linda responded similarly (row 8). Loma Linda presently does not work with any NGOs. This could be a potential reason why nobody in this village listed an NGO as the most important organization. In turn, the Catholic Church and Evangelical Church have helped Loma Linda more than La

PAGE 172

155 Ceiba in the past, which may explain why 39.5% of the people in Loma Linda named religious organizations, as compared to 17.1% in La Ceiba. In relation to internal organizations, 18.4% of the respondents in Loma Linda considered their womens group to be the most important, while nobody responded that the womens group was most important in La Ceiba. Perhaps the reason why the womens group in Loma Linda holds such respect as compared to the one in La Ceiba is because the former has a longer history and has generated substantial income by revitalizing and creating a market for traditional crafts. Furthermore, it is interesting that 9.8 % of the respondents in La Ceiba, and nobody in Loma Linda, consider the tribal government the most important organization. In sum, although community is the only significant determinant of the relative importance of organizations, there are only small differences between the communities in terms of prioritizing internal and external organizations. Both communities regard external organizations to be more important than their own organizations. Table 7.13. Most important organizations cross tabulations. Esmeraldas, Ecuador. community Age education sex organization close far 15-40 >41 0-6 7-14 male female External religious groups 17.1 39.5 25.4 35.0 21.2 40.7 36.6 18.4 Centro or FECCHE 31.7 28.9 28.8 35.0 30.7 29.7 22.0 39.5 NGOs 19.5 0.0 11.9 5.0 13.5 3.7 12.2 7.9 wood companies 4.9 0.0 0.0 10.0 3.8 0.0 2.4 2.6 Total external (%) 73.20 68.4 66.1 85.0 69.2 74.1 73.2 68.4 Internal community 9.8 7.9 10.1 5.0 7.7 11.1 12.2 5.3 women's org. 0.0 18.4 8.5 10.0 7.7 11. 4.9 13.1 traditional gvnt. 9.8 0.0 6.8 0.0 7.7 0.0 2.4 7.9 professor org 0.0 5.3 3.4 0.0 1.9 3.7 4.9 0.0 fruit forest group 7.2 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.8 0.0 2.4 5.3 Total internal (%) 26.8 31.6 33.9 15.0 30.8 25.9 26.8 31.6 Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100. 100.0 Chi square .000 .212 .303 .218

PAGE 173

156 Social Capital and Community Combining the results from the twelve tests above, this section will address the second hypothesis of the thesis: The Chachi village that spends the most time on logging and cattle-ranching (environmentally destructive market activities) will have lower levels of both structural (social networks) and cognitive (norms and levels of trust) types of bonding social capital. 1 The results from the previous twelve tables will be reordered so as to more easily address the aforementioned hypothesis. Logistic regression results shown in Tables 7.14 and 7.15 refer to Model 8 (testing for community while controlling for age, education, and sex together) of the preceding logistic regression tables when the b coefficients are significant, and to the other models (testing for community but controlling for age, education, and sex separately) when Model 8 is not significant. Tables 7.14 and 7.15 extract the given data from columns two and three in all the previous cross tabulations tables. Again, the results will be categorized by cognitive and structural social capital. Cognitive Social Capital and Community Table 7.14 shows the cognitive social capital results from the Logistical Regression and cross tabulation tests. The findings indicate that household heads and their spouses from La Ceiba (as compared to Loma Linda) perceive that there is a greater probability of personal trust (Table 7.4: 3.19 times higher) and a much higher likelihood of cooperation (referring to Models 1, 3 and 7 in Table 7.5: 7.53 times higher). Also, La Ceiba residents 1 Simultaneously, communal social bridging and linking social capital (both of which include external cognitive and structural) will increase.

PAGE 174

157 are more likely to refer to friends and family and their community for economic help (Table 7.7: 47.7% in La Ceiba and 21.1% in Loma Linda). Table 7.14. Community cognitive social capital. Variables La Ceiba Loma Linda Trust about money X Personal trust X Cooperation level X Personal help X Economic help X Note: X indicates a higher value of the social capital component. On the other hand, the responses in Table 7.2 show that the odds are greater that the people in Loma Linda perceive there to be more trust in the community about lending and borrowing money (87.7% more trust in Loma Linda versus La Ceiba). Also, more people of Loma Linda responded that they would turn to friends or family or the community if they were confronted with personal problems (Table 7.6: 64.2% in La Ceiba and 76.4% in Loma Linda). It is interesting that the results regarding money-related questions and questions related to personal matters are contradictory. The people in La Ceiba are less likely to perceive that there is trust concerning questions of lending and borrowing money from the community, family, and friends. Nonetheless, compared to Loma Linda, two times the percentage of respondents would refer to family and friends and their community if they were in financial trouble. This may be because there are more communal funds in La Ceiba, which actually may cause more suspicion in terms of lending and borrowing. When taking into consideration these different variables, one could deduce that respondents in La Ceiba perceive there to be greater cognitive and bonding social capital on three accounts and greater cognitive and bonding social capital in Loma Linda on two accounts. Therefore, there is slightly greater cognitive and bonding social capital in La

PAGE 175

158 Ceiba. This means that the second research hypothesis that stated that the Chachi village that spends the most time on logging and cattle-ranching (environmentally destructive market activities) will have lower levels of both structural (social networks) and cognitive (norms and levels of trust) types of bonding social capital can be rejected. The null hypothesis can therefore be accepted because, ironically, bonding cognitive social capital is in fact greater in the village that participates most in logging and ranching (environmentally destructive activities). Structural Social Capital and Community Table 7.15 includes a summary of logistic regression and cross tabulation tests in terms of seven structural social capital variables. The results indicate that the differences between responses from La Ceiba (the closer village to the market) and Loma Linda (the more isolated village) were not significant in terms of four of the seven structural social capital indicators: 1) ability to influence the community; 2) whether problems are solved within the village or with the help of outsiders; 3) the number of people known outside the village; and 4) the most important organizations. Table 7.15. Community structural social capital. Note: X indicates a higher value of the social capital component. Two dashes mean that the results were not statistically significant. Variable La Ceiba Loma Linda Land disputes X Political disputes X Religious Disputes X Influence --Problems solved in-village --Number of people known outside --Most important organizations --The tests that produced statistically significant results included the logistic regressions of land disputes, political disputes, and religious disputes. The people of La

PAGE 176

159 Ceiba were 99% less likely to perceive land disputes and 74% less likely to perceive political disputes. On the other hand, the residents of La Ceiba were 2.5 to 2.8 times more likely to report religious disputes (referring to Models 1, 3, 5, and 7). These results can then be reversed in order to be able to interpret the degree of bonding social capital. For example, if there is a greater likelihood of the perception of inner-village problems resulting from disagreements over land and politics in Loma Linda, there is more bonding and structural social capital in La Ceiba on these two accounts. The same is true in relation to religious disputes; if there are more respondents who view internal conflicts resulting from differences in religious beliefs in La Ceiba, than there is more bonding and structural social capital in Loma Linda in terms of religion. In summary, counting the two components of bonding and structural social capital that were higher in La Ceiba (land and political disputes) versus the one component that was higher in Loma Linda (religious disputes), it appears that structural and bonding social capital is once again slightly greater in La Ceiba. On the basis of these results, similar to cognitive social capital, the second null hypothesis is accepted. The second research hypothesis that states that lower social capital will be a consequence of greater communal involvement in logging and ranching (environmentally destructive market activities) can thus be rejected. Social Capital and Age, Education Level and Sex This section will review the results presented in Tables 7.2-7.13 to draw conclusions in regards to the third and final hypothesis. The hypothesis is the following:

PAGE 177

160 The effect of market integration on levels of bonding social capital will vary by gender, age, and level of education. 2 To address this hypothesis, Tables 7.15 and 7.16 summarize the results from the previously presented twelve tables. When referring to the logistic regression tables, the results of testing for age, education, and sex are presented in Models 2, 4, and 6. In the cross classification tables: columns three and four illustrate the results of the cross tabulations including age, five and six show education, and seven and eight demonstrate the affects of sex on the given social capital variable. Results will be categorized by cognitive and structural social capital. Cognitive Social Capital and Age, Education Level, and Sex Table 7.16 includes a synopsis of logistic regression and cross tabulation tests in terms of structural social capital variables. Contrary to my third hypothesis, the results in this table indicate that cognitive social capital does not vary by age, education, or sex, except in one account. Row two, column two points out that trust about lending and borrowing varies by age. Compared to the older generation, the odds are 3.92 times greater that the younger generation perceives their respective community members to be trustworthy in terms of lending and borrowing money (Table 7.1). Nonetheless, because Table 7.16. Cognitive social capital by age, education and sex. Variable 15-40 >41 0-6 7-14 male female Trust about money X ----Personal trust ------Cooperation level ------Personal help ------Economic help ------2 In a study done by Bolaos (2003), there is a striking difference between men and womens relationships with the environment. There may be a difference between older and young people who have differing levels of education and different degrees of interaction with the market. Godoy (2001) notes that higher levels of education lower deforestation rates.

PAGE 178

161 Note: X indicates a higher value of the social capital component. Two dashes mean that the results were not statistically significant. the majority of the cognitive social capital results are not significant by age, education, and sex, the null hypothesis can be accepted. In other words, the third hypothesisthat the effect of market integration on levels of cognitive social capital will vary by gender, age, and educationcan be rejected. Structural Social Capital and Age, Education Level, and Sex The final table in this chapter, Table 7.17, points to how the independent variables of age, education, and sex affect structural social capital levels. Age only affects one structural social capital variable: the likelihood that the Chachis from La Ceiba (the closer village to a city center) will perceive that there are political disputes. Individuals 40 years of age and below are 63.4% less likely to believe that political disputes cause internal problems in the village, as compared to older people (Table 7.5). Table 7.17. Structural social capital by age, education level and sex. Variable 15-40 >41 0-6 7-14 male female Land disputes --X --Political disputes X X same same Religious Disputes ------Influence --X --Problems solved in-village ----X Number of people known outside ------Most important organizations ------Note: X indicates a higher value of the social capital component. Two dashes mean that the results were not statistically significant. Being more educated affects more structural social capital variables than either age or sex. By belonging to the more educated group, the odds that land disputes and political disputes will be perceived to cause disjuncture in the respective community of the respondent increase 8.8 times and 2.7 times, respectively (Tables 7.4 and 7.5). More

PAGE 179

162 interestingly, the likelihood that one believes himself/herself to have a strong influence in the community increases 7 times when a respondent is more educated (Table 7.7). Comparatively, odds of perceiving political disputes as a problem remain the same for males and females who perceive political disputes (Table 7.5). The only independent variable that is affected by sex is that of the organization that is considered the most important. If there were a problem in the village, 89.8 % of the women, compared to 70.7% of the men, would turn to their community before outsiders (see Table 7.10). By contrast, 26.9% of the men would turn to outside organizations in the case of a problem in the community, while only 5.10% of the women would do the same. Surely the reasons for this are in part due to the language barrier that women confront. In summary, besides community, education may be the only other key socioeconomic variable that really has important implications in terms of structural social capital. Education causes significant differences in three of the seven structural social capital variables (perception of land, political disputes, and religious disputes). Only one structural social capital component differs in terms of age (perception of communal political disputes) and one component in terms of sex (the most important organizations). Therefore, it appears that structural social capital (operationalized as seven variables) does not vary by age and sex. Finally, the research hypothesis concerning structural social capitals variation by age, education, and sex, can be rejected on two accounts, but accepted in terms of education. Conclusion Tables 7.14 through 7.17 provide compelling empirical evidence in support of the conclusion that communityas opposed to age, education, and sexis the variable that most affects both cognitive and structural bonding social capital (hypothesis 3).

PAGE 180

163 Moreover, the results from this chapter point to the conclusion that comparatively speaking, La Ceiba, the community that is more integrated into the market via logging and cattle-ranching (environmentally destructive activities) 3 has greater cognitive and structural social capital (hypothesis 2). The principal hypothesis of the thesis can be addressed after having tested the two preceding hypotheses. It is as follows: The village with greater market integration will have more environmentally destructive income-generating practices and a lower level of bonding social capital. This will be done in chapter 8, which presents the overall conclusions of the thesis. 3 The results from chapter 6 demonstrated that La Ceiba (the closer village) is not more integrated into the market than Loma Linda per se, but instead La Ceiba is more integrated into the market via environmentally destructive activities than Loma Linda.

PAGE 181

CHAPTER 8 REFLECTION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Need for a change and consciousness of it accumulate bit by bit in more and more people until a threshold is reached when the whole group discusses and switches attitude, using the energy from the unified focus to change institutions. (Odum 2001: 11) The final chapter begins with my initial impressions at the outset of this project, and how these impressions changed based on the lessons learned in the course of the comparative investigation. What follows is a discussion about the limitations of the research design, as well as the alternative methods. I then note how the study can contribute to literature on market integration and social capital, as well as its practical implications for conservation policy. I conclude by addressing the possibilities for future conservation and development initiatives in Chachi communities. Reflections After living in both La Ceiba and Loma Linda but before doing my research, I had little doubt that the degree of market integration would be greater in La Ceiba than Loma Linda. The integration would be associated with negative environmental and social consequences. After all, I reflected, the intra-village social relationships of La Ceiba had become increasingly fragmented and conflictive. Each time I returned to La Ceiba, it appeared that the people had traded more of their tranquility for greater chaos. Yet, in the process of writing this thesis, I began to question whether their lives were really getting any more chaotic or if, by having spent more time with the Chachis of La Ceiba 164

PAGE 182

165 (as opposed to Loma Linda), I was simply becoming more aware of the complexity of the lives of local people. Within this self-dialogue, I thought, No, but look at Loma Linda. It really seems that these two villages are profoundly different in unambiguous ways. These latter thoughts reaffirmed my dedication to my study and to this topic. Executing a comparative analysis would be feasible and practical because of the similar cultural and environmental contexts of La Ceiba and Loma Linda. In the literature review (chapter 2), I summarized the work of authors who wrote about the negative consequences of market integration, and those who wrote about the positive consequences. These entailed theorists who proclaimed that social capital leads to increased development, and those who state the reverse. This comparative design was adopted in my research design and data analysis as well. I split the time the Chachis spent on their livelihoods into market and subsistence activities. I dichotomized each of the responses from the social capital questionnaires, and even collapsed the main independent variables (age, education and sex) into dummy variables. It is easy to neaten the ever-dynamic multiplicity of the world by creating clear-cut categories. With all these simplifications it was nonetheless impossible to avoid the inevitable complexity in which the communities of La Ceiba and Loma Linda were entwined. The comparative design of this thesis led me to understand that market integration does not move through a village like a tidal wave, a single vector rearranging everything in its course in the same way. I soon learned that the manner in which markets are

PAGE 183

166 incorporated into a village and the social consequences of this integration are just as complex and diversified as the lives of the local people in La Ceiba and Loma Linda. Although I maintain that the two villages are enough alike to compare them systematically, it was the comparative aspect of this thesis that accentuated the wide-ranging paths that multi-scaled and interactive socio-economic and environmental processes can take. Chapter 6 showed that households of La Ceiba (the [village closer] to urban centers) were similar to those of Loma Linda (the more isolated village) in terms of the overall degree of market integration. Nevertheless, they differed in terms of the average amount of time devoted to different types of market activities. While people in La Ceiba were more devoted to environmentally destructive activities such as logging and cattle ranching, people in Loma Linda were integrated into the market via public service jobs and craft production. Participation in these different types of activities affected social capital in distinct ways. To test my hypothesis that the village where more people participate in logging and cattle-raising will correlate with less social capital, I chose to use 12 measures of social capital variables (out of the hundreds that exist), and run Logistic Regression tests and cross tabulations. The social capital variables differed between the two villages. Nonetheless, by considering the variables collectively, the results ironically indicated that the members of the Chachi village that spend the most time on logging and raising cattle have greater levels of social capital. The results of the social capital tests were contrary to my research hypothesis, which had to be modified after considering the results of chapter 6. The original

PAGE 184

167 hypothesis is as follows: The village with greater market integration will have more environmentally destructive money-generating practices and a lower level of bonding social capital. At the outset of my research, I thought that the Chachis had always lived in tightly knit communities. I therefore anticipated that greater market integration would promote greater competition in the villages. As it turns out, the Chachis have lived in extended family homes spread out on the riverbanks since they migrated from Pueblo Viejo (Tutsa) more than a century and a half ago. Since the late 1950s, the increased infrastructure and assimilation of the Esmeraldas region into the Ecuadorian economy has coincided with greater market integration of the Chachi people. The Chachis are now gathered into village centers and organized into clusters of villages under the umbrella of the central Chachi federation, FECCHE (formed in 1978). I conclude that greater bonding social capital was associated with market integration in La Ceiba, not because environmentally destructive activities promote social capital, but because of the village's historical and socio-economic contexts. On one hand, La Ceiba has easier access to nearby Negro, Aw, and mestizo communities, as well as the urban center of San Lorenzo via its connection to the recently constructed San Lorenzo-Ibarra highway. On the other hand, it is more isolated from the other Chachi centers. Due in part to its isolation from the Chachi cultural network, La Ceiba has become a target of NGOs, logging companies, and, currently, African palm companies. To confront these organizations and companies, they have had to come together as a community to decide what they want to do and to reap benefits from governmental and NGO projects. More specifically, market integration and group cohesiveness may be

PAGE 185

168 encouraged by NGO and outside organizational affiliations. When I asked La Ceiba residents why communal organization is important they gave such responses as to attain projects that benefit the community or because the institutions help us more. The people of La Ceiba have signed contracts with wood companies to build their road and pay for their communal truck. Since 1997, La Ceiba has earnedover US $100,000 by selling wood from the communal forest. They have had to come together as a village to decide what to do with this money. They have worked together to create their communal agroforestry project and to run their own marmalade factory, and now they have bought land in San Lorenzo to build a house so their children have a place to stay to pursue higher education. The residents of Loma Linda are more closely affiliated with FECCHE. Hence, Loma Linda is more integrated via the service industry (working as school teachers) than La Ceiba because the former is part of a political center. The women from Loma Linda also spend a lot of time on crafts because the middleman comes to them, and because Ecociencia (The Ecuadorian Foundation for Ecological Studies) helped them to organize as a co-op and to create a market. Road access to Zapallo River, a half-hour downriver from Loma Linda will give them new options. Although it is difficult to determine what kind of changes this road will bring to Loma Linda, just like La Ceiba, they will be confronted with new predicaments and new opportunities that will come and go at a faster speed. What they decide to value and how they choose to organize themselves will be based on the opportunities they perceive. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that logging companies and African palm companies (and even gold mining companies), NGOs, and other institutions may have a critical role in the creation of the

PAGE 186

169 options from which the Chachis choose to design their livelihoods and futures. If there are alternative markets to environmentally destructive activities, participation in these activities may be the option that the people choose to feed, clothe and educate their children. Yet, as seen in La Ceiba, even in the midst of forest destruction and potential crisis, there is hope for social organization. A road is a gateway for new problems as well as new solutions to old problems. A road brings exploitive markets that may be environmentally destructive. Yet, it also brings opportunities for organization and development. I do not think that the conclusions of my thesis necessarily show that environmentally destructive activities are the cause of higher social capital. Instead, options to participate in environmentally destructive market activities, and the greater incentive to self-organize, are both associated with the newly constructed road. Holling, Gunderson, and Ludwig (2002) and Holling (January 2004, class lecture, University of Florida) describe a self-organizing adaptive cycle. The model is one of natural or social systems that are constantly repeating figure 8 or infinity sign-like processes with four main stages. According to Holling and his colleagues, the initial stage of a system is marked by the rapid exploitation of resources. This is followed by a second stage characterized by conservation and accumulation. The third stage begins when the conservation stage eventually becomes unstable and vulnerable to rapid change. Lastly, there is the reorganization of the system itself. Holling emphasizes the importance of people or a community within a system recognizing when their ecological and social system is in the release and reorganization stage, for it is then that the course of the system is the most uncertain and unpredictable.

PAGE 187

170 He states that knowing where a system is positioned in the adaptive cycle is central to knowing one's (or communitys) next move. According to Holling, when a social system enters the release/reorganization stage, a shared vision, an environment of trust and cooperation, and strong leadership (all components of social capital) become essential. It is difficult to assess with certainty whether La Ceiba and Loma Linda are located at different stages in the kind of adaptive cycle Holling describes. Nonetheless, one can infer that the road leading to La Ceiba has opened the way to an unpredictable future that may have positive and negative outcomes. In the beginning it was the tranquility of life in Loma Linda that led me to believe that this village was less market-integrated and would have greater social capital than La Ceiba, but my research hypothesis was not accepted. Perhaps in social and cultural systems, like waves in formation, there is an attraction towards the chaos of the breaking and the reformation of their crests. Perhaps it is not stillness and traditional ways that contribute to community cohesiveness. Instead, it is continual transformations that push people to grow and reorganize themselves in new ways. With every gain, there is a loss. As indigenous people learn how to incorporate costs and benefits of the market into their daily lives, it is then that their communities and cultures become more resilient. Limitations In discussing my thesis, I have realized that there are different ways that I could have designed the research methods and the analysis. It was suggested to me that I could replicate the findings by including more villages in my study (Bushbacher, Robert, pers. comm.). I was, therefore, doubtful of whether two cases were sufficient to test my hypothesis and draw conclusions about the social consequences of market integration. Yet, expanding the scope of the analysis would have come at the expense of an in-depth

PAGE 188

171 understanding of the two communities. Regardless of the number of cases, I believe I would have come to the same conclusion that market integration does not have uniform socio-environmental consequences. The effects of market integration depend on historical, social (the level and type of organization and the capabilities of communal leaders), and ecological contexts, and how a community decides to incorporate markets into the organization of daily life. I also realize that there are different ways to measure market integration. One could measure and compare income or compare the amount and price of purchased household goods. If time had permitted, I think it could have been valuable to add this information. In addition, I could have analyzed the data differently. I could have measured market integration at the household level by assessing each households degree of market integration. I could then have scaled the results according to varying levels of market integration. From there I could have tested the correlation between degrees of market integration and social capital at the household level (Bernard, Russell, pers. comm.). Once I discovered that the villages differed significantly in terms of the type of market activity in which they participate, I also could have tested the relationship between households that participate in certain market activities and levels of social capital. Lastly, when analyzing the social data I am unsure of whether I can say with confidence that equal weight should be given to each of the questions in the World Banks questionnaire. Although the social capital questionnaire provided a strong and an exhaustive framework to analyze communal social capital, the literature on the topic provides little guidance as to the relative important of each indicator. Consequently, in

PAGE 189

172 chapter 7, I assigned equal weight to various indicators of social capital, and concluded that La Ceiba has greater structural and cognitive social capital than Loma Linda. It might have been more productive to have pointed to the differences between the different components of social capital without coming to a conclusion about the level of social capital in one village compared to the other. Although my thesis has its drawbacks, all of the previously mentioned methods also have their limitations. As one professor at UF told me, Science makes incremental contributions to knowledge via design features. There is no silver bullet. There is no perfect design (Bernard, Russell, pers. comm.). Contributions to Literature Much literature has been devoted to social capital and the effects of market integration in indigenous communities, but the findings are largely ambiguous and inconsistent. The findings presented in this thesis underscore the importance of accounting for the way in which communities are incorporated into market systems. Market Integration Although it is clear that in many cases participation in the market has negative consequences in small communities, it is difficult to generalize about the impacts of market integration. This study demonstrates that the severity of socio-environmental effects depends on the type of market activity (service industry jobs, artisan crafts, logging, cattle ranching, or agroforestry). Godoy (2001) and Henrich (1997) assert that indigenous people are not helpless victims of market integration, but have a choice about how and to what degree they will participate. They claim it is not an external event that selects some people more than others, but instead people choose what they want to buy and sell. This research shows

PAGE 190

173 that even the participation in environmentally destructive markets can lead to higher social capital. In other words, parallel to the contentions of Bedoya Garland (1995), Bodley (1999), and Stonich (1995), the results of this study demonstrate that the negative effects of market systems may not be inevitable. Regardless of the type of market integration, there is potential for greater communal resiliency and, thus, counteraction of negative consequences of market integration. Social Capital In sum, this study indicates that there is a correlation between greater market integration (via logging and cattle ranching) and higher social capital in the Chachi village of La Ceiba compared to Loma Linda. This observation does not negate the importance of taking into account characteristics that are unique to each context. While both places have similar cultural backgrounds, each villages participation in economic activities is based on previous and present external social networks (bridging and linking social capital). For example, my study demonstrates that it is difficult to determine the direction of the causal relationship between market integration and social capital. Outside connections influence which type of markets are integrated into a community and, therefore, a communitys ability to self-organize and self-manage its inner village dynamics. Moreover, the direction of the causal relationship between development and social capital depends on the socio-economic, political, and environmental background, as well as the particular definition of social capital. This highlights the problematic circular reasoning often found in the literature on social capital. Social capital can be measured in different ways. In addition, many social capital researchers do not include differentiations between cognitive and structural, or bonding,

PAGE 191

174 bridging, and linking social capital. Social capital has so many different definitions, if one is not explicit about the definition, measuring social capital could be a great deal like taking the temperature with six different thermometers and not being clear about which type of temperature measures were used (Oliver-Smith, Anthony, pers. comm.). Because social capital is defined and measured in different ways and includes many variables, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about its relationship to social change and development. Improving on much of the literature, this research demonstrates that it is a better idea to break social capital down into its components and investigate the elements separately. Practical Implications Currently, the expansion of local, national, and global markets is penetrating the most remote human settlements. It is clear that markets have both positive and negative effects on natural resource use and on the social dynamics of communities. Thus, it is important to try to understand each social group, case by case. This study has the advantage of carrying out comparative analysis, based on a natural experiment design that allows one to identify and quantify the effects of market integration on the way people interact and exploit the natural environment. With the current studies done that focus on the land use and livelihood systems of the Chachis (Allum, 1997; McIlvaine, 2000), the local implication of this study is encapsulated in the understanding of the linked environmental and socio-economic processes that illustrate how the Chachis are adjusting to market forces. The results of this project point to social processes that enhance social organization in an effort to develop economic alternatives (to logging and cattle ranching) that may counteract the current destruction of lowland forests. Conservation and the development

PAGE 192

175 of subsistence food systems, along with improved educational and health infrastructure, may be vital in assisting people to meet their economic needs without greater deforestation. Similarly, this study concludes that social issues greatly affect conservation, and that social factors are crucial to the design of sustainable development and conservation projects. In sum, The rebuilding of social systems is a prerequisite for developing or restoring effective linkages with the ecosystem (Jodha 1998: 307). The results of this study may have the potential to provide policy-relevant insights of value to community-based conservation efforts. Only by understanding the socio-environmental dynamics of the people in this endangered region, and how they are meeting (and could potentially meet) their shifting socio-economic needs, can policies be designed that will conserve the remnants of the Ecuadorian coastal rainforest. Photograph by Nicole Marchan. Figure 8.1. Sunset on the Cayapas River.

PAGE 193

176 Local implications of this study demonstrate that market integration is a choice made by each household and each individual. As new roads connect indigenous people to markets, the challenge is that the indigenous groups recognize, confront, and reject the dangers, and that they cultivate the opportunities that could be advantageous to the community. Yet, in the case of the Chachisas with the Honduran peasant caught in the cycles of the market who admits I am destroying the land (Stonich 1993), the people from both villages are aware that logging is destroying their forests and their childrens livelihood. With a lack of economic alternatives (or in the case of La Ceiba, lack of motivation to organize themselves to pursue the alternative of marketing the communal fruit forest products), the Chachisand indigenous people in generalmay not be able to provide for their familys current needs. Future Directions As demonstrated in this study, market integration is contextually based and is not a simple process. The people of La Ceiba access urban centers and markets more easily and have the alternative of selling fruits and marmalades from the agroforestry project. Simultaneously, they are more isolated from the Chachi infrastructure and support system, which includes access to bilingual secondary education opportunities. Thus, the people of La Ceiba seem to be greatly influenced by the same motives and values as the people who live closest to their communities, who are colonists, Afro-Ecuadorians, wood companies, and most recently, African Palm companies. My impression is that it is the combination of cultural isolation and lack of access to higher levels of bilingual education that lead to greater participation in environmentally destructive market activities, and undermines the motivation to pursue economic alternatives. On the other hand, because people in Loma Linda are strategically located within a centro, they have

PAGE 194

177 received governmental assistance to develop their educational system. Consecuently, 15 professors are being educated about the importance of their culture. They also gain a Photograph by Ladna Miller. Figure 8.2. Chachi children of Loma Linda. monthly salary and do not have time to sell trees. In Loma Linda, they consider education for their children to be a priority for their children, which may lead to alternative ways of market integration. In addition, the results of the cross tabulations in chapter 7 show that greater education increases Chachis' belief that they can influence decision-making in their community by seven times. Hence, perhaps social capital enthusiasts should focus on education to cultivate human capital. Higher human capital in a community may lead to stronger self-organization and negotiating capabilities, both of which are components of social capital that may be vital to sustainable forest management and cultural resilience. Education may also facilitate information exchange and collaboration between scientists and indigenous people. Indigenous groups have been acknowledged by the

PAGE 195

178 scientific community to have traditional environmental knowledge, a potentially valuable resource as non-local/global organizations want to learn more about local environments. Educational settings could be a good medium for indigenous people to cultivate their traditional environmental knowledge to solidify and refine their resources, and thus, their role in collaborative management projects. A curriculum that is more atuned to cultural and environmental concerns could also bridge the rift between indigenous people and NGOs that has arisen due to the exclusion of indigenous people from technical terminology commonly used by various conservation and development organizations. With a better understanding of the language used by outside institutions, a middle ground can be better negotiated that may be key to balancing their multiple interests and values with the demands of market-oriented forest management (Schmink 2003, p. 6). By conscientious resource management and active collaboration in larger scale political and economic decisions, the Chachis can potentially prevent hazardous conditions and vulnerability and maintain or re-establish practices that lead to long-term sustainability of their lands and culture.

PAGE 196

APPENDIX A ECONOMIC QUESTIONNAIRE I. Cuestionario de Economa del Hogar I. Yasha lushinu naakemu deeu bain pakemera Translated from Spanish to Chapalaa by Samuel Aapa Chapiro Manejo de Dinero en efectivo Lushi yandaapunchi 1.1. Cuntas veces a la semana Usted va a la ciudad (San Lorenzo en el caso de La Ceiba, y Borbn en el caso de Loma Linda) Y para qu? Semana-mee nan bijee u San Lorenzo pebulusha jimuyu (Ceiba chumu), tsenmala Borbn pebulusha (Loma Linda chumuya)?. Tsenmin tyeengenu. __________ 1. vender productos. Bui ainu 2. comprar productos bui atikanu 3. vender y comprar productos bui atike, bui atikakenu 4. visitar amigos o familia paandelanu, llajchalanu yaa nenu 5. todo lo de arriba kumuinchi padetyeeshu juntsa kenu 1.2. Suponga que Usted gana $ 2000 en la lotera, cmo gastara el dinero? Tengaitu u lotera aike 2000 dlares katu, naake kastangechuyu tengen? 1.3. Cuando el dinero no est disponible, Usted usa un sistema de trueque? Tsaandenna lushi jutyuuu, u ti vee bulibaauuba ne vete kemuu? 1.4. Usted vende o compra productos de otras personas en la comunidad? Qu cosas? Vee comunidad chullanu u bulli atikamuu, bulli aimuu? Ti bulli? 1.5. Usted recibe bono mensualmente? Cunto? u chuchayamee bono kamuu? Nan kamuyu? 179

PAGE 197

180 Gastos, Consumo, e Inversin Lushi eranchi, tiiuba kanchi, tyeebangenu lushi eranchi. 1.6. En la ultima semana, que productos usaron, cunto de cada uno, y cunto gast para los productos? Entsa pullaishu juntsa semana-nu, entsa yanu nan lushi deeeyu entsa mitya? 1. En alimentacin? Pandanu 2. En salud o medicinas? 3. En educacin y materiales didcticos Kiika paatenu 4. En transporte Pasaje paatetala nunbalaa jitu 5. En diversin (bailes, juguetes, pelotas, cerveza, etc.) Aiketu 6. En aseo personal? Lutsa bulu naraa tananu kuidangetu 7. Inversiones (semillas, gallinas, maquinas, gasolina, aceite, fertilizantes, pesticidas) Taawasha kendu tiiuba atikatu 8. Otro ____________ Kayu tiiuba vera atikatu __________ 1.7. En la ltima semana ha ocurrido algn evento que le hizo gastar ms que lo usual? Qu pas? Cunto gast ms (o menos)? Entsa pullaishu semana-nu tiiuba ketu ne tsange lushi eetyuren kayu yapa eree? Tyeengeyu? Pensangikeu naake lushi eeyu? 1.8. Qu productos compran en cada mes? Cunto? Dnde? Y cuan frecuentemente? Challa pullaishu chuchayanu ti bulliee atikayu? Nan kayu? Naa naake den kayu? 1. En alimentacin? Pandanu 2. En salud o medicinas? 3. En educacin y materiales didcticos Kiika paatenu 4. En transporte Pasaje paatetala nubalaa jitu 5. En diversin (bailes, juguetes, pelotas, cerveza, etc.) Aiketu 6. En aseo personal?

PAGE 198

181 Lutsa bulu naraa tananu kuidangetu 7. Inversiones (semillas, gallinas, maquinas, gasolina, aceite, fertilizantes, pesticidas) Taawasha kendu tiiuba atikatu 8. Otro (gasoline, uso de casa)____________ Kayu tiiuba vera atikatu __________ Preguntas Generales de Produccin Pakemera taawashketu tyeenajuaa ke faawaamu deeu bain 1.9. Generalmente, a qu trabajos dedica Usted? Ti taawasha juuya u den kemuyu? 1.10. En qu actividades gana ms dinero? Mencione 3 actividades. Tinaaju juuya ketuaa u juntsanu kayu lushi den laamuyu? Tsaandene pema wainka 1.11. Qu trabajo Usted ha hecho en el ltimo mes? Ti taawashaa keyu u challa pullaishu juntsa chuchayachi? 1.12. Cunto dinero Usted tiene guardado? 1.13. Usted participa en los siguientes cooperatives? La comuna de la granja y elaboracin de mermeladas Red Forestal Grupo de mujeres Red de Educacin 1.14. Cunto dinero gana Usted en un mes? Ma chuchayunu u lushi na laamuyu? 1.15. Cunto dinero gasta en un mes? Ma chuchayanu u lushi nan eemuyu? Productos Artesanales Tyaapachi iimu tsejtachi iimu taawasha bulli Costos 1.16. Cunto tiempo Usted dedica a producir artesanas cada semana? Ma semana-nu nan tinbu u tsejtanchi iimu bulli ke faawaremuyu? 1.17. Qu materiales usan para producir la artesana y de dnde se obtienen?

PAGE 199

182 Kaa taawasha tsejtanchi iimu bulli kenu ulla tyeenajaa talamu deeyu, tsenmin juntsa jukaa kamu deeyu? 1.18. Ms o menos, cunto cuesta cada material, cunto compra de cada uno, y cun frecuentemente? Tsange tsejtanchi iimu bulli kenu tiba wakaakaa dekishu juntsa, ti tinbumee tsatsangemu deeyu, tsenmin nukaa atikamu deeyu, naanchi? Productos y Comercializacin 1.19. Qu productos artesanales Usted produce para vender? Tsejtanchi iimu bulli titi ke faawaremuyu? 1.20. Cunto produce de cada producto artesanal en un mes? Por ao? Tsejtanchi iimu bulli titi ke faawaamu juba juntsa nan nan kemuyu ma chuchayanu? 1.21. Dnde los comercializan los productos artesanales o los usan en la casa, o hace las dos cosas? Tsange tsejtanchi iimu bulli ke faawaatu nukaa aimuyu, tsangetyuba u yasharen ne tsangare maaline mandalaikemuu? aimin, yasha bain mandalamingemuu? 1.22. A qu precio vende cada producto? cunto de cada producto? y cun frecuentemente? Tsangetu naanchi tene aimu deeyu tin atike bain? tsenmin nan nan aimu deeyu ti juu bain? ti tinbumee tsangemu deeyu? 1.23. Cunto gana cada mes vendiendo productos artesanales? Cada ao? Tsange tsejtanchi iimu bulli ke faawaare aitu ma chuchayamee nan lushi laalaakeyu? ma ao-nuya nan lushi laamuyu? Pecuario Animaa awakara paate Costos: Vacas Wagara / wakara 1.24. Cunto tiempo Usted se dedica a la crianza de vacas cada semana? Wagaa/wakara awakaanu ketu ma semana-nu u nan tinbu washkemuyu? 1.25. Cuntas vacas tiene y cunto cost cada una? Nan wagara/wakara miyayu u, tsenmin naanchi tenen kayu? 1.26. Cunto cuesta la semilla de pastos y otros insumos que utilizan para la produccin y con qu periodicidad tiene que comprar cada insumo?

PAGE 200

183 Wagara/wakara awakaanu ketu ulla tape wajnu ya i naanchi kamu deeyu, naa kayu vera juu bain naanchee kamu deeyu, tsenmin ti tinbuchee tsatsangemu deeyu? Productos y Comercializacin de Vacas Wagara/Guacara ainu paatee 1.27. Dnde comercializan las vacas o sus productos o las consume, o hace las dos cosas? Wagara/wakara juu ne yanu kalaraimu juu ti bain, nukaa atimu deeyu, tsangityuba finchee kemu dejuu? atinchi bain finchi bain kikemu dejuu? 1.28. A qu precio vende cada producto, cunto de cada producto, y cun frecuentemente? Tsangetu naanchi tene aimu deeyu tin atike bain, tsenmin ti tinbumee tsangemu deeyu? 1.29. Cunto gana cada mes vendiendo productos de vacas? Cada ao? Tsange Guacara/wagaranu kalaraimu ti juu bain aitu ma chuchayamee nan lushi laalaakeyu? ma ao-nuya nan lushi laamuyu? Costos: Chivos 1.30. Cunto tiempo Usted se dedica a la crianza de chivos cada semana? Chivo awakaanu ketu ma semana-nu u nan tinbu washkemuyu? 1.31. Cuntos chivos tiene y cunto cost cada uno? Nan chivo miyayu u, tsenmin naanchi tenen kayu? 1.32. Cunto gasta en comida o cada insumo para la crianza de chivos y cun frecuentemente? Chivo awakaanu ketu ulla yaichi panda kaketu nan eemu deeyu, tinaaju kayu vera juu bain naanchee kamu deeyu, tsenmin ti tinbuchee tsatsangemu deeyu? Productos y Comercializacin de Chivos Chivo-nu karaimu ti juu bain aiun paate 1.33. Dnde comercializan los productos de chivos o los consume, o hace las dos cosas? Chivo juu, ne yanu karaimu juu ti banin, nukaa atimu deeyu, tsangityuba finchee kemu dejuu? atinchi bain finchi bain kikemu dejuu? 1.34. A qu precio vende cada producto, cunto de cada producto, y cun frecuentemente? Tsangetu naanchi tene aimu deeyu tin atike bain? tsenmin nan nan aimu deeyu ti juu bain? ti tinbumee tsangemu deeyu?

PAGE 201

184 1.35. Cunto gana cada mes vendiendo productos de chivos? Cada ao? Tsange chivo-nu kalaraimu ti juu bain aitu ma chuchayamee nan lushi laalaakeyu? ma ao-nuya nan lushi laamuyu? Costos: Gallos y Gallinas Wallaaaruku, supu wallapa bain 1.36. Cunto tiempo Usted dedica a la crianza de gallinas o gallos cada semana? Wallapa awakaanu ketu ma semana-nu u nan tinbu washkemuyu? 1.37. Cunto gasta en comida o cada insumo para la crianza de gallos y gallinas y cun frecuentemente? Wallapa awakaanu ketu ulla yaichi panda kaketu nan eemu deeyu, tinaaju kayu vera juu bain naanchee kamu deeyu, tsenmin ti tinbuchee tsatsangemu deeyu? 1.38. Cuntas gallinas tiene y cunto cost cada uno? Nan wallapa miyayu u, tsenmin naanchi tenen kayu? Productos y Comercializacin de Gallos/Gallinas Wallapanu karaimu ti juu bain ainu paate 1.39. Dnde comercializan los huevos y los gallos/las gallinas o los consume, o hace las dos cosas? Napipu juu ne wallapa juu bain nukaa atimu deeyu, tsangityuba finchee kemu dejuu? atinchi bain finchi bain kikemu dejuu? 1.40. A qu precio venden, cunto de cada producto, y cun frecuentemente? Tsangetu naanchi tene aimu deeyu tin atike bain, tsenmin ti tinbumee tsangemu deeyu? 1.41. Cunto gana cada mes vendiendo productos de gallinas/gallos? Cada ao? Tsange wallapanu kalaraimu ti juu bain aitu ma chuchayamee nan lushi laalaakeyu? ma ao-nuya nan lushi laamuyu? Costos: Otros Animales (Pavos, Patos, etc.) Vee animaala (pavo, pato, etc.) 1.42. Qu otros animales tienen? Kayu vee anima juuya tyee miya deeyu? 1.43. Cunto tiempo Usted dedica a la crianza de estos animales cada semana? Juntsa animaa awakaanu ketu ma semana-nu u nan tinbu washkemuyu? 1.44. Cuntos animales de cada tipo tiene y cunto cost cada uno? Juntsa animaala titi vee vee miyayu, tsenmina naanchi tene dekayu?

PAGE 202

185 1.45. Cunto cuesta la comida y cada insumo para la produccin, y cun frecuentemente tiene que comprar cada insumo? Juntsa animaala awakaanu ketu ulla yaichi panda kaketu nan eemu deeyu, tinaaju kayu vera juu bain naanchee kamu deeyu, tsenmin ti tinbuchee tsatsangemu deeyu? Productos y Comercializacin de Otros Animales 1.46. Dnde comercializan los animales o sus productos o los consume, o hace las dos cosas? Juntsa animaalanu nukaa atimu deeyu, tsangityuba finchee kemu dejuu? atinchi bain finchi bain kikemu dejuu? 1.47. A qu precio vende cada producto, cunto de cada producto, y cun frecuentemente? Tsangetu naanchi tene aimu deeyu tin atike bain, tsenmin ti tinbumee tsangemu deeyu? 1.48. Cunto gana cada mes vendiendo productos de otros animales (patos, pavos)? Cada ao? Tsange vee animaa judeeshu juntsalanu kalaraimu ti juu bain aitu ma chuchayamee nan lushi laalaakeyu? ma ao-nuya nan lushi laamuyu? La Pesca Pisha alla paate Costos 1.49. Cunto tiempo Usted dedica a la pesca o buscar camarn cada semana? Pisha alla mityake ne bishu mityaketu ma semana-nu u nan tinbu tsange mikemuyu? 1.50. Cunto gasta en cada insumo para la pesca o buscar camarn y cun frecuentemente? Pisha alla mityake ne bishu mityakenu ketu tiiuba ati katu nan lushi eemuyu, tsenmin ti tinbuchee tsatsangemu deeyu? Productos y Comercializacin de Pescado o Camarones Pisha pumu alla, ne bishu juu bain ainu paate 1.51. Dnde comercializan los pescados o camarones o los consume, o hace las dos cosas? Pi alla juu, ne bishu juu nukaa atimu deeyu, tsangityuba finchee kemu dejuu? atinchi bain finchi bain kikemu dejuu? 1.52. A que precio vende, cunto de cada producto, y cun frecuentemente?

PAGE 203

186 Tsangetu naanchi tene aimu deeyu tin atike bain, tsenmin ti tinbumee tsangemu deeyu? 1.53. Cunto gana cada mes vendiendo pescado o camarones? Cada ao? Tsange pisha pumu alla juu, bishu juu aitu ma chuchayamee nan lushi laalaakeyu? ma ao-nuya nan lushi laamuyu? La Caza Jeendaa nealla kanu paate Costos 1.54. Cunto tiempo Usted dedica a la caza cada semana? Jeendaa ji alla mityaketu ma semana-nu u nan tinbu tsange mikemuyu? 1.55. Cunto gasta en cada insumo para la caza y cun frecuentemente? Jeendaa ne alla mityakenu tiiuba ati katu nan lushi eemuyu, tsenmin ti tinbumee tsatsangemu deeyu? Productos y Comercializacin de Animales de la Caza Jeendaa ne alla ka ainu paate 1.56. Dnde comercializan los animales de caza o los consume, o hace las dos cosas? Jeendaa ne ti animaauba tutu nukaa atimu deeyu, tsangityuba finchee kemu dejuu? atinchi bain finchi bain kikemu dejuu? 1.57. A qu precio vende, cunto de cada producto, y cun frecuentemente? Tsangetu naanchi tene aimu deeyu tin atike bain, tsenmin ti tinbumee tsangemu deeyu? 1.58. Cunto gana cada mes vendiendo animales de caza? Cada ao? Jeendaa ne alla mityake tiiuba atiketu ma chuchayamee nan lushi laalaakeyu? ma ao-nuya nan lushi laamuyu? Cultivos Buikiya wajka paate Costos 1.59. Cunto tiempo Usted dedica a cultivos cada da? Wajka kiyatala washkenu ma malunu u nan tinbu tsangemuyu? 1.60. Cunto tiempo dedica a la granja de Usted cada da? Cada semana? uchi ti kuya baasa, naa ti anima baasa washkenu ma malunu nan tinbu tsangemuyu?

PAGE 204

187 Productos y Comercializacin 1.61. Area ao pasado Cosecha # Cosecha Consumido en la casa Vendido dnde Precio Anuales 1. arroz 2. frjoles 3. Yuca 4. Maz 5. Caa # en cosecha Cun frecuen. Cosecha/mes # de meses Consu-mido Vendido Precio Perenales 6. Jackfruit 7. Cacao 8. Boroj 10. Rolinio 11. Guayabilla 12. Pina 13. Limn 14. Rambotan 15. Manzana Malaysia 16. Mandarina 17. Otro 18. Otro 1.62. Cunto dinero gan la casa de la venta de borojo o mermeladas de borojo en la ultima semana? Mes? Ao? Entsa challa pullaishu chuchayanu boroj mermelada nan deaiyu? 1.63. Para tu familia, qu es lo preferible? u paandelachiya naakeaa uranu jun? 1. vender un producto agrcola wajkeawakaraimu buli ainu 2. comer un producto agrcola en el hogar wajkeawakaraimu buli yasha fiu 3. hacer las dos cosas juntsa palluren juntsangeu 4. ninguna de las dos cosas es preferible Juntsaachiya tiba tsangiu.

PAGE 205

188 Mujeres Supula 1.64. Cuntos racimos de pltanos cosechan en una semana? Ma semana-nu u nan bulu panda kamuyu? 1.65. Cuntos racimos de pltanos comen en una semana? Ma semana-nu nan bulu panda fimu deeyu? 1.66. Cuntos racimos de pltanos venden en una semana? Ma semana-nu nan bulu panda aimu deeyu? Tierra/Terreno 1.67. Cuntas hectreas de tierra tiene Usted? Valor? Tu nan hectrea tayu u? Nan balen juntsa tu? 1.68. Cunto de su tierra Ud. Tiene en cultivos? 1.69. Cunto de su tierra Ud. Tiene en portrero? 1.70. Usted tambin tiene una choza o otra cas arriba el ro para trabajos eventuales? Vi taawasha kikekenu kaa yapaya u miyaa? 1.71. Cundo Usted va a la choza o la otra casa arriba el ro? Naamaa u juntsa yapayasha viviiyu? 1.72. Para qu? Tyeengenuaa viviiyu? 1.73. Qu siembra all? Tyee junga wajmuyu? 1.73.5. A. De donde Usted usualmente saca la Madera blanca? B. Madera dura? 1. Bosque primario de su propiedad 2. Bosque secundario de su propiedad 3. Bosque primario de un pariente o compaero 4. Bosque secundario de un pariente o compaero 5. Bosque primario de la comunidad 6. Bosque secundario de la comunidad Extraccin de Madera Costos

PAGE 206

189 1.74. Cunto tiempo dedica Usted a la extraccin de madera cada mes (para las mujeres, dedica a ayudar en la extraccin)? Pulla kiketu ma chuchayamee u nan tinbu tsangemuyu? 1.75. Cunto Usted gasta en aceite, gasolina y otros materiales e insumos para sacar madera, y cun frecuentemente? Tsange pulla ketu aceite cake, ne gasolina kakitu naa kayu vera juu bain kaketu nan lushi eemu deeyu, tsenmin ti tinbumee tsatsangemu deeyu? Productos y Comercializacin 1.76. Cuntos metros cbicos Usted vendi en el ltimo mes? Ao? Challa pullaishu juntsa chuchayachi, nan metro cbico pulla ke aiyu? 1.77. Qu tipos de madera y cules fueron los precios? Ti pulla juu, ti tapa juuya de-aiyu, tsenmin naanchi? 1.78. Dnde? Nuca? 1.79. A quin? Munu? 1.80. A. Que vende ms UstedMadera blanca o Madera dura? B. piensa tres ventas atras: Qu tipos de arboles vendo (Madera blanca o dura)? 1.81. A. Cunto area de bosque primario tiene Usted en su terreno? B. Cunto tena cuando le dieron su terreno? C. Cundo le dieron? 1.82. Qu tipos (numeros de trozas, tablones, tables, o tabletas) de Madera Usted ha vendido en el ultimo ao (Madera blanca o madera dura)? 1.83. Dnde estuvo comercializado? Nukaa tsange aiyu? 1.84. A quin? Muna aiyu? 1.85. A. Para Usted, que es un bosque primario? B. Para Usted, qu es un bosque secundario? 1.86. A. Cunto gana cada mes cuando elabora Madera? B. Elabora todos los meses? Preguntas Generales sobre La Extraccin de Madera 1.87. Usted piensa que cortar madera est mejorando la calidad de vida?

PAGE 207

190 u pensaya tsange pulla detule aitu kayu uusundenna tiya chunu dejuve tengen? 1.88. Conoces por qu sus abuelos anteriormente no vendan la madera? Nenaa kaspee tinbutalaa u aa-apala bulla ke aityuwa deeuba u miyu? 1.89. Cmo era la economa antes de estar dependiendo de la venta de madera? Cmo ganaban el dinero? Necesitaban dinero tanto como ahora? Tsange pulla aituaa lushi kakakinu tinbunuya kaspele lushi laanu naajuwaatun? Naa ketuaa lushi laamutu den? 1.90. A. Usted practica reforestacin en su terreno? B. De qu arboles y cunto? C. Cun frequentemente? SOLO PARA LA CEIBA 1.91. Soponiendo que cada casa va a ganar ms o menos $500 de la venta de la 3000 metros cubicos de la Madera de la comunidad, como Usted va a gastar este dinero? 1.92. A. Como Usted gast los $400-$500 que cada casa gan de la venta de Madera comunal en 2000? B. Com gast los $600-$700 que cada casa gan de la venta de madera comunal en 2001? PARA TODOS (PREGUNTAS AUMENTADOS) 1.93. Usted tiene otra profesin (professor, motorista, trabajo por un NGO)? Digame sobre ello. Cunto tiempo Usted pasa hacienda esto cada semana o mes? Cunto dinero gana? 1.94. Usted paga una persona o gente para ayudarle con la limpieza de la granja, o con culquier cosa, incluyendo jalando madera? 1.95. En que gasta ms dinero? 1. comida 2. materials didacticas 3. transporte 4. uniformes 5. medicinas 6. inversions 7. uso de casa

PAGE 208

APPENDIX B GENERAL SOCIAL QUESTIONNAIRE CUESTIONARIO PAKEMERA Translated from Spanish to Chapalaa by Samuel Aapa Chapiro II. Caractersticas del Hogar (contestado por uno de los esposos): II. Ya naajuu bain (ya ruku pakake, ya shinbu pakake) 2.1. Cuntos pisos tiene la casa? (OBSERVACIN) ya nan dijki juin? (KERANCHI) 1. uno main 2. dos pallu 3. tres o ms pema 2.2. Qu tipo de casa es? (OBSERVACION) ya naaju juin? (KERANCHI) 1. abierta achakalii 2. cerrada con puerta dellukaa juukapa puu 3. medio cerrado con una puerta mantsandaa llukaa, juukapa main puu 4. media cerrada sin puerta matsandaa llukaa tiba llukajtu 5. cerrada con puerta con seguro dellukaa, juukapa puu, nara deengara 6. medio cerrado con seguros en los cuartos cerrados 2.3. De qu material est construido el techo de esta casa? (OBSERVACION) Tichee ya jaki mityan? 1 tejido de palma Tinchi jaki, yaanchi jaki 191

PAGE 209

192 2. zinc zinc 3. madera Tapaa 4. otro __________ Tyee kayu vera mityan __________ 2.4. La gente de esta casa dnde tira generalmente la basura de la casa? Enu chulla tyeenaaju cuchinuu bain nukaa kayu den kepumu dejun? 1. al ro pisha 2. debajo de la casa ya chitansha 3. la queman jupenchi kemu deju 4. la entierran tu vijchi menanchee kemu deju 5. donde sea nuka kepundyaba 6. otro _________ kayu veemujtu ________ 2.5. Tienen los miembros de la casa los siguientes artculos, cuntos hay y cundo los compr? Entsa yanu chulla entsa bulli tatu, nan detayu, naamaa dekayu? 1. Radio _______ 2. televisin _______ 3. refrigerador _______ 4. reloj de la pared________ ya chiipanu eengaraa reloj _______ 5. reloj personal ________ tyaapanu telaimu reloj _______ 6. telfono __________ 7. maquina de coser _________ jai punnu mquina _____ 8. carro________ 9. bicicleta _________ 10. canoa _________ kule ________ 11. motor/generador de electricidad 12. equipo 13. otro (DVD o VH)

PAGE 210

193 2.6. Los miembros de la casa tienen los siguientes instrumentos de trabajo, cunto hay, y cundo los compr? Entsa yanu chulla taawasha kenu jeru entsana tanatu, nan detanayu, naamaa dekayu? 1. machete __________ mashte _______ 2. azadn __________ 3. motosierra__________ 4. escopeta________ illapan ________ 5. otro (plano; petromax; rastrillo; ansuelo)________ kayu veraa juu bain ______ 2.7. Que usan para cocinar? Panda tengaanu tyee tadeeyu (naamaa dekayu, tsenmin nan dekayu)? 1. fuego_________ techi ______ 2. cocina de butane_________ gas inbelechi _________ 3. cocina de kerosene________ kerosene inbelechi _______ 4. cocina elctrica________ elctrica inbelechi _______ 5. otro__________ kayu verachi _________ III. Demogrficos III. Chachi naaju aa dechuu bain 3.1. Sexo _______ Llupuu / supuu ________ 3.2. Dnde naci Usted? Nukaa na kayayu u? 3.3. Cunto tiempo ha vivido en este pueblo? Nan tinbu chuntsuyu entsa pebulunu? 3.4. Cuntos aos tiene Ud.? Nan ao tayu u? 3.5. Cuntas personas viven en este hogar? Nan chachi dechuyu enu?

PAGE 211

194 3.6. Cuntas veces Usted ha estado casado/a? u nan bijee casaa imuwaayu? 3.7. Cunto tiempo Usted has estado casado? 3.8. Cuntos hijos ha tenido Ud.? Nan na miyayu u? 3.9. Cuntos hijos estn todava vivos? u nala naajula bain chaiba sundene dechuu? 3.10. Cuntos hijos viven con Usted y cuntos aos tienen? u nala nan uba dechun, tsenmin nan ao taden? 3.11. Cul es el idioma principal que se habla en esta casa y cunto tiempo? Entsa yanu ti palaaya den pamu den, tsenmin ti tinbumee? _____ 1. todo el tiempo naa uwanu bain juntsandene 2. casi todo el tiempo aa tinbu juntsandene 3. mitad del tiempo kejtaa tinbun juu 3.12. Cuntos veces a la semana Usted usa la canoa? Semana, un nan bijee kulenichi nemuyu? Los dos siguientes preguntas para solo mujeres 3.13. Dnde Usted lava la ropa? Nu nuca jalli manbipumuyu? 3.14. Usted conversa con otras mujeres cuando lava ropa? Educacin Kiika minu paate 3.15. Cuntos aos de estudios tiene Usted? Kiika naaju miyu u? 1. ninguno jayuuba mijtu 2. primario 1 2 3 4 5 6 grado 3. segundario 1 2 3 4 5 6 curso 4. universidad 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 212

195 3.16. Su mam? u amaa naaju min? 1. ninguno jayuuba mijtu 2. primario 1 2 3 4 5 6 grado 3. segundario 1 2 3 4 5 6 curso 4. universidad 1 2 3 4 5 3.17. Su pap? u apa naaju min? 1. ninguno jayuuba mijtu 2. primario 1 2 3 4 5 6 grado 3. segundario 1 2 3 4 5 6 curso 4. universidad 1 2 3 4 5 IV. Capital Social Estructural IV. Chachi puree paate-i chumula naana deshiinau bain Densidad Organizacional Organizacin naaju den dejuu bain 4.1. De estas organizaciones, escoja 3 que sean las ms importantes para Usted. Entsa organizacin judeeshu juntsalanu uchiya naajulaa kayu bale deeuba juntsanu pema telaade 1. religioso catlica 2. religioso evangelista 3. el gobierno del centro Centro-nu / comuna-nu bale pumula 4. FECCHE 5. cooperativa de productos agrcolas buikiya wajke aware juntsa bulli ainu cooperativa 6. cooperativa de mujeres supula cooperativa 7. comit de padres de familias 8. comit de salud 9. asociacin de cultura 10. asociacin de ambiente 11. gobierno tradicional kayu vee asociacn tradicional (Chaita, rukula, un)

PAGE 213

196 LA CEIBA ONLY 12. Altropico 13. OIM 14. SETRAFOR 15. Plan Choc 16. COMOFOR 17. Comit Forestal 18. Comit de Deportes 19. Comit Agroforestal 20. Comit de la Elaboracin de Mermeladas 21. Comit del Agua LOMA LINDA ONLY 22. Asociacin de Profesores 23. Club Deportivo Juvenil 24. Redes Amigas Redes Egocntricos Organizacin jumula waaku juuuu juturen, yaichiren juusa tyamula 4.2. Cuntas personas (amistades) que no son chachi conoce Usted en los siguientes lugares (quienes no son Chachis)? Entsa tenatala chachi jutyu vee chachillanu uya nan chachi kerayu? 1. En Ri Tululbi (o San Miguel para Loma Linda) ________ Tululb pisha ( San Miguel) 2. San Francisco (Borbn)________ 3. San Lorenzo ________ 4. Esmeraldas_______ 5. Quito_________ 6. Otros lugares (Santo Domingo)________ Kayu vee mujtu bain ________ 4.3. En el y del al 6, cuntas personas conoce Usted, a travs de? Tisee nu pakayamin bain, 6 bain pakaya deeshu juntsa chachillanu, mu mityaa keemijayu? 1. A travs de ONGs? ONGs-la mityaa? 2. A travs de sus posiciones del gobierno? 3. A travs de vender o comprar productos agrcolas? Tunu wajke awakaraimu bulli atike, ne atikaketuu? 4. A travs de vender o comprar productos artesanales? Kaa taawasha, tyaapachi tsejtanchi iimu taawasha bulli atike, ne atikaketuu?

PAGE 214

197 5. A travs de la extraccin de madera? Pulla ke atiketuu? 6. A travs de la religin? Religin mityaren? Exclusin Bacatyui-eraauu juu 4.4. Muchas veces hay diferentes posiciones entre la gente que vive en un mismo pueblo. Cunto cree Usted que esas diferencias dividen a la gente en su pueblo? Mandinbu, ma pebulu chumuutalaren tiba miyanchi pareju jutyuwa deeve. u kerachiya juntsa paate juntsaau ju u pebulunu naaju vera dejuve tengen juntsachi? Nada Algo Mucho Nejuu Ka jayu ne jatsaa tsaanchi pure keengayaju Diferencias en educacin Kiika minchi pareju jutyu Diferencias en riqueza/posesiones materiales Lushi tanchi/tiba pure taanchi pareju jutyu Diferencias en cuanto a la tierra de que uno es dueo Tu miya, tu pudee tanchi pareju jutyu Diferencias en status social Kayu daj chachi junchi pareju jutyu Diferencias entre hombres y mujeres Unbee ruku jutu, supu jutu pareju jutyu Diferencias entre generaciones de viejos y jvenes Rukula jutu, musula jutu pareju jutyu Diferencias entre habitantes originales del pueblo y recin llegados. Yumaa junu chumula, challan vija chudimulaba pareju jutyu Diferencias entre afiliaciones de partido poltico Parido poltico-nu shinnatu pareju jutyu Diferencias en creencias religiosas Religin-nu shinnatu pareju jutyu Otras diferencias? Kayu vera mitya pareju jutyu, ti mitya? 4.5. Tomando en cuenta los ltimos 10 aos, cunto cree Usted que esas diferencias dividieron a la gente de su pueblo? (Usar las mismas preguntas anteriores) Ma pebulu chumuutalaren tiba miyanchi pareju jutyuwa deeu, u kerachiya juntsa paate juntsaau ju u pebulunu naaju vera dejuve tengen entsa pullaishu

PAGE 215

198 juntsa paitya ao-nu pensange keeu? (Entsa katyunu pake mera judeeshu juntsaren pakemeenu) 4.6. Cmo resuelve la gente los problemas? Chachilla yala peletu naake matsekaamu den? 1. No hay problemas Nejuu 2. Diferencias no causan problemas Peletu jutyu naa pareju jutyu bain 3. La gente resuelve estos problemas por s mismo Chachilla yaiteneren ne tsekaakemu deju? 4. Familia/el hogar interviene Ma paande chachilla, ma ya chulla yaiteneren ne ura majuu 5. Los vecinos intervienen Ya kelu chulla tsekaamishtimu deju 6. Lderes de la comunidad intervienen Comunidad-nu bale pumu chachilla tsekaamishtimu deju 7. Lderes religiosos intervienen Religin balela tsekaamishtimu deju 8. Lderes polticos intervienen Partidos poltico balela tsekaamishtimu deju 9. Violencia Tsamantsange firu ketu 10. Gobernador o gobierno tradicional Chaita, rukula, un 11. Otro (toda la comunidad, alguien de afuera) 12. No s /no estoy seguro Mijtu / nara mijtu 13. No hay respuesta Pakemeranu pakatyu 4.7. Cunta influencia (capacitad para influir o motivar) cree que Usted tiene en hacer de esta comunidad un mejor lugar para vivir? Entsa comunidad-nu kayu sunden chudinuu kikaanu u pudee tayu tengen? 1. mucho pure taju 2. algo ka jayuya 3. no mucho aa jutyu 4. nada jayuuba 5. no s/no estoy seguro mijtu / ura mijtu

PAGE 216

199 4.8. En su opinin, esta comunidad es generalmente pacifica / tranquila o conflictiva? 1. Pacifica / tranquila Ajarajtu / nejuu 2. Conflictiva Puita firu 3. No s/no estoy seguro Mijtu / ura mijtu 4. No hay respuesta Pakemeranu pakatyu V. Capital Social Cognitivo V. Chachilla paate aa bulu i chumula pensasha naa dejuu bain Solidaridad Tinuba bulu ju pensangenu 5.1. Suponga que algo desafortunado le pasara a Usted, como de repente su pap o su hijo se muere (algo que le deja sentir triste), a quien podra pedir ayuda personal (o hablar sobre su tristeza)? Tsaandenna u apa juu, u na juu ma peyaiu, munaa ayuda panu juyu tengen? 1. nadie ayudara muba ayuda kendejutyuve 2. familia paandelanu 3. amigos llajchala 4. vecino ya kelu chulla 5. un lder o un grupo religioso religin bale chachilla 6. un lder de la comunidad comunidad bale chachilla 7. un lder de comercializacin o negocios tiba aimu, tiba atikamu bale chachi 8. un lder poltico Partido poltico bale chachi 9. una organizacin de la comunidad de que Usted es miembro u comunidad-nu chumu organizacin-nu ubain shianashu juntsanu 10. una organizacin de la comunidad de que Usted NO es miembro u comunidad-nu chutyu organizacin-nu u juntsanu shinnatyushu juntsa organizacin-nu

PAGE 217

200 11. Gobernador o gobierno tradicional Chaita, rukula, un 12.otro kayu veela 13. no s/no estoy segura mijtu / ura mijtu 14. no hay respuesta Pakemeranu pakatyu 5.2. Suponga que Usted perdiera mucho econmicamente, por ejemplo un fracaso de cultivos, a quien podra pedir ayuda econmica (un favor economica)? Tsaandenna u lushi pure peedi iitu, tiiuba wajtu tsaa depeedi iitu, munaa lushi ayuda pachuyu tengen? 1. nadie ayudara muba ayuda kendejutyuve 2. familia paandelanu 3. amigos llajchala 4. vecino ya kelu chulla 5. un lder o un grupo religioso religin bale chachilla 6. un lder de la comunidad comunidad bale chachilla 7. un lder de comercializacin o negocios tiba aimu, tiba atikamu bale chachi 8. un lder poltico Partido poltico bale chachi 9. una organizacin de la comunidad de que Usted es miembro u comunidad-nu chumu organizacin-nu ubain shianashu juntsanu 10. una organizacin de la comunidad de que Usted NO es miembro u comunidad-nu chutyu organizacin-nu u juntsanu shinnatyushu juntsa organizacin-nu 11. Gobernador o gobierno tradicional Chaita, rukula, un 12. otro kayu veela 13. no s/no estoy segura mijtu / ura mijtu 14. no hay respuesta Pakemeranu pakatyu

PAGE 218

201 Confianza Tsaave uraa tya pensangenu 5.3. Usted piensa que en esta comunidad la gente generalmente tiene confianza uno con el otro en cuestiones de prestar? u pensaya entsa comunidad chulla yaatala uwain mangunu tsuve tya tiba kuwa kuw kemu deeve tengen? 1. s, tienen confianza uwain tsangenu tsuve tyamu deeve 2. miti miti 3. no hay confianza Tsangenu tsuve tyatyu deeve 4. no s /no estoy seguro mijtu / nara mijtu 5. no hay respuesta pakemeranu pakatyu 5.4. Cmo piensa Usted que ha cambiado el nivel de confianza en los ltimos 10 aos? u pensachiya entsa pullaishu juntsa paitya ao-tala, chachilla tsangenu tsuve tya keengenu paatetala, vera tiyaive pensayu? 1. ha mejorado kayu ura tiyaive 2. igual tsaren ne juu 3. peor mushanchi iiu 4. no s /no estoy seguro mijtu / ura mijtu 5. no hay respuesta pakemeranu pakatyu 6. no es aplicable 5.5. Cunta gente en esta comunidad son honestas y merecen confianza.? Entsa comunidad-nu nan chachi aa ura chachi, meengenu chachi, keengenu chachi dechuve tengen? 1. la mayora son honestas y merecen confianza Pure chachi aa ura chachi, meengenu chachi, keengenu chachi deju. 2. algunos son honestos y merecen confianza Mantsaya aa ura chachi, meengenu chachi, keengenu chachi deju. 3. solo pocos son honestos y merecen confianza ka jayuren aa ura chachi, meengenu chachi, keengenu chachi judeju.

PAGE 219

202 4. no son honestos ni merecen confianza jayuuba aa ura chachi, meengenu chachi, keengenu chachi dejutyu. 5.6. Suponga que Usted tuviera que ir con su familia por un tiempo. Con quien podra confiar, cuidar su chacra y cultivos? 1. otro miembro de la familia main ya paadenu 2. vecino ya kelu chumunu 3. cualquier persona del pueblo ya pebulunu chundala, mubaasa 4. otro kayu veelanu 5. nadie munuba 6. no estoy seguro/no s nara mijtuyu / mijtuyu 7. no hay respuesta pakemeranu pakatyu 5.7. Si de repente Usted y su esposo o esposa tuviera que irse a Quito por dos das, con quien podra confiar, cuidar de sus hijos? Tsaandenna u, u rukuba/shinbuba Quito-sha pai malu mitya lu jindu, munaa u kaillanu washkare jinu juyu tengen? 1. otro miembro de la familia main ya paandenu 2. vecino ya kelu chumunu 3. cualquier persona del pueblo ya pebulunu chundala mu baasa 4. otro kayu veelanu 5. no tengo hijos na miyajtu 6. no estoy seguro/no s nara mijtuyu / mijtuyu 7. no hay respuesta pakemeranu pakatyu

PAGE 220

203 Reciprocidad y cooperacin Manbarejuren tsangenu, ti bain kivenu 5.8. Sobre todo, qu le parece la cooperacin en esta comunidad? Ti kikenu keuba entsa comunidad-nu kikenu dejuve tengen? 1. muy bajo Ura jayu wakuu 2. bajo jayun wakuu 3. normal Naa-i wadinu juuba tsai wadimu deju 4. alto Pure wakudimu deju 5. muy alto Ura tsamantsai wadimu deju 5.9. En los ltimos 10 aos, que le ha parecido sobre todo, la cooperacin en esta comunidad? Entsa paitya ao pullaishu juntsanu keetaditu, u keraya ti kikenu keuba entsa comunidad-nu kivete kiveteke depullaa tengen? 1. muy bajo Ura jayu wakuu 2. bajo jayun wakuu 3. normal Naa-i wadinu juuba tsai wadimu deju 4. alto Pure wakudimu deju 5. muy alto Ura tsamantsai wadimu deju

PAGE 221

APPENDIX C SOCIAL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR KEY INFORMANTS CUESTIONARIO PAKEMERA Translated from Spanish to Chapalaa by Samuel Aapa Chapiro II. Caractersticas del Hogar (contestado por uno de los esposos): II. Ya naajuu bain (ya ruku pakake, ya shinbu pakake) 2.1. Cuntos pisos tiene la casa? (OBSERVACIN) ya nan dijki juin? (KERANCHI) 1. uno main 2. dos pallu 3. tres o ms pema 2.2. Qu tipo de casa es? (OBSERVACION) ya naaju juin? (KERANCHI) 1. abierta achakalii 2. cerrada con puerta dellukaa juukapa puu 3. medio cerrado con una puerta mantsandaa llukaa, juukapa main puu 4. media cerrada sin puerta matsandaa llukaa tiba llukajtu 5. cerrada con puerta con seguro dellukaa, juukapa puu, nara deengara 6. medio cerrado con seguros en los cuartos cerrados 2.3. De qu material est construido el techo de esta casa? (OBSERVACION) Tichee ya jaki mityan? 1. tejido de palma Tinchi jaki, yaanchi jaki 204

PAGE 222

205 2. zinc zinc 3. madera Tapaa 4. otro __________ Tyee kayu vera mityan __________ 2.4. La gente de esta casa dnde tira generalmente la basura de la casa? Enu chulla tyeenaaju cuchinuu bain nukaa kayu den kepumu dejun? 1. al ro pisha 2. debajo de la casa ya chitansha 3. la queman jupenchi kemu deju 4. la entierran tu vijchi menanchee kemu deju 5. donde sea nuka kepundyaba 6. otro _________ kayu veemujtu ________ 2.5. Tienen los miembros de la casa los siguientes artculos, cuntos hay y cundo los compr? Entsa yanu chulla entsa bulli tatu, nan detayu, naamaa dekayu? 1. Radio _______ 2. televisin _______ 3. refrigerador _______ 4. reloj de la pared________ ya chiipanu eengaraa reloj _______ 5. reloj personal ________ tyaapanu telaimu reloj _______ 6. telfono __________ 7. maquina de coser _________ jai punnu mquina _____ 8. carro________ 9. bicicleta _________ 10. canoa _________ kule ________ 11. motor/generador de electricidad 12. equipo 13. otro (DVD o VH)

PAGE 223

206 2.6. Los miembros de la casa tienen los siguientes instrumentos de trabajo, cunto hay, y cundo los compr? Entsa yanu chulla taawasha kenu jeru entsana tanatu, nan detanayu, naamaa dekayu? 1. machete __________ mashte _______ 2. azadn __________ 3. motosierra__________ 4. escopeta________ illapan ________ 5. otro (plano; petromax; rastrillo; ansuelo)________ kayu veraa juu bain ______ 2.7. Que usan para cocinar? Panda tengaanu tyee tadeeyu (naamaa dekayu, tsenmin nan dekayu)? 1. fuego_________ techi ______ 2. cocina de butane_________ gas inbelechi _________ 3. cocina de kerosene________ kerosene inbelechi _______ 4. cocina elctrica________ elctrica inbelechi _______ 5. otro__________ kayu verachi _________ III. Demogrficos III. Chachi naaju aa dechuu bain 3.1. Sexo _______ Llupuu / supuu ________ 3.2. Dnde naci Usted? Nukaa na kayayu u? 3.3. Cunto tiempo ha vivido en este pueblo? Nan tinbu chuntsuyu entsa pebulunu? 3.4. Cuntos aos tiene Ud.? Nan ao tayu u? 3.5. Cuntas personas viven en este hogar? Nan chachi dechuyu enu?

PAGE 224

207 3.6. Cuntas veces Usted ha estado casado/a? u nan bijee casaa imuwaayu? 3.7. Cunto tiempo Usted has estado casado? 3.8. Cuntos hijos ha tenido Ud.? Nan na miyayu u? 3.9. Cuntos hijos estn todava vivos? u nala naajula bain chaiba sundene dechuu? 3.10. Cuntos hijos viven con Usted y cuntos aos tienen? u nala nan uba dechun, tsenmin nan ao taden? 3.11. Cul es el idioma principal que se habla en esta casa y cunto tiempo? Entsa yanu ti palaaya den pamu den, tsenmin ti tinbumee? _____ 1. todo el tiempo naa uwanu bain juntsandene 2. casi todo el tiempo aa tinbu juntsandene 3. mitad del tiempo kejtaa tinbun juu 3.12. Cuntos veces a la semana Usted usa la canoa? Semana, un nan bijee kulenichi nemuyu? Los dos siguientes preguntas para solo mujeres 3.13. Dnde Usted lava la ropa? Nu nuca jalli manbipumuyu? 3.14. Usted conversa con otras mujeres cuando lava ropa? Educacin Kiika minu paate 3.15. Cuntos aos de estudios tiene Usted? Kiika naaju miyu u? 1. ninguno jayuuba mijtu 2. primario 1 2 3 4 5 6 grado 3. segundario 1 2 3 4 5 6 curso 4. universidad 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 225

208 3.16. Su mam? u amaa naaju min? 1. ninguno jayuuba mijtu 2. primario 1 2 3 4 5 6 grado 3. segundario 1 2 3 4 5 6 curso 4. universidad 1 2 3 4 5 3.17. Su pap? u apa naaju min? 1. ninguno jayuuba mijtu 2. primario 1 2 3 4 5 6 grado 3. segundario 1 2 3 4 5 6 curso 4. universidad 1 2 3 4 5 IV. Capital Social Estructural IV. Chachi puree paate-i chumula naana deshiinau bain Densidad Organizacional Organizacin naaju den dejuu bain 4.1. De estas organizaciones, escoja 3 que sean las ms importantes para Usted. Entsa organizacin judeeshu juntsalanu uchiya naajulaa kayu bale deeuba juntsanu pema telaade 1. religioso catlica 2. religioso evangelista 3. el gobierno del centro Centro-nu / comuna-nu bale pumula 4. FECCHE 5. cooperativa de productos agrcolas buikiya wajke aware juntsa bulli ainu cooperativa 6. cooperativa de mujeres supula cooperativa 7. comit de padres de familias 8. comit de salud 9. asociacin de cultura 10. asociacin de ambiente 11. gobierno tradicional kayu vee asociacn tradicional (Chaita, rukula, un)

PAGE 226

209 LA CEIBA ONLY 12. Altropico 13. OIM 14. SETRAFOR 15. Plan Choc 16. COMOFOR 17. Comit Forestal 18. Comit de Deportes 19. Comit Agroforestal 20. Comit de la Elaboracin de Mermeladas 21. Comit del Agua LOMA LINDA ONLY 22. Asociacin de Profesores 23. Club Deportivo Juvenil 24. Redes Amigas 4.2. Qu organizaciones o instituciones de desarrollo estn trabajando conjuntamente con la comunidad? Naaju organizacin-laa uiba comunidad-ba buudi bulu taawasha kendetsun ullanu aawa tirenu? 4.3. En su opinin, los proyectos de estas organizaciones son exitosos? Por qu s o por qu no? u pensachiya entsa organizacin jumula kikedekeshu juntsa proyecto yuj aa ura debe pensayu? Tsaave tishu juntsaa nejtu, tsenmin tsajutyuve tishu juntsa bain nejtu? 4.4. En qu aspectos est apoyando la FECCHE actualmente en la comunidad? Challa tinbutala tinaajutalaa FECCHE ullanu buudi tiiuba kiketsun? 4.5. La FECCHE afecta la organizacin poltica de la comunidad? Organizacin kuinda juutala ne poltica kuinda juutala, ullanu naake keewaau juin FECCHE deke faawaau? 4.6. Cun frecuentemente se rene el centro/comuna en asambleas generales? Ti tinbumee Asamblea kikedeken u Centro-nu / Comuna-nu. 4.7. En su opinin, qu proyectos tienen ms xitos, comunales o familiares? uchiya, naaju proyecto juuya kayu ura kiike dekeve tengen, comuinchi chachilla wadi juu, tsangityu ma bulu paandelanchin juu proyecto? 4.8. De que benefician el estar asociado en Centro/ Comuna? Centro-nu juu, Comuna-nu juunu debuuditu tichee uukeraa katandetsuyu tengen?

PAGE 227

210 4.9. Usted piensa que ms uso de efectivo (dinero) ha cambiado la organizacin familiar? Si dijo que s, cmo? u pensaya ulla paandela naana chumuwa deeuba lushiren juntsatala tsaa devera kikee tengee? Tsaave tishu juntsaa, nejtaa tsa in? 4.10. Usted piensa que el uso de efectivo (dinero) ha cambiado la organizacin comunitaria? u pensaya ulla comunidad-nu organizacin naajumuwaau bain lushiren tsaa juntsatala devera kikee tengee? 4.11. Hay problemas provocados por agentes externos? uiba bulu chutyu, aa veemujtu vee chachillaren ullanu peletu juu kikarendetyuu? 4.12. Cules o quines y por qu? Naajula, mun tsenmin ti mitya? 4.13. Desde cundo? Ti tinbuchi tsange jandetsun? 4.14. Cmo Usted ha reaccionado a estos problemas? Tsaa peletu faau uya tyeengeyu? 4.15. Cmo la comunidad ha reaccionado a estos problemas? Tsaa peletu faau comunidad-ya tyeengen? Redes y organizacin de apoyo mutuo Organizacin jumula veta veta tyaapa kuwakeunge waaku juuuu jumula 4.17. Si la escuela primaria de esta comunidad no tuviera un profesor por seis meses o ms, qu personas tomaran la iniciativa para hacer algo sobre esto? Entsa comunidad-nu, tsaandenna escuela kiika keewaamu ruku putyu, tsaanchiren manchismain chuchaya, tsajutyuba kayu pure tinbu mitya tsaa juuu, muaa juntsanu jayu tiiuba kenu ke keenu juve tennu jun? 1. nadie muba 2. el gobierno local/provincial Provincia balela 3. el gobierno de la comunidad entsa comunidad-nu bale pumula 4. FECCHE 5. padres de los nios na miya rukula 6. la comunidad entera

PAGE 228

211 kumuinchi comunidad chulla 7. otro (describe) kayu veela 8. no s/ no estoy seguro mijtu/ nara mijtu 9. no hay respuesta pake meranu pakatyu 4.18. Si hubiera un problema que afectara a toda la comunidad, por ejemplo, enfermedad de los sembros, quien piensa Ud. tomara la iniciativa de trabajar para confrontar esta situacin? Tsaandenna ma bulla, tsaa kumuinchi ulla comunidad-nu ma musha kentsu, patiuya, ulla bui kiya wajkanu tsaa ma dediikaapukentsuu, juntsanu, uchiya muaa, naaju chachee, kajutaladi ura mannu juve tengen? 1. cada persona/hogar confrontara el problema individualmente Chachimee, maali maali yameemee yaitene, juntsa bullanu mijanu dejuve. 2. vecinos entre ellos Muba mu bain ya ya keetaa chullalaban juu 3. el gobierno local/provincial Provincia balela 4. el gobierno de la comunidad Comunidad-nu bale pumula 5. la comunidad entera kumuinchi comunidad chulla 6. otro (describe) kayu veela 7. no s/ no estoy seguro mijtu/ nara mijtu 8. no hay respuesta pake meranu pakatyu 4.19. Para qu hacen una minga? Tyeengenaa minga kenu den? 4.20. Durante este ultimo 10 aos, Usted piensa que ha mejorado la organizacin? Por que si o porque no? Redes Egocntricos Organizacin jumula waaku juuuu juturen, yaichiren juusa tyamula 4.21. Cuntas personas (amistades) que no son chachi conoce Usted en los siguientes lugares (quienes no son Chachis)? Entsa tenatala chachi jutyu vee chachillanu uya nan chachi kerayu? 1. En Ri Tululbi (o San Miguel para Loma Linda) ________

PAGE 229

212 Tululb pisha ( San Miguel) 2. San Francisco (Borbn)________ 3. San Lorenzo ________ 4. Esmeraldas_______ 5. Quito_________ 6. Otros lugares (Santo Domingo)________ Kayu vee mujtu bain ________ 4.22. En el y del al 6, cuntas personas conoce Usted, a travs de? Tisee nu pakayamin bain, 6 bain pakaya deeshu juntsa chachillanu, mu mityaa keemijayu? 1. A travs de ONGs? ONGs-la mityaa? 2. A travs de sus posiciones del gobierno? 3. A travs de vender o comprar productos agrcolas? Tunu wajke awakaraimu bulli atike, ne atikaketuu? 4. A travs de vender o comprar productos artesanales? Kaa taawasha, tyaapachi tsejtanchi iimu taawasha bulli atike, ne atikaketuu? 5. A travs de la extraccin de madera? Pulla ke atiketuu? 6. A travs de la religin? Religin mityaren? Exclusin Bacatyui-eraauu juu 4.23. Muchas veces hay diferentes posiciones entre la gente que vive en un mismo pueblo. Cunto cree Usted que esas diferencias dividen a la gente en su pueblo? Mandinbu, ma pebulu chumuutalaren tiba miyanchi pareju jutyuwa deeve. u kerachiya juntsa paate juntsaau ju u pebulunu naaju vera dejuve tengen juntsachi? Nada Algo Mucho Nejuu Ka jayu ne jatsaa tsaanchi pure keengayaju Diferencias en educacin Kiika minchi pareju jutyu Diferencias en riqueza/posesiones materiales Lushi tanchi/tiba pure taanchi pareju jutyu Diferencias en cuanto a la tierra de que uno es dueo Tu miya, tu pudee tanchi pareju jutyu Diferencias en status social Kayu daj chachi junchi pareju jutyu

PAGE 230

213 Diferencias entre hombres y mujeres Unbee ruku jutu, supu jutu pareju jutyu Diferencias entre generaciones de viejos y jvenes Rukula jutu, musula jutu pareju jutyu Diferencias entre habitantes originales del pueblo y recin llegados. Yumaa junu chumula, challan vija chudimulaba pareju jutyu Diferencias entre afiliaciones de partido poltico Parido poltico-nu shinnatu pareju jutyu Diferencias en creencias religiosas Religin-nu shinnatu pareju jutyu Otras diferencias? Kayu vera mitya pareju jutyu, ti mitya? 4.24. Tomando en cuenta los ltimos 10 aos, cunto cree Usted que esas diferencias dividieron a la gente de su pueblo? (Usar las mismas preguntas anteriores) Ma pebulu chumuutalaren tiba miyanchi pareju jutyuwa deeu, u kerachiya juntsa paate juntsaau ju u pebulunu naaju vera dejuve tengen entsa pullaishu juntsa paitya ao-nu pensange keeu? (Entsa katyunu pake mera judeeshu juntsaren pakemeenu)

PAGE 231

214 4.25. Cmo resuelve la gente los problemas? Chachilla yala peletu naake matsekaamu den? 1. No hay problemas Nejuu 2. Diferencias no causan problemas Peletu jutyu naa pareju jutyu bain 3. La gente resuelve estos problemas por s mismo Chachilla yaiteneren ne tsekaakemu deju? 4. Familia/el hogar interviene Ma paande chachilla, ma ya chulla yaiteneren ne ura majuu 5. Los vecinos intervienen Ya kelu chulla tsekaamishtimu deju 6. Lderes de la comunidad intervienen Comunidad-nu bale pumu chachilla tsekaamishtimu deju 7. Lderes religiosos intervienen Religin balela tsekaamishtimu deju 8. Lderes polticos intervienen Partidos poltico balela tsekaamishtimu deju 9. Violencia Tsamantsange firu ketu 10. Gobernador o gobierno tradicional Chaita, rukula, un 11. Otro (toda la comunidad, alguien de afuera) 12. No s /no estoy seguro Mijtu / nara mijtu 13. No hay respuesta Pakemeranu pakatyu ACCIN COLECTIVO 4.26. En el ao pasado, cuntas veces los miembros de esta comunidad se han juntado y pedido a las autoridades o lderes polticos alguna cosa para desarrollar al pueblo? Entsa pullaishu juntsa ao-chi, entsa comunidad-nu buunamu chachilla nan bijee dewadi, vee mujtu chumu bale chachillanu juu, ne poltico bale juulanu bain, entsa pebulu kayu awakaanu tiiuba depaken? 1. nunca jayuuba 2. una vez Ma bijeeren juu

PAGE 232

215 3. dos veces 4. frecuentemente Naa uwanu bain 5. no s/ no estoy seguro mijtu / ura mijtu 6. no hay respuesta pakemeranu pakatyu 4.27. Fue exitoso(s) esta accin/algunas de las acciones? Tsangetu ti mityake bain naa uwanuba katandene dekiyu, matsan kataa dekiyu? 1. S, todos fueron exitosos ti mityake bain naaju bain kandene dekiyu 2. Algunos fueron exitosos/ algunos no Mantsan kadekiyu / mantsaya kaindetyuyu 3. No, ninguna fue exitososo Naa maliiba kaindetyuyu 4.28. Cuntas veces en el ao pasado han juntado con otras comunidades para enfrentar un problema comn? Pullaishu juntsa ao-chi vee mujtu chumu comunidad-laba, nan bijee debuudi yaichi bain tsaren bulla ju naa uichi bain tsaren bulla ju paatetala ura kenu dekeyu? 1. nunca jayuuba 2. una vez Ma bijeeren juu 3. muchas veces Pure bijee 4. frecuentemente Naa uwanu bain 5. no s/ no estoy seguro mijtu / ura mijtu 6. no hay respuesta pakemeranu pakatyu 4.29. Si fuera necesario tomar una decisin relacionada con un proyecto de desarrollo en esta comunidad, quien piensa Usted que tomar la decisin? Tsaandenna comunidad-nu awakaanu ma proyecto punu, tsanginuuve ti kuinda kenu keu, comunidad chulla dewakudinu dejuve tengen, tsaityuba comunidad bale chachillaren yaitene tsangidaa tinu dejuve tengen? 1. Los lderes de la comunidad decidirn Comunidad balela yaiteneren ne tsangenu deju 2. La comunidad entera estara llamada

PAGE 233

216 Comunidad chulla cumuinchi dewakuditaa tsangenu deju 3. No s/ no estoy seguro Mijtu / nara mijtu 4. No hay respuesta Pakemeranu pakatyu 4.30. Sobre todo, qu le parece la participacin en toma de decisiones en esta comunidad? Ti kikenu keba tsangedaa tinu ketu naa-i wadimu dejun entsa comunidad-nu? 1. muy bajo Ura jayu wakuu 2. bajo jayun wakuu 3. normal Naa-i wadinu juuba tsai wadimu deju 4. alto Pure wakudimu deju 5. muy alto Ura tsamantsai wadimu deju 4.31. En los ltimos 10 aos, sobre todo, que le pareci la participacin en toma de decisiones en esta comunidad? Entsa paitya ao pullaishu juntsanu keetadiu, ti kikenu keba tsangedaa tinu ketu naa-i wadimu dejun entsa comunidad-nu? 1. muy bajo Ura jayu wakuu 2. bajo jayun wakuu 3. normal Naa-i wadinu juuba tsai wadimu deju 4. alto Pure wakudimu deju 5. Muy alto Ura tsamantsai wadimu deju 4.32.Cunta influencia cree que Usted tiene en hacer de esta comunidad un mejor lugar para vivir? Entsa comunidad-nu kayu sunden chudinuu kikaanu u pudee tayu tengen? 1. mucho pure taju 2. algo ka jayuya 3. no mucho

PAGE 234

217 aa jutyu 3. nada jayuuba 4. no s/no estoy seguro mijtu / ura mijtu Resolucin de Conflictos Peletu junu matsekaanu 4.33.En su opinin, esta comunidad es generalmente pacifica / tranquila o conflictiva? 1. Pacifica / tranquila Ajarajtu / nejuu 2. Conflictiva Puita firu 3. No s/no estoy seguro Mijtu / ura mijtu 4. No hay respuesta Pakemeranu pakatyu 4.34. Suponga que dos personas en este pueblo tuvieran una discusin seria. Quin ayudara a resolver la discusin? Entsa pebulunu tsaandenna pai chachi yaitene feete vinbandetsuu, muaa juntsa peletu tsekaamishtinu juve tengen? 1. La gente resuelve estos problemas por s mismo Chachilla yaiteneren ne tsekaakemu deju? 2. Familia/el hogar interviene Ma paande chachilla, ma ya chulla yaiteneren ne ura majuu 3. Los vecinos intervienen Ya kelu chulla tsekaamishtimu deju 4. Lderes de la comunidad intervienen Comunidad-nu bale pumu chachilla tsekaamishtimu deju 5. Lderes religiosos intervienen Religin balela tsekaamishtimu deju 6. Lderes polticos intervienen Partidos poltico balela tsekaamishtimu deju 7. Otro Kayu veela 8. No s /no estoy seguro Mijtu / nara mijtu 9. No hay respuesta Pakemeranu pakatyu

PAGE 235

218 V. Capital Social Cognitivo V. Chachilla paate aa bulu i chumula pensasha naa dejuu bain Solidaridad Tinuba bulu ju pensangenu 5.1. Suponga que algo desafortunado le pasara a Usted, como de repente su pap o su hijo se muere (algo que le deja sentir triste), a quien podra pedir ayuda personal (o hablar sobre su tristeza)? Tsaandenna u apa juu, u na juu ma peyaiu, munaa ayuda panu juyu tengen? 1. nadie ayudaria muba ayuda kendejutyuve 2. familia paandelanu 3. amigos llajchala 4. vecino ya kelu chulla 5. un lder o un grupo religioso religin bale chachilla 6. un lder de la comunidad comunidad bale chachilla 7. un lder de comercializacin o negocios tiba aimu, tiba atikamu bale chachi 8. un lder poltico Partido poltico bale chachi 9. una organizacin de la comunidad de que Usted es miembro u comunidad-nu chumu organizacin-nu ubain shianashu juntsanu 10. una organizacin de la comunidad de que Usted NO es miembro u comunidad-nu chutyu organizacin-nu u juntsanu shinnatyushu juntsa organizacin-nu 11. Gobernador o gobierno tradicional Chaita, rukula, un 11. otro kayu veela 12. no s/no estoy segura mijtu / ura mijtu 13. no hay respuesta Pakemeranu pakatyu

PAGE 236

219 5.2. Suponga que Usted perdiera mucho econmicamente, por ejemplo un fracaso de cultivos, a quien podra pedir ayuda econmica (un favor economica)? Tsaandenna u lushi pure peedi iitu, tiiuba wajtu tsaa depeedi iitu, munaa lushi ayuda pachuyu tengen? 1. nadie ayudara muba ayuda kendejutyuve 2. familia paandelanu 3. amigos llajchala 4. vecino ya kelu chulla 5. un lder o un grupo religioso religin bale chachilla 6. un lder de la comunidad comunidad bale chachilla 7. un lder de comercializacin o negocios tiba aimu, tiba atikamu bale chachi 8. un lder poltico Partido poltico bale chachi 9. una organizacin de la comunidad de que Usted es miembro u comunidad-nu chumu organizacin-nu ubain shianashu juntsanu 10. una organizacin de la comunidad de que Usted NO es miembro u comunidad-nu chutyu organizacin-nu u juntsanu shinnatyushu juntsa organizacin-nu 11. Gobernador o gobierno tradicional Chaita, rukula, un 12. otro kayu veela 13. no s/no estoy segura mijtu / ura mijtu 14. no hay respuesta Pakemeranu pakatyu Confianza Tsaave uraa tya pensangenu 5.3. Usted piensa que en esta comunidad la gente generalmente tiene confianza uno con el otro en cuestiones de prestar? u pensaya entsa comunidad chulla yaatala uwain mangunu tsuve tya tiba kuwa kuw kemu deeve tengen?

PAGE 237

220 1. s, tienen confianza uwain tsangenu tsuve tyamu deeve 2. miti miti 3. no hay confianza Tsangenu tsuve tyatyu deeve 4. no s /no estoy seguro mijtu / nara mijtu 5. no hay respuesta pakemeranu pakatyu 5.4. Cmo piensa Usted que ha cambiado el nivel de confianza en los ltimos 10 aos? u pensachiya entsa pullaishu juntsa paitya ao-tala, chachilla tsangenu tsuve tya keengenu paatetala, vera tiyaive pensayu? 1. ha mejorado kayu ura tiyaive 2. igual tsaren ne juu 3. peor mushanchi iiu 4. no s /no estoy seguro mijtu / ura mijtu 5. no hay respuesta pakemeranu pakatyu 6. no es aplicable 5.5. Cunta gente en esta comunidad son honestas y merecen confianza.? Entsa comunidad-nu nan chachi aa ura chachi, meengenu chachi, keengenu chachi dechuve tengen? 1. la mayora son honestas y merecen confianza Pure chachi aa ura chachi, meengenu chachi, keengenu chachi deju. 2. algunos son honestos y merecen confianza Mantsaya aa ura chachi, meengenu chachi, keengenu chachi deju. 3. solo pocos son honestos y merecen confianza ka jayuren aa ura chachi, meengenu chachi, keengenu chachi judeju. 4. no son honestos ni merecen confianza jayuuba aa ura chachi, meengenu chachi, keengenu chachi dejutyu.

PAGE 238

221 5.6. Suponga que Usted tuviera que ir con su familia por un tiempo. Con quien podra confiar, cuidar su chacra y cultivos? 1. otro miembro de la familia main ya paadenu 2. vecino ya kelu chumunu 3. cualquier persona del pueblo ya pebulunu chundala, mubaasa 4. otro kayu veelanu 5. nadie munuba 6. no estoy seguro/no s nara mijtuyu / mijtuyu 7. no hay respuesta pakemeranu pakatyu 5.7. Si de repente Usted y su esposo o esposa tuviera que irse a Quito por dos das, con quien podra confiar, cuidar de sus hijos? Tsaandenna u, u rukuba/shinbuba Quito-sha pai malu mitya lu jindu, munaa u kaillanu washkare jinu juyu tengen? 1. otro miembro de la familia main ya paandenu 2. vecino ya kelu chumunu 3. cualquier persona del pueblo ya pebulunu chundala mu baasa 4. otro kayu veelanu 5. no tengo hijos na miyajtu 6. no estoy seguro/no s nara mijtuyu / mijtuyu 7. no hay respuesta pakemeranu pakatyu Reciprocidad y cooperacin Manbarejuren tsangenu, ti bain kivenu 5.8. Sobre todo, qu le parece la cooperacin en esta comunidad? Ti kikenu keuba entsa comunidad-nu kikenu dejuve tengen? 1. muy bajo Ura jayu wakuu

PAGE 239

222 2. bajo jayun wakuu 3. normal Naa-i wadinu juuba tsai wadimu deju 4. alto Pure wakudimu deju 5. muy alto Ura tsamantsai wadimu deju 5.9. En los ltimos 10 aos, que le ha parecido sobre todo, la cooperacin en esta comunidad? Entsa paitya ao pullaishu juntsanu keetaditu, u keraya ti kikenu keuba entsa comunidad-nu kivete kiveteke depullaa tengen? 1. muy bajo Ura jayu wakuu 2. bajo jayun wakuu 3. normal Naa-i wadinu juuba tsai wadimu deju 4. alto Pure wakudimu deju 5. muy alto Ura tsamantsai wadimu deju

PAGE 240

LIST OF REFERENCES Allum, Claire Paulette (1997). An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Chachi Land-use in Northwestern Tropical Ecuador. Dissertation, University of Calgary, Calgary. Altropico (2000). Memoria Taller Diagnostico: Comunidad La Ceiba. San Lorenzo, Ecuador. Aapa Cimarrn, Juan Bautista (2003). Chachi: Lalachakuinda, naa na chumu Juhua jubain, naa chaibain. Indio-Hilfe, Esmeraldas, Ecuador. Arguello, Maria (1995). Extractive Activities in Northwestern Ecuador: The Case of the Commune Rio Santiago-Cayapas. MA thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Baksh, Michael and Johnson, Allen (1990). Insurance Policies among the Machiguenga: An Ethnographic Analysis of Risk Management in a Non-Western Society. In Cashdan, E (ed.), Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and Peasant Economies. Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 193-228. Barrett, S.A. (1925). The Cayapa Indians of Ecuador: 2 vols. Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation, New York. Basurco, Santiago (1844). Trois Semaines chez les Indiens Cayapas (Republique de LEcuador): 1844-1847. Bedoya Garland, Eduardo (1995). The Social and Economic Causes in the Peruvian Amazon Basin: Natives and Colonists, In Durham, William and Painter, Michael (eds.), The Social Causes of Environmental Destruction. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 217-246 Begosi, Alpina (1998). Resilience and Neo-traditional Populations: the Caicaras (Atlantic Forest) and Coboclos (Amazon, Brazil), In Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl; Colding, Johan (eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 129-157. Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl; and Colding, Johan (eds.) (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems for Resilience and Sustainability, In Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 1-25. 223

PAGE 241

224 Bodley, John H. (1999). Victims of Progress, Fourth Edition. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View. Bolanos, Omaira (2003). Diversity and Conflict in a Forest Management Project:Tthe Case of a Colonist Community in the Lowlands of Bolivia. Master of Arts Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Bourdieu, Pierre (1979). Les Trios Etats du Capital Culturel. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 30: 3-6. Bourdieu, Pierre (1979). Le Capital Social: Notes Provisoires. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 31: 2-3. Bourdieu, Pierre (1985). The Forms of Capital. In Richardson, J.G. (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood, New York: pp. 241-58. Bray, David Barton; Merino-Perez, Leticia; Negreros-Castillo, Patricia; Segura-Warnholtz, Gerardo; Torres-Rojo, Juan Manuel; and Vester, Henricus F. M. (2003). Mexicos Community Managed Forests as a Global Model for Sustainable Landscapes. Conservation Biology 17(3): 672-677. Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95-S120. Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundatios of Social Theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. DeBoer, Warren R. (1996). Traces Behind the Esmeraldas Shore: Prehistory of the Santiago-Cayapas Region, Ecuador. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa and London. Dinerstein, E.; Olson, D.; Graham, D.; Webster, A.; Primm, S.; Bookbinder, M.; and Ledec, G. (1995). Una Evaluacin del Estado de las Eco-regiones Terrestres de Amrica Latina y el Caribe. World Bank, WWF. Washington DC. Dodson, C.H. and Gentry, A.H. (1991). Biological Extinction in Western Ecuador. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 78: 273-295. Durkheim, E. (1984). The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press, New York. Durrenberger, Paul (2002). Why Social Capital is a Bad Idea. Society for Applied Anthropology. Newsletter 13(3): 3-4. Ecociencia, Centro Ftima, Jatun Sacha, and Omaere (1996). Manejo de Recursos en el Bosque Tropical: Lecciones Aprendidas. Ecociencia, Quito, Ecuador.

PAGE 242

225 Forsyth, Adrian and Miyata, Ken (1984). Tropical Nature: Life and Death in the Rainforest of Central and South America. Scribbner, New York. Fox, J. (1995). Governance and Rural Development in Mexico: State Intervention and Public Accountability. Journal of Development Studies 32: 1-30. Fox, J. (1996). How Does Civil Society Thicken? The Political Construction of Social Capital in Rural Mexico. World Development 24: 1089-1103. Garcia Canclini, Nestor (1997). Transforming Modernity: Popular Culture in Mexico. University of Texas Press, Austin. Godoy, Ricardo A. (2001). Indians, Markets and Rainforests: Theory, Methods and Analysis. Colombia University Press, New York. Gommes, Ren; Bakon, Andy; and Farmer, Graham (March 1998). An El Nio Primer. http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/EIdirect/EIan0008.htm accessed May 27, 2004. Hanifan, Lyda Judson (1916). The Rural Community Center. In Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 67:130-138. Henrich, Joseph (1997). Market Incorporation, Agricultural Change, and Sustainability Among the Machiguenga Indians of the Peruvian Amazon. Human Ecology 25(2):319-351. Holling, C.S. and Gunderson, Lance H. (2002). Resilience and Adaptive Cycles. In Gunderson, Lance H. and Holling, C.S., Panarchy. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 25-62. Holling, C.S.; Gunderson, Lance H.; and Ludwig, Donald (2002). In Quest of a Theory of Adaptive Change. In Gunderson, Lance H. and Holling C.S. (eds.), Panarchy. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 3-22. Holling, C.S.; Gunderson, Lance H.; and Peterson, Garry D. (2002). Sustainability and Panarchies. In Gunderson, Lance H. and Holling C.S. (eds.), Panarchy. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 63-102 Holm-Nielsen, L.; Kvist, L.P.; and Aguavil, M. (1983). Las Investigaciones Etnobotnicas entre los Colorados y los Cayapas. Miscelnea Antropolgica Ecuatoriana 3 (3): 80-116. Jodha, Naprat S. (1998). Reviving the Social System-Ecosystem Links in the Himalayas. In Berkes, Fikret, Folke, Carl; and Colding, Johan (eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 285-310.

PAGE 243

226 Johnson, Nancy; Suarez, Ruth; and Lundy, Mark (2002). The Importance of Social Capital in Colombian Rural Agro-Enterprises. Collective Action and Property Rights Working Paper No. 26, IFPRI, Washington, DC. Josse, C.; Hurtado, M.; and Granizo, T. (2001). La Diversidad de los Ecosistemas. In Josse, Carmen, La biodiversidad del Ecuador Informe 2000. Ministero del Ambiente, Ecociencia, y Unin Mundial para la Naturaleza (UICN). Juncosa, Jos E. (1988). Tsachila: Los Clasicos de la Etnografia sobre Los Colorados (1905-1950). Abya Yala, Quito, Ecuador. Karsten, Rafael (1924). Los Indios Colorados del Oeste Ecuatoriano. In Juncosa, Jos E., Tsachila: Los Clasicos de la Etnografia sobre Los Colorados (1905-1950). Abya Yala, Quito, Ecuador, pp. 55-79. Knack, Stephen and Keefer, Philip (1995). Institutions and Economic Performance: Cross-country tests Using Alternative Institutional Measures. Economics and Politics 7(3): 207-227. Kearney, Michael and Varese, Stefano (1995). Latin Americas Indigenous Peoples: Changing Identities and Forms of Resistance. In Halebsky, R.H.A.S. (ed.), Capital, Power and Inequality in Latin America. Boulder: Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 207-231. Krishna, Adirudh and Shrader, Elizabeth (1999). Social Capital Assessment Tool. Prepared for the Conference on Social Capital and Poverty Reduction, June 22-24. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Kottak, Conrad P. (1999). The New Ecological Anthropology. American Anthropologist 101 (1): 23-35. Korten, David C. (1995). When Corporations Rule the World. Kumerian Press, Inc. and Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Lin, Nan (1999). Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. Connections 22(1): 28-51 Loker, William (1993). The Human Ecology of Cattle Ranching in the Peruvian Amazon: The View from the Farm. Human Organization 52 (1): 14-24. Loury, G.C. (1977). A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences. In Wallace, P.A. and La Mond A.M., Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination. Heath, Lexington, M.A., pp. 153-86. Marchan Maldonado, Nicole (2001). Etnobotnica Cuantitativa de una Comunidad Chachi de la Provincia de Esmeraldas, Ecuador, Thesis, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador. Marx, Karl. (1967). Capital, Vol. 3. International Press, New York.

PAGE 244

227 McIlvaine-Newsad, Heather Lan (2000). Tied to the Land: Livelihood Systems in Northern Ecuador, Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Medina, Henry V. (1992). Los Chachi: Supervivencia y Ley Tradicional. Ediciones Abya Yala, Ecuador. Morris, David (1990). Free Trade: The Great Destroyer. The Ecologist 20(5):190-195. Moya, A. (1998). ETHNOS, Atlas Etnogrfico del Ecuador. Proyecto EBI-GTZ, Quito. Narayan, Deepa (1999). Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty. Poverty Group of the World Bank, the World Bank, Washington, DC. Neill, D. (1997). Ecuadorian Pacific Coast Mesic Forests, Ecuador. In Davis, S.W.; Heywood V.H.; Herrera-Mac Bryde, O.; Villa-Lobos, J.; and Hamilton, A.C. (eds.), Centers of Plant Diversity. A Guide and Strategy for Their Conservation 3. WWF-UICN, the Americas. National Oceanic and Atmosopheric Administration (5/26/2004). TAO Project: El Nino Theme Page. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html accessed May 26, 2004. Odum, Howard T. and Odum, Elisabeth C. (2001) A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies. University of Colorado, Boulder. Patino, V. M. (1965). Historia de la Actividad Agropecuaria en America Equinoccia. First Edition. Imprenta Departmental, Cali, Colombia. Pena, Maria Valeria Junho and Lindo Fuentes, Hector (1998). Organizacin, Valores, y Capital; Social de las Comunidades de Panama. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Pope, Jeanette (2000). Social Capital and Social Capital Indicators: A Reading List. Electronic Document, http://www.publichealth.gov.au/PDF/soccap.pdf, accessed March 24, 2004. Portes, Alejandro (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Society. Annual Review of Sociology 24(1):1-23. Portes, Alejandro (1999). Social Capital and its Implications for National Development. Paper presented at United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America. Santiago, Chile. Portes, Alejandro and Landolt, Patricia (1996). Downside of Social Capital. The American Prospect 26 (Mayo-June):18 94. Pretty, Jules (2003). Social Capital and Collective Management of Resources. Science 302: 1912-1914.

PAGE 245

228 Putnam, Robert D. (1993a). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Putnam, Robert D. (1993b). The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life. American Prospect 13:35-42 Putnam, Robert D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy 6(1):65-78. Putnam, Robert D. (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster, New York. Rappaport, Roy A. (1971). The Flow of Energy in an Agricultural Society. Scientific American, September 1971: 117-122, 127-132. Roe, Douglas (2002). Foreward. In McLean, Scott L., Schultz, David A., and Steger, Manfred B. (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Community and Bowling Alone. New York University Press, New York and London, pp.xi to xv. Salazar, Alfredo (1979). Kaspee Rukula Kuinda (History of the Forefathers). Unpublished manuscript. Translated by Neil Wiebe. Scheffer, Marten; Westley, Frances; Brock, William A.; and Holmgren, Milena (2002). Dynamic Interactions of Societies and Ecosystems-Linking Theories from Ecology, Economy, and Sociology. In Gunderson, Lance H. and Holling C.S. (eds.), Panarchy. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 195-239. Schmink, Marianne and Wood, Charles H. (1987). The Political Ecology of the Amazonia. Little, Peter D.; Horowitz, Michael M.; and Nyerges, Endre A. (eds.), Lands at Risk in the Third World, Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 38-57. Schmink, Marianne (2003). Communities, Forests, Markets, and Conservation. In Zarin, D.; Putz, F.J.; Schmink, M.; and Alavalapati (eds.), Working Forests in the Tropics: Conservation through Sustainable Management? Colombia University Press, New York. Sierra, R. (1996). La Deforestacion en el Noroccidente del Ecuador: 1983-1993. Ecociencia. Quito, Ecuador. Sierra, R. (1999). Propuesta Preliminar de un Sistema de Clasificacin de Vegetacin para el Ecuador Continental. Circa 1996. 1:1,000,000. Proyecto INEFAN/GEF-BIRF y Ecociencia, Quito, Ecuador. Sierra, R., Campos, F. and J. Chamberlain (2002). Conservation Priorities in Continental Ecuador: A Study Based in Landscape and Species Level Biodiversity Patterns. In Landscape and Urban Planning 59: 95-110. Solis, M. Acosta, n.d. Map. La Provincia de Esmeraldas, Ecuador.

PAGE 246

229 Stevenson, W.B. (1825). A historical and descriptive narrative narrative of twenty years residence in South America (3 Volumes). London, England. Stonich, Susan C. (1993). I am Destroying the Land! The Political Ecology of the Poverty and Environmental Destruction in Honduras. Westview Press, Boulder. Stonich, Susan C. (1995). Development, Rural Impoverishment, and Environmental Destruction in Honduras. In Durham, William and Painter, Michael, The Social Causes of Environmental Destruction. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp.63-99. Thurston, David H (1997). Slash/Mulch Systems. Sustainable Methods for Tropical Agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder. United States Central Intelligence Agency (1991). Ecuador (Shaded Relief) map. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/ecuador_rel91.jpg accessed February 26, 2004. Uphoff, Norman (2000). Understanding Social Capital: Learning From the Analysis and Experience of Participation. In Dasgupta, Partha and Serageldin, Isnali (eds.), Capital: A Multifacted Perspective, the World Bank, Washington, DC. Valencia, R.; Pitman, N.; Len-Ynez, S.; and Jorgensen, P.M. (eds.). 2000. Libro rojo de las platas endmicas del Ecuador 2000. Herbario QCA, Pontificia Universidad Ctolica del Quito, Ecuador. Valverde, F.M. (1998). Plantas tiles del Litoral Ecuatoriano. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente/ECORAE/Ecociencia, Guayaquil. Varese, Stefano (2001). The Territorial Roots of Latin Americas Indigenous Peoples Movement for Sovereignty. Hagar. International Social Science Review 2 (2). Villavicencio, Manuel (1858). Geografa de la Repblica del Ecuador. Robert Graighead Press, New York. Von Hagen, Wolfgang (1939) Los Indios Tsachela del Oeste Ecuatoriano. In Juncosa, Jos E.(ed.), Tsachila: Los Clasicos de la Etnografia sobreLos Colorados (1905-1950). Abya Yala, Quito, Ecuador, pp. 81-124. Wentzel, Sondra (1989). Tacana and highland Migrant Land Use, Living Conditions, and Local Organizations in the Bolivian Amazon. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. West, Robert C. (1957). The Pacific Lowlands of Colombia: A Negroid Area of the American Tropics. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. Wolf, Eric R. (1997). Europe and the People without History. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angelos.

PAGE 247

230 Wood, Charles H. and Porro, Roberto (2002). Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. World Bank Group (8/1/ 2000a). How is Social Capital Measured? http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/SChowmeas1.htm accessed February 18, 2003. World Bank Group (8/1/ 2000b). Why is Social Capital Relevant to Development Work? http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/scwhyrel1.htm accessed February 18, 2003. World Bank Group (8/1/ 2000c). Social Capital and the World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/bank1.htm accessed February 18, 2003. World Bank Group (2/10/2003). Social Capital and the Environment. http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/topic/env1.htm accessed February 18, 2003.

PAGE 248

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Julianne Adams Hazlewood was born in Indianapolis, Indiana, on September 26, 1973. During high school, she chose to go to boarding school, thus attending Culver Girls Academy in Indiana and graduating from Northfield Mount Hermon School in Massachusetts in 1992. The cornerstone of her current interest in the effects of the capitalist market on socio-environmental relations was set while obtaining her undergraduate degree in community studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz. As part of the degree requirement, in 1997, she did a six-month internship with an Ecuadorian NGO called UTEPA (Unidad Tcnica Ecuatoriana para el Ecodesarrollo de la Amazona y Regin Aw). As part of the internship, she lived in the Chachi village of La Ceiba and collaborated on the establishment of an ethnobotanical garden. Since her graduation in 1998, Julianne worked with adolescents and on organic farms in Washington, Hawaii, and the Dominican Republic. In 2000, she returned to Ecuador for a year, and worked with Ecociencia (an Ecuadorian NGO) as the coordinator of another ethnobotanical garden in the Chachi village of Loma Linda. In 2001, she traveled to Brazil and Bolivia and then attended the graduate school at the Catholic University in Lima, Peru, where she lived for one year. After working in the Virgin Islands for six months in 2002, Julianne moved to Gainesville, Florida, to pursue her MA degree in Latin American Studies. Her concentration was in tropical conservation and development. 231


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0005745/00001

Material Information

Title: Socio-Environmental Consequences of Market Integration among the Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0005745:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0005745/00001

Material Information

Title: Socio-Environmental Consequences of Market Integration among the Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0005745:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MARKET INTEGRATION
AMONG THE CHACHIS OF ESMERALDAS, ECUADOR
















By

JULIANNE ADAMS HAZLEWOOD


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Julianne Adams Hazlewood
































To the Chachis of La Ceiba and Loma Linda, who have shared with me their rainy worlds
of laughter and welcomed me into their homes.















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I want to thank my family, especially my mom and dad, who have admitted

difficulty in understanding exactly what it is that I research. Nonetheless, by letting me

go, being there when I needed them, and hoping for my growth and happiness, they have

supported me. They have taught me the true meaning of keeping an open mind. Without

their belief in the importance of education, I would not have experienced the

opportunities that led me to the University of Florida.

Second, I would like to express my thanks to all the Chachis and to my friends who

lived with me in Ecuador over the years. They have left me with memories and lessons

that will continue to sparkle like emeralds in the river of my life. Thanks to Nicole

Marchan for her friendship and company in Loma Linda during my initial visit. I am

especially grateful to Ladna Miller who took care of me when I was sick, who made me

laugh when I wanted to cry from frustration, and who did an excellent job as a

photographer and field assistant in Loma Linda when we were crunched for time.

Additionally, I am indebted to Samuel Afiapa, Hidalgo San Nicolas, and the other

translators for their guidance and patience as they translated interviews and explained to

me the Chachi ways. I also appreciate the support I received from Ecociencia and

Altropico during my summer of field work. And Todd Smith and Neil and Ruth Wiebe

must be recognized for their dedicated work with the Chachis.

Within the academic world, I would like to begin by creditting Dr. Gerald Murray.

Without his encouragement I may not have found myself in the Latin American Studies









program at all. Although it was clear he believed in my abilities and the merit of this

project from the beginning, he simultaneously challenged me to refine my academic

skills. Additionally, he reminded me not to lose focus of sight of the forest for the trees.

Furthermore, I would like to express my most profound appreciation to Dr. Charles

Wood, the chair of my thesis committee. I am grateful that despite our different ways of

thinking, he was able to recognize our commonalities as well as my capacity and passion

for learning. My ability to push limits and question was something in which he took joy,

but which also required his patience. He trained me to be critical of academic culture

while guiding me through the development of the skills necessary to "succeed in this

business" (which I am still learning). He taught me the importance of weeding the

superfluous and highlighting the kernels. My academic experience at UF was made all

the more enjoyable due to his accessibility, our talks about academia and research, and

his stories.

I am much obliged to my other committee members as well. I thank Dr. Hugh

Popenoe for his friendship and support. Whenever I was feeling discouraged, I knew I

could go to his office and he would inevitably make me feel better. He exposed me to

remote, diverse cultures and encouraged me to develop useful skills that may assist me in

those places one day. He reminded me to focus on topics that are useful to indigenous

people, thus highlighting an important life lesson: "El sencillo es lo mas profundo" (the

simple things in life are the most profound). Lastly, Dr. Popenoe's ability to objectively

learn from other cultures and their farming systems reminds me of a quote by 19th century

poet Ramon Campoamor that he told our ethnoecology class: "En este mundo traidor

nada es verdad, ni mentira; todo es segun el color del cristal con que se mira" (In this









deceptive world there is neither truth nor lies; everything depends on the color of the lens

through which you look).

I must also acknowledge Dr. Marianne Schmink. She has been and will remain a

great role model-someone who makes tremendous investments in her students, her

community field site, and the pedagogy of teaching. She is someone who is constantly

refining her ever-dynamic role in a multiplicity of realms, including that of professor and

researcher. She teaches as part of her own quest for learning. Her ability to plunge into

the social matrix, navigate through the interconnectedness of the system, and retain a

strong foundation of compassion and sensitivity is formidable.

I would also like to express my appreciation to all the professors with whom I have

taken classes and have interacted here at UF. Each of their perspectives and class

materials has added many new dimensions to my perception of Latin America and

graduate education.

In addition, I am beholden to the Center for Latin American Studies, the Tropical

Conservation and Development program, the Tinker Foundation Summer Field Research

award, and the FLAS Summer Fellowship for funding my research, allowing me to

improve my skills, and enabling me to learn more about the Chachis.

Further thanks go to Chris McCarty and Kuniko Chijiwa. They both took time to

walk me through statistical analysis. My appreciation extends to Percy Peralta, Geraldine

Slean, Patricia Prevatt, Tina Remy, Byron Real, Juan Concha, and the people at the ETD

lab for their collaboration.

Finally, I am grateful to my friends who showed me the ropes in the program,

helped me when I was discouraged, and encouraged me to laugh, dance and release when









it was time to take a break. I get by with a lot of help from my friends. I am really going

to miss the community created here in LAS and TCD.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S ..................................................................... .................... iv

LIST OF TABLES .............. ................. ............ .......................... xii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ....................... .......... ....... ............ xiv

ABSTRACT ........ .............. ............. ...... ...................... xvi

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Impressions of Change ................... ...... .. ........ ................. 1
O organization of Thesis ........................................................ ... ........ .. ..

2 PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF MARKET INTEGRATION......7

In tro d u ctio n ...................... .............. ............ .. .. ........ ......... .. .................... 7
Market Integration and the Disruption of Indigenous Social-Ecological Systems.......9
Market Integration and the Resilience of Indigenous Social-Ecological Systems.....14
Economic Development and Social Capital .................................... ............... 17
Historical Evolution of Social Capital............... .............................................. 17
Social C capital and R esiliency ......................................................... .................. 19
Higher bonding social capital; higher potential for development ..............20
Higher bonding social capital; lower potential for development
(the need for bridging and linking social capital).................................23
Greater development; lower bonding social capital...................................24
A applications of Social C capital .................................... ............................ ....... 25
Statem ent of the P problem ............................................................................ ......... 27

3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION..............................................29

In tro du ctio n ...................................... ................................................ 2 9
Site Selection .............................................. ........ ................. 29
M ethods of D ata Collection......................................................... ............... 30
S am ple S election .............................. ......................... ... ...... .... ..... ...... 30
Inform ally Structured Interview ....................................................................... 30
Form ally Structured Interview s........................................................................ 30









Time Frame............................................. 34
M easuring M market Integration ............................................................................. 34
M measuring Social C capital ......................................... .................. ......... ....... 35
Structural Social C capital ...................... .. .. ......... ...................... ............... 35
C ognitive Social C capital ...................... .. .. ......... ...................... ............... 36
C o n c lu sio n s........................................................................................................... 3 6

4 COMPARABILITY OF THE TWO COMMUNITIES ............................................38

T h e C h o c 6 ............................................................................................................. 3 8
L a C eib a ........................................................4 0
L o m a L in d a ........................................................................................................... 4 1
Environm ental Features ............... ........... ..... ...................................................... 42
Climate and Rainfall in the Ecuadorian Choc ..............................................42
Physical Features ........................................................ .. ............ 44
V eg etatio n ...................................... .............................. ................ 4 7
Socio-Cultural Features ...................... ................ ................. .... ....... 48
Population ....................................................................49
C hachi C ultu ral H history .................. ................ .................................... ......50
Historical and Socio-political Background of the Chachis ..............................57
Historical and socio-political background of La Ceiba.............................59
Historical and socio-political background of Loma Linda...........................63
C conclusion ............................................................... ..... ..... ........ 66

5 SUBSISTENCE AND MARKET ORIENTED LIVELIHOODS IN LA CEIBA
A N D L O M A L IN D A ...................................................................... .....................67

The Evolving Chachi Economy ........................................................................... 67
Contemporary Market and Subsistence Activities ............................................. 73
T he P redicam ent ........................ ........................................................... 77
"Traditional" and Subsistence-oriented Activities ............................................. 85
Agriculture................................ .. ............... ............. ........... 85
Cycles: planting, weeding and harvesting................ ...... .........89
Tools and technology ............................................................................92
Pests and other problems in the system.................................................93
Gender and Agricultural Production ....................................... ............... 93
W om en's role in agriculture..................................... ......... ............... 93
M en's role in agriculture ........................................................... ... .......... 95
M ingas ............................................................... .. ... ......... 95
Fishing ..................................... ................................. ........... 96
H hunting ............................................................... ... ..... ........ 99
Canoe-m aking.................................... .............................. ....... 100
C raft-m making .................................................................. ............... 10 1
M arket-oriented A ctivities................................................ ............................ 103
A g ro fo re story ................................................................................................ 10 4
C attle-ranching ........................................ ... .... ................. 107
Logging .............. ...... .............................................. 109










Contract Labor ....................... .......... ..... ............... 112
Public Service Jobs ....... .............................. ............ .. .... .. ........ .... 112
C o n c lu sio n ...................... .. ............. .. ..................................................1 14

6 TESTING COMMUNITY DIFFERENCES IN MARKET INTEGRATION......... 116

Time Spent on M market and Subsistence Activities .............. ...............................116
Traditional and Subsistence-oriented Activities................................................... 120
Craft-making .......... ......... ................... ... ...... .. 120
Agriculture ................................................................. ........ ......... ........ ........ 120
R raising C chickens and Pigs ........................................ .......................... 121
Fishing ............ ....... ............... ............. 122
H hunting ............................................................................................ ............. 122
Canoe-making .......... ........................... ..... ....... .......123
M arket-oriented Activities..................................... ......... 123
A g ro fo re story ................................................................................................ 12 3
C battle -ran ch in g ............................................................................................ 12 4
L jogging ............................................ ................................... 124
Contract Labor ................................................................ ............................ 125
P u b lic S e rv ic e ......................... .................................................................... 12 5
Discussion ............................ ..........................125
C o n c lu sio n ....................... .................. ....................................................12 8

7 TESTING COMMUNITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MARKET ACTIVITIES
A N D SO C IA L C A PIT A L .................................................................................. 129

M ethods of Social Capital D ata Analysis............................................... 134
Logistic Regression ................ ......... ...............134
Cross Tabulations ..... .......... ......... ..................137
Cognitive Social Capital ................. ......... ..............137
Trust about M oney M matters ................................... ...... ............... 137
H onesty and Personal Trust......................................... ......... 139
Level of Cooperation ....................................................139
Personal Help........................................... 143
E co n o m ic H elp ............................................................................................ 14 4
Structural Social Capital .............. ......... ....... ..................... ......145
Land Disputes .............. .............. ............... ........... ....... 146
Political Disputes ................................ .. ............... 146
R religious D disputes ............. ......... ............... ..........................................147
Influence in Com munity ..................................................... ......... .................. .... 151
How Inter-village Problems are Resolved ....................................... 153
Number of People Known Outside a Village .............................................153
Most Important Organizations............................... .......... 154
Social Capital and Community ....................................... ....156
Cognitive Social Capital and Community .................................. 156
Structural Social Capital and Community ..................................... 158
Social Capital and Age, Education Level and Sex ...................................... 159


x









Cognitive Social Capital and Age, Education Level, and Sex ........................160
Structural Social Capital and Age, Education Level, and Sex ........................161
C conclusion ............ ..... .......... ...................................................... 162

8 REFLECTION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS................................................... 164

R e fl e ctio n s ............ .................................................................. 16 4
Limitations .................. ......... ............... .......... ...... 170
C contributions to L literature ............................................... ............................ 172
M market Integration ....... ..... ........ .... .... ......... .. ......... ... ...... .. 172
S o c ia l C a p ita l............................................................................................... 1 7 3
Practical Im plications .................................. .. .... .... .... ................174
Future D directions ..................................................................... .. ..... .. 176

APPENDIX

A ECONOMIC QUESTIONNAIRE...................... ..... .......................... 179

B GENERAL SOCIAL QUESTIONNAIRE.......................................................191

C SOCIAL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR KEY INFORMANTS ............. ...............204

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ......... .. ............. .............................................................223

BIO GR A PH ICA L SK ETCH .................................... ........... ................. .....................231
















LIST OF TABLES


Table p

6.1 Average amount of time spent on market and subsistence activities in two
chachi villages. .................... ......... ..... ................ 118

7.1 Summary table: Logistic regression (models 1-8). .............................................. 136

7.2 Trust about lending and borrowing money in the community regressed on
community, age, education level, and sex, The Chachis of Esmeraldas, Ecuador
(Logistic regression: exponentiated B coefficients) ............................................140

7.3 Community members that are honest and deserve to be trusted regressed on
community, age, education level and sex.................................... ............... 141

7.4 Cooperation level in the community regressed on community, age, education
level and sex .................................... ................................ .........142

7.5 Personal help cross tabulations. ........................................ ......................... 144

7.6 Economic help cross tabulations. .....................................................................145

7.7 Land disputes regressed on community, age, education and sex regressed on land
d isp u te s ...................................... ....................................................14 8

7.8 Political disputes regressed on community, age, education level, and sex ..........149

7.9 Religious disputes regressed on community, age, education level, and sex ..........150

7.10 Influence in the community regressed on community, age, education level, and
sex ............ ............................. ................................................ 1 5 2

7.11 H ow problem s are resolved cross tabulations........................................................ 153

7.12 Number of people known outside the village cross tabulation .................................154

7.13 Most important organizations cross tabulations................ ....................... 155

7.14 Community cognitive social capital. ....... ..................... ...............157

7.15 Com m unity structural social capital................................. ........................ 158









7.16 Cognitive social capital by age, education and sex .............................................160

7.17 Structural social capital by age, education level and sex. ......................................161
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

1.1 Construction of the road that branches from the San Lorenzo-Ibarra highway and
leads to La Ceiba (1997). .................................................... ..... .. ........ .. ..

1.2 Chachi children from La Ceiba ready to hit the road in their home-built bus. ..........4

2.1 Social capital m odel. ........................ .......... .. ...... ...............22

3.1 Map of Ecuador. The Esmeraldas province, which is the area of study, has a box
a ro u n d it ...................................... ................................................... 3 1

3.2 Map of Chachi village locations; La Ceiba and Loma Linda are circled in red.......32

3.3 Author conducting a formally structured interview. ..........................................32

3.4 Respondents during an interview ........................................ ........................ 33

4 .1 T he C hoc6 R egion ........... ............................................ ................ .......... ....... 39

4.2 Chachis from La Ceiba on the Tululbi River. .................................. ............... 41

4.3 Loma Linda on the Cayapas River. ........................................ ....................... 42

4.4 Average monthly rainfall at Zapallo Grande during the period 1961-1984.............43

4.5 Average rainfall of the Choc6. The dots indicate study sites ...............................45

4.6 Kaa shinbu (Chachi woman) in "traditional" dress. ..............................................52

4.7 "Traditional Chachi" single-family dwelling raised on guayacan posts with
woven tagua palm fronds as the roof ......... ....................................... 54

5.1 Map of resource extraction in Choc6, made in 1954 by Robert West: Southern
Colom bia and northern Ecuador ........................................ ......................... 69

5.2 Chachis from Loma Linda buying produce from the mobile market .................. 73

5.3 Household participation in market activities .................. ................................. 74

5.4 Household participation in subsistence activities.............................. ...... .....76









5.5 Principal income-generating activities. ....................................... ............... 77

5.6 Principal activity. ........................ .................... ... .... ........ ......... 78

5.7 Highest expenditure per m onth. ........................................ ......................... 80

5.8 Investment preferences given a windfall profit .................................................81

5.9 Responses to whether or not wood extraction is improving their quality of life. ....83

5.10 A Chachi from La Ceiba resting in his platanal with some papaya trees in the
foregrou n d ........................................................ .................. 88

5.11 A Chachi girl from Loma Linda taking the panda harvest home. .........................91

5.12 A Chachi from La Ceiba preparing fertilizer mix in the village to take to his
sw hidden plot. .........................................................................92

5.13 A Chachi woman from Loma Linda is tying on a banana-stem strap...................94

5.14 A Chachi boy from Loma Linda with one of the Chachis' favorite fish, known as
sdbalo (Spanish) or avili (Cha'palaa)................................................ 97

5.15 Chachi women from Loma Linda with a goggle collecting freshwater shrimp or
aabishu (Cha'palaa), and guaha (Spanish) or quivilo (Cha'palaa)........................98

5.16 Chachis from Loma Linda canoeing down the Cayapas River..............................100

5.17 A Chachi woman from Loma Linda weaving a purse strap..............................101

5.18 Chachis from Loma Linda selling baskets to a Colombian middleman. .............103

5.19 Chachi children from La Ceiba enjoying breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) from the
agroforestry project. ........................... ................ ..................... .. .... .. 104

5. 20 Chachis from La Ceiba packing boroj6 marmalade.................... .....................106

5.21 Boroj6 marmalade label from La Ceiba's communal marmalade factory ...........107

5. 22 Hardwood that the Chachis from La Ceiba have carried from the forest ..............111

5.23 School children playing soccer on a cement playing field in Loma Linda ..........113

6.1 Household participation in significant market-oriented activities. ......................127

8.1 Sunset on the Cayapas River ....................................................... ................... 175

8.2 Chachi children of Lom a Linda................................ ........................ ......... 177















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MARKET INTEGRATION
AMONG THE CHACHIS OF ESMERALDAS, ECUADOR

By

Julianne Adams Hazlewood

August 2004

Chair: Charles Wood
Major Department: Latin American Studies

Indigenous people often live on land that conservationists value for biodiversity.

While social science and natural science researchers continue to argue over the validity of

"the Noble Savage" and the integral nature of indigenous contributions to conservation,

communities become more integrated into local, regional, and national markets. A key

question thus arises as to whether the economic activities performed by indigenous

communities in these areas are detrimental to the conservation of the rainforest and its

biodiversity.

I address internal socio-economic and socio-environmental dynamics of post-

market integration that may determine whether or not indigenous communities will

successfully collaborate in sustainable forest management. My investigation focuses on

the Chachis, an indigenous group who live in the buffer zone of Cotocachi-Cayapas

National Park in the Choc6 region of Northwestern Ecuador. Their lives and livelihoods

are in flux as a result of their increasing market integration.









The design of the thesis project is based on a comparative analysis of two Chachi

villages, La Ceiba and Loma Linda, which predominately differ in terms of their relative

isolation from urban centers and access to markets. I used qualitative and quantitative

methods to determine empirically whether market integration creates a greater

concentration on market activities (versus subsistence activities) and alters internal social

dynamics and organization (social capital).

The results show that the village closer to an urban center (La Ceiba) spends more

time on logging and cattle ranching (newer, environmentally threatening activities). The

more isolated village (Loma Linda) spends more time working in schools and craft-

making and sales (environmentally benign market activities). The concentration on

distinct income generating activities in the two communities correlates with divergent

levels of different aspects of social capital, or norms and social bonds that may contribute

to the capacity to self-organize and sustainably manage natural resources.

On a theoretical level, the results can contribute to the literature on market

integration and the determinants of social capital. On a more practical level,

understanding the complexity of the shifting indigenous livelihood and social systems

may be essential to design and implement natural resource management plans that will be

conducive to the indigenous development and nature conservation. A better

understanding of shifting market activities and social dynamics/organization of

indigenous groups with improved market access may simultaneously foster

environmental and cultural resiliency.















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The Chachis are an indigenous group whose lives and livelihoods in the Ecuadorian

coastal rainforest are in flux, especially as the communities become more integrated into

local, regional, and national markets. I embarked on my research among the Chachis

because I was fascinated by my different experiences living in two of their

communities-La Ceiba in 1997 and Loma Linda in 2000, which differ in terms of

relative isolation from urban centers and access to markets. Currently, La Ceiba is

located one hour by car from San Lorenzo and has a logging road traversing the village.

Loma Linda, on the other hand, is moderately isolated. Located on the Cayapas River, it

lies four hours by motorized canoe from the nearest town, Borb6n. I have returned to

both villages many times since I first lived in each, and I have witnessed many of the

transformations that the Chachis have undergone. In particular, as logging roads criss-

cross the forest, the lives of the Chachis have inevitably become more intertwined with

the outside world.

Impressions of Change

In 1999, the residents of La Ceiba had negotiated with a logging company,

CODESA (Contrachapadas de Esmeraldas S.A.), to construct a one kilometer road

connecting the community to the logging road1 and the San Lorenzo-Ibarra highway.2


1 SETRAFOR, another logging company based in the nearby town of San Francisco, began to construct this
timber extraction road in 1997.
2 The construction of the San Lorenzo-Ibarra highway was constructed in 1995 and paved in 2002.









When I first arrived in La Ceiba in 1997, the community was only accessible by a two-

hour canoe ride or an hour-and-a-half trek. Yet, when I returned to La Ceiba in 1999 I

learned that, linked to the new road, were a host of changes. For example, the forest from

San Lorenzo to the village had been replaced with African Palms. Sounds of machinery




2..






















--



Photograph by author.

Figure 1.1. Construction of the road that branches from the San Lorenzo-Ibarra highway
and leads to La Ceiba (1997).

and chainsaws were heard all day long from the surrounding forest. The Chachis of La

Ceiba used the river less because they had the road. There were more visitors to the

village. The community members went to San Lorenzo much more often. More people









played their stereos late into the night and before dawn. Residents had bicycles. They

sold araza (Eugenia stipitata), boroj6 (Borojoapatinoi), rolinio (Rollinia deliciosa), and

other tropical fruits from the fruit forest that they planted in collaboration with a Peace

Corps member3 between 1993 and 1997. Finally, they seemed to spend all their time

cutting trees, and they had sold hundreds of hectares of trees to SETRAFOR (Servicios y

Trabajos Forestales) Lumber Company.

Other aspects of La Ceiba also became especially vivid once I compared them to

my experience of living and working in Loma Linda in 2000. Unlike Loma Linda,

households in La Ceiba cooked their meals with gas stoves. Moreover, La Ceiba

residents had more stereos and televisions. Houses with walls, doors with locks, and tin

roofs were more common. In addition, community members had more plastic chairs and

women used plastic containers for washing their clothes. La Ceiba appeared to exhibit a

different village dynamic-one that was characterized by more problems, less solidarity

between people, and new priorities for how people spent their time. Furthermore, when I

went back to both Loma Linda and La Ceiba in 2001, I noticed that in one year's time

Loma Linda had changed to a much smaller degree than La Ceiba.

I wondered what made my experiences in these villages so divergent. What was it

that accelerated change so dramatically in La Ceiba? I believe what distinguished my

experiences in the two places were their differing degree of market integration, which

appeared to go hand in hand with logging. This is what led me to the premise of my

comparative fieldwork in the summer of 2002. The foundational hypothesis in this thesis

project is that the lives of the Chachi households and communities are not rearranged by

3 The name of the Peace Corps member is Todd Smith. He also helped with the implementation of the
marmalade factory beginning in January 2000.









the roads themselves, but by access to the market and other socio-economic systems that

roads entail.





















Photograph by Author.

Figure 1.2. Chachi children from La Ceiba ready to hit the road in their home-built bus.

Organization of Thesis

This thesis is organized into eight chapters. The next chapter reviews the literature

from which my hypotheses are drawn. This second chapter introduces resilience theory,

which is part of the Panarchy framework. Resilience theory is employed to review two

bodies of literature concerning the social and ecological consequences of market

integration. The first body of literature addresses the disruption or the increased

resilience of indigenous social and ecological systems facing market integration. The

second presents the literature on how development correlates with levels of social capital

and vice-versa. These two bodies of literature are joined in a framework that guides the

specific problems investigated in this thesis.









Chapter 3 explains the research design and presents the overall hypothesis. It is as

follows: The village with greater market integration will have more environmentally

destructive money-generating practices and a lower level of bonding social capital. In

addition, I discuss why I chose the sites that I did, the methods of data collection that I

used, and how I operationalized and measured market integration and social capital.

The fourth chapter lays out the environmental and the social context of the

comparative analysis. The purpose of this chapter is to provide the ecological and social

background that demonstrates that the two research sites vary mainly in terms of the

degree to which they are involved in local and regional markets, and that they do not

differ significantly in terms of other relevant variables. Although no two geographic

places are identical, the fact that the people in both sites share a similar bio-geographical

context, historical background, and ethno-linguistic heritage contributes greatly to the

comparability of the two places, as noted in chapter 3. Such a comparison would be

invalid if each were populated by a different cultural group since it would be impossible

to know whether observed differences were due to market integration (the primary

independent variable) or to cultural factors.

Chapter 5 discusses the Chachis' livelihood system. The first two sections of the

chapter describe the Chachis' subsistence base and their past and present participation in

the market. This leads to an explanation of the Chachis' current predicament of how to

earn an income without participating in logging in a place that has few other options. I

conclude this chapter with a description of the contemporary market and subsistence

activities.









In chapter 6, I measure and compare the extent of market integration within and

between La Ceiba and Loma Linda. The degree of market integration in these two

villages establishes the basis for the rest of the thesis.

Chapter 7 presents the qualitative and quantitative analyses of the social dynamics

and organization of the Chachis of La Ceiba and Loma Linda. Based on the results in

chapter 6, I use logistic regression to test the principal hypothesis and other secondary

hypotheses. I analyze the relationships between each village's participation in certain

market activities and social capital. I run eight models in which I control for age,

education, and gender. Cross tabulations are also run between the independent variables

and other social capital variables.

The thesis concludes with chapter 8 in which I integrate and interpret the results

from the proceeding chapters. I close with a discussion of the implications and potential

applications of this research.















CHAPTER 2
PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF MARKET INTEGRATION

Thus the global pattern of humanity and nature is a combination of a stormy
atmosphere, swirling ocean, slowly cycling earth, life cycles of living organisms,
ecological adaptations, and the complex interactions of human societies. (Odum
and Odum, 2001, p. 5)

Introduction

Indigenous people often live on land that conservationists value for biodiversity.

They are often removed or restricted from nationally-declared protected areas that have

been their ancestral homelands for thousands of years. A key question that arises is

whether, or, to what extent the economic activities performed by indigenous communities

in these areas are detrimental to the conservation of the rainforest and its biodiversity.

Pretty (2003, p.1913) asks, "Could local people play a positive role in conservation and

management of resources?" Variants of this question query: under what conditions could

local people play a positive role in conservation and management of resources as their

lives become more intertwined with demands of local, regional, national, and global

markets; and how could biodiversity conservation efforts be designed to benefit

indigenous communities by providing economic alternatives to environmentally harmful

practices?

Researchers who investigate social and economic transitions within the theoretical

context of cultural and environmental resilience have an important role in answering

these questions. Holling and Gunderson (2002, p. 28) define ecosystem resilience as "the

magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure by









changing variables and processes that control behavior." The Panarchy framework put

forward by Holling, Gunderson and Ludwig (2002), which includes resiliency theory,

links social and ecological systems under the assumption that humans have expanded

their influence over nature so thoroughly that neither nature nor humans can be

understood in isolation. Instead, nature and humans relate to one another in a feedback

process: the economy imposes stress on the ecosystem, and the societal response depends

on the state of the ecosystem and the economy.

A community's nature-society system can be either adaptive, maladaptive, or a

combination of both. A community can develop sustainably if its cyclical processes can

create, test, and maintain environmental and social resilience, thereby enhancing diversity

by incorporating changes at low levels. If it is maladaptive, each swing of the cycle

requires more extensive and expensive inputs and can, therefore, be seen as non-

sustainable (Holling and Gunderson, 2002). The concept of resilience can be invoked to

sharpen the analyses of the consequences of market integration.

Researchers' findings on the effects of market integration on indigenous

communities (and their environments) fall along a continuum with respect to resilience or

flexibility. The perspectives at one end of the continuum conclude that isolated

indigenous communities, with their diverse livelihood strategies, tend to be more

sustainable as self-sufficient and self-governing entities, and that these attributes are

undermined by a greater integration into market exchanges (Bedoya Garland, 1995;

Berkes et. al., 1998, Bodley, 1999; Jodha, 1998; Rappaport, 1971; Schmink and Wood,

1987; Stonich, 1995; Wentzel, 1989). At the other end of the continuum there are those

who believe that local or indigenous communities must remain open and flexible, or they









will become maladaptive to the changes in the outside world and will eventually collapse

(Begosi, 1998; Garcia Canclini, 1997; Holling, Gunderson, and Peterson, 2002; Schefer,

Westley, Brock, and Holmgren, 2002;). Most scholars' positions on this topic fall

somewhere between the two extremes, depending on the emphasis given to the various

factors involved. In the first and second sections of this paper, I will discuss these

different positions on market integration relative to ecological and socio-cultural

resiliency.

I will then conclude this chapter with a discussion of social capital. Literature on

this topic examines the potential relationships between communal social organization and

economic development.1 The positive and negative aspects of social capital can also be

interpreted as the advantages and disadvantages of closed communities and social

systems. The foundation of cultural and ecological resilience, as well as economic

success, may rest on how indigenous communities re-organize their social structures as

they become integrated into the market.

Market Integration and the Disruption of Indigenous Social-Ecological Systems

The authors who view the transition from subsistence oriented to market oriented

economies as a disruption of indigenous social-ecological systems focus on the negative

impacts and the potential shift to a maladaptive state of evolving socio-ecological

systems. In Rappaport's (1971) ethnoecological study of the Tsembaga indigenous group

of Papua New Guinea, he explains how the shift from subsistence-based to market-based

agricultural systems (and how agricultural societies interact with these systems) leads to

problems. Among the traditional intensive and diversified agricultural systems, subtle

1 In this study development is defined as the gradual incorporation of market activities into the Chachis'
subsistence-oriented economy.









signs of rapid environmental degradation are easily detected; therefore, the systems are

likely to be self-correcting. Nevertheless, he claims that when the Tsembaga began to

grow cash-crops, their agro-ecosystem became more vulnerable to pests and diseases

because it became increasingly more simple and less diverse. The system lost its ability

to self-correct. And changes in the social system reflected those of the agro-ecosystem,

as social systems are open to economic and political stress of distant events over which

they have no control.

Other authors (Bedoya Garland, 1995; Bodley, 1999; Jodha, 1998; Schmink and

Wood, 1987; Stonich, 1995; and Wentzel, 1989) conclude that the transition from a local

livelihood system into a larger socio-economic system usually leads to maladaptive social

and environmental practices. Their general view is that market integration is disruptive

to a stable and socially and environmentally resilient system. Once a community is

intensively integrated into the market, market activities reinforce themselves by leaving

little time for subsistence activities. With less time for these subsistence activities, the

indigenous people are compelled to buy products they would usually produce themselves.

They then need to work more to earn money to buy these outside products, thus,

introducing a cycle of dependence. The authors contend that it is partially this

dependence on goods that is leading small rural communities to human impoverishment,

environmental destruction and social instability.

An indigenous group's subsistence foundation and internal economy is weakened

because less time is devoted to subsistence activities. Simultaneously, in the larger

market, the pressure to engage in price competition with bigger firms (that policies favor)

creates a stress on the forest. In time, a community's socio-economic and ecological









foundations eventually break down. Consequently, these authors conclude that cultural

systems become maladaptive when they are integrated into the socio-economic policies

and internal logic of capitalism (Schmink and Wood, 1987).

For Stonich (1995), the cycles described in the previous paragraph are inherent to

the production of exported non-traditional and traditional cash crops. Yet, she takes the

aforementioned conclusions a step further by describing how export crops create a split

between rich and poor within peasant communities. Even if an introduced export crop is

successfully grown in small communities, the sale of the commodity will be co-opted by

large land holders, while small producers will be eliminated or marginalized to fragile

lands (also leading to greater environmental degradation). Due to market fluctuations,

local people are not guaranteed a steady salary, and communities lose their self-

sufficiency. In sum, the majority of self-sufficient communities become "low paid forest

producers" (Bodley, 1999, p.198).

Jodha (1998) provides an example from the Hindukesh-Himalaya Region of

Southeast Asia. He notes that isolated, "traditional" societies are involved in a two way

adaptation cycle: they adapt their communities to the harsh conditions of the Himalayas

and they adapt their natural resource base's needs into their society. Completely

dependent upon their ecosystem, pre-market communities have a high stake in its health,

and often maintain the integrity of the ecosystem with folk knowledge, appropriate

technology, and community control over resources.

According to Jodha (1998, p. 298), "because of rapid and major changes, the local

communities are left without sufficient lead time or control over their resources and

community affairs to amend their age-old coping strategies or to evolve new ones." The









dissolution of communal decision-making and social cohesiveness creates a rift between

the community and resource use. As local autonomy becomes obsolete, external

relationships play a bigger part in communal decisions over resources. This transition

results in the modification of the two way adaptation process, which then produces a one-

way adjustment of the resources being stretched to meet human demands. Ultimately,

Jodha acknowledges that because people are no longer as intimate with their

environment, they lack the driving force to recognize their stake in abandoning their

once-sustainable resource use.

To gain a better understanding of the effects of market integration, Bedoya Garland

(1995) shows how market integration affects four communities with different cultural

backgrounds in lowland Peru. He compares three indigenous tribes (all in different

stages of market integration) and colonists of the Central Selva. The results support his

hypotheses: the colonists clear more land than all three indigenous tribes; and the more

market-oriented an indigenous group becomes, the less the diversity of its subsistence

activities become and the more forests are cleared.

Although the most market-oriented indigenous group cleared more land than the

less integrated groups, Bedoya Garland claims that indigenous cultures generally cut

short the logic of capital accumulation. The indigenous logic is based on satisfying the

biological and cultural needs of the domestic unit. When able to do so, indigenous

people become economically disengaged and no longer clear the forest. The more land

that colonists have, on the other hand, the more forest they will clear. The colonists are

generally more migratory and leave or sell their lands when they become unproductive.









Indigenous groups, however, are involved in a swidden agricultural system with rotating

successive plots.

In another comparative study done in the Bolivian lowlands, Wentzel (1989)

examines how market integration affects the two Amerindian Tacana communities of

Santa Ana and Tumupasa, as well as one highland migrant community (of colonos or

colonists) known as 25 de Mayo. The conclusions of Wenzel's work demonstrate that

market integration leads to a lack of sustainable land practices and/or lower quality of

life, depending on the community. Wentzel's findings show that although market

integration endangered the dynamism of land use systems to an even greater extent

among the colonos, who live in a different historical, cultural, and socio-economic

context, it did help them attain a better quality of life. Yet among the Tacana, she finds

that market integration decreases both the quality of life and the prospects for sustainable

land use. 2

Based on Holling's "new science of surprise," Berkes et. al. (1998, p. 11) describe

how negative consequences of market integration unfold in a community:

Typically, there is a sequence of events which starts with efficient exploitation that
eventually leads to inadvertent loss of ecosystem resilience. To supply markets,
resource management tries to control a target resource (e.g. supply of fish or
timber) by reducing the variability of the target resource. This helps to meet
production targets and economic objectives (e.g. revenue and employment). This
management policy is successful in the short term, but in the long term its very
success causes inadvertent changes in functioning and resilience of the ecosystem.
Over a period of time management emphasis shifts to improving the efficiency of
resource utilization, and the need for ecosystem support and services (e.g. water
regulation capacity of a forest) and the loss of resilience is not perceived.



2 Wentzel also demonstrates that all three communities still participate to a certain extent in subsistence
farming. She claims that this provides a secure foundation and a certain level of autonomy, and can be
interpreted to be a form of daily resistance to market integration.









In other words, as local communities integrate into larger scaled markets, the

environment becomes more vulnerable to surprise. Management becomes tied with rigid

economic patterns that are less responsive to the environment's needs.

In summation, the lack of resiliency of the market-based socio-environmental

system (Bedoya Garland, 1995; Berkes et.al.,1998; Bodley, 1999; Jodha 1998; Schmink

and Wood, 1987; Stonich, 1995; Wentzel, 1989) is caused by the following conditions:

* involvement in markets increases vulnerability to market fluctuations;

* markets open up resources to be exploited;

* a market economy creates social inequalities in the community;

* and social and environmental problems that accompany markets produce communal
stress and, therefore, more pressure for increased development, which in turn only
deepens the socio-economic and environmental problems.

Bedoya Garland (1995), Bodley (1999), and Stonich (1995) contend that by making

markets more sensitive to their cultural systems, the negative impacts of market systems

may not be completely inevitable. Bodley's stance is that if indigenous people are "truly

in control of their own resources, they can relate to the global culture on their own terms"

(Bodley, 1999, p.198). Bedoya Garland states that indigenous people have specific roles

in preventing environmental degradation. In sum, they view pre-market indigenous and

local rural economies as reciprocally-based and stable. They become more vulnerable

and less resilient with the incorporation of capitalist markets. "We must ask if a

worldwide human organization can persist and elaborate itself indefinitely at the expense

of decreasing the stability of its own ecological foundations" (Rappaport, 1971, p. 132).

Market Integration and the Resilience of Indigenous Social-Ecological Systems

In the Panarchy framework, Holling and Gunderson (2002) contend that society-

nature relations create and are created by an ever-changing landscape of fast and slow









variables that link micro to macro scales. These scales are all connected, and each scale

has its own threshold of adaptive change and its own distinct cycles.

Holling, Gunderson and Ludwig (2002) emphasize the necessity of a mixture of

livelihood strategies (characteristic of more self-sufficient communities) over a

dependence on any one strategy for communal sustainability. Yet, the more ritualistic a

society is and the more a community tries to close itself off from interaction with larger

socio-economic systems, the more their system has potential of eventual collapse

(Begosi, 1998; Garcia Canclini, 1997; Holling, Gunderson, and Peterson, 2002; Schefer,

Westley, Brock, and Holmgren, 2002). In other words, the more closed a community is,

the more conflict arises when the community finally confronts the changes that

accompany the incorporation these larger systems into their own.

Begosi (1998) compares the resiliency of indigenous cultures with that of the

Caicaras (from the Atlantic forest of Brazil) and the Caboclos (Amazon, Brazil), both

cultures of mixed heritage. He not only speaks of cultural resilience, but also of

biological resilience. He claims that because the Caicaras and the Caboclos are of mixed

heritage there is more genetic variability within the communities and this creates

immunity to diseases. Begosi (1998) claims that neo-traditional cultures (Caicaras and

Caboclos) have the advantage of mixing both traditional (indigenous) and newly

emergent social systems. The joining of two cultural traditions allows them to maintain

variability, to be open to new values, and to incorporate change. Therefore, the Caboclos

and Caicaras adapt more easily than traditional indigenous people. Begosi further points

out that indigenous people experience an additional disadvantage in that their first

language is not Portuguese.









Begosi perceives the lack of flexibility of indigenous people as a problem leading

to maladaptation and/or the disappearance of their cultures when confronted with outside

cultures or diseases. He points out that the indigenous peoples that have survived are

those that are more flexible, while still maintaining their ethnic identity. His opinion is

opposite to that of Bedoya Garland (1995), Berkes et.al.(1998), Bodley (1999), Jodha

(1998), Rappaport (1971), Schmink and Wood (1987), Stonich (1995), and Wentzel

(1989). Instead of thinking that integration into the economy creates dependence,

exploitation, and breakdown, he believes that flexible responses to market forces increase

a community's ability to cope with socio-economic and environmental changes, and

ensures communal survival and evolution. In short, like the Caicaras and the Caboclos,

indigenous people need to develop the ability to continually reorganize themselves.

Others are more agnostic on the matter. For instance, Godoy (2001) investigates

the effect of greater market integration on the life and habitat of indigenous people. His

conclusion is: "markets seem to produce unclear, sometimes benign, and sometimes

harmful effects on the quality of life and the environment" (Godoy, 2001, p. 204). At the

same time, he makes two points: market integration generally worsens conservation

before improving it; and regardless of the degree of market integration, if there is formal

schooling in an area, there is less deforestation.

Garcia Canclini (1997) also notes that market integration (via the craft-making and

performance in this case) in indigenous communities acts as a gradual process with

different stages. He observes that communities change their ideologies and social

structures, and they must constantly renew their dominant ideology by incorporating the

new product in systems and social conflicts. According to this author, this process may









be necessary for indigenous communities as they reorganize and define themselves in

relation to the outside world. My thesis research conducted in La Ceiba and Loma Linda

during the summer of 2003 investigates the ways and the extent to which market

integration produces() unclear, sometimes benign, and sometimes harmful

effects"(Godoy, 2001, p. 204) in social and socio-environmental dynamics within these

villages.

Economic Development and Social Capital

Social capital has been described as a "new language for an old debate" (Portes,

1998; Putnam, 2001, p. 24). The two-century-long debate to which Putnam and Portes

refer encompasses two additional controversies over the importance of the individual

relative to the community, and society relative to the economy.3 A recent and generally

accepted definition of social capital is offered by Robert Putnam4 (2001, p. 67) as

"features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate

coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit." The following sections address the

historical evolution of social capital and the various ways it has been approached and

defined.

Historical Evolution of Social Capital

The root of social capital lies in the progressive era of WWI as capitalism was just

reaching maturity and people were migrating in increasing numbers to industrial cities

looking for work (Roe, 2002). Noting the proximity of city neighbors as advantageous to


3 The debates about the importance of the individual to the community and the society to the economy (and
vice-versa) date back to the nineteenth century writings of Durkheim (1893) and Marx (1894).

4 Social capital as a network concept owes its inspiration to theories of Robert Putnam. Knack and Keefer
(1995) have gone as far as to name the associations that facilitate growth by increasing trust as PtlIIIII
effects".









social intercourse, Lyda J. Hanifan (1916) referred to social capital as goodwill,

fellowship of neighbors, and mutual sympathy (and essentially concluded that greater

development would lead to higher social capital). Addressing the tension between

individual and community, she noted that in urban environments individuals not only

benefited from positive associations with others, but also developed a greater sense of

community. The term, social capital, was not used between 1916 and the 1950's. When

it arose a second time, it was used to describe the associations of immigrant suburbanites

in Canada (Putnam, 2000). In 1961, Jacobs came up with the idea that social connections

improved human and/or individual economic capital. He described neighborhood

networks and how they led to the opportunity to borrow a cup of sugar during hard times.

According to Portes (1999), the first contemporary analysis of social capital was

produced by Pierre Bourdieu as early as 1980. Bourdieu stressed the importance of

social interaction or "the profits that accrue from membership in a group and on the

deliberate construction of sociability, which makes them possible" (Bourdieu, 1985, p.

249). His interpretation of social capital was based on the idea that social networks led to

individual economic benefits5, but that uncertain time scales upon the return of

investment distinguished social capital from a "plain market exchange" (Bourdieu, 1979,

1980). Loury (1977, p. 1981) and Coleman (1988; 1990), who followed a few years

later, also described social capital as generating human capital.





5 Bourdieu argues that elites reproduce the symbols and wealth that serve their own interests, keep them in
a more powerful position, and give them the ability to manipulate others. Therefore, he concludes that
social capital actually perpetuates class interests and divisions. This aspect of Bourdieu is not included in
the social capital literature written by the World Bank. They have adopted and promoted Putnam's and
Coleman's definition of social capital, which promotes it as a collective asset.









Today, Pope (2000) warns that because there are so many definitions and

interpretations of social capital indicators, the measures of social capital all imply

different things about a community. She demonstrates this by taking an example from

Portes (1998) in which he defines three functions of diverse social contexts: 1) as a form

of social control (e.g. to control the actions of children and youth); 2) as a source of

family support (e.g. family and kin support for the raising of children) and; 3) as a source

of benefits through extrafamilial networks.

Social Capital and Resiliency

Although the precise definition and benefits of social capital are highly debated,

social networks and reciprocity have been identified as essential components. One of the

principal arguments in social capital literature is whether or not facilitating cooperation is

mutually beneficial for individuals and communities. There are three basic stances on

this debate. One position hypothesizes that higher investments or stocks of social capital

produce a greater ability to attain collective goals such as economic development or

collective resource management. This perspective concentrates on the "public goods"

(Portes, 1998, p.12) that result from high stocks of social capital, or greater reciprocity

and cooperation (cognitive social capital) that then influence the creation of more closed

social networks.

The second stance notes "the downside of social capital" (Portes and Landolt,

1996; Portes, 1999) and the exclusionary consequences of some networks. From this

viewpoint, social capital is not a political concept to be promoted but rather a

phenomenon to be discouraged. This position reveals the influence that outside

connections may have over a community's ability to self-organize and self-manage its

inner village dynamics.









Together these two stances suggest three types of social capital. The first type is an

exclusive form of intragroup association called bonding social capital. It emphasizes the

relations of trust that act as a lubricant to ease the continuation of reciprocity and

exchanges, and offering them common rules, norms and sanctions, and connectedness in

inner group networks. Advocates of bonding social capital are in a category of their own

because they reinforce the idea that these intergroup associations are key to development.

The second and third types of social capital (known as bridging social capital and

vertical social capital respectively) recognize that bonding social capital can be limited.

Their proponents emphasize the strengthening of outer group networks as the key to

development. Researchers who emphasize these types of social capital often take

separate positions regarding the benefits and costs of social capital. Bridging social

capital emphasizes horizontal or intergroup associations. Lastly, linking (or vertical)

social capital (Narayan, 1999; Putnam, 1995;) also encompasses intergroup associations,

but it includes the ability to interact, draw useful resources, and influence policies of

external agencies.

The third stance turns social capital on its head and uses social capital as the

dependent variable. Researchers who take this position state that social capital erodes

with economic development.

Higher bonding social capital; higher potential for development

The World Bank exemplifies the first stance on social capital. The bank has

identified social capital as an "integral component" of economic development because it

leads to an improvement in the economic standard of living by "mobilizing resources and

working for common goals" (World Bank, 2000c). Reinforcable trust is a concept

described by Portes (1998) as obligations that are enforceable through the power of









community and bounded solidarity that guarantee repayment and group approval. This

reinforcable trust is an essential aspect of a type of social control that may also have the

potential to be limiting. Bonding social capital, or tightening inter-communal networks,

is promoted to enhance economic success. An example of this is Colombian rural agro-

enterprises that use the information networks of social capital to build trust and

strengthen forces of collective action to further the economic goals of the firm itself

(Johnson et al., 2002). Here bonding social capital is stressed and there is little

preoccupation about whether the strengthening of the company structure will be

inflexible and/or open to outside networks.

More recently, conservation researchers (Bray, 2003; Narayan, 1999; Pretty, 2003;

Schefer et al., 2002;) have treated bonding social capital as a resource to be tapped to

strengthen the capacity of communities to collectively manage their resources. The

World Bank (2003) has indicated social capital to be important in sustainable

development and conservation because human organization and trust can help turn

natural resources into physical assets and protect common property from degradation.

Pretty (2003, p. 1912) explains:

The term social capital captures the idea that social bonds and norms are critical for
sustainability. Where social capital is high in formalized groups, people have the
confidence to invest in collective activities, knowing that others will do so too.
Nearly half a million groups have been established since the early 1990s for
watershed, forest, irrigation, pest, wildlife, fishery, and microfinance management.
These offer a route to sustainable management and governance of common
resources.

















































Linking social capital:
community-
institutional
cohesiveness (LOCAL-
GLOBAL)


Figure 2.1. Social capital model.


"Cognitive social capital refers to values, beliefs, behavior,
and social norms. "Structural" social capital refers to the
degree to which informational and material networks
organize social interactions.










Bray (2003) also cites the importance of cooperative village social dynamics as the

responsibility for resource management is passed from bigger agencies to the

communities themselves. He uses the 290 to 479 Mexican community forest enterprises

as examples of communities that are able to harness their social capital to gain social and

economic justice, good forest management, and biodiversity protection. Adopting a

definition from Fox (1995; 1996), he describes social capital as "the capacity for self-

organization and ability to respond to outside organizing efforts."

Higher bonding social capital; lower potential for development (the need for
bridging and linking social capital)

For Portes (1999), the over-enthusiasm and unrealistic expectations about bonding

social capital can be problematic. He lists the following four negative effects of the

closed networks: "1) the exclusion of and lack of connection to outsiders; 2) the

prohibition of individual success as certain individuals seek a free ride and demand

equality; 3) restrictions on individual freedoms and creation of inequity via social control;

4) the collective adversity to mainstream norms and a solidarity based on the experience

of subordination, and thus 'the self-reinforcement downward leveling norms."' (Portes,

1998, p. 12; Pretty, 2003) Some examples mentioned are inner-city gangs, prostitution,

gambling rings, and other social circles that have turned out to have "less than socially

desirable ends" (Portes, 1998, p.12; Pretty, 2003).

Robert D. Putnam (1993a; 1995; 2000) claims that through participation and

reconnection we can reverse the erosion of social capital that presumanly began in the

U.S. in the 1960's. He proposes that social capital is a collective asset and a public good

that cannot be appropriated by individuals. His logic is that this may bridge the gap

between the rich and poor by spreading GNP more evenly through greater political









participation and expanding social networks. This position could, thus, conclude that

closed or bonding social capital is less likely to lead to economic development than

bridging social capital and is therefore less resilient.

As mentioned in the previous section, Bray (2003), Narayan (1999), Pretty (2003),

Schefer et al. (2002), and some researchers from the World Bank (2003) agree that social

capital may contribute to common property resource management by encouraging

cooperation among community members and even among various communities. Scheffer

et al. (2002) highlight that bridging social capital (particularly social networks) is key to

conflict resolution and conservation. These researchers have pointed out that the social

capital dynamics of a community can adapt to a changing ecosystem by scattering

(implying the inclusion of outside organizations and stakeholders), remobilizing and

redefining community, polarizing, and institutionalizing. The recreation of collective

values and norms as communities experience socio-economic transitions may reduce

surprises, and therefore, contribute to the resiliency of a system. The World Bank

encourages the transcendence of closed networks to access additional resources and

achieve common goals. This is a necessary aspect of development and of the poor

"lifting themselves out of poverty" (World Bank, 2000b; World Bank, 2000c). The

World Bank draws on the example of the Secoya Amerindians of lowland Ecuador who

have mobilized local social capital. They have also formed alliances and have made

valiant efforts at protecting their lands and cultures from oil exploitation.

Greater development; lower bonding social capital

The third stance is exemplified by Pena and Lindo Fuentes (1998) who compared

social capital with levels of poverty among indigenous rural people, mestizo rural

communities and inner-city mestizo communities in Panama. They found that indigenous









people, who lived in the greatest poverty and with the least access to public services, had

the highest levels of social capital. They explain this by noting the importance of

collective identity and cultural norms in indigenous communities, which lead to more and

stronger communal organizations. They describe social capital as an asset or resource of

the poor people. Within rural communities, they show how poorer, less educated rural

individuals (who have attained primary education or lower) participate in groups that

work for the well-being of the community; while the wealthier and more educated people

participate more in co-ops that provide individual economic returns. In conclusion, Pena

and Lindo Fuentes demonstrate that higher levels of economic development correlate

with lower levels of bonding social capital. This position parallels the conclusions of the

researchers who state that market integration leads to a disintegration of traditional social

organization (or social resilience). It is also the foundation of my hypotheses about social

capital, which will be elaborated in chapter 7.

Applications of Social Capital

The World Bank has developed a packet of methods called the Social Capital

Assessment Tool (SCAT)6, which measures quantitatively and qualitatively both

cognitive and structural social capital (Uphoff, 2000) across macro and micro levels.7

Structural social capital analysis examines information and material exchange via

people's established roles, social networks, and other social structures. Cognitive social

capital analysis develops indicators of values, beliefs, behavior, and social norms. Godoy

(2001) examined one measure of cognitive social capital: indigenous people's tendencies

6 The SCAT was used as a reference in the development of the social capital questionnaire implemented in
interviews with the Chachis.

7 SCAT is an attempt to create universal measures of social capital. Krishna and Shrader (1999) argue that
social capital is only a useful concept if a universal measure can be established.









to practice reciprocity in times of medical need as people become more integrated into

the market. He found weak support for the idea that markets erode inner village

reciprocity, but he urges that further research be done.

Social capital can be critiqued for reducing the social dimensions of life into the

economic concept of capital, reducing economic factors to social networks, ignoring the

importance of social class (Durrenberger, 2002; Lin, 1999), and relying on circular logic

(Portes, 1998).8 Nonetheless, social capital is a concept that reemphasizes the debates on

the relative importance of: individuals versus communities; and economic versus social

values. Identifying social capital as the main glue that holds communities and greater

societies together, Narayan (1999) and Portes (1998) stress that social capital should be

used as a systematic way to untangle and analyze social forces at work. Since economic

growth models are no longer satisfactory in explaining inequality between groups of

people and their countries, social capital holds particular promise. The authors

acknowledge the importance of the term, social capital, because it attempts to encompass

and value social phenomena (such as networks and reciprocity), and it gets away from

purely individualistic and economic explanations of and contributions to success. In

summary, Narayan emphasizes the value of social relationships and their contribution to

a positive economic outcome.

The analysis of social complexity and its value may be crucial for two reasons.

First, it may be useful to catalyze discussions about and emphasize the importance of:



8 Portes (1998) notes that Putnam (1993b) introduces social capital as both the dependent and independent
variable in relation to political organization and participation ("civicness"), as well as economic
development. Another example of this is how the World Bank promotes the investment in social capital as
rooted in social networks and the product as reciprocity, social inclusion, trust, and shared values and
norms (World Bank, 2000c).









pre-market social conditions and social consequences of market integration in local

communities; and how these changes contribute to or take away from conservation and

development efforts. A better understanding of social dynamics may be crucial to efforts

to eliminate poverty, and may also represent "prerequisites for long-term improvements

in natural resources" (Pretty, 2003, p. 1914). Secondly, indigenous groups and/or

communities may find it useful to create a self-awareness of their socio-cultural

circumstances and processes as they integrate into a more market-oriented economic

system so they can self-organize more efficiently and effectively.

The social capital literature provides a useful set of empirical indicators that can be

used to measure the nature and the degree of social change within a community. By

comparing social capital indicators in the two Chachi communities, it is possible to draw

inferences regarding the effect of market integration on the social networks and cultural

values that influence the relationships between people and the natural environment.

Statement of the Problem

Though today the Chachis still depend largely on subsistence agriculture, fishing,

and hunting, the purchase of Western goods has increased with their growing

involvement in the market. The earliest documentation of their involvement is from the

1920's with the harvest and sale of tagua nuts, commonly known as plant ivory, which

were used for European buttons. Similar cycles of exploitation included the rubber

boom, the post-WWII Ecuadorian banana boom, and the demand for coffee and cacao.

The Chachis report that they have always exploited wood, but for the purpose of making

and selling canoes, which is one of the principal ways that their grandfathers participated

in the market (along with the sale of pigs). Today logging, cattle ranching, working as

school teachers, and the sale of women's craftwork take center stage in Chachi cash-






28


generating activities. Based on the debates in the literature, this thesis addresses the

question of whether or not greater participation in market activities causes intensification

of land exploitation and negative social effects. The design of the thesis research will be

discussed in the subsequent chapter.














CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION

Introduction

This study is a comparative analysis of two villages (La Ceiba and Loma Linda) in

the Choc6 rainforest along the Northwest coast of Ecuador. This chapter outlines the

design and methods of data collection used among the Chachis in the summer of 2003.

After explaining why these particular sites were selected for research, this chapter will

detail the methods used in data collection and the strategic decisions made. The chapter

will then end with the operationalization of two terms used frequently throughout the

text: market integration and social capital.

Site Selection

La Ceiba is located on the Tululbi River, a tributary of the Santiago River. The

community's land borders the Awa Ethnic and Forest Reserve. Loma Linda is located on

the Cayapas River and within the buffer zone of Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve.

Loma Linda is four hours by motorized canoe from the nearest town, Borb6n. After the

implementation of a logging road in 1999, La Ceiba is now less than one hour from San

Lorenzo. Both the residents of La Ceiba and Loma Linda live mostly from subsistence

activities. Yet, with a greater need for income generation as social and ecological

circumstances change, the people in both villages participate in market activities more

and more. These two villages were selected for research because it was thought that the

differences between the two sites could be attributed to the greater degree of market

integration in La Ceiba. Hence, in keeping with a "natural experiment" design, a









comparative analysis of the two places generates empirical evidence of the various ways

(and the degree to which) involvement in the market influences behavior, attitudes, and

internal organization.

Methods of Data Collection

I used two main methods of data collection: a two-part formal interview; and

formal and informal interviews with key informants from both villages. Moreover, I

drew on previous years' experience in the communities and the three month period when

I was researching this topic.

Sample Selection

The sample was chosen randomly, using a two digit table of random numbers. I

chose twenty-two out of thirty three households in La Ceiba and twenty out of thirty-nine

households in Loma Linda.

Informally Structured Interview

The informal and unstructured interviews consisted of in-depth conversations. We

talked about a range of topics including: the mines in the area, forestry networks and

laws, the effectiveness of logging, and changes in seasonal fishing techniques.

Formally Structured Interviews

The formally structured interviews included economic and social questionnaires.

The economic interviews were held jointly with the household head and the spouse. The

social interviews were conducted with the household head and the spouse separately.

The economic questionnaire included various measures and indicators of market

integration. Key indicators were the productive activities performed, the time devoted to

each, and the income earned for their efforts. Measures of subsistence and market

activity were based on: the amount of time spent on each activity; where materials were






31




A---.-, ., __, fh" /


C

tw-o ,- .. &n,. .. ,, I*,




.J T,,CH- .
OC AN i -U--, ,s


SCOTOPAXI I





GUAYAS .^ ..
Y /MORONA PERU
1 SANTM L.

AZ


RD
... Ecuador

O JA' ^ / :-- -- n ra.t-l huri a wy
'T Na nW capital
c s't*HINME F POnM am on w






Figure 3.1. Map of Ecuador (United States Central Intelligence Agency, 1991). The
Esmeraldas province, which is the area of study, has a box around it.



























SI* Z/I ua Ii a.* i.I
Source: adapted from Medina, 1992. Circled dots indicate study sights.

Figure 3.2. Map of Chachi village locations; La Ceiba and Loma Linda are circled in red.

obtained and how much they cost; the frequency of the sale of goods; and the estimated

income generated from the sales. The section on agriculture and logging contained many

more questions further discussed in the fifth chapter.


Photograph by Ladna Miller.

Figure 3.3. Author conducting a formally structured interview.









The general social questionnaire had four main sections. The first section asked

about housing and the tools and household items owned.1 The second section asked

about respondents' demographics and level of education, as well as that of their parents.

The third part measured structural social capital (organizational density, networks and

mutual help organizations, networks with NGOs and other outsiders, exclusion, collective

action, and conflict resolution). The last section focused on cognitive social capital,

which includes inter-community solidarity, trust, reciprocity, and cooperation. The

general questionnaire that began with sixty-seven questions was reduced to forty-one

questions due to time constraints.




















Photograph by Author.

Figure 3.4. Respondents during an interview.

A separate formally structured interview was used with key informants. Four

leaders in each village (two women and two men) were asked detailed questions about


1 This section could have been part of the economic interview, but because the economic questionnaire was
so extensive already, I decided to make it part of the social interview.









the social organization and dynamics in the village. The questions in section three on

structural social capital that were cut for the majority of households were used for key

informants. These detailed questions dealt with the organizational history and social

structure of the village. Key informants were also qualified to answer questions on

general knowledge (i.e. instances of collective action in the last year) and more

qualitative issues.

Time Frame

Certain activities, such as logging, making canoes, making crafts, and hunting, do

not fit into the weekly schedule. After pre-testing the questionnaire, I concluded that the

best way to capture the time frame perceived by respondents was to use one standard

time frame for all activities. A month was chosen because it was a good compromise

between the activities that can be measured on a weekly basis, and the activities practiced

more infrequently such as canoe-making and logging.

Measuring Market Integration

Market integration is measured by Godoy (2001) as the sale of goods or services,

the portion of annual crops sold, value of credit, and earnings from wage labor. Other

ways of measuring the degree of market interaction include taking inventory of the

number and kind of household items such as radios, guns, kitchen knives, tin roofs, and

rubber boots (Henrich, 1997).2 In this thesis, a market activity is defined as an activity in

which goods and/or services are given a certain value and exchanged for money. In the


2 Henrich chooses to measure market "incorporation" in this manner based on the fact that thirty-nine of the
forty respondents who he interviewed said that they bought "things they need" and listed such items as
those above with the money they earn. Godoy (2001) discusses how this measure of market integration
overlaps with and could also be confused with a measure of acculturation, modernization, and urbanization.
The measure of market integration employed by Heinrich would not be appropriate to the Chachis who
responded they spend the majority of their money each month on food (as demonstrated in chapter 5).









comparative analysis of the two sites, the "degree of market integration" is a community-

level concept that can be operationalized in terms of one empirical indicator: time spent

on market activities versus subsistence activities.

Measuring Social Capital

The varying definitions of social capital mean that a single, "true measure is neither

possible nor desirable" (World Bank, 2000a, p.1). In this study I have adopted two

measures of social capital drawn from the World Bank's social capital assessment tool

(SCAT). The indicators refer to "structural" and "cognitive" social capital. Structural

social capital assesses the degree of organization within a group and with other people.

Cognitive social capital refers to the bonds between humans.

Structural Social Capital

In keeping with the social capital literature and the World Bank questionnaire, I

integrated selected aspects of structural social capital analysis into the surveys. The

original questionnaire that was later geared towards key informants included fourteen

questions on organizational networks, mutual benefit networks, egocentric networks,

exclusion, collective action, and conflict resolution. Aspects of structural social capital

that were included in the general questionnaire pertained to organizational density,

exclusion, and conflict management.

Organizational density included the internal and external organizations that are

important to a village. Coupled with the external social networks in nearby towns

(number of friends they have via organizations or market exchanges), these indicators

measured differences between the villages in terms of dependence on external people or

organizations in their day to day lives.









The section on exclusion and conflict management asked respondents about

differences between people that may divide the village. Examples include levels of

education, ownership of material possessions and land, religion, politics, and age. I then

asked if current problems mentioned also existed ten years ago, but these results were not

conclusive and were excluded from the final analysis. I also asked the interviewees how

they resolve these problems; if they think their village is generally peaceful or

conflictive; and how much influence they believe they have to make a change in the

village.

Cognitive Social Capital

Measures of cognitive social capital were taken from the questionnaire written by

the World Bank. The indicators of cognitive social capital included the following

concepts: solidarity, trust, reciprocity, and cooperation.

The solidarity questions asked respondents who they could rely on in case of

personal or economic emergency. The section on trust queried participants on: whether

people in the village generally trusted one another; if the level of trust had changed in the

last ten years; if the majority of people are honest and deserve trust; and whom they

would leave their farm and children with if they had to go on a trip. In the section on

reciprocity and cooperation, only two questions were asked: 1) "all in all, what do you

think of the level of cooperation in this community?" 2) "ten years ago, what do you

think of the level of cooperation in this community?"

Conclusions

The research methods described in this chapter are used to systematically compare

La Ceiba, the village with road access to the market, and Loma Linda, the more isolated

village. In chapters 5 and 6, I will test the following overall hypothesis: The village i ill









greater market integration will have more environmentally destructive money-generating

practices and a lower level of bonding social capital. Because it is necessary to test more

specific hypotheses to draw overall conclusions about the relationships between market

integration, environmentally destructive activities, and social capital, other more specific

hypotheses follow:

Hypothesis 1 (tested in chapter 6). People living in the Chachi village nearer to a

town center and connected by road will spend more time on market rather than non-

market activities, and will be engaged in a less diverse range of subsistence activities.

Hypothesis 2 (tested in chapter 7): The Chachi village that spends the most time on

logging and cattle ranching (environmentally destructive market activities) will have

lower levels of both structural (social networks) and cognitive (norms and levels of trust)

types of bonding social capital.3

Hypothesis 3 (tested in chapter 7). The effect of market integration on levels of

bonding social capital will vary by gender (sex and age) and level of education. 4

This next chapter will discuss the comparability of environmental and the social

contexts of the two communities. The comparability of the two research sites is a

necessary condition for a research design that seeks to test the general and specific

hypotheses noted above.




3Simultaneously, communal bridging and linking social capital (both of which include external cognitive and
structural) will increase.


4 In a study done by Bolafios (2003), there is a striking difference between men and women's relationships
with the environment. There may be a difference between older and young people who have differing
levels of education and different degrees of interaction with the market. Godoy (2001) notes that higher
levels of education lower deforestation rates.














CHAPTER 4
COMPARABILITY OF THE TWO COMMUNITIES

While no two geographic places are identical, the cornerstone objective in this

study is to verify that the main difference between the two communities is the degree to

which they are integrated into the market. Before comparing the degree of market

integration between the two sites, it is important to examine the socio-environmental

context in order to verify that the two sites do not differ significantly in terms of soil

quality, temperature and humidity gradients, rainfall, proximity to the river, and other

variables that could affect environmental characteristics, agricultural output, and the

socio-economic system. Secondly, it is important to review the historical background

and the cultural heritage of both villages, as well as the political and economic structures

in each context.

The Choc6

The bottom tip of the Choc6 Rainforest comes down from Panama and Colombia

into the northeast of Esmeraldas, the northernmost province of Ecuador that stretches

from the Western flank of the Andes Mountains to the Pacific and includes seven

counties. The Ecuadorian Choc6, an area of 4500 square km., is also referred to as the

Region Noroccidental (Valverde, 1998). It was once known as laprovincia verde, the

green province, and thus its name, Esmeraldas, meaning emerald. Although the

Ecuadorian Choc6 officially includes some of the Andean foothills, the lowland

evergreen rainforest will be the section of the region that is referred to in this document.











80O 780 76o




lo -o--





Panama




_! 1
SD RIEN/ .








OQui 6






MILES .
40





C A/U A




0N A RI N 76

T, uit




go PQ8i0 7 6






Source: West, 1957.

Figure 4.1. The Choc6 Region. Study dots indicated study sights.
Figure 4.1. The Choco Region. Study dots indicated study sights.









The Ecuadorian Choc6 has been marginalized from the Colonial Period until the

middle of the twentieth century (Arguello, 1995). Due to its harsh climate and remote

location, it was classified as unsuitable for the settlement of colonists and economic

development. In 1958, the construction of highways began (Juncosa, 1988). At this

same time, the Agricultural Reform and IERAC-Instituto Ecuatoriano de Reforma

Agraria y Colonizaci6n (now INDA- Instituto Nacional y Desarrollo Agrario) promoted

colonialization in these areas, which accentuated forest destruction (Dodson and Gentry,

1991; Ecociencia et al., 1996; Sierra, 1999). The area was most affected from 1960-1980

with the construction of roads and population growth.

The Choc6 of Ecuador has been pinpointed as one of the two most important places

for biodiversity in this rapidly changing and highly diverse country. In the Esmeraldas

province there are 341 endemic species, which represent 45.8 % of the endemic coastal

species in Ecuador (Valencia et al., 2000). Currently, this diversity is at great risk due to

the massive extinction of plant species resulting from deforestation and other human

activities (Dodson and Gentry, 1991; Josse et al., 2001). Only 19% of this lowland area

of the Choc6 remains, and it has been declared a biodiversity "hotspot" by the World

Bank and the World Wildlife Fund (Dinerstein et al., 1995; Sierra, 2002). The lowlands

of Esmeraldas have been promoted as a provider of domestic timber in the last decades.

According to McIlvaine (2000, p.92), "approximately 80% of Ecuador's domestic timber

is extracted from the lowland communities surrounding the Reserva Ecologica Cotacachi-

Cayapas." African palm plantations and gold mining have also affected the area.

La Ceiba

La Ceiba is legally a commune (as opposed to a community that must be part of a

center that unites various communities). It is located in San Lorenzo County, on the









Tululbi River, an hour from San Lorenzo by bus or truck. As of 1999, La Ceiba has

benefited from a road that was constructed by CODESA (Contrachapadas de Esmeraldas

S.A.)1, a logging company with whom the community made their first communal wood

sale. The land owned by La Ceiba borders the Awa Ethnic and Forest Reserve (1300

square km.), a binational reserve.2





















Photograph taken by Author.

Figure 4.2. Chachis from La Ceiba on the Tululbi River.

Loma Linda

Loma Linda is situated within the county ofEloy Alfaro. It is 75 km. southeast

from the nearest town of Borb6n. It takes on average four-and-a-half hours to travel

upriver from Borb6n to Loma Linda by motorized canoe. Consequently, the people of

Loma Linda go to town much less frequently than those of La Ceiba. The community



1 CODESA and SETRAFOR are the main logging companies in the San Lorenzo area.
2 Both Colombia and Ecuador work with the Awa on conservation and development projects (Neill, 1997).










borders the biggest natural reserve in the Northwest of Ecuador, the Cotacachi-Cayapas

Ecological Reserve (2040 square km.). 3


oLograpn LaKen oy Autnor


Figure 4.3. Loma Linda on the Cayapas River.

Environmental Features

Both villages differ only very slightly in terms of environmental features. The key

indicators to be discussed are rainfall, humidity gradients, temperature, topography, soil

quality, and proximity to the river.

Climate and Rainfall in the Ecuadorian Choc6

The lowland Choc6 is the wettest lowland forest in tropical America and the world.

Its climate is created because the El Nifio4 current holds sway over the cold Humboldt



3The park includes Andean paramo, cloud forests of the Cordillera Occidental (the western flanks of the
Andes that traverse Ecuador), and humid evergreen ecosystems that are at the altitude of 200 m. Forty
percent of the reserve is below 900 m in the lowland forests (Neill, 1997).










current in the Pacific Ocean. El Nifio creates warm air that blows across cool land. As

the warm air hits the Andes Mountains, it cools, produces rain and, therefore, a humid

rainforest climate (Forsyth and Miyata, 1998). The relative humidity is 87% with 78%

cloudiness; this means that this area almost always has cloud cover (Ecociencia et al.

1996).


JiF[MjA IMJl


Ifl-vil


IJIAISlOINIDI


Source: DeBoer, 1996.

Figure 4.4. Average monthly rainfall at Zapallo Grande during the period 1961-1984.

Unlike Colombian sections of the coastal rainforest, the climate of the Ecuadorian

Choc6 includes a definite "dry" season. Figure 4.4 shows that the average monthly

rainfall varied between 25 cm (250 mm.) and slightly less than 70 cm (700 mm.) at

Zapallo Grande (half-hour by canoe from Loma Linda) during the period 1961-1984.

The heavy rains fall at Christmas time and continue until June. Although the climate of

Esmeraldas is becoming drier due to greater deforestation, rain falls year-round on both

4 Centuries ago, El Nifio, meaning "the boy" and referring to Christ child, was named by the fishermen of
Piura, Peru due to its activity around Christmas time. They recognized the warm current especially because
it brings a different catch of fish, more tropical fish and declines of local stock. During El Nifio years, the
current that originates off the coast of Colombia, forces the Humboldt Current out to sea. It causes more
rain and flooding further south along the Pacific coast, and even to Ica, Peru. Only recently has its sporadic
oscillating movement, which in "El Nifio years" is an exaggeration of usual seasonal cycles, been
recognized as a phenomenon or an event. The term phenomenon (often referred to as the ENSO
phenomenon) took hold when El nifio's cycles were understood to work through the trans Pacific (indeed
global) Southern Oscillation. (Earls, John, pers. comm.; Gommes et. al.; National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 2004)


-J
u.
|6o
-II
z
X40
z
0
z


m


i









the Tululbi and the Cayapas Rivers, with the most rainfall in April and the least rainfall in

November. During the winter months there is heavy rainfall (which usually occurs daily

from the late afternoon through early morning) and strong sun. Consequently, the rivers

rise and carry increased sediment.

The rainfall map (Figure 4.5) shows that La Ceiba and Loma Linda are in the same

rainfall zone. Rainfall estimates for this area are said to be between 4000 mm and 8000

mm per year (Sierra, 1996), with the average rainfall in Borb6n at 3,486.9 mm/year.

Other estimates have been more conservative. One NGO employee who has worked with

communities in the Choc6 for the last 12 years reported that the climate in the

Esmeraldas province is becoming much drier with deforestation. He explained that the

farther south one travels from the Colombian border, the less rainfall there is, but really

rainfall varies from hillside to hillside. He estimated that La Ceiba has an average of

2700 mm. per year and that Loma Linda has perhaps 2,500 mm. per year. He explained

that the climate of La Ceiba is actually a bit more humid than that of Loma Linda, which

is why cacao is widely cultivated in Loma Linda rather than La Ceiba. 5

The average temperature on the Cayapas River is 25.6 degrees Celsius (Mcllvaine,

2000). It has been estimated to be the same in the San Lorenzo area.

Physical Features

The Choc6 reaches 900 meters and has landscapes varying from deep river beds

and canyons, flood lands with moderate slopes, and flat lands. The altitude of La Ceiba

is 80 m above sea level. Yet, the land in their territory quickly rises to steep ridges with

an altitude of 120 meters. On the other hand, Loma Linda is located slightly higher at an


5 Apparently, cacao is a good indicator of relative humidity because they rot in areas that are too humid.











altitude of 90 m, but local ridges are thought to rise more gradually to a height of 100


meters.


Source: West, 1957.


Figure 4.5. Average rainfall of the Choc6. The dots indicate study sites.


i--









Footpaths still follow these ridges throughout the Choc6. The forested slopes are

residual remains of the esteros (varying from large streams to small creeks). As the

esteros branch out, criss-cross, and twist through the forest, they have shaped the

landscape. The slopes can be as steep as 70 degrees, and contain shallow and acidic soils

(Mcllvaine, 2000). The Chachis generally do not plant on these steep slopes; they have

chosen strategically to settle on the banks of the rivers, including the residents of both La

Ceiba and Loma Linda. The rivers act as a system of transport, exchange, a place of

bathing, a place to wash clothes, a source of sustenance, and a source of "valuable strips

of fertile alluvium" (DeBoer, 1996, p.12).

La Ceiba and Loma Linda are located in two different geological zones. Loma

Linda is located on Quaternary diluvial soils as well as soils from the Tertiary geologic

period that formed during the last ice age (Solis, n.d.). These latter soils are

predominately marine soils from the Pliocene and Miocene time periods. Soil types

include Entisols and Oxisols, except along the rivers where one may find Inceptisols.

Mcllvaine (2000)6 explains that alluvial soils found by river banks are one of the

two major soil types in the Cayapas-Santiago area, which were classified by a French-

Ecuadorian team of ORSTOM-PRONAREG (Office de la Recherche Scientifique et

Technique OutreMer Acuerdo Mag-Programa Nacional de Regionalizaci6n Agraria) as

Distropepts, suborder Tropepts, order Inceptisols (Mcllvaine, 2000). These Inceptisols

are sedimentary soils that contain clays, sandstone, conglomerate slime, and small, water-

rounded pebbles.



6 McIlvaine did her comparative fieldwork in San Miguel, a negro commune, and Loma Linda during the
summers of 1996 and 1997.









The second type of Tropepts, Oxisols, contain sandstone, clays, slime and no

pebbles, and are susceptible to water-logging and aluminum toxicity. DeBoer (1996)

suggests that when choosing an agricultural plot (which the Chachis most commonly

refer to as a chacra), the Chachis especially avoid these yellow to red, clay soils, and

search out 'sandy' or 'black' earth (in their own terminology 'tierra llena de humo').

These soils are located inland and along the rivers. The inland black soils occur

frequently enough and in conjunction with archeological sites, so that DeBoer suspects

they are in part anthropogenic.

La Ceiba is located on lands formed in the Quaternary geological period, which has

alluvial soils with the most recent terrestrial and marine sediments (Solis, n.d.). This

means that one is more likely to find Inceptispols and Entisols, but Oxisols are still

predominant away from the riverbanks. The former are rich for agriculture, which makes

sense since the Chachis of La Ceiba said the reason their grandfathers left the Cayapas

River and settled on the land where La Ceiba is located is because they were looking for

better agricultural lands.

Vegetation

The forests of the Choc6 lowlands have three stories, or strata. The top story has

trees that rise up to 40 meters and have buttressed roots. It is dominated by five families:

Myristicaceae, Moraceae, Arecaceae, Fabaceae, and Meliaceae (Sierra, 1999). Some

common species are chanul (Humiriastrum procerum)', cedro (Cedrela odorata),

guayacdn (Tabebuia guayacan)-used for the foundations of houses and often remains

when all other wood has rotted, damagua (Poulsenia armata)-the source for bark cloth,


Chanul, a slow growing species, has been greatly affected by deforestation.









and ceiba-after which La Ceiba is named (McIlvaine, 2000). The second story includes

abundant species of palms that prove to be very useful for construction. Examples

include: vegetable ivory or tagua (Phytelephas auquatorialis), which is used for palm

thatching; andpambil (Socratea sp.), which is used for the floors of their homes. The

third stratum, namely the understory, has a great deal of plants from the Rubiaceae plant

family and palms. Tree trunks are covered by epiphytes that are in the Cyclanthaceae

and Araceae families, woody vines, ferns, mosses, and lichens (Neill, 1997). Other

species characteristic to the area are: moral bobo (Clarisia biflora), rubber or caucho

(Castilla elastica), cuangare (Otoba gordoniifolia), guadaripo (Nectandra guadaripo),

jigua (Ocoteafloccifera), ice cream beans or guaba (Inga spp.), andflor de mayo

(Brownea multijuga) (Sierra, 1999).

Just as rainfall and humidity vary based on the topography of the Choc6, so too

does the vegetation vary slightly from hillside to hillside and from ridge to ridge.

Consequently, in La Ceiba and Loma Linda, there are distinct forests some variation.

Nevertheless, forests surrounding both communities have similar vegetation, as

mentioned in the aforementioned paragraph.

Socio-Cultural Features

After confirming that La Ceiba and Loma Linda only differ slightly in their

environmental features, it is important to examine their socio-cultural background. The

following sections will describe the Chachi population, their cultural history, and their

socio-political organization, as well as the specific socio-cultural and political

backgrounds of both La Ceiba and Loma Linda.









Population

The most recent census conducted by the Chachi Education Department estimated

the Chachi population to be 9,500 people, spread throughout the coastal province of

Esmeraldas in Ecuador (Wiebe, Neil, pers. comm.).8 Although they were often referred

to as the Cayapas in the last century, in 1978 the Chachis declared that they prefer to call

themselves the Chachi, which means people in their language (Afiapa Cimarron, 2003).9

Although many live along the banks of the Tulubi, Verde, Canande, and Muisne Rivers

and in cities, an estimated 2000-2500 of the Chachis live along the banks of the Cayapas

River and its headwater effluents, the San Miguel, Onzole, and Grande Rivers (Deboer,

1996; Medina, 1992).

In 2002, La Ceiba had 33 families and 160 people. There were 90 males and 70

females. The majority of the population consisted of children under 9 years old. There

were three times as many people under 9 years old as as there were people aged 40 to 69

(Altropico, 2000). According to the 22 households interviewed during fieldwork in the

summer of 2003, the average number of people per household in La Ceiba was 5.7.

Loma Linda is slightly bigger than La Ceiba. The community has 39 families and

about 256 people. The average number of people per household is also slightly bigger.

There is an average of 6.3 people in each family.






8 The exact population size is questionable, as different sources give different numbers. For example,
Medina (1992) gives the approximation of 4,776 Chachis.

9 The Chachis have referred to themselves as the Chachis since they can remember. One informant
believed that they (and the main river on which they live) were called the Cayapas because a priest may
have thought that was their name when he heard them referring to one another as kaa apa, meaning little
father. According to the informant, the Chachis speak to another in these diminutive and affectionate ways.









Chachi Cultural History

The Chachis are a branch of the Chibcha tribe that today includes such tribes as the

Awd and Tsichila of Ecuador, the Kuna of the San Bias Islands of Panama, and the

Kogui of the Sierra Madre of Colombia. Chibcha origins began in Bogota, Colombia and

spread north into Nicaragua and Panama (Von Hagen, 1939). This cultural group arrived

to Ecuador via the Putamayo and Pimampiro Rivers in the Amazon Basin. Once in

Ecuador, they mixed with the Caribes and Hazauacos, settled near Ibarra, and populated

the coast and the Ecuadorian Amazon (Afiapa Cimarron, 2003; Medina, 1992).

The Awd (the Kwaiker or Coaiquer) and the Tsachila (the Colorados) are other

Amerindian groups of the western lowlands of Ecuador. Their languages, Awapi and

Tsifiqui, respectively, are related to Cha'palaa, the Chachis'language. All languages are

part of the Barbocoan linguistic group. Barbacoa, sometimes called "Malla", is a

Sindagua dialect of the Chibcha language (Moya, 1998; West, 1945).10

When conducting field research interviews in 2003, household heads were asked

what language they spoke in their homes. In La Ceiba, the village that is connected to

San Lorenzo by road, all households spoke Cha'palaa at home except one. In Loma

Linda, the majority of households also speak their native language in the home with the

exception of five household heads who sometimes speak Spanish to their children.

Among the Chachis of Loma Linda, Spanish is emphasized as important as education

takes a priority. According to one professor, one must be bilingual to graduate.

Ethnographic studies of the Chachis include different versions of their history

(Afiapa Cimarron, 2004; DeBoer, 1996; Medina, 1992;). Exactly when the Chachis

10 Karsten (1924) suggests that Cha'palaa Awapi and Tsafiqui are simply different dialects of the principal
Chibcha language, although they cannot understand each other's language.









began to identify themselves as a distinct cultural group from the Chibchas, and how long

it took them to arrive from Nicaragua to the Western flank of the Ecuadorian Andes, are

unknown. Perhaps what is best known about the Chachis is their move from the Andes

region to the Ecuadorian Choc6 about 200 years ago.

Although they are considered indigenous to the lowland Choc6 area, in a sense they

represent some of the first colonists (bringing their own culture and learning from the

other cultures in the area to which they have migrated) to the Santiago-Cayapas area.

Chachi culture today represents a recent adaptation of the Chachi people to the coastal

lowlands. This cultural image is as follows:

If one had to give a thumbnail sketch of the Chachi ethnography, one
should emphasize that they are river people, equally at home in a
dugout canoe as on land, that they tend to live in single-house
settlements dispersed along rivers, that plantains and fish are staples
of their diet, and that they speak a language related to the Colorado
and Kwaiker. (DeBoer, 1996, p. 176)

Upon arrival in the Andes, the Chachis first settled near Ibarra (2250 m), which is

located north of Quito (2850 m) (Barrett, 1925; DeBoer, 1996;). Yet, there is further

uncertainty as to when or why the Chachis left Ibarra to migrate to Pueblo Viejo (Tutsa'

in Cha'palaa). It is unknown whether they moved in response to the Inca, or in fear of

the Spaniard's horses, or because of modifications of lifestyle due to colonization

(DeBoer, 1996). The Chachis lived communally in Pueblo Viejo and grew mostly corn

and potatoes. This is the earliest Chachi village that is documented.11 It was located at

the head of the Santiago River.



1 It is also documented that some of the Chachis left Tutsa' because Catholic priests wanted to cut their
hair. Today the Chachis refer to those who left Tutsa' as the Paj unduula, shamans who speak different
dialects. The Paj unduula are believed to walk around at night and to have the ability to hypnotize people
or turn themselves into bamboo if they are in danger of being seen (Afiapa Cimarr6n, 2003).



























Figure 4.6. Kaa shinbu (Chachi woman) in "traditional" dress.

Barrett (1925) reports that when the Chachis lived in Tutsa' (Pueblo Viejo), their

biggest threat was the Malabas or Malaguas (called this on a map drawn by Maldonado in

1750).12 The Chachis called this indigenous tribe the Watsui or los Indios Bravos, and the

mestizos called them the Caribes. (DeBoer, 1996; Von Hagen, 1939). Often, the

Malabas have been described as cannibals (Salazar, 1979; West, 1945), and the Chachis

report that they were often attacked and preyed upon by this group.

Sometime between 1749 (when missionary records last show the Chachis living in

Espiritu Santo, or Pueblo Viejo) and 1809, the historically peaceful Chachis put together

war bands (which according to the Chachis were guided by jaguars). Armed, they

entered the Cayapas River basin by way of the Zapallo River, the San Miguel River, and

then down the other headwater rivers.




12 In 1809, Stevenson (1825) took two Chachis to speak with the Malaguas and he reported that their
language seemed like Quichua. He believed they were descendents of the Puncays of Quito who escaped
the Incas or corralled by the Christian priests.









They expelled or killed the Indios Bravos along the way, removing their crops by

the root to make sure they would not return (Barrett, 1925). An Englishman named

Stevenson reported that the Malabas moved to the San Miguel River in 1809 (DeBoer,

1996). The Malabas have now disappeared, and the land where they once resided is now

Chachi land. Yet, according to the Chachis, smoke seen in the hills provides evidence

that the Indios Bravos may still be found on the Grande River (DeBoer, 1996).

The first Chachi village in the lowlands was called Punta Venado, where they

installed a bell they had brought from their village near Ibarra; the bell remains today.

The Chachis adapted a whole new way of life when they settled in single-family

households in the lower Cayapas River (Barrett, 1925). Upon arriving in the Cayapas

basin, the Chachis concentrated on fishing and agriculture more than hunting (Holm-

Nielson et al., 1983). Thought to be primarily hunters, fisherman, and foragers, they

gradually focused more on fishing and horticulture. They also shifted from growing corn

and potatoes near Ibarra to principally growing plantains and other crops introduced by

the Spanish and other cultural groups of Ecuador (e.g yuca, Manihot esculenta, comes

from the Amazon Basin).

It has been reported that in the beginning of their time in the Cayapas Basin, the

Chachis also settled near La Tolita and Pampa de Oro on the upper banks of the Cayapas

River near the Pacific Ocean. Villavicencio (1858) reported that the Chachis there were

wealthy from the gold13 and pitas (a plant from the Bromeliaceae family that they used


13 West points out that there is a narrow belt of placer deposits of gold that are at the foot of la Cordillera
Occidental, the Western Flank of the Andes in Colombia and finishes in Esmeraldas. It is in now buried in
streambeds, and the Santiago Drainage is named as an important mining district. In February 2000, with
the backing of the Catholic Church, FECCHE (the Chachi Federation) and the Federation of the African
Ecuadorians organized against the presence of a gold mining company in the Santiago-Cayapas River
Basin, and the company was forced to leave.









for fiber). At that time they still communicated back and forth with small villages from

Cotocachi and Otovalo, and the Chachis went back and forth between





















Photograph by Tanya Fisher.

Figure 4.7. "Traditional Chachi" single-family dwelling raised on guayacan posts with
woven tagua palm fronds as the roof. The Chachis use no nails in the
construction of their traditional homes.

Tutsa' and their new location. San Miguel de los Cayapas, which is a half-way point,

was also one of their earliest establishments.14 By 1908, the Chachis no longer lived

along the headwaters of the Santiago River in Pueblo Viejo (Tutsa') or in La Tolita;

instead, they had settled in Punta Venado, Zapallo Grande, and San Miguel (Barrett

1925). Nevertheless, Afiapa Cimarron (2003) states that a Chachi named Ambu Rucu,

meaning good old man, was the last man to leave Tutsa in 1935.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many Africans were brought to work in

gold mines around Cartegena, and they began to settle on the Esmeraldas shores


14 Chachis lived at the head of the Zapallo and San Miguel Rivers (Basurco, 1844). San Miguel de los
Cayapas was recorded on a map of the Esmeraldas province done by Wolf in 1879 (Altropico, 2000).









(Thurston, 1997). During the late 1700's, the Negros, marooned Africans, escaped from

a slave ship. In the late nineteenth century more Negros migrated to the

Cayapas/Santiago area from Colombia, which may explain why the Chachis gradually

moved upriver to their present location. Today it is said that 85 percent of the

Ecuadorian Choc6 population are "maroons" from Africa (Thurston, 1997).

Historically the Chachis and the Negros have always had problems and even

violent disputes over land (Medina, 1992). Despite their differences, both groups have

learned to live together and have adapted some aspects of one another's cultures.

Between the tributaries of the Onzole River and the San Miguel River, the Chachis and

the Negros both reside along the Cayapas River. Some Negros speak Cha'palaa, and the

Chachis play African marimba music at their most important celebrations. They trade

with another and in some ways live interdependently (sometimes even in the same village

and even intermarrying), but each group still maintains distinct traditions.

Because of further changes (due in part to population and logging in the area) in the

Cayapas basin, the Chachis now fish and hunt as supplemental subsistence activities

(Medina, 1992). Instead, they depend more on their plantain-based chacras. These

chacras are called platanales in Spanish andpandapala in Cha'palaa. The Chachis boil

the plantains-verdes in Spanish and panda in their native language-and then, with a flat

river rock, smash them into a sticky mass (called bala in Spanish andpandalujta in

Cha'palaa). All meals include pandalujta, and everyone in the village knows when other

families are eating because they can hear the rocks smashing the verdes.

Today the majority of Chachis identify themselves as agriculturalists, but they also

claim to do "unpoco de todo" (a little of everything) (McIlvaine, 2000: 97). Within their









complex livelihood systems, the acquired lowland agricultural practices allow them: to

provide the "bread of each day" (the plantains), to be relatively self-sustaining, and to

also produce cash crops (McIlvaine, 2000).

Shifts from the rainforests of Nicaragua and Panama to the Amazon, the Andes,

and then the Ecuadorian Choc6, demonstrate that the Chachis have not had a 'static'

culture. What is considered Chachi culture is actually a hybrid of ideas and livelihood

practices adopted from the many cultures they have encountered. For example, in the

1500's (well before the Chachis arrived), Pedro Cieza de Leon and Miguel Cabellos de

Balboa described the "traditional" Chachi homes with stilts. They also reported the use

of slash and mulch techniques (called tapado in Spanish). Since the Chachis arrived

later, they obviously adopted the traditions of the tribes that Pascual de Andagoya called

the Barbacoas15 in 1540 (West, 1945). The Barbacoas lived in the Choc6 before the

arrival of the Chachis (Patino, 1965). Another example of the Chachis adaptive culture

involves the Spanish-introduced plantains, which now dominate their slash-mulch

system.

Their religion, too, is a mixture of myths based on the jungle environment and

Catholicism. Their first documented contact with priests and missionaries was in Pueblo

Viejo. Over the last century, and especially with the advent of schools, religious groups

have had a big impact on the Chachi culture.

The Chachis have constantly mingled with other cultures. While they have

exchanged ideas and traditions, their language, Cha'palaa, is still commonly spoken and

they strongly identify themselves as Chachis. Their language seems to be the common

15 Contrary to Stevenson (1825), West (1945) reports that the linguistic group to which the Malaguas (or
the "Indios Bravos") and the Chachis belong is called Barbacoa.









thread that weaves them together as a culture and ties them to the past. All of their

migrations and imports (e.g. belief systems, musical instruments, agricultural systems,

and food plants) indicate that the Chachis have always been a culture that is open to

change and diversity. Their ability to live in different environments, adapt to the people

around them, and import what will benefit their livelihoods and enhance their culture, is

further evidence of the resilience and dynamism of Chachi culture.

Historical and Socio-political Background of the Chachis

The Federation of Chachi Centers of Ecuador (FECCHE: Federaci6n de Centros

Chachi del Ecuador) is the unifying political body of the centers, and its office is located

in Esmeraldas City. They were established in 1978. The communities were then divided

into zones and centers.

The Chachis are divided into three major zones within the Esmeraldas province: the

North, Central, and Southern zones. Each of these zones contains a number of centers

that include a number of villages. Today there are 28 centers. Each center has a

president, a vice president, a secretary, a treasurer, and representatives for the board of

health, education, and commerce. The center's government is in charge of the political

organization of the communities that lie within its boundaries. A general assembly elects

new officers to the community center every two years. At the village level, the

traditional governor or uni is the leader-generally a village elder. This position is not

rotational.

The North zone includes the Tululbi River (with only one community, La Ceiba)

and the Cayapas and Onzole Rivers (19 centers). The Central zone includes four rivers:

the Canande River (four centers), the Viche River (the center of Chorera Grande), the

Verde River (the center of Mediania), and the Esmeraldas River. The Southern zone









includes two centers and one community in Muisne County. One center is called Nueva

Esperanza and it is located on the River Balzar. The other center is called San Salvador

and it, along with the community of San Jose, are on the Sucio River.

The Chachis function as single-family households especially in terms of

agriculture. The Chachis traditionally farm individual plots and maintain communal

forests for hunting and extraction activities (McIlvaine, 2000). Land is passed down

from one generation to the next and divided between the sons in a family. Women

usually move to other villages to marry. Consequently, household land holdings are

getting smaller.

Currently four different types of land tenure affect the Chachis: "Patrimonio

Forestal" or ancestral forest, communal non-legal tenure, private legal tenure, and

communal legal tenure (McIlvaine, 2000). Ancestral forest refers to government-owned

land that has been designated as a protected area. The Chachis of Loma Linda are in the

process of trying to gain ownership of a great deal of this land. Communal non-legal

tenure is land that is illegally designated for household use. Up until 2001, Loma Linda's

4,524.69 hectares were under this type of land tenure and incorporated 81% of all

households (McIlvaine, 2000)16. The other 19% of households legally owned private

lands (the third type of land tenure) because they were the only three families in the

community during the land reforms of the 1960's and 1970's. These families are free to


16Actually, at the time of McIlvaine's study, the land of Centro San Miguel was all illegal communal land
tenure, but CARE helped them legalize their communal land and an ex-peace corps member who lived in
Loma Linda helped them legalize 800 more hectares. Now they legally and communally own 5500
hectares. Before this legalization of land, some of the conclusions of McIlvaine's study showed that 100%
of the Loma Linda households reported harvesting timber in non-legal communal tenure land versus only
20%of the households on private legal tenure in the year-long period from July 1997 to July 1998 (note that
this is before the certification law was passed by CARE/Subir).









buy and sell land plots without the consent of the community. The fourth type of land is

communal legal tenure, of which the Chachis of both La Ceiba and Loma Linda now take

part.

Historical and socio-political background of La Ceiba

According to Altropico (2000), Juan Nifio lived in Majua on the Cayapas River and

raised pigs. Apparently, he was having problems in doing so. After asking permission of

the First Lieutenant in Borb6n, he moved to and settled on the banks of the Palabi River

(which is now part of Awa territory) in 1930. Together with Juan Nifio came Cristobal

de la Cruz, Manuel San Nicolas, Jose Maria Niio, and Chapiro Afiapa. Although they

did not form a community center and lived as separate families, they did act as a

community. After a while, the men searched for better soils for growing plantains. They

bought four hectares from a man named Casanova and all the families moved there and

established themselves.

Due to land invasions, in 1979 descendants surveyed and legalized 1530 hectares

and received a land title from IERAC (INDA). At that time the Chachis of San Lorenzo

County decided to call their community La Ceiba after a stream by the same name. In

1982 Juan Nifio officially founded the village of La Ceiba. La Ceiba is legally a recinto

as opposed to being part of a center like Loma Linda. Currently none of the original

inhabitants of the Tululbi River are still alive.

The principal questionnaire translator in the study, Samuel Afiapa, explained that it

would be much more advantageous for all villages to become their own centers.

According to Afiapa, a commune has affiliated laws that are outdated by 60 years, and a

recinto has laws that are even more outdated. La Ceiba wanted to be a recinto because

they wanted an inspector, a connection to the county's public administration system.









The basic difference is that being a center, commune, or a recinto creates different power

structures in relation to the state, to FECCHE, and even within the community. Each also

abides by different laws. For example, under La Ceiba's present legal status as a recinto

or a commune, the presidency rotates on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, by the time a

president is accustomed to his office the term is over.

Within the village, all land is owned communally, except for 640 hectares that are

divided evenly among the households; so that each household owns a 20-hectare lot that

may be returned to communal hands if it is not worked. Because of the equal allocation

of land, land distribution is currently a minimal problem (certain community members

were not there when the land was allocated because they were out working in other parts

of Ecuador and so they were not given land). In 1999, each household sold the majority

of their lot's primary forest. The sale of lumber and timber, communally and

individually, is exacerbated in La Ceiba, as it is in all of the county of San Lorenzo.

Many Chachi neighbors are selling their timber to wood companies and their land to

African palm companies. This is leading to many social problems, not only in the

village, but with their neighbors as well.

With a road connecting them to the outside world, the social, economic, and

environmental problems of all the other cultural groups have now begun to affect the

lives of the Chachis of La Ceiba. There are land tenure struggles among different ethnic

groups who live in the vicinity of La Ceiba. People of these communities sell their land

to logging and oil palm companies. In 1999, the Chachis had to bring in the military to

remove squatters from their territory. In addition, as more land is deforested by logging

companies and planted with African oil palms, these companies put more pressure on the









Chachis. As one teacher in La Ceiba said, "we are surrounded. We are surrounded by

palm companies and they do not let us leave"1.

African palm companies18 are especially problematic in terms of deforestation and

creating land pressures. These companies actually want to buy land from the

communities, not just the trees, and they put pressure on communities to sell. Another

reason is because, as a man from SETRAFOR told me, "they want the forest gone once

and for all in order to expand their plantations". He explained to me that the difference

between African palm companies and wood companies is that the latter will only cut trees

over 50 cm. Their goal is to keep the forest producing so that they can cut trees again in

ten years. The wood companies usually work in conjunction with the African palm

companies. For instance, if an oil palm company buys land that is still forested, they sell

the trees to the wood companies by giving them an allotted amount of time to cut as

much as they can.

With all these outside pressures, the Chachis of La Ceiba seem to be isolated and

unsure of who to trust. In La Ceiba, there is miscommunication within the village and a

willful lack of communication with the outside agencies and NGOs on which they

simultaneously depend. There are questions of corruption and distrust in the community

as community presidents make deals with outside institutions.

Ironically, the sale of their forest to logging companies constitutes one of the

principal bases of their individual and communal decisions. In fact, since 1988, the


1 I think what he is trying to say is that the Chachis feel blocked in.

18African palm oil is used for cooking oil and soap. The first African palm company entered the lowland
coastal area in 1953 in Santo Domingo de los Colorados. The Awh and the Chachis have denounced the
African palm companies to the Ministry of Agriculture for illegal deforestation.









Chachis have sold 1100 hectares of their trees from the 1500 hectares of communal forest

reserve that borders the Awa Ethnic and Ecological Reserve. During the summer of

2003, the Chachis received $54,768 for the sale of 200 hectares of trees ($16 per cubic

meter x 3423 cubic meters) to SETRAFOR. $16,500 of this money went back to

SETRAFOR for payment on a truck. One week before they were to receive the $54,768

they called a meeting to decide how they should spend the money. They decided to give

$500 to each household head and use the rest of the money to buy a house in San Lorenzo

so the young people would have a place to live while they study. Students could also sell

fruit and juices from the first floor to pay for living expenses.

Their communal agroforestry project provides another context where community

members have had to collaborate with outside institutions as well as with one another.

This project was established by a Peace Corps member and has 22 hectares with 103

species. With the assistance of UTEPA, the Chachis and the Peace Corp member began

planting fruit trees in 1992. In 2000, with the assistance of the World Wildlife Fund and

International Organization for Migration (OIM), a marmalade factory was constructed.

Boroj6 marmalade has become one of their major products. However, the Chachis of La

Ceiba still struggle to market these products.

Field research questionnaires showed a continued lack of planning and organization

for the future by the Chachis. The majority of households did not reinvest the money

they received from previous forest sales. They just bought clothes for their children, pots

and pans, and stoves. A few people bought chainsaws and cattle, which are an

investment, but definitely do not contribute to forest conservation.









Historical and socio-political background of Loma Linda

Like La Ceiba, Loma Linda is in the Northern zone but within Eloy Alfaro County.

Yet, Loma Linda is part of the Centro de (center of) San Miguel. The Center of San

Miguel is made up of seven communities and covers an area of approximately 4524.69

hectares (Marchan, 2001). The Community of Loma Linda includes thirty-nine

households. Loma Linda is one of seven villages that participate in the larger political

group of El Centro Chachi of Loma Linda/San Miguel, through which all major political

decisions must be passed.

Families who were living in Loma Linda in 1974 had their land demarcated and

legalized by IERAC with the help of SIL International (formerly known as the Sumer

Institute of Linguistics) and the Evangelist Mission of Zapallo Grande. At the time there

were only nine or ten families living there. Therefore all the people who live in Loma

Linda today are borrowing land from these original landowners.

Loma Linda was originally called Lema Pi, named for the estero that branches off

from the river where the community was located. The community was named Loma

Linda 1963 when the SIL International established the first bilingual school in Chachi

territory. The school was funded by the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education, and it was

supervised by the SIL International with the help of John and Carrie Lindskoog. In 1970,

when Loma Linda became an association del centro (center association), Neil and Ruth

Wiebe took over as supervisors; they have been translating the bible into Cha'palaa and

studying their language ever since. With the establishment of the school, more people

moved to the community so that their children could attend school. It became a legal

village center in 1992 when the school was moved from the north bank to the south bank

of the river. At the time there were only two houses on the south bank, where the









majority of the thirty-nine Loma Linda households are now situated. The center of San

Miguel began to demarcate their land in 1996. As mentioned earlier, the center received

a land title in 2001. (Afiapa, Santiago, pers. comm.)

Although the Center's land is now legalized, everyone, except the few private

landowners, borrows land from the community and/or center or from the private owners,

who have the right to usurp the land at any time. Land problems were pinpointed as one

of the major causes of social differences in the community, and this will be discussed in

chapter 7.

One development in Loma Linda is that in 2001, the son of one of the Chachis

married a woman from Los Angeles, where they currently live. They are in the process

of creating a luxury ecotourism lodge that is privately owned by their family. They

decided to manage it this way because of the potential organizational complications of

working with the entire community. To proceed with this lodge, it will be necessary to

move two families, whose livelihoods have been dependent on cultivating that land for

decades. Currently, many Chachis are working for this family by helping to build the

lodge for $5 a day. The goal is for all Chachis to benefit. The lodge will bring tourists to

their village and residents will earn a certain percentage of the profits if they agree to

maintain a "green" tourist attraction. In addition, the lodge will expand the market for

selling handicrafts and other products.

Because of in the strength of their cultural practices, the women still weave baskets

from rampira (Carludovicapalmata), weave cloth, and even process rampira for sale to

Panama hat makers in Cuenca (a project initiated by Ecociencia- Fundaci6n Ecuatoriana

de Estudios Ecologicos, a local partner to CARE). Women also make purses, tablecloths,









wallets, tapestries (which are derived from traditional skirts), and belts. The women are

well organized in a co-op called Maria de Sol, which is considered one of the more

important communal organizations. Handicraft production makes a significant

contribution to a household's economy. Yet, just recently, middlemen come less

frequently for the baskets they used to demand regularly. Now the price has fallen to

$0.50 for each basket, which takes one day to make.

CARE/ Proyecto Subir was funded by US AID and the World Conservation

Society, and they established a ten-year project in the Cayapas and Santiago River basins

(1992 until 2002). Local organizations such as Ecociencia and Fundaci6n Jatun Sacha

took part in the project. In 1997, with the support of German technical assistance,

CARE, Jatun Sacha, and an Ecuadorian governmental organization helped to create the

Community Forest Network for Sustainable Management (Red Forestal Comunitaria para

el Manejo Sustenible). The organizations associated with the network promoted a series

of courses and training, as well as an exchange of experiences with Quintana Roo,

Mexico. In 2000, there was a reformation of the law of conservation of natural areas and

wildlife that was established in 1982. The new law was called "la Normativa para el

Manejo Forestal Sustentable para el Aprovechamiento de Madera de Bosque Humedo y

Plantaciones Forestales". The latter required a certified forest management plan on lands

where timber is extracted. Therefore, a Chachi informant reported that most people who

sell wood in the Santiago-Cayapas River Basin are currently selling wood illegally

because they cannot afford the investment in initial certification fees.

There are currently other changes on the Cayapas River. CODESA, the principal

logging company in the area, has moved up from the river mouth and has made deals









with Chachi communities on the way. Part of these deals includes roads and electricity

access. Just in the last three years, electricity has been put into villages extending to

Santa Maria, which is three hours from Borb6n. When this author left Loma Linda in

2003, having finished fieldwork, there was a timber deal in the process of negotiation

with Zapallo Grande, a half-hour away by canoe. If this deal goes through there will be a

road out of Zapallo Grande that will create major lifestyle changes in Loma Linda as

well. In addition, CODESA has begun to move downriver from the headwaters. On

October 17, 2003, FECCHE put an embargo on all logging on the river, and companies

were only allowed to remove the wood that had already been cut. This embargo has been

lifted.

Conclusion

This chapter describes the similarity between Chachis of La Ceiba and Loma Linda

in their climatic, geographic and ecological features. Regardless of some expected

differences in their historical and social contexts, the two villages are enough alike to be

compared systematically. The next chapter provides the descriptive background of both

villages' livelihood activities.














CHAPTER 5
SUBSISTENCE AND MARKET ORIENTED LIVELIHOODS IN LA CEIBA AND
LOMA LINDA

"Since at least the mid seventeenth century, local indigenous communities have
participated in an economic system in which part of the production satisfies
subsistence needs while the rest, the surplus, enters circuits of commercial
exchange. Contemporary indigenous communities are thus not uncontaminated
citadels of precapitalist economy. They ruled first by the system of moral economy
founded on the logic of reciprocity and on the 'right to subsistence', and second, by
the necessity of exchange with the surrounding capitalist market." (Kearney and
Varese, 1995, p. 215)

Because the Chachis' livelihood system is complex and seasonally variable, this

chapter describes how market and subsistence activities are intertwined in the daily lives

of the people of La Ceiba and Loma Linda. In sum, an informal descriptive analysis of

Chachi activities will be presented. The first section discusses the history of market

integration within the Chachi culture and the people's perception of change. In the

second section the contemporary livelihoods of the Chachis will be addressed, noting the

present predicament in which the Chachis find themselves. Moreover, information on

how they spend and invest their household money is included as well as data on whether

or not logging is improving their quality of life. The third section discusses activities

such as agriculture, fishing, hunting, craft production, and canoe production. The fourth

portion will describe newer and more market-based activities such as agroforestry, cattle-

ranching, logging, contractual labor, and school employment.

The Evolving Chachi Economy

West (1957) documents that, at least for the last century, people of the Pacific

Lowland areas have supplemented their subsistence livelihoods by gathering forest









products for international markets. He comments that gathering industries in tropical

rainforest areas have been unstable and included boom and bust periods. Figure 5.1

shows the presence of three industries-rubber, tagua nuts, and wood-in the Santiago

Cayapas River Basin in 1954. West concluded that rubber-gathering in the Choc6 began

around 1858, after the Goodyear vulcanization process created a demand for caucho

negro (Castilla panamensis). This demand ended with the success of the Malaysian

rubber plantations at the turn of the twentieth century. Tagua-gathering in the Choc6

began around 1850 and lasted until the development of synthetic buttons in the 1930's.

Initial logging is documented as early as the turn of the twentieth century, but apparently

tropical hardwoods were exported at a greater rate after the 1930's. West (1957, p. 166)

notes, "lumbering of tropical woods is the latest phase of forest exploitation, but its life

may be shortened by the rapid depletion of forest reserves."

According to McIlvaine (2000), the communities of the Cayapas region have also

long experienced a type of integration into the market that includes periods of expansion

and contraction; these periods correlate with the aforementioned market demands as well

as the political and economic conditions at the local, national, and international level.

The Chachi's participation in the tagua market has been documented as early as the

1920's with the harvest and sale of vegetable ivory or tagua nuts (Phytelephas

auquatorialis), for use as European buttons. Similar cycles of exploitation of the Chachis

can also be applied to the rubber boom, wood extraction, the post-WWII, Ecuadorian

banana boom, and the demand for coffee and cacao. What currently makes the Chachis'

interaction with these processes more pertinent is the increased intensity and frequency of

present economic, conservation, and political interests.







69






'MB MmLLV Bi ECUADWUOR 1.
ASource: West, 195 k














Linda (the dot below).n
hh l ha ai their r hr i
r:-.- TAOIA HNtiT I AGnTaFN *WA.
MA*(..' I VlBS AMPC : ZWMII











i ndd




















no buyers, chainsaw, or lombgging companies in the area at thindicates thatime. In La Ceiba, when

answering why their grandfathers did not sell timber/lumber, they spoke about theireas
tn te vcnte o te to t te L Ce b a edent beeved that a ted tbe aet a de
to l o be bee o tto od d lo o e e







and canaletes (paddles). These wooden crafts were thought to be one of the principal
ways that their grandparents participated in the market. In Loma Linda, however,








Souanswering why their grandfathers did not sell timber/lumber, they spokeat around this timer

logging mathere were lumber mills, lacontex-gat. La Ceiba residents believed that a limiteand tagua-nut-gathering areas due














to: a lack of buyers, an absence of tractors, roads, and logging companies. One









household head mentioned that his grandfathers only knew which trees were good for

canoes, not for lumber. An elder of La Ceiba laughed while explaining the following:

"when they (his grandfathers) made their farms the cow tree or Sande (Brosimum utile),

one of the most marketable woods of the present, rotted because they did not sell them.

The new generation has contacts."

Answers from household heads in La Ceiba and Loma Linda indicated different

market participation by each community's grandparents. In Loma Linda, residents

reported that earlier generations had sold plantains and bananas (Musa xparadisiacal),

vegetable ivory or tagua (Phytelephas aequatorialis), the source of bark cloth in the

Pacific lowlands or damajagua (Poulsenia armata), cacao (Theobroma cacoa), coffee

(Coffea arabica), and crafts and baskets. Some reported that they had extracted rubber

(Castilla elastica.

One Chachi from Loma Linda, in particular, said that the banana company came

and bought bananas. This informant told me that before there had been a plentiful

amount of fish and meat, so they needed less money in the past. Another claimed they

needed less money because they bought less food and the children did not study then.

Yet, others disagreed and explained that their grandfathers needed as much money as

they need now, and that things in the past cost less. The governor of the community (in

the traditional government) surprisingly responded, "Before they needed money, and in

the present we need money. How can we live without money?"

A few household heads in Loma Linda told me that their grandfathers had sold

trees, but only soft woods as trunks four meters long. Moreover, they indicated that their

grandfathers had sold trees to mestizos in Limones (an island where the delta of the









Santiago River meets the Pacific) and San Lorenzo. They said that the city of Borb6n

had not existed then, so they had sold and traded goods in Limones. No one in La Ceiba

mentioned the sale of these large trunks, and this may be due to the fact that La Ceiba'

grandfathers would have had to travel a greater distance along the river to reach Limones.

Before the late 1960's and early 1970's there were no roads in Northern San

Lorenzo. Altropico (2000) reports that when the Chachis first settled on the Tulubi

River, they sold pineapples, manioc, rice, corn, sweet potatoes, and rascadera

(Xanthasoma ssp.) in Limones, which was then a two-day trip downriver and a three-day

trip upriver. They continued to sell products in Limones until the railroad was finished in

1959. Elder members of La Ceiba report that once the train began running, residents

began to travel to San Lorenzo (taking first a one-day canoe trip to La Boca and then a

half-hour train ride to their destination). Yet, since the early 1970's La Ceiba inhabitants

have traveled three hours by canoe to Ricaurte and taken a truck into San Lorenzo. It is

only since 1997 that people from La Ceiba have begun to walk out to the San Lorenzo-

Ibarra Highway to get transportation.

In La Ceiba it seems that pig sales were also a large part of their previous economy,

which was confirmed by various informants. One of the teachers who moved to La Ceiba

from the southern zone, Muisne, said that a decade ago his grandfathers worked as day

laborers and sold plantains, manioc and cacao. Yet, only two other people in this village

mentioned the sale of plantains. Instead, every household, except two, seems to have

focused on making and selling canoes. One household head said, "through canoes they

received their economy, since there is no economy without money." Another declared

that carving canoes from Copal or Pulgande (Dacryodes spp.) was an art. A few









household heads also mentioned that they had mined gold with their bateas or wash trays

(perhaps these trays became marketable for this reason as well as their utility for washing

clothes). 1

Currently, the outside economy and the Chachis economy are in flux and largely

inseparable. The average household in La Ceiba earns $247 per month, while households

in Loma Linda earn about $252 per month.2 This means that, despite the distance to

market, households are probably earning approximately the same. Although, in La Ceiba

the distribution of income between households is more even. Most households earn

between $200 and $350 monthly. No households earned less than $25 per month, and

only one home reported earning $500/month. In Loma Linda, on the other hand, the

distribution is much more skewed. There were three households that reported earning

less than $25/month and four houses that reported earning over $500/month. These high

salaries might be due to the fact that: one of these households contains two

schoolteachers; two households transport passengers to Borb6n for $12/one-way ride; and

the fourth home includes a school teacher who sells canoes and many other goods. Low

incomes are probably due to the fact that it is easier to live off the land in Loma Linda if

one chooses because there is more game meat and bigger fish.

Another indicator of communal market incorporation is how often residents go to

town to buy or sell products. On average, household heads of La Ceiba go 5.47 times per


1 The first time I traveled up the Tulubi River in 1997, I remember hearing African Ecuadorian women's
singing voices coming around the bends. The Chachis who moved the canoe with palanka (a long stick)
told me they were mining gold as the Chachis also used to do. There is more gold mining on the Tululbi
River than on the Cayapas River in the present.

2 These numbers are calculated without including investments, which definitely vary, especially if a person
is paying four people $5/day for four days to carry wood. It was too complicated to include the
investments, which is the reason why income was not chosen as the main measure of market integration.









month, while in Loma Linda household heads travel 1.17 times per month. These

numbers show that, on average, household heads of both villages interact often with the

outside market. But, due to the convenience of the road, La Ceiba household heads travel

to the market four times more than their Loma Linda counterparts. At the same time,

however, middlemen frequent the Cayapas River. People can buy and sell produce from

these mobile markets. The next section will discuss the constituents of the present

Chachi economy in greater detail.



















Photograph taken by Author.

Figure 5.2. Chachis from Loma Linda buying produce from the mobile market.

Contemporary Market and Subsistence Activities

Market-related activities are defined as those in which goods, labor, or services

leave or enter the household with their exchange value determined by a pricing

mechanism, the market (Godoy, 2001; Korten, 1996; Wentzel, 1989;). In both Loma

Linda and La Ceiba, people participated in nine different principle market activities.

These included families and raising small animals, fishing, hunting, carving out canoes,










making crafts, raising cattle, logging, working for the community schools, and

contractual labor (see Figure 5.3). Only La Ceiba had a communal agroforestry plot of

22 hectares in which all the households participated; and only in Loma Linda were there

households that sometimes sold fish.

100% 95
86% l* craft production

80% o cattle ranching

65% E agriculture
o 60% o --fishing
55%
e -50% 50%
Sim hunting
S40% -I 35% p a agroforestry
0
P i 25 I I I logging
18%
20% o 14% o 15 canoe making
1" 14% 15%10
S oX m contract labor

oo0% 0 -- 0 H 1 o public service jobs
La Ceiba (near) Loma Linda (far)
n=22 n=20
community

Figure 5.3. Household participation in market activities.

Figure 5.3 demonstrates that out of the 22 La Ceiba households that were

interviewed, the most predominant market activities were the community forest project

and logging. Almost all of the households participated in the community fruit forest

project (95%) and in selling wood (86%). More than half of the household heads from

La Ceiba participated in raising and selling cattle (59%) and selling certain agricultural

products (55%). And less than half of the households participated in: making and selling

crafts (18%) and canoes (5%), selling game (14%), and working as contracted labor

(14%) and teachers (9%).









As a village, Loma Linda's manner of integrating itself into the market varies more

among households; there are no activities in which almost all the 20 households that were

interviewed participate. Most households participated in craft production (65%), while

50% of households worked in market-oriented agriculture and public service jobs. Less

than one-third of the households in this farther village participated in all other activities

(raising cattle, working as contracted labor, and selling fish, game, canoes and wood).

Subsistence activities are those activities that contribute to household reproduction.

Under subsistence-oriented agricultural and extraction systems, individuals usually have

goals of food security and the minimization of labor (Varese, 2001; Baksh and Johnson,

1990). In both La Ceiba and Loma Linda, it was found there were no longer any activities

that everyone in the village did purely for home consumption. Craft production, cow,

chicken, and pig production, fishing, hunting, farming, and canoe-making were and

continue to be primarily subsistence activities. Nevertheless, in both villages, there were

always a few people who sometimes sold some of their surplus products.

By comparing Figures 5.3 and 5.4, it is clear that there is less diversity of

household subsistence activities than there is of market activities. Figure 5.4 shows that

in both communities almost all households participated in agricultural production (100%

in both villages) and fishing (100% in La Ceiba and 95% in Loma Linda). A majority

also participated in making and using crafts in the household (73% in La Ceiba and 90%

in Loma Linda) and hunting (55% in La Ceiba and 65% in Loma Linda). The least

common subsistence activity among households was raising cattle for household

consumption (18% in La Ceiba and 10% in Loma Linda).










What is notable is the divergence between the number of households in La Ceiba

that raise cattle for market (59%) and the number that produce cattle for subsistence use

(18%). In Loma Linda 15% of households produce cattle for market and 10% also

consume the meat.

In La Ceiba all the households sell (except one household that is not officially a

member of the project) and consume the fruit from the communal agroforestry project.

As mentioned earlier, in Loma Linda there is no communal fruit project.


100% 100% 100% 100% 95%
100%
90%

80% 73% craft production

S,.'.0.. o cattle ranching
o 60%
1i agriculture

4 40% o fishing
S* hunting
20% 10-.. agroforestry

0%
0% ----- ^^- -- -
La Ceiba (near) Loma Linda (far)
n = 22 n = 20
co m unity

Figure 5.4. Household participation in subsistence activities.

As far as division of labor in regards to the different activities, women participate

with men in the main subsistence activities, fishing and agriculture. Men alone are solely

involved in logging, raising cattle and pigs, hunting, communal agroforestry cleaning (in

La Ceiba), contract labor, and working for the school (except in one case). The women

raise chickens, harvest crops, take care of all reproductive activities, and do crafts. (There

is one case in Loma Linda where a male household head also does crafts.) Together,











household heads and their spouses participate in both market and subsistence livelihood

activities, which allow them to create functioning households.

The Predicament

The majority of households in Loma Linda and La Ceiba participate in most

subsistence activities and largely depend on subsistence agriculture, fishing, and hunting

as their food sources (as shown in 5.4). Nevertheless, people in both communities search

for the means to meet the changing socio-economic requirements of their families, such

as paying for food, transportation, health, and education. Some of the most common

products they report buying are oil, salt, sugar, vegetables, spices, noodles, rice, kerosene,

tuna, sardines, eggs, dried fish, cookies, popsicles, and matches. To buy these items they

sell timber, lumber, and cash crops, take on contract labor and jobs in schools, and


80%
73%
70% -

60% -
m 45%
50% -

S40% -
0
30%
30% -





-Q r
20% -

10% 5% 5% 9% 9% 5% 5% 5% 10%

0% 0%
0%






activity
La Ceiba (near) D Loma Linda (far)
n=22 n = 20
n=22 n=20


Figure 5.5. Principal income-generating activities.







78


generally do whatever they can to earn money. With the recent advent of roads and

improved access to the market, some Chachis rely less on diverse subsistence activities

and more on environmentally destructive market-oriented activities, such as logging and

cattle-ranching, to meet their needs.





50% -

41% 36% 40%
36%
40%

R 30%
o 30%
0

.- 20%
o 15%

9%


0%0% 0% 0% 0%
0%





activity
La Ceiba (near) O La Ceiba (far)
n = 22 n = 20
Figure 5.6. Principal activity.


Consistent with past studies that found that men principally earned their money

through timber extraction (Ecociencia et al., 1996; Marchan, 2001; Mcllvaine, 2000),

Figure 5.5 shows that one of the main money-generating activities in both communities is

logging. La Ceiba is much more integrated into the market via lumber/timber extraction

than Loma Linda. In La Ceiba, 73% of household heads' principle income-generating

activity is logging, compared to only 30% in Loma Linda (which is most likely due to

road access and the ease of logging and transportation). In Loma Linda, there arel5%










more household heads who earn money by working as professors.3 Of the forty-two

households in both villages interviewed about their economic situation, the main money-

generating activity for twenty-two households (or 52.4%) is logging.

Although 73% of the household heads in La Ceiba and 30% of the household heads

in Loma Linda responded that their principle income-generating activity was logging,

when asked to which activities household heads are generally dedicated, only 41% of

households in La Ceiba and 5% of households in Loma Linda listed logging first (see

Figure 5.6).

Respondents in the service industry were those in which there was the greatest

consistency between the main source of income and the activity to which the respondents

dedicate most of their time. Part of the reason for difference is some household heads in

Loma Linda just work for the schools. All teachers dedicate themselves mostly to

teaching. Note that all the remaining correlations between the main money-generating

activity and the job to which households were most dedicated fluctuate.

In each village only 5% of household heads earn their money mostly from

agriculture. Yet, 36% of household heads in La Ceiba and 40% of respondents in Loma

Linda responded that they are generally dedicated to agriculture.4 This means that in

more than a third of the households in both villages, food-generating activities still take

3 Although many people raise cattle, when they were asked to whichjob they are generally dedicated or in
which activity they make the most money, people did not respond cattle ranching. They did not respond
that they are generally dedicated to raising cattle (see Figure 2.4) because actually only a small amount of
time is spent on cattle-raising (see Table 2.1 later in the chapter). They also did not respond that cattle
ranching brings in the most income (see Figure 2.5) because raising cattle is based more on the investment
of money for times when they may be in financial need (Loker, 1993) and often does not bring immediate
or frequent returns.

4 In a workshop done with Altropico in 2000, six members of La Ceiba acted as key informants. They said
"los hombres se dedican a la agriculture y pesca, y de vez en cuando, tambien buscan oro" (the men
dedicate themselves to agriculture and fishing, and once in a while they also look for gold). Neither
panning for gold nor fishing was mentioned by anyone in either La Ceiba or Loma Linda.










about as much precedence as their main money-generating activities (except in the cases

of professors).

When asked about their biggest expenditure per month, 93% of household heads

interviewed in La Ceiba named food (see Figure 5.7 above). In Loma Linda, 84% of the





100%
93%
84%
80%


o 60%

0
40% -


20%
11%

0% 0% 0%
food household items medicine education
highest expenditure

La Ceiba (near) O Loma Linda (far)
n=14 n=19

Figure 5.7. Highest expenditure per month.

interviewees spend the majority of their money on food each month. Reasons why food

represents the greatest monthly expenditure in villages where 100% of households

practice subsistence agriculture need to be further investigated.

Figure 5.8 illustrates how household heads would spend two thousand dollars if

they won it. By looking at the diversity of choices, it is clear that peoples' needs and

wants greatly vary by village. What is interesting is that 36% of households in La Ceiba











50%


40% 36%
40%
35%


o 30%

23% 23%
S20%
20%
0
P 14%

10% 1


0%
w 0
E a) E .(
0 00%
E aw c

investment preference


La Ceiba (near) o Loma Linda (far)
n=22 n = 20

Figure 5.8. Investment preferences given a windfall profit.

said that they would first buy food and basic necessities, while only 20% of household

heads in Loma Linda said they would do the same. In Loma Linda, the most popular

choices were home improvement5 and savings. This figure reflects that given a sudden

windfall of $2000, more household heads in La Ceiba would immediately consider their

immediate needs; while in Loma Linda, more household heads would think of investment

(35% compared to 23% in La Ceiba) or of buying non-necessary articles for their homes

(40% compared to 23%). Perhaps the reason is because many houses in La Ceiba have

already been able to buy stoves and tin roofs and rebuild their houses. Regardless, the


5 Home improvement included the purchase of gas stoves, refrigerators, stereos or televisions, kitchen
supplies, and fixing the house. Loma Linda responded mostly gas stoves (3), fixing the house (2), kitchen
supplies (2), and the only refrigerator. La Ceiba answered mostly kitchen supplies (3) and one response for
each of fixing the house and purchase of a stereo.









fact that a large number of households in La Ceiba would spend prize money on basic

necessities does not correlate with responses from the next question.

It is clear that a large majority of the households participating in market activities

would spend prize money to pay largely for food. Thus, they were spending their money

earned in part from cutting wood on subsistence products they once grew or collected

themselves (as opposed to buying products that might ameliorate their lifestyles).

Household heads were, therefore, asked if they believed cutting trees improved their

quality of life. In total, twenty-six of the forty-two respondents said wood extraction did

not improve their life. In La Ceiba, more than half of the respondents (55%) thought that

wood extraction was improving their quality of life (see Figure 5.9). In La Ceiba, every

household that admitted that cutting wood improved their quality of life said that the

reason was because logging allowed them to generate money they could not earn

otherwise. By cutting wood, household heads could buy necessities for their children.

For example, one man indicated: "yes (cutting wood improves the quality of life), it

creates money for food, clothes for the children, stuff for the kitchen, all that we lack."

Another expressed: "yes, a little better. There is no other work source. There are no other

options."

One elder in La Ceiba who said that their quality of life was just slightly improving

said the following:

They have made the cultural house, bought the car, but we do not see anything else.
You only see the people buying groceries and the money goes outside the village.
The future generations are going to live badly. They are not going to have
resources. They take out artifacts like stereos and chainsaws by credit. The money
is not enough.










100%

84%

80%

55%
o 60%
S45%
o
.. 40%-

16%
20% -


0%
yes no
La Ceiba (near) o Loma Linda (far)
n=22 n=20
response

Figure 5.9. Responses to whether or not wood extraction is improving their quality of
life.

Of the twenty-two people interviewed in La Ceiba, 45% (or nine households)

mentioned their worries over the quality of life for future generations. A community

member said, "no, the quality of life is not improving. The forest is ending; cutting wood

is destroying everything." One of the professors in La Ceiba expanded on these ideas:

Cutting wood is not improving the quality of life of the community. To sell
plywood or logs is satisfying the immediate necessities. If we think of the future,
there is going to be no more wood. To improve the quality of life is to look for
associated alternative work.

In Loma Linda, only three (16%) of the twenty household heads interviewed

believed it was improving their quality of life, and 84% worried about future generations.

One of those individuals said, "Yes, cutting wood is improving the way of life; one has to

buy things for the children-food and clothes." Another Chachi from Loma Linda