<%BANNER%>

The Challenge of Cattle Ranching to Common Property: A Case Study in the Isoso, Bolivia

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101204_AAAADJ INGEST_TIME 2010-12-04T22:23:23Z PACKAGE UFE0017740_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 4900 DFID F20101204_AACEVL ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH villasenor_v_Page_046thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
6b58721eca3f3585335b0a46a794ccbf
SHA-1
d2e0c12e4152da745d78f733f190561718c53bb5
79348 F20101204_AACDSJ villasenor_v_Page_091.jpg
a411a901007def0b38a008e9a3befd05
30e4e152278caa38cc5760ef482e5b67fd409417
2014 F20101204_AACDRV villasenor_v_Page_073.txt
da58bef625a1b7e1501dc1a2f58e295d
3d6631c4a05ab8d931fdc4b4bebf5af40646bbec
6070 F20101204_AACEUX villasenor_v_Page_035thm.jpg
257628ec122a6fb09a41d1de835a83de
93c8121735675761865bcc1942c9c1c69b694613
22155 F20101204_AACEWA villasenor_v_Page_067.QC.jpg
83fea5025854c4efe698de9e4a8afbdf
1cda25b32210c2543cf28df8df18c7930ab56029
24747 F20101204_AACEVM villasenor_v_Page_048.QC.jpg
5209cf75f7f4c144065ab28298fc6db7
0fd10747bf24e91ed005a85398d6339762724523
26926 F20101204_AACDSK villasenor_v_Page_028.QC.jpg
2f3dcfd99342fb9fe92798e10aae5cc9
fda3097f5b1d474af4d28f35eea9006d9d6cc2f4
130391 F20101204_AACDRW villasenor_v_Page_114.jp2
c07a7a9f8ed14b9d8fc9f0a556f90ffd
0fbdbe43500738253e3fc70b1f02b1d692d1cffa
27924 F20101204_AACEUY villasenor_v_Page_036.QC.jpg
b2d6aea7e85c2063b1fb32ef613fe6ec
98274772d4ccd582bf2399df283eee9e93fbf6b4
5824 F20101204_AACEWB villasenor_v_Page_067thm.jpg
8182fa7b3e343a6f008b616e98221c94
1cc7828d7b695e92c5d8138bbc46ba38815c7c4b
20025 F20101204_AACEVN villasenor_v_Page_051.QC.jpg
989f5028c02d4dda96e3a18a0e12cfe6
d0c35e6d4217f24be9f48eae139c35da45954f27
98832 F20101204_AACDSL villasenor_v_Page_069.jp2
ece204654e8754dfde08778bfb60360c
c2abcea2433be92ce0abbab62f53fc2795867e35
936170 F20101204_AACDRX villasenor_v_Page_051.jp2
73bdb2f08ab413bfc7b9cfdcebe04cb5
1fd619113456da6fa7a925a5f5e1f7e8a34b4297
6525 F20101204_AACEUZ villasenor_v_Page_036thm.jpg
729046077fa64da7f225c23d0a6fd329
50aeb515e550ad3a4e6c1b7e3268bb4b3f99e85c
24936 F20101204_AACEWC villasenor_v_Page_068.QC.jpg
81778c6172d008015350c79f7426874a
f4eecd928b5be170a1e5111b645c48eaf1e09303
5617 F20101204_AACEVO villasenor_v_Page_053thm.jpg
e4aa96d0773e7473f64ded3e3a206494
6a2f806b2a7185af871e888fe0fd2771a9e050d6
2873447 F20101204_AACDTA villasenor_v.pdf
7a72efaf79b6bb3edce6a8c3afead101
b9cbdab5098884faa6d122ab90bf81ea7285e543
107149 F20101204_AACDSM villasenor_v_Page_017.jp2
732b25f47a41ed343b001c4955b644af
05712a41cdbe0df299420b010e0e4bbb206095a3
1374 F20101204_AACDRY villasenor_v_Page_043.txt
0699d3fd13c3ef75695fa6c6f66954eb
d97f6669853248128e4b2b213cec0a6a7586a39c
23241 F20101204_AACEWD villasenor_v_Page_069.QC.jpg
8b49794dc61dd4bd575f5a60f8245851
b2f9745758cfa211d1ddfdf5e86f8b861f15b21a
6451 F20101204_AACEVP villasenor_v_Page_054thm.jpg
9507ac08e743e8f719e6f5a74518e406
a8df823817152ef2373ce3505068b72d4da83845
59035 F20101204_AACDTB villasenor_v_Page_114.pro
03725508eac3df1517cc7bf3416b9b80
1a66adfc719df844a3da83db130ea0467e2a073e
74227 F20101204_AACDSN villasenor_v_Page_069.jpg
e062efe924cc50f408772c7548bf9527
81321ff55a9eb2c95a52ec8d3063acdf6bc39de9
5610 F20101204_AACEWE villasenor_v_Page_069thm.jpg
50f4fb865021a8c401ce2bfc803479db
75a278ebe85316fc78f49d5a54ece23a76951cec
23682 F20101204_AACEVQ villasenor_v_Page_056.QC.jpg
b5f6b805a4fb2de73455c5b1764485b1
3ea3041ab7f6955a977221fe68169fbb2463a1db
464 F20101204_AACDTC villasenor_v_Page_003.txt
902628ba9704f7f761aa7a80755abe55
de25e0f612cd11bf362d77fb6e047516a929291f
1053954 F20101204_AACDSO villasenor_v_Page_105.tif
fbf2570d86ab12fc4537c656f7c9ed8e
6dae60030530c6a85c3ab8f526e3b386c2d5d417
56929 F20101204_AACDRZ villasenor_v_Page_022.pro
c5442b1b02bf01b2924e46286b405fd5
3389226a8bd6ccc91fdd340eed2efe225d505dfd
26698 F20101204_AACEWF villasenor_v_Page_070.QC.jpg
85ec2cfb295ae20b6ed91f8a668955ce
1d505c54b5f0999ccf9823e9c3fb240ebae238ba
5680 F20101204_AACEVR villasenor_v_Page_056thm.jpg
de042b04d0f7704a7ee0e6174c7c8176
58b0ed3a62fbd13341c6d6522b139f244c08a1a0
25585 F20101204_AACDTD villasenor_v_Page_063.QC.jpg
af2dc23fd1f4a11e9e5c185970c47150
750090e1178fdc5ede0d98f935af725f6d3540f2
105487 F20101204_AACDSP villasenor_v_Page_074.jp2
f3bf87c0eeb8b3276147f713bb96fcb7
227d68ab637f498afb59702ceed7774fad488850
6542 F20101204_AACEWG villasenor_v_Page_071thm.jpg
6d0b416f6b61c9a74a315a6b4cd0f3d3
e3d751125c82a49d20113b20a43c52285d7628e8
15282 F20101204_AACEVS villasenor_v_Page_057.QC.jpg
80dd80b5193e8e16db983f0090eda3b0
538ac299782fd0843a418c267c95ec67984b2864
F20101204_AACDTE villasenor_v_Page_099.tif
3b68b7dcee77ebc5c65c97b85babfedb
b45c90afb408c0307093c0481e3302ca68742b62
119793 F20101204_AACDSQ villasenor_v_Page_071.jp2
3f8c89d215f8c8ea52a3bcf52edf206c
d7d178204a04393f096499cc3d3bc32f8d6beea9
26321 F20101204_AACEWH villasenor_v_Page_073.QC.jpg
f35c7c941d4dcb6c67f9f5d8ba31cbc3
d177f1fe4bce05dcd18eaa0b98e1a481d53fc6c8
4657 F20101204_AACEVT villasenor_v_Page_057thm.jpg
16ad86f3e955a1dbbb3952a9b13914ca
a01c83aff6763b6d8cebba987f585585eb657b9b
52733 F20101204_AACDTF villasenor_v_Page_078.pro
91284c8ce44ae7affa22a9091923a317
e6c42601b678d49851aa2f59ac73fd50571be1ea
F20101204_AACDSR villasenor_v_Page_061.tif
7f1c89ea486ac8486659906c49200a31
d464e077ff349699bc74174f1ba6943ac9664f01
6207 F20101204_AACEWI villasenor_v_Page_073thm.jpg
5a79c07e891f605426ab1df034c6f59b
693b148966da4b7b5083790e2aaa4c4be5ecd615
6211 F20101204_AACEVU villasenor_v_Page_058thm.jpg
367b4e7649d3881955a134cce43c36ae
028d1b6df140e21122c149df11a67d14247a0cd0
8423998 F20101204_AACDTG villasenor_v_Page_024.tif
efb372a92c637eece0f16ad742ccef25
30db00d7ae241d50bc13ba5448f217bcb1a05075
6114 F20101204_AACDSS villasenor_v_Page_030thm.jpg
3958b0e17a21dd226cc6ed46dd6343c8
6042abde1ac3a319416b0fb9e4a8f747c9887611
6097 F20101204_AACEWJ villasenor_v_Page_074thm.jpg
ddb867f003763c956e1942334869e782
21ec1e6b2aaad9e1b451daf89438fc07df517a9d
6047 F20101204_AACEVV villasenor_v_Page_059thm.jpg
67e64ac858bc905bad2886e611677f0b
9992b43576a7416fd26b6dc15531fff2f7ee1a13
48050 F20101204_AACDTH villasenor_v_Page_074.pro
62a21e1b042145154076fb6095eeddf0
141c3579edf33ac3eee6b248a9e6c55e4af5f052
F20101204_AACDST villasenor_v_Page_062.tif
2bbfb5a79352b1b15c39dddd4e0a71cd
caf90107c137f8fb9dbc397f7813ae5655528137
23238 F20101204_AACEWK villasenor_v_Page_075.QC.jpg
7b0c4f30e8ff0ce2e3fe848cc879a75a
bacfb6d5d649ad0f7ea82b44a7e3f8299a69177e
23152 F20101204_AACEVW villasenor_v_Page_060.QC.jpg
7e6d59bd0f06d64db2b6209675c01ce8
ec7b96432d31ffa1ef98a72501f05a89e18d8e8a
1664 F20101204_AACDTI villasenor_v_Page_062.txt
b7ec6ce77c73d5d99a5cf196b22a17df
abe8380f0703e00ee0d19d3d0f879f9b392ad733
109625 F20101204_AACDSU villasenor_v_Page_106.jp2
4d5cecc3b2a857abc567f75748d3f1ff
05b63fbff9a8a37fc79865d36af2bee9dbd5c006
24958 F20101204_AACEWL villasenor_v_Page_076.QC.jpg
e00c9316d155854a2e9142bbe5abf0c1
1d2dcd1b812b88068add7f40d44f59d1db2446c6
3799 F20101204_AACEVX villasenor_v_Page_064thm.jpg
03b8214bb360c441f1ea4419b0ae82b3
bd0db926b8232a16089b4221fb77979a4a4c0bcd
87555 F20101204_AACDTJ villasenor_v_Page_078.jpg
ab68dfeb11db861f264235dfbee8010f
07cde3dad0e3130d26bffd09954f160c97b93630
F20101204_AACDSV villasenor_v_Page_054.tif
976ab8e155186aaa4a72fef179bbedf3
04df4fc4c42ad3ffead1c9693536cd2224959b96
6056 F20101204_AACEXA villasenor_v_Page_088thm.jpg
26f3e7bba9fbf155ec2a3e70977801f8
982bd41aca3c03f5bfbf1d1c966f25c491cb26f8
5767 F20101204_AACEWM villasenor_v_Page_076thm.jpg
119bca7bc2eb8d71e842e60822feba4b
03abb1266182fb16721e03f292e52e1428a1b400
5883 F20101204_AACEVY villasenor_v_Page_065thm.jpg
543a544a9cb33d02f8537b786e5be058
47df2b8c5dc4e4ad9a6cae0a99f56949885ab0ac
15563 F20101204_AACDTK villasenor_v_Page_057.pro
8f125f7e29da8e59ca6953cffb64fd70
0cf7645b6fb0556a6a97580d8e0dfa96739143bd
45653 F20101204_AACDSW villasenor_v_Page_045.pro
21f3f149ecc61ac9295a5d8ab33afb27
41d65e044766f1a5979886e9040e8db2b7a0cd89
23753 F20101204_AACEXB villasenor_v_Page_090.QC.jpg
84d6eb7bffdb98f007b09fce4d28af3a
3c31b3bcb5198d5bbc6f0c53b52de15f4b52f0cb
27766 F20101204_AACEWN villasenor_v_Page_077.QC.jpg
392d4c78dcd791be45444db317099c0f
63ba58efc193857662a520aedda0fb0ddd729ece
23404 F20101204_AACEVZ villasenor_v_Page_066.QC.jpg
d9268b492df060b0f441f6a30b4ccd05
5ec50796e5432b6728bad2402ce9aa35fd850ebd
77079 F20101204_AACDTL villasenor_v_Page_109.jpg
f3a761ca1fe50491f7b5f4aa0071ebbc
4be668c95045cbbaa07282f71876787f8123e85b
101522 F20101204_AACDSX villasenor_v_Page_100.jp2
03f0f80c164a1cebcbb7096f751d30e3
ced6aaba1c20751d9adb5c3a8f4d36c90576922c
25478 F20101204_AACEXC villasenor_v_Page_091.QC.jpg
e9f8f15f451832817a93cd4fcc64ac2c
3f22bdca7534b79ec25bf2cc177829728398639d
6344 F20101204_AACEWO villasenor_v_Page_077thm.jpg
1d89201aa8a934a204b40dc4dc3b4f26
3682d1a85d06725bfc94c4277edb9363731a3e59
78686 F20101204_AACDTM villasenor_v_Page_098.jpg
36a6a0046acfda559c78bfab82f404b4
4af92acdbe5066774c1274e1dc4a9fc02bda40ea
1803 F20101204_AACDSY villasenor_v_Page_008.txt
200309aa7eff18702a1397fa282e3c94
f0fadd3879df59850ba38fb8943cdb2e4cfd982a
55161 F20101204_AACDUA villasenor_v_Page_122.jpg
f7caf84c40538a21eabf51103d7d93fc
43a4afe81711ac7a293f6b177ed8217dca6807a0
F20101204_AACEXD villasenor_v_Page_091thm.jpg
39e030eb05e16a57c292615fc52e631a
cbe4143d0ab91efe1d6bbadf319a99ce9d787841
26725 F20101204_AACEWP villasenor_v_Page_078.QC.jpg
25395f53cfb3cffe9f60734c7255c9be
08ca6d6a39fa6524a4bedb947ada7005ccf74e7a
118 F20101204_AACDTN villasenor_v_Page_002.txt
5d3d61196b8c90433e2293cc714a3bb8
0f5971d7001cad347209cd76450e99fe1de5bb6c
25658 F20101204_AACDSZ villasenor_v_Page_088.QC.jpg
a2524ed6d07b0cddd2125d75a992015a
f4165e21bf15966013e7831fcd03f9116b2c7cd9
91114 F20101204_AACDUB villasenor_v_Page_039.jpg
1fdb2b23a5eb1a2210b493b219c3f1cd
92a0bf53b06ab5807ab5dc8e7fa8887964668f2a
2157 F20101204_AACEXE villasenor_v_Page_093thm.jpg
6e1e1b4e02477fb5b5306a498f1f9740
5ba841099dd809e9df1b3b83b9354d6002e3d7a7
6258 F20101204_AACEWQ villasenor_v_Page_080thm.jpg
590788ea6f05a493d9f3d0cd23e5b98f
5e9f03baef339a6fd52519d81918f83d5d0104f9
52427 F20101204_AACDTO villasenor_v_Page_036.pro
7cc8b45f0040eb46f486b26053037bd0
f3503834baa3b7d068812dc14b94054d72d740e5
1979 F20101204_AACDUC villasenor_v_Page_048.txt
739e778ffca8bfb93c12d26667dd1027
41cccb57f0f0ee3cf9c2cbf8499c333a43e6bcea
21679 F20101204_AACEXF villasenor_v_Page_095.QC.jpg
f45c6c0ebe86212865b252b500357aaf
5006a909d7ac3c49f06912843f26efe5b848dacf
F20101204_AACEWR villasenor_v_Page_081thm.jpg
a09d8de32ec8c0abfac0ebfc3cf0de3c
7c87a345204c2e5509fe6e0e6e812cb4ab0e468c
74067 F20101204_AACDTP villasenor_v_Page_060.jpg
8240fff94dc465fa5670248644362d2f
4c4da2b4bd5135507ac6fa61f8da5d0e7ad0d940
55868 F20101204_AACDUD villasenor_v_Page_112.pro
a51be6fafb3fb30268597999fef8a31e
9a5eb5313ba442f9e831923464c34e11f09fbfda
24060 F20101204_AACEXG villasenor_v_Page_098.QC.jpg
2f1d8da7a7bcabae0008c18df2b71334
7b0db63ff0247d87b05ac967e110fed5943925fc
23224 F20101204_AACEWS villasenor_v_Page_082.QC.jpg
e222faab0f091cb475ff86b8f8f20eb2
e9523d48ccbeefa8f12e564f61c2d0b96abdd729
109086 F20101204_AACDTQ villasenor_v_Page_105.jp2
37cb5eae68d7a65ec4d53d03a09bf161
e4f8611d08a2ba1cd09fa4192ad5f9c55158f6b5
831 F20101204_AACDUE villasenor_v_Page_007thm.jpg
1bd5c1a03bd0e8293fe01939cf037924
f7b4a07af55b4e9fd66abe34385518131c30979f
26287 F20101204_AACEXH villasenor_v_Page_099.QC.jpg
8499f3d6aaa7a4350fe2d4fd594b4894
c54442cbdf1759c7c383f72ea573ec2ef1997850
6039 F20101204_AACEWT villasenor_v_Page_082thm.jpg
08e67ec4bf553b045ad105523d69fa40
613cf78b8ff76ed28eab273799d0613e386d5761
69769 F20101204_AACDTR villasenor_v_Page_020.jpg
0b9e464b45ae37c07547faad1d11720c
32b48d0b4f4860465e203774384f912f7ad7e2a7
66561 F20101204_AACEAA villasenor_v_Page_008.jpg
55402159d32b01e806dbeccddbda1f9e
a6dc610e44725f4cca915addf78d641731ba56cf
47833 F20101204_AACDUF villasenor_v_Page_067.pro
b9a554571bbeca5c2ee8ae1b0d1c0f55
41ead357709ff36a28b88e38fea9c6e794e8213c
23708 F20101204_AACEXI villasenor_v_Page_100.QC.jpg
7b15ec22fbbf2cc54726a6336a7c6a59
632e824efaa599e2d95c4cc152fe479d31c8bfe9
5796 F20101204_AACEWU villasenor_v_Page_083thm.jpg
6713e509b6e828361ac3bc4b802ffe7f
ce8705368e445cff3f00f9d881f1d2a630be12f6
70598 F20101204_AACDTS villasenor_v_Page_084.jpg
c603e747a1b87e282bc047b34afd8350
83e8ce6aa6ebf184a97e98281c42b4be2bd70dbd
1051950 F20101204_AACEAB villasenor_v_Page_115.jp2
f7ed927decf0a0364a97e0e15e2455f0
334bf3535f33833902b4881dcce243677ce67499
25271604 F20101204_AACDUG villasenor_v_Page_029.tif
33c54435fd758fae43803e52c614077a
00ec633c44300691810b8e356f4b556938d242d7
5051 F20101204_AACEXJ villasenor_v_Page_101thm.jpg
d123cca1034acb67b301533aa9e4ed1a
892b42d3266ca420849c987c45c98e6a5e566e59
5320 F20101204_AACEWV villasenor_v_Page_084thm.jpg
616685cca97ad53de09409260ecd2b10
8c32203d3c4fb19d4b5a72e3e205e0f51db19f3b
91420 F20101204_AACDTT villasenor_v_Page_110.jpg
d7350b347987dc94dc868398875c32a0
0cd5157032b377f1e5e709f06b4f645223d2bc00
24298 F20101204_AACEAC villasenor_v_Page_049.QC.jpg
5a9098adf377727650f104288aa9ee2d
67e9d7a0bf9c1883a95db2d4299b18a0fa6d1e1d
58312 F20101204_AACDUH villasenor_v_Page_046.jpg
2d06bbc68dbd1c8e94afab0751180739
207c4a0660c25c181373e3f407228003ea9101dd
5568 F20101204_AACEXK villasenor_v_Page_102thm.jpg
3e08cfbb9023ee8b3927d3590cf1188b
193a54964c48519a3dce3025b33262cbb57c933e
26385 F20101204_AACEWW villasenor_v_Page_085.QC.jpg
f8582449e9979d22a089e0f2034d6045
8c609c7210d3cc195da9680593def55622fac3c2
16659 F20101204_AACDTU villasenor_v_Page_004.QC.jpg
66b6c715d4a1b9dc2afc7fa8f59e809f
37d0d104991f8fa4f0afe41851e0ad586fd304e4
45704 F20101204_AACEAD villasenor_v_Page_053.pro
c76f78d0b29e00c1dbe523920a22297f
480b2d967acb357fb0b9d28cfce99bf1877c7151
86595 F20101204_AACDUI villasenor_v_Page_080.jpg
a2c5906714d3b6eb8b125c4de1b74ebf
aa5f1089f0d36a7132ae7f62901dfe8b8c4b1057
22421 F20101204_AACEXL villasenor_v_Page_103.QC.jpg
82d9dc8d03e95b0ad9f90c750018c711
6a73033c52d3a2dec94a84e2becb4c81647600f1
6359 F20101204_AACEWX villasenor_v_Page_085thm.jpg
afa9558a75bfca0fd37da303cc6d5c60
327a39b6079a633b9a91c7f0f529337d233893c2
F20101204_AACDTV villasenor_v_Page_056.tif
15de62fbe48136f1ae4838e2439f360d
d6762d4a2fb4b75c1ee73bef6c69abd3c4010b6a
F20101204_AACEAE villasenor_v_Page_007.tif
bf5fee33fbc4f8c926a601cde5f38aee
843dc0bef15708a67b3e0557294b48882aa360ab
49071 F20101204_AACDUJ villasenor_v_Page_025.pro
64e9829acf9c580a4e2f81ca490ff1a7
21dbc0f87e3e2e84ea00a0b2484add1e6fc868bc
28362 F20101204_AACEYA villasenor_v_Page_119.QC.jpg
a4fd95c820ee3ad461c7d3eb455cf960
79b16f0a31012e8524c4e54dc0f7c41a4283d42e
6027 F20101204_AACEXM villasenor_v_Page_104thm.jpg
922699b17303bbf1e21ade35743a415d
d20e77e52224fa690994b4b3f7aed33c4c62ee55
6470 F20101204_AACEWY villasenor_v_Page_086thm.jpg
303c35b797e3cff6b8bd408f072064b7
b64960a3d091f662597eb9b09e44efbb92b2f78c
2420 F20101204_AACDTW villasenor_v_Page_028.txt
eb6ebe479b51b6d750ae080fec328c33
67e525c57e2fca653ab289be0b3f7358a91f78b5
22291 F20101204_AACEAF villasenor_v_Page_053.QC.jpg
b3cb08e1eb7841d7728a15c64fc383d9
3c17b496204709aaf39c5c173822c6c5f020c9ce
29218 F20101204_AACDUK villasenor_v_Page_004.pro
2cc9fd20c513b947c9cc59f78ec1874f
24d28a19fd839560882ec12d4ac9187277176148
6937 F20101204_AACEYB villasenor_v_Page_119thm.jpg
1ebc1afe3d8915db7fa73619d8332c8c
23946672c8191f624fbd38b7acaeb2aa97f41cf3
25316 F20101204_AACEXN villasenor_v_Page_105.QC.jpg
02335eaee18699f99f773b12ee2f97bf
2b94b5f7d04fc3d1895ef3e36632112c608f35ef
6227 F20101204_AACEWZ villasenor_v_Page_087thm.jpg
3296120ef015ac5f0f6c902dcdd2b3f2
44ae07496a2b045a8a065399eb73a9399a6f427d
24601 F20101204_AACDTX villasenor_v_Page_030.QC.jpg
6dddc91e11b2233765f7ef0d434a4611
46cba4c6b97e8a8892d8f84d6af0c12193c141a5
F20101204_AACEAG villasenor_v_Page_108.tif
fd84eb380b8ee58c6fd095c4d1b32edb
8d7ab9178daa91ed13d06f21cf2d0bd36a20ccca
5600 F20101204_AACDUL villasenor_v_Page_075thm.jpg
da6a7a8c6aaec0b0c59243f1f28d648b
c0a7b774c11c592621855953d97f4c2a69bca1a2
28908 F20101204_AACEYC villasenor_v_Page_120.QC.jpg
36944f462087385ee9284f95ca834327
d9ec4669397575dfcb1fae9605e36bff1aa288f7
6178 F20101204_AACEXO villasenor_v_Page_106thm.jpg
d8ce3b735e5d715c18a845d4f82dcacd
b4d05afe37dd3c2bf78c4def38a3ebe807ae1653
105131 F20101204_AACDTY villasenor_v_Page_030.jp2
348cf3dea713c5695ab413481d3c9679
6db7a674aef9f7ba34b88c8fe909525bcbe5b2bb
71404 F20101204_AACDVA villasenor_v_Page_103.jpg
4d3ceb14a13f42ccdf12154bcba3f308
eaaa6f3d544385992ce1ee39efc1d4976c95c950
50926 F20101204_AACDUM villasenor_v_Page_105.pro
fdb3567c60faf5137fa961741f0d1647
cbcd659b98df9b38a5c6a63d2479f1c95a7ad924
11999 F20101204_AACEYD villasenor_v_Page_121.QC.jpg
583793a5dd07af674138f4a113d75249
ab0e3e2ad698f251e835cae2f23c3f7da62c7644
21624 F20101204_AACEXP villasenor_v_Page_109.QC.jpg
9bc70bbde3424bfd385062b4aa29abec
06d725e293def0c1089d6c5109017f5862dc0d90
67937 F20101204_AACDTZ villasenor_v_Page_004.jp2
05fbf9756cc372b3c9a171df2f5fcad8
05bb9def51e3b393c573e079de7f1af4560d86a2
19414 F20101204_AACEAH villasenor_v_Page_005.QC.jpg
4b657908a406006f3cdf2cb23226457d
4bf77098005edfe20e07e141a7c18424be1da929
6894 F20101204_AACDVB villasenor_v_Page_007.jpg
c59608bf2e6b29362c57b7924ba9c76e
08c77b09c858f235a717efd814624aee9f8f179e
99269 F20101204_AACDUN villasenor_v_Page_045.jp2
581a99e8786df443117a891f85eb2361
9e915ebc25e6bdd77749a714d74bfc429595bd44
5045 F20101204_AACEXQ villasenor_v_Page_109thm.jpg
b7b5b7940dab383d8e18cc4977aa6442
f7ebd1394a8a5eaddc7f2ab95fa678f67269ee43
102598 F20101204_AACEAI villasenor_v_Page_049.jp2
c495c227d71230c6ab2c52f20bcfb3a6
4eaea943ba86f63a423365d65594a8c4f4e01433
F20101204_AACDVC villasenor_v_Page_070.tif
fc8aa0bef21c9ca7e269b87b87742653
c956470f5477f98e9fb9ca2872410b2bb2eaa9be
23655 F20101204_AACDUO villasenor_v_Page_097.QC.jpg
2f61657670665081d8dc4715b79261bf
24d29179b3cbf31cd9de0ecbea8314c1606219dc
23957 F20101204_AACEXR villasenor_v_Page_112.QC.jpg
0d90ffc03df083c8d477bb5bce5244a1
ae2553a1e901602692ca41c56d03e939f827ec27
1921 F20101204_AACEAJ villasenor_v_Page_088.txt
04e572bdd2706b08919694db244601b7
9bc36704384a0a489f64be17438cf86fce30d895
1918 F20101204_AACDVD villasenor_v_Page_016.txt
390b7bf510c28c6ec33b3cfb02474fc6
c3c016529b80b1d548af5e407979ee8acf2bdae0
5448 F20101204_AACDUP villasenor_v_Page_108.pro
b31af96756436c5cb6f58a21e591ecc1
6893f0f8b0036ea3f4067f281f98ce44c3a4b036
5876 F20101204_AACEXS villasenor_v_Page_112thm.jpg
2592259570c8c4662456867ae43a504b
3c3a6d9592271c9c1c4dbb036dab35b28982ccd2
F20101204_AACEAK villasenor_v_Page_027.tif
e526ca2a1081e0248f640e9f8cbea56f
9d3c57435e3f991fc8683dd4ff234c3b7be7dc10
39579 F20101204_AACDVE villasenor_v_Page_018.jpg
54ca536ae56522e28130fd6cf9603598
d417ac30a3969b3dad5cafe69f0889bcd98ae244
106374 F20101204_AACDUQ villasenor_v_Page_076.jp2
b4b6072040b71b73bea57739bc242c8e
f307bc187509f57a4671c98e491401059f6b8b6a
27365 F20101204_AACEXT villasenor_v_Page_113.QC.jpg
f1ff113d2b65478d5f15ccd77d5c661a
b5e1f777d79bd5afa48ddf0736e36e17d4305fc2
5702 F20101204_AACEAL villasenor_v_Page_033thm.jpg
607eee97f0785fad63f7cb08fce32f88
f16806e2ffa0d00891382ca6ee7f05dae1a38d35
52337 F20101204_AACDVF villasenor_v_Page_004.jpg
faa2f9878ab84e6f1bab19ec67cd0061
de844686eb95945f0aced36d1cafed3498213b29
1840 F20101204_AACDUR villasenor_v_Page_069.txt
eac9615ae06a8deab03744d03ed1b0a8
cec5a080fb1471fc0aa5728d60b08e143c64a4bd
5479 F20101204_AACEBA villasenor_v_Page_043thm.jpg
c020aeccb357e1bcc8305cb8cc869eaa
5a63ee78efd60154644c00b4c88515362044a692
6483 F20101204_AACEXU villasenor_v_Page_113thm.jpg
e20635a8978c71b89382a79e124b84d1
15c9274d983f60cdbc7531371b773f09acf587aa
49391 F20101204_AACEAM villasenor_v_Page_087.pro
986a1fbfc9b83727b46ee39c5e51b804
0882147e4ab3272513feba35d013faaf25741853
F20101204_AACDVG villasenor_v_Page_058.tif
ee713bc90502ca9e205c91cd566a2d11
f92665a77c4a3d3622de7660e694f3cd032d5697
1902 F20101204_AACDUS villasenor_v_Page_094.txt
8e62038193e5231c788fbf82928b13bc
318ead8f70e272915ce99b4c0dc20b774b40e17c
50421 F20101204_AACEBB villasenor_v_Page_063.pro
f966962754da50f803f45260bbb90ab7
8d8d3b057b61abb397007d21533d4a2bde39488a
27181 F20101204_AACEXV villasenor_v_Page_114.QC.jpg
2943770d76d2db7c8b22c8e497a41628
5aabfb6434de7d61b15be9d164d7d397417624df
50387 F20101204_AACEAN villasenor_v_Page_099.pro
a70fe166b7064c486b5c2dbde0859121
e59827daf331ad3b5fa6e592a59c4eb940b067a2
24413 F20101204_AACDVH villasenor_v_Page_065.QC.jpg
4833f390b9b7898296bef44af227ed33
9f32b5bc8525f64a6f04abe1ac4cb8abc54785f8
48686 F20101204_AACDUT villasenor_v_Page_032.pro
27af9e170df478286f4c7227d4f851d1
9ad27915943913b45f4ba7a41c14a62007673972
1981 F20101204_AACEBC villasenor_v_Page_068.txt
658b442d22c958ed63663e22e1c76e55
aae7cc475d3aa9f04fbcde2da98fc48683a24a6f
6519 F20101204_AACEXW villasenor_v_Page_114thm.jpg
da18a308cfa77fdb49b68a1367380119
cfb6db78c361d9535845fcddb9d9dac74917cc78
1051980 F20101204_AACEAO villasenor_v_Page_006.jp2
5b2636d6225357173ad54d27a074428c
2c968c280ce0c9b1dc21da1a9277749aa93db71c
23128 F20101204_AACDVI villasenor_v_Page_011.QC.jpg
b70e8bd531e2c36bb10feebf401e4f6b
35fe824c38745ed907c919c958dad917ca108526
6635 F20101204_AACDUU villasenor_v_Page_044thm.jpg
c6fddae55ec8136ec196056aa2b0902b
183f6b1f60b12b16efa5837f21864ee6e8af7ebd
84375 F20101204_AACEBD villasenor_v_Page_085.jpg
0e4398c85bfc3d9aec9606b3a70c3256
e66714a16fee2c65177100808bbb5c5818ee9d39
6764 F20101204_AACEXX villasenor_v_Page_116thm.jpg
c4ccebd8f49b8fb4210a86e79085c49b
422d9b5e2b722beb4b36ee770a9b00f5c24649e2
21445 F20101204_AACEAP villasenor_v_Page_084.QC.jpg
952698a1cae994701b425fd283d55d47
fa972e6fac7940a2ab93ebd87050377d298fe412
105813 F20101204_AACDVJ villasenor_v_Page_016.jp2
e11976d7eb17e3502fc3f1fcae254227
4521d7e2b87564ed1d64d2bfb59b2d703a9ad2de
1919 F20101204_AACDUV villasenor_v_Page_049.txt
483ed90367518f75aca7955d2d64277e
38a19ff603a5e0fdc8f8e2e973e097296833474b
6288 F20101204_AACEBE villasenor_v_Page_078thm.jpg
03f3a7416434413913c9f625fee44ea4
002db32b9bed7f5640e1575d520e303ce30aec0a
F20101204_AACEXY villasenor_v_Page_117thm.jpg
436daffe302288e0b01ebd73f8c966dd
59fdcbb32dab0856af54a6605585b48ea748ff01
6050 F20101204_AACEAQ villasenor_v_Page_072thm.jpg
bca33ca4eeb96708346a8703ba831597
25c00af8c60d7bf8e85986e2d38a45c0ef497ba3
62766 F20101204_AACDVK villasenor_v_Page_055.pro
61eaf012d568e95b653f931192fb7a3a
56b1c72caaf5045efbe4d51ba97f21de9754c2ed
53339 F20101204_AACDUW villasenor_v_Page_077.pro
74f35002e34f656c9169eacd84ed6426
4845b223c21770688fe8372cea861e01ba669610
F20101204_AACEBF villasenor_v_Page_038.tif
516d4b139a679d287b9f44c13072ca5e
177d29da08f8cdde84e139f3d0b5210db78a9d15
28660 F20101204_AACEXZ villasenor_v_Page_118.QC.jpg
4ec270088425f8d34b0047a11828df13
efa56ed6e8a6064386e521ee4e27b4b87f7ecc16
1051932 F20101204_AACEAR villasenor_v_Page_082.jp2
11b2783fb26bce0d11cd81647e8024fa
8e58c25dff4abc8cf73c6b2f2753835d3318b17a
1949 F20101204_AACDVL villasenor_v_Page_014.txt
001d8cdeed0c8a4f1f7cd9dc83c94165
bcc99f165cd3aec273f0cc3b1b05fd78c43ee6ee
6854 F20101204_AACDUX villasenor_v_Page_118thm.jpg
bbb8ed601abd953d3ca89136bef24927
a596851ecff8498c36631a3db6da303e466dc5ca
5575 F20101204_AACEBG villasenor_v_Page_107thm.jpg
82f7caf9a222538c16aa323c6b4e8dcd
0756e9804b9de655d1fe62be2d59fb9dea3ab332
105347 F20101204_AACDWA villasenor_v_Page_034.jp2
3403a055899222fe6e4a0ea0d7316903
1c5389bb46cf1dfa00be6e027eb4580e6cfb63fd
F20101204_AACEAS villasenor_v_Page_049.tif
82cdeb0db43d53d33f7852a1614e3269
e68a8c177a7be137aad971e992c185ccd1a3f4c7
1051933 F20101204_AACDVM villasenor_v_Page_117.jp2
a331fbe1bcbb542f192580e45abe8792
f930a2a8e774ab86ea02686168e67b1413789b6f
104808 F20101204_AACDUY villasenor_v_Page_068.jp2
b1cc035e6bd1cc307c6f5a3cd7be0873
2dfb8e0c219f68feb76c030d5f32b877ab955b7b
1468 F20101204_AACEBH villasenor_v_Page_095.txt
9331fef0fc5825f0cace9f6c324be428
f9d7ecf6824ec2f1f19aba4690a611aecf6e4a54
81358 F20101204_AACDWB villasenor_v_Page_034.jpg
6e2d030cacd7dabe09714d408ce4aad6
3dc37294061efd508b1af7b33cc76a843cc55892
5044 F20101204_AACEAT villasenor_v_Page_003.QC.jpg
15d08075b9993da194b8d668985e01d9
8f67f730694275f22e20da05fe412903276c1e9f
6041 F20101204_AACDVN villasenor_v_Page_052thm.jpg
c634236643c43ad78081bc1b6173a942
75e38c492ca09de8d9e7c10301ddc16d35eefbde
28561 F20101204_AACDUZ villasenor_v_Page_116.QC.jpg
2deb61a9f89ac229e72f282dc800544b
4e179957279b4cee1a212ccb3df4281ef5eee502
47491 F20101204_AACDWC villasenor_v_Page_094.pro
1976c85e06b8207c319ad5bb0cbf0117
438b5e84f5a7bc7b046ae2e36c44eb0bcae431cc
2006 F20101204_AACEAU villasenor_v_Page_035.txt
dea976cd6f347584ce4ce74c39432e32
a77ab6fc92b26f1c3a109451d706e6c115fafb2a
15096 F20101204_AACDVO villasenor_v_Page_064.QC.jpg
60560fe1b49061868c06f588d7bdd2b0
47e44c2b9f9a36036dcacf78fcbdbb3d03a9d43d
80081 F20101204_AACEBI villasenor_v_Page_094.jpg
abc6accba74bbdd165b0c4df23a8ee7b
a8543b9d0270b3905b19bdae2ff1472107fdfee6
F20101204_AACDWD villasenor_v_Page_014.tif
e8a49d2eaab2f3425f13e0402052e096
1f4663eb6bb17a08c1d84f6e71fc5faac4258d58
44655 F20101204_AACEAV villasenor_v_Page_121.jpg
7326aca06deffe856be6e4f870084784
3540370d547ee9e1c264c993ea9c2b523a067638
F20101204_AACDVP villasenor_v_Page_006.tif
1c72bbbd521b26cec1774980d21af0ef
69e6a3bef514948225914316414be30677489b9c
80114 F20101204_AACEBJ villasenor_v_Page_030.jpg
8b7716781ca268a4cb152c18c91f6ef3
9c64730a8a2a589b13e55cf80066e9e258dcd871
1051969 F20101204_AACDWE villasenor_v_Page_009.jp2
2b56ca2550c7185d047b8b864e011894
3eeae2a78d63ac1661562238ad04fdd21acb97c0
56314 F20101204_AACEAW villasenor_v_Page_071.pro
4a9ecdf52ca93f2b9c0535172301b0e2
b40f80b7dc58950dbb3f9a5682e574019fb71041
2119 F20101204_AACDVQ villasenor_v_Page_027.txt
b4c75a8bb85cbef4ccabfe6b4adde7cd
21035ebb9c0c8ae05044a46667b31983ca2d49ca
4574 F20101204_AACEBK villasenor_v_Page_005thm.jpg
358fbf0efa80e151c4f2ba6dc2054abb
6dcbbf079052d24f127e263878ff221651d5600c
1807 F20101204_AACEAX villasenor_v_Page_107.txt
c94372343e6fcc5c0f8f1232de014cff
acc1c744f8883176accad707d03ab84cb2fa8732
4419 F20101204_AACDVR villasenor_v_Page_122thm.jpg
193a16808707d9a9e67b76fbd7ae66f6
fd1f3df473d5fed6f4701b165aa32eec512fc243
1896 F20101204_AACECA villasenor_v_Page_052.txt
09bcb4ce928ee3ca6cb8f8c7274e6acb
e59138b894f1461fa7c812062811ebcaacb9be4f
82798 F20101204_AACEBL villasenor_v_Page_106.jpg
0328d1b51e2ed3fed3316946c98696d4
88b8f466b6f7a545c34bd019008af5e94772bb03
20107 F20101204_AACDWF villasenor_v_Page_003.jpg
29bf8dba3fe4d02eb0b4cc8fa83efa59
d0e0a7bd609d3cd843a26a145a9efb7f00f22fa4
111435 F20101204_AACEAY villasenor_v_Page_073.jp2
69baf4c465b85edbbf0f0eec1e59a5dd
3267f79a600954b6fa42955586fb37fcef01422d
49859 F20101204_AACDVS villasenor_v_Page_047.pro
d51df19a9bc8a3a88d1f91ff0352e55b
71b4e146be45d2e106efa332f9dde27a1fb88f5f
50869 F20101204_AACECB villasenor_v_Page_035.pro
cbe655342da04a414870020e846bf6ed
ceaace2d72f90643fcad60626247f098f522070d
48455 F20101204_AACEBM villasenor_v_Page_058.pro
922f13d8ff93a502a53318ca804a32a0
874440deb6f2f8079a2e5748ed7634f890559e10
63045 F20101204_AACDWG villasenor_v_Page_115.pro
0ad3ecc9bbb5ac6f2baac15de32ca233
9573e91d0c936aa396ab7ab035054246ce95ccbc
F20101204_AACEAZ villasenor_v_Page_039.tif
84daef66e4acc37e32d2c13c27c4e969
9da8de1fdd59d83ca323fc04db2e788b5b5cae96
1051899 F20101204_AACDVT villasenor_v_Page_020.jp2
c88efbc8892fbab7435a2ed65c4598f7
624ae999f7727dc14a2ddde03c9a21ddf8dbb460
F20101204_AACECC villasenor_v_Page_015.tif
aca6bc03e1080fc2d5ee323c1d238169
4060ee46907ace02d5e2f75d962ac1ae8bef37d0
F20101204_AACEBN villasenor_v_Page_094thm.jpg
5cb460588eb0c91ac0c71951e4e03db1
37cd8332724b7ed787c2e31128d03b340a6c0c28
F20101204_AACDWH villasenor_v_Page_066.tif
d575aa6ca5262f2df71d512798ce45e9
a3bab1d1d8e594344666ef2ac93f63242fb4469b
74158 F20101204_AACDVU villasenor_v_Page_045.jpg
5303c1f5b4ccf794b630eec86e97f80e
1138be0279fed4058c1b53004aff9249313737ca
22440 F20101204_AACECD villasenor_v_Page_093.jpg
47e076b73d71409c5e07a196e38b0a38
873700c6e9e87386a290d6e1f77e00d436ed7854
80599 F20101204_AACEBO villasenor_v_Page_068.jpg
876427b9b93c44dac3da9346d4248375
820e46ef4d1224cdd55d7f2d2ff981263247125a
85073 F20101204_AACDWI villasenor_v_Page_073.jpg
5d6e13dc75065c52740409b402b1a52c
1be6922c64e05e4400f5a912523f6f7cf7a27816
F20101204_AACDVV villasenor_v_Page_051.tif
35ca9df16c71f750159db0ec0d8026ff
7095f21ed6f2618708a19bb77360ded2f9fb97c5
98681 F20101204_AACECE villasenor_v_Page_102.jp2
9b4357fcd8a1605e4501d134a533e16f
bde7bb2b60231a9fecefc5cb31c1e2f79293d4f0
27722 F20101204_AACEBP villasenor_v_Page_071.QC.jpg
161fda0fb46ad5fab24ab2d346010e72
5e770d5f43e6f4a4fb1c5d5e75f4bcfe48eb62e0
114921 F20101204_AACDWJ villasenor_v_Page_036.jp2
35b3385dff92907a8b72c95558e7fb58
93fbb2be450f104a8aa8d981ab6a1599404cafe8
6051 F20101204_AACDVW villasenor_v_Page_016thm.jpg
03f9b152ea8b7e2ffd00466764cc9c79
56ebe0b5e216c7ddcc4a651a57aba26b1e867779
5928 F20101204_AACECF villasenor_v_Page_110thm.jpg
f056982f6229c1b0d39bc3225d1a87e9
bf2d9dff5b14c47c607cbbe69c128c7273429dce
6872 F20101204_AACEBQ villasenor_v_Page_120thm.jpg
588ecc2193204144300f996fd0a41811
7b320d3fc9c99bc2cd78a53abcf43e8b7a67e283
2755 F20101204_AACDWK villasenor_v_Page_024.txt
99bca98052e9811e94626d3d168220b0
efdb7d470862f39c2d717b8e2804a3d80c67b2d6
49477 F20101204_AACDVX villasenor_v_Page_017.pro
806f28ec8e5c9e6916ed78508ececac2
64764edfe03e6440545ec53c245fcd40e9164b81
81574 F20101204_AACECG villasenor_v_Page_017.jpg
b11d8a090440140f66fcdf5edd1a8d82
39e3eade711eebca2c7811103c2047e99aba23c8
93092 F20101204_AACEBR villasenor_v_Page_055.jpg
c36e2366ef1b0686d8eec2f4bceb7aab
0fc41b7c22eb6ae35ba51bdd828db344ce7eb945
82011 F20101204_AACDWL villasenor_v_Page_025.jpg
3951369f9351ce75a4c9291fb350197f
88d01d066af1215e2f18716f829b1b0dcfdbcb85
22497 F20101204_AACDVY villasenor_v_Page_018.pro
24c05d56921d50c6b2b8ed0a24939bea
51fb98c60a7a58066a84ca394b974eb672030d67
1609 F20101204_AACECH villasenor_v_Page_101.txt
89f078f1fd6909a7c307a5058287de75
dd8a063208e1561e31e3299010b8e1fe4e9c815d
42645 F20101204_AACDXA villasenor_v_Page_084.pro
dd239723fd90d215d839715f141971e1
7531d1a56c0b293af923feee7265da35b100a67e
1956 F20101204_AACEBS villasenor_v_Page_017.txt
6120fe4b50ad13aec2d36e22c3f593a1
c9b6cb5699c01fbbf5224bdb330a35d7bc6b5084
6086 F20101204_AACDWM villasenor_v_Page_068thm.jpg
f5a0f62928e7749e3bba19d089bfc815
62bffd64db93b669433fc830b4ed3d2d47f33c9c
80545 F20101204_AACDVZ villasenor_v_Page_076.jpg
20510804110f137be4998c447e13bfcd
f33ac6d4db5eb8cbff91a710685234bed601c6c8
26205 F20101204_AACECI villasenor_v_Page_079.QC.jpg
d78f96d1392489346934e84d94f286b5
0e3faa4172b7d8eedb2ace3e5420f851264df850
30855 F20101204_AACDXB villasenor_v_Page_122.pro
5387c62a70b3615067e280643a0468fe
16d57845cba294b5d0eb49fcaac919f9b5867777
F20101204_AACEBT villasenor_v_Page_116.tif
f29b2d864345ae190dce7e1d0506e9f8
a796460ef4af587255b58df104e63f0ecbdcfe28
F20101204_AACDWN villasenor_v_Page_023.tif
87ce5ace0bce29cc02d5e3aedd0a989c
8d72923922c818b31241ce62c3fd6be30f3ce8e1
23750 F20101204_AACDXC villasenor_v_Page_023.QC.jpg
4fe232984912035fc2ce96af5e37c5d4
64d853caaabc485ffa0e543d28e831518eb8d574
5869 F20101204_AACEBU villasenor_v_Page_060thm.jpg
980d16f85b5cb37a70a77b348c701ea2
dfc901ca09cfc027de0977acb2db73e8fa7001b3
F20101204_AACDWO villasenor_v_Page_028.tif
fa9dddc251e12a55716f7e6c4f7fb853
c1df8295d01b83e4c9399c7a595092306f4c4007
5720 F20101204_AACECJ villasenor_v_Page_037thm.jpg
33ae6945e0732ee6a416ade73de4e9b5
45b682a45a3d900eaf8c825599daf61a702a716c
23913 F20101204_AACDXD villasenor_v_Page_013.pro
aa6a2c4f68cee84e436cbe49a71b3ae7
762646d88a07ec3409a7129c13e670f8c5c8c808
5360 F20101204_AACEBV villasenor_v_Page_095thm.jpg
97225d41a9ab7ec19d747a69c43857d4
91127c11f20e12728ea1c87556f80c2ed684e59b
97865 F20101204_AACDWP villasenor_v_Page_038.jpg
ddd5c4ed64ae363b5847e46d39a3f534
4cda9dc71d2e8c9aad85830f52fa9b62d006f90b
65800 F20101204_AACECK villasenor_v_Page_079.pro
9f4f887880603e01a8e7827d149ca6f2
63dde192137f764fb290093161e47031b5cafdac
17070 F20101204_AACDXE villasenor_v_Page_046.QC.jpg
caae4b56415502e1b7a3c4f298be4b08
46cf4158ec6f3fb29e23e9f3a1b80413669f9ad3
81329 F20101204_AACEBW villasenor_v_Page_026.jpg
069da5217d812fb65cf75f823f49d684
816cbf9304c3e4a03f86762e58567cd21bb8ef1b
66450 F20101204_AACDWQ villasenor_v_Page_010.jpg
35988e0b808dff81767edc85cce7b3c3
b3df94517d4eb00100ea81160eca0ea153685325
7314 F20101204_AACEDA villasenor_v_Page_093.QC.jpg
76c1170b9a5442457204a37b37923337
35421ab0304334e91c962f26cc6978dfa1d14cbd
2035 F20101204_AACECL villasenor_v_Page_085.txt
5f5da16685f80836b5e1ac0a8daca5df
3c287c0da8c8c02bc05996cc0b746d981b60a713
58977 F20101204_AACDXF villasenor_v_Page_120.pro
49d73fe8fa8ec3aabe69167071ef1213
fa179d5ec2af6a0552ccda233708ea249c194037
5788 F20101204_AACEBX villasenor_v_Page_062thm.jpg
c9514270185a78a8f558063226909209
38b3e48a2a51bf47afcc831fa04b8b7cb1b21939
28105 F20101204_AACDWR villasenor_v_Page_086.QC.jpg
4ea200a3f27d740a49c6c28c401c4521
25f043bd5ed04e3bc9d59cef210c1ff4ff353b61
104551 F20101204_AACEDB villasenor_v_Page_094.jp2
259e39ac6b9664fb4128194fa27e9a85
9378cc9d1e2469f3e4c66c22821360a699cb3f81
45708 F20101204_AACECM villasenor_v_Page_023.pro
32ec8ed949d5a7f4c3df14740ee880f7
1ec0b16a0c862e8eda2f7b8a13c911bed16cd9f1
25218 F20101204_AACDXG villasenor_v_Page_072.QC.jpg
aa8595fd975397538eac5de673b676b9
60ac3da267531a0edfc49d11b1b9c444d0aab237
12307 F20101204_AACEBY villasenor_v_Page_018.QC.jpg
fc60511a11027993af02dfa489d1894f
9511f216427e855125cb82e06844abe17c094e9f
62910 F20101204_AACDWS villasenor_v_Page_117.pro
61fa003af94abdc74a8da4e044fb5067
58c66ea2c8f7b12e115b9ef8053bce24c94b000f
5956 F20101204_AACEDC villasenor_v_Page_096thm.jpg
14b9d9e4ac4810e426214b63f9936a53
eaa141bd486ca1ab83c95fecd0a0d3ba7720f4d1
566547 F20101204_AACECN villasenor_v_Page_121.jp2
a37d1316f61a6c0d3b617c91fb8b7e5d
68c19203560da6ec64a13f8e9fab0e03163066df
2079 F20101204_AACDXH villasenor_v_Page_031.txt
055c6156add06ef4fbfc45d47f0c3c87
8e635f5bdbbbc18983e2c7d641bfd0fe80b0e2f6
47819 F20101204_AACEBZ villasenor_v_Page_014.pro
3cf6707d6efbd3381a26789fff57f7e1
a840d27640f2ad8e90fc54d90382b78f3ad0f170
F20101204_AACDWT villasenor_v_Page_071.tif
18ad63b33efe784207abef6e1717f84a
4fae18826201cb6fc9bfc290e8c51e5d2d2fe073
75151 F20101204_AACECO villasenor_v_Page_011.jpg
172b37f45851c1adda473c69334cbe61
d127d26bb1b1c9bea59ab719175fde953303b814
5455 F20101204_AACDXI villasenor_v_Page_019thm.jpg
666bf84a1a105083985c3ed552f77270
57d689f96ade1bbe30e25727df365fce5c4ff0e0
91371 F20101204_AACDWU villasenor_v_Page_084.jp2
5cc55213220b2e7d059deca9a9c2f32f
3fe1d0bb6e160de0ebd82160e5c75106963a1994
23533 F20101204_AACEDD villasenor_v_Page_107.QC.jpg
1c0313e8bb3aeebc056e4d366443d425
bd8837eb77387cd2f9c4d2521a587a9f941abd12
71430 F20101204_AACECP villasenor_v_Page_012.jpg
a2495b70c0d84efb4948aa436be39f65
eea2ae69fb68d2d1d29ed3e809cc0f30a16fbb52
24784 F20101204_AACDXJ villasenor_v_Page_074.QC.jpg
65218b87f72c7cc2d402fc56475577bd
a82190bf65e1c6b58662ccb668b004a331ea4e2a
F20101204_AACDWV villasenor_v_Page_073.tif
3e89f45c18b0b8e86b3133534ad8b825
01b11bb584a074d686597d622d7aca292f24dfaf
F20101204_AACEDE villasenor_v_Page_043.tif
e6bdd919515bb1054e4822b2ab4ba6ce
898b26fd8243d109da0324e00a5c0943e847e712
25249 F20101204_AACECQ villasenor_v_Page_052.QC.jpg
a52f5c9edd716e14fbc5f934e2bcaa2e
71ab8020a38aef74f28e9c853bf6f6751104a98b
F20101204_AACDXK villasenor_v_Page_001.tif
c3e0ffd357e783b28674e98c21028ffe
c88ddeb6b04a6f06594e74abc381399af98cf802
1051939 F20101204_AACDWW villasenor_v_Page_088.jp2
e2cb0dd1090d7c5a4ab664ebbcc612da
264cf7eb09d57dd498c885cd18f7812500866c4b
48523 F20101204_AACEDF villasenor_v_Page_049.pro
da8bed95001d3c08a1049f7de5c8ec39
914e4b78ee161e671283744e2a1bdfacf74461b7
76315 F20101204_AACECR villasenor_v_Page_059.jpg
a7b4d1b891ae79cd500003fe2d626469
d3dd04fb676db1697c15094976011c3fe9fd23cd
45362 F20101204_AACDXL villasenor_v_Page_109.pro
cd4964a6fa6e1ec0b7761482e0965e27
b287b9957b865fddd36e9a490f8391ef13438e81
85471 F20101204_AACDWX villasenor_v_Page_095.jp2
2de109421f98ac82e6f28975e01661f5
36836beda98bf23df76381b06f66ffbd04314f58
F20101204_AACEDG villasenor_v_Page_057.tif
72b90df66e000e4363e1dbacff95e042
0f41cf83307b66c521720eb293a265b1f37a974e
6112 F20101204_AACDYA villasenor_v_Page_017thm.jpg
2f889862cc3fb6342b7c35ae46b56e63
97b1c3a2be71097912e36af8ba4005e62c1a9d5a
106086 F20101204_AACECS villasenor_v_Page_120.jpg
8226b00ca81ea08d2510abb389753906
5017d283628b500ae09fbac7decd396bd914a381
117016 F20101204_AACDXM villasenor_v_Page_054.jp2
2632e677862c5f6c8f2b115a151b0d7b
cbe82aa4b1906f558a5dcc249820f4b97403abb4
F20101204_AACDWY villasenor_v_Page_019.tif
67cfac2661440370de3926f6e40e9be8
06c9d1551603d1eb4087dd4247a1af42de71f6e4
25916 F20101204_AACEDH villasenor_v_Page_064.pro
3294f3ffcc72975c315bb32e3aa3c00d
cf775520b0cb6611b51c0c07853a4a397fbb0a60
2395 F20101204_AACDYB villasenor_v_Page_114.txt
45fa51cb6e0005b3ab81396e60d4465b
29b8255736ed9a03b863f5d8a08e6829e02e5e26
56746 F20101204_AACECT villasenor_v_Page_116.pro
8e206c22f0d2c681505f40583188d561
6d93f90af002adae7a061f08528d44c68299aa9f
17554 F20101204_AACDXN villasenor_v_Page_122.QC.jpg
c7bef8d22cb9b173edc10b6bd44e56cb
ef1846fac24f555cc12b984016f66e4910df47c4
83537 F20101204_AACDWZ villasenor_v_Page_072.jpg
7f9aa551dd150f3af61d34221dd8a436
f3d2044eae2d4c5db51196f2346bb9124a892d27
6530 F20101204_AACEDI villasenor_v_Page_038thm.jpg
57710d38e58f40d81ecaf388a906f79f
2262e35bf6a3a2392f2467e2c7289ce759b4c9d1
113884 F20101204_AACDYC villasenor_v_Page_027.jp2
f19beb8293bca789646a0ed85ce65da5
bc03d1e47f8c3dd0f6bdef1bfc4a61850168994c
32804 F20101204_AACECU villasenor_v_Page_111.jp2
5a6452da3129e72137de11a4e47f7a95
2fec2cc4508aa7e60c0319531b9a7ddd0820f16f
23140 F20101204_AACDXO villasenor_v_Page_102.QC.jpg
c7e286a62a659086255eb6b0f5030a4c
75f185236d89959859fd77450fb211f2d3a7a626
6330 F20101204_AACEDJ villasenor_v_Page_070thm.jpg
78d37ff91ad6cbf0b5ff5312720d00d8
25d95a10cee4ce8e184efaa9761b6dd486440e5c
5889 F20101204_AACDYD villasenor_v_Page_024thm.jpg
e195e738b112c443747f75cb49b53c1b
4fe3d18126c08e37685f6c8319fa0db6ecf1cf5f
25246 F20101204_AACECV villasenor_v_Page_058.QC.jpg
511887d83a1cacbeb1d474dffae644ef
24608ea994768452e7a31e7e6db727daa205ffcf
83106 F20101204_AACDXP villasenor_v_Page_047.jpg
7e18ffea05fa8113400f673c0d8744a7
06d5d310884c982f5a43003bd32eca49d53999bc
6048 F20101204_AACDYE villasenor_v_Page_079thm.jpg
5e652e51109dd708ebc9a62e32f02880
5798ff0903689d819e7d25ddb3c517dd02d864a5
6166 F20101204_AACECW villasenor_v_Page_048thm.jpg
7e08cde9e0966f8cdbf4c903853601b8
8303e17187f9d2072b85b7ed9fa8d43c1fb096b0
1837 F20101204_AACDXQ villasenor_v_Page_041.txt
8bd2b88941f63c77fb5155108d589c09
ded05ed5e672a9c8cd4e3070e9ee7015fbf5acba
83400 F20101204_AACEDK villasenor_v_Page_063.jpg
0e766ef1bf5ee20242d1c8f6eedefdee
e39e09bf91f68944e8fdb592533944428bf016a0
993 F20101204_AACDYF villasenor_v_Page_013.txt
cd44e6193fce153fbea3d598fd414580
858ad041d279588e9ed3cede2eb581e6dba8574c
103590 F20101204_AACECX villasenor_v_Page_115.jpg
57f0de90ecb0144a4959bf9ce7bf5276
0c7d7ce2f606e648e30ac7c92cbcc2785ddcd5fe
12085 F20101204_AACDXR villasenor_v_Page_040.jpg
7279969ed8f00384be6a592ac03a83cc
672395639ad1d2f2ca63ffe256c0a1c49fb5c9cb
61046 F20101204_AACEEA villasenor_v_Page_119.pro
3e84542109f01370651ca68a08ed0c07
aaf5f7302d84170640b8e4ee5efd4e5122aacf3d
19668 F20101204_AACEDL villasenor_v_Page_010.QC.jpg
5d662dfabbdadcf34e0f8921d245b28d
10c10a085b13df2addaa141ebdea5f836674a93f
48596 F20101204_AACDYG villasenor_v_Page_096.pro
855ac6101bf0cc71be24cc29b18a13c0
10289454ae45f675b4941dbae34ff37ac975c05d
2167 F20101204_AACECY villasenor_v_Page_021.txt
8c19b6ffcaf8eb9cf96128e6e2191189
9c657f62b970ee92c174d2ce433e3e30f5bb824f
F20101204_AACDXS villasenor_v_Page_065.tif
b74a3dfd45c277b3a6b60898c19b8d85
02a2adffb7b0e649a90af3bd420069e5c54e61cc
23883 F20101204_AACEEB villasenor_v_Page_092.QC.jpg
4645ed29cfeeb69448f0c1fde0834dc2
80cd7f80174a68011499ed6135f5e4cdd544b027
1051937 F20101204_AACEDM villasenor_v_Page_083.jp2
d60eeec859c4ee1c86e9fe8e31937577
3db3e86711c784e0eee0e94918a1e0a8386aff32
45257 F20101204_AACDYH villasenor_v_Page_059.pro
f895e5f3e29e29e20e6448725891ed5e
fe85a3408794f7abbc59b9a631f215090cdeeefa
F20101204_AACECZ villasenor_v_Page_052.tif
a39ac6a9f625bf790d927fb484b8d117
67b30f2995bf7a39d9cfe4b5b378f6c592f8bd5c
1051981 F20101204_AACDXT villasenor_v_Page_118.jp2
73d242b5a573346d34466a28db78dc57
86ff58a0af537495a6b50e1e8af5800648e3d150
1098 F20101204_AACEEC villasenor_v_Page_108thm.jpg
5a65a1512c62f0f5fdd7a7e5f068d7b7
a47ac0cc4dc15c5b302dee0b2dbefb54ec5c59d3
50900 F20101204_AACEDN villasenor_v_Page_024.pro
2cb5eab62bae9d89a3814d51a045abb2
36936b2b5a9fcfa37b1698079a90fdee82cef554
88274 F20101204_AACDYI villasenor_v_Page_077.jpg
5dd4449ba190008268e5834061805c55
fdad4dbfd31e2d3b5474033d05b167278fec1325
91919 F20101204_AACDXU villasenor_v_Page_041.jp2
d35d6e19bfb077a4e0fdaaf87b5972ca
bd3995c67d9105004fd97b9ada81159ac026ace7
26161 F20101204_AACEED villasenor_v_Page_087.QC.jpg
9d2ad6bf956f487b94c6876a2ad822e0
25680002690b67030092e249f0591da45383a4b1
1729 F20101204_AACEDO villasenor_v_Page_060.txt
074f8a919ce3d2e623bc3b6b3f9465c2
f608ab5cbc464f854102f601aac0962b0ee24749
108183 F20101204_AACDYJ villasenor_v_Page_118.jpg
8cdbf2948bd457d8b742524c15fd73a7
849dc734023f437c807087a7a7d2122df3ff2449
2564 F20101204_AACDXV villasenor_v_Page_118.txt
83a8c097c0a4d936b730ad3a3bb793ac
a4be59e2e29691aaa31fef075457643ab71fd737
104379 F20101204_AACEEE villasenor_v_Page_117.jpg
4910953ebaa040312df9294e2e528c4a
6c5938029b184fd084dc4812c6e85a64db8c2e30
24952 F20101204_AACEDP villasenor_v_Page_047.QC.jpg
737e363badc0841c9efc516044714fbb
f44c8211b52bacdb81d4faeffd3a96f7f4b568c8
F20101204_AACDYK villasenor_v_Page_087.tif
d715febabd4f6f33ed98ba70d0fabb14
c611e9805fc57b00e84378f65f4e3f569b1698dd
512 F20101204_AACDXW villasenor_v_Page_046.txt
1090c2e2c15e6f87cfb3f20bf5069741
5415c283124a7d02f93b936989acd1418137cfa4
79891 F20101204_AACEEF villasenor_v_Page_016.jpg
d254fca7a8b4de5c398c0391454379a5
5c3c8130fcefb4ceeb1fa933185999939fdc6401
F20101204_AACEDQ villasenor_v_Page_104.tif
882bd218b61e467abd1e5d852f10347b
7245c0f4c051593a938e879b69df79910153be71
14833 F20101204_AACDYL villasenor_v_Page_111.pro
9f472d776d83310e7d9f86c20841ec81
1b6024af73ca6338a6c4158c0ebc5b343b802227
114991 F20101204_AACDXX villasenor_v_Page_081.jp2
181e14c812cfeab0e1159e72cf30ac18
356f78535a9f02eb4ec154174ebc6e45678bf347
43134 F20101204_AACEEG villasenor_v_Page_089.pro
30ae96ea4d8bf707169873001b3da74a
a16aa2910389185948d5d4f6c2e238c28cf242e8
2173 F20101204_AACDZA villasenor_v_Page_054.txt
9e8ac4d859daa6ba693db9a66a5d4b18
49b56872e88cb4fe3cf3cdeece725c6da0df82ed
2651 F20101204_AACEDR villasenor_v_Page_079.txt
b029f24df6ccfed5453b79aeab3538d8
19d5475a240c83e3a77bda6f6bf4d887ba5b977d
82520 F20101204_AACDYM villasenor_v_Page_087.jpg
abd29c2d1f595f1997887096650ef35c
1b793d22211f44a1bb9c1a63a47dcb73b9eca231
108976 F20101204_AACDXY villasenor_v_Page_048.jp2
8244dbc07ad1dd85ba4ca46deaa4df62
e7ea0c2bd5a0b458c46b0de3da10e2a882c4e1f6
6850 F20101204_AACEEH villasenor_v_Page_001.QC.jpg
43f519c5dae0407eed3724d3c09045f5
202b948a7d759bdc29f5d9f69cf1a26796a7c484
47875 F20101204_AACEDS villasenor_v_Page_091.pro
3e25d80290b339f16603bd08cbbe2b45
ff0bcadf92c56bf1d2ded2995a36f081581dded4
24918 F20101204_AACDYN villasenor_v_Page_016.QC.jpg
4ab0f7ef4593c08c8e7cc2221e132bbe
eb07731be80ca3ed9807e3832648e328c7e26c03
88035 F20101204_AACDXZ villasenor_v_Page_081.jpg
af137da3b3158dfda44a0200c7dd1f78
1e534301fad48b974603713e4a9cf7feef83053d
F20101204_AACEEI villasenor_v_Page_002.jp2
c6f32753034d44f4139a31fc57f49fdd
9048ab43dbdfeb131fc981486024a00f1304dfdf
23245 F20101204_AACDZB villasenor_v_Page_045.QC.jpg
21fc84c71ed062ada4530add50bccd75
7e5acf45da628983ffbf0e66cf956bb4b586c458
899 F20101204_AACEDT villasenor_v_Page_018.txt
13a2479ff0eba641711af6999ab2386f
3cfdc9c3ab0ab36bf139957057e7475467f02ff2
25435 F20101204_AACDYO villasenor_v_Page_106.QC.jpg
ccc27b3223d09ab850b076b98e335e93
9db9992b63c06d1719c2bf908b533df0a16a3c42
47862 F20101204_AACEEJ villasenor_v_Page_016.pro
99b0551d7df15cccbdb6e6c4d3ce8cb9
c3cadcf8b570cebac6529cb1e0fab6e63a4d3574
2936 F20101204_AACDZC villasenor_v_Page_121thm.jpg
080b86250172909ed870867db8bb93d1
a5f32a612d377436c8e80b4452defe83b0a83ccd
23318 F20101204_AACEDU villasenor_v_Page_050.QC.jpg
508b08e458badbb1268261b99af0e0f9
16015140b99dc0149b1d42874f314149f9461505
849451 F20101204_AACDYP villasenor_v_Page_043.jp2
2e6ec24549ddd75a6255c91da897e349
4ecde1b60582ecf4c1c89c847fb1f985d2dfddad
668 F20101204_AACEEK villasenor_v_Page_111.txt
9304cc8d9dcf4a696638bee5a6d961f7
2de1f1fbd1cfb370256fcdd1960f6e7df711a5ee
F20101204_AACDZD villasenor_v_Page_030.tif
1f0e66496610f5f8a72ded7c505ce7c1
6091fd84f8204ea24b1cce0b922da2e9b7a8be1b
126644 F20101204_AACEDV villasenor_v_Page_070.jp2
16f7928dc320421090ae1894350a18cc
6f1f143602e3fcf1fc8baed6c36435ff8d9e3760
5850 F20101204_AACDYQ villasenor_v_Page_006thm.jpg
46de7807d65f8f6a6b2610a053b5cdb4
26dce3470d61b3f9a57ef4d47404ed1edb0cb446
28701 F20101204_AACDZE villasenor_v_Page_115.QC.jpg
86f39c574cdfe67ed7da287f5c0977fb
75f50e7c735328f8c6fb02f799715039cc6dc4bc
F20101204_AACEDW villasenor_v_Page_072.tif
1fd52bcd356d135f70a1ba5ddf8de641
3f3062002595850ac1afec25871d88dbb0ee9551
99710 F20101204_AACDYR villasenor_v_Page_079.jpg
fdad969fd45bbf4ae679e704b0c0e38c
a3160859fb032df6f3cfa8a87f992d94c347f9ad
486 F20101204_AACEFA villasenor_v_Page_001.txt
cbf1fbc62200f335d735fb8284e7fc23
781bd70048f71030515e95eabfe8e272a88b4113
71593 F20101204_AACEEL villasenor_v_Page_050.jpg
8dbbed19f0c3894ed2c4e6c4a7f98999
df705daad9c5bb845c7726f070977e15e85aeef5
6394 F20101204_AACDZF villasenor_v_Page_061thm.jpg
9a51ee773e33aad1299cdfba3fcc8189
129efe1f1f8e38e318352df9ad9a37bbc5296001
78553 F20101204_AACEDX villasenor_v_Page_033.jpg
256aa80095f25c9d95a7addbac3b804c
f9ba4277460f98e8749f532c28f996bd656d8e37
F20101204_AACDYS villasenor_v_Page_096.tif
a640d0ed9a25227865478217497f61f2
6521fe1b6eb601afc5d78a87f07c265db73fe7a5
5785 F20101204_AACEFB villasenor_v_Page_103thm.jpg
1ece4f47368dc9a5ec4fb284f69c8952
9721b43469d2b9b0276642373b6d5640843904c6
1923 F20101204_AACEEM villasenor_v_Page_096.txt
26806f0db78251f608ed8b2c6fa2c998
26489b47605df199e8e8b6f799d8983126b828e0
50753 F20101204_AACDZG villasenor_v_Page_073.pro
7c08938716e88f26de77e933a3d10cba
c9b06a04e48a05358f9b3a6ae0b5ce370a6bc951
2114 F20101204_AACEDY villasenor_v_Page_081.txt
27305259a436158722b4009014d5e7b6
f92077046b39833322ed66a849f46e154a156653
1051958 F20101204_AACDYT villasenor_v_Page_005.jp2
3b7752374206ef75812e8f03cfb8a33d
70cbf2b08bf10a89b003fa568d3464373e407f46
1812 F20101204_AACEFC villasenor_v_Page_045.txt
72cb57eb6153b46cfeceb22313325b7c
2c344ab28d6ed9b81c787da1eae84bd281dceed8
6387 F20101204_AACEEN villasenor_v_Page_031thm.jpg
e18dfe4fbb5eb4025ea7c40e39f84214
1d5e7e277e712d03eeb1615fbbc0de323328910a
32895 F20101204_AACDZH villasenor_v_Page_042.pro
15cba38a7a454c5e88b23a022ea7787f
1df7568e934e23bb95e5386076c2fa058230d56c
F20101204_AACEDZ villasenor_v_Page_046.tif
e1ba88fd97730db27aff293b3e02f354
743164accb8af2ccceb3e389f6a7109e439b59e1
4134 F20101204_AACDYU villasenor_v_Page_108.QC.jpg
5e69ea881b3c2050f94cfabe8d2655f4
0469e733929bfae7bdcd86eaf049922fad546ce0
26172 F20101204_AACEFD villasenor_v_Page_111.jpg
2c797b20304ffd329445001b9d8767a4
da3ae8044e91064b1920ec9bb3292cb452255bb1
1818 F20101204_AACEEO villasenor_v_Page_075.txt
fc071292055088d6c0f6d84cbef480e4
f26b97f6b1f0875082d4cd573b79317085e09f51
F20101204_AACDZI villasenor_v_Page_033.tif
4110e17bf8f3344fda8c1bbeeefaba56
861e026d52f7b164671537f70ff1071512bb0738
71346 F20101204_AACDYV villasenor_v_Page_070.pro
968bf1b033c5c2c423f6abace2adb68e
5b50ce4a1fc1444ecccadc5b491b5573145444e2
5983 F20101204_AACEFE villasenor_v_Page_090thm.jpg
02248eaca095033f8077cbc224b2cf9f
0503948b4d46bd279f66331bcf164d6864477917
108591 F20101204_AACEEP villasenor_v_Page_032.jp2
6afd4ccd64cf17d1d34d74f5848eef57
9cd72e73a1deefd6d7483540ef4cb7bcea7bcb74
2180 F20101204_AACDZJ villasenor_v_Page_051.txt
daef0860b616baaa5fecc0a2a9112b0c
d20f5d39329f75638dfc1065a7c6eafe164d5bdb
114082 F20101204_AACDYW villasenor_v_Page_078.jp2
aa3172cf4e5ceea7b0d09f7f8c5af8be
63b8b1dd8b37d05cd94daa07a2dfc7c95b5ff874
27530 F20101204_AACEFF villasenor_v_Page_031.QC.jpg
34fc3df006ab7c4e6c533b0f029e6ef5
7ea39baaf812815fb7545c146c40b8b493fb2853
79862 F20101204_AACEEQ villasenor_v_Page_096.jpg
7b2aececb261627f32c9da368826adb7
81d9d7ac71ad5cd060acaec79c69b571d0b0404f
F20101204_AACDZK villasenor_v_Page_111.tif
05f346cfd95cb5bb65433f192ba28c68
a8ecfb47621fabe35fcda63f97f5056857c4310d
F20101204_AACDYX villasenor_v_Page_010.tif
de7705f174b0cfea1e0ef452036a042f
333a72dfe801c6ff122ded2f696e1b43301d74e1
27479 F20101204_AACEFG villasenor_v_Page_044.QC.jpg
5b7e1ada4edace72cca9763452d69f17
30fb96a61b0092dc67d33ceb690b16b6e6d87f8f
102775 F20101204_AACEER villasenor_v_Page_014.jp2
c2b8cb4be7ce53e0229c2fdf2ec24409
f0e3c34522d66b2404035eaa812301a72f7da2da
84322 F20101204_AACDZL villasenor_v_Page_099.jpg
2faaec9120007b7631164209b745beb6
aea73491ca9c5f41a67b72f82442e8d2481813c1
6062 F20101204_AACDYY villasenor_v_Page_026thm.jpg
43c76ebc47961ae0bfd7bc3cb1ec9018
4eeac6b3f90fea76bdd962eb49d8c221a4e4e43e
F20101204_AACEFH villasenor_v_Page_005.tif
5b3a2c68608c3cf6f626a01c972a2ca8
c5de3b46ac9376f9d06c8c914fd736fab5789973
25783 F20101204_AACEES villasenor_v_Page_032.QC.jpg
02320e6d3394a12bbb3acade6fd0867f
897b73b28ce238c377872e970ec2cf0ba0408800
123178 F20101204_AACDZM villasenor_v_Page_055.jp2
0d6a5a0ad498932684e8d7383224bd5d
c76a3be7ce973ff26a7dee4c6bf9e456f3c74897
F20101204_AACDYZ villasenor_v_Page_118.tif
072fee7aae649ee13f19e82214c8da2f
ab25b0b5b6a8aab4f4bde84f78486d0e0831b389
2102 F20101204_AACEFI villasenor_v_Page_061.txt
1f190293f9c318f5687c4f6cb619616d
e4d6a95601e95ebc8822876c66c67dbf0e35a7e2
27601 F20101204_AACEET villasenor_v_Page_054.QC.jpg
7292a29bb5d6f01e7d5ac39c286b0a1d
4db93d8a29a948948c26d64756691b42b20a5507
5214 F20101204_AACDZN villasenor_v_Page_015thm.jpg
b7350610ff5015737eae0101d99b8f36
d5fea364fa6bfad09a45b957aa6ce7eb90827000
35369 F20101204_AACEFJ villasenor_v_Page_095.pro
3678fecf4fd936f857a08a15ec51a405
a60062ab3c964db07d74af58e82c5f78b60db200
50803 F20101204_AACEEU villasenor_v_Page_083.pro
e59badec83762b0938eba98db989ed00
89d08089450f48e7955fceb7b7bf5e10bf714148
22683 F20101204_AACDZO villasenor_v_Page_121.pro
4ed5a91f88296204207ca243897a8811
4d8fd26612501c53dabab28abd55952c5c8e8902
51675 F20101204_AACEFK villasenor_v_Page_085.pro
12a4231b8f8382aa738bc5ee09880327
55298f85df8ca9924b4505d092eef6c5f4f18b18
87828 F20101204_AACEEV villasenor_v_Page_067.jpg
86135a2ec104f27109bbae5184fce5d2
5c8eb0e744b3357efdb632bd3a6c01d18a6f04d0
1925 F20101204_AACDZP villasenor_v_Page_032.txt
ffc1304a9c27691b804f008fefb1c19b
8d73b2dd738a59d3cb7d7024f66ddff7e2ff2439
23014 F20101204_AACEFL villasenor_v_Page_083.QC.jpg
f5e1fb8bb397302bd1b6fc541693dbef
f0e64300c9f1da9d960ca0271b42b62f82f41c00
28569 F20101204_AACEEW villasenor_v_Page_117.QC.jpg
244c112008a3fa5250468c40b176cf04
c59db65a9ae3bc1fb49f38fdb83344e7e5bfc0be
F20101204_AACDZQ villasenor_v_Page_048.tif
300e28712903fc9dd849cf88cbec19af
9874f650b07c51e1c2f1f5f8cb8bd5a3e19191fa
25070 F20101204_AACEEX villasenor_v_Page_110.QC.jpg
0155b15d64e5bf535881839725ac046f
9cda5ad182b6ca472aa9de4a0b2ab38f42f56146
87801 F20101204_AACDZR villasenor_v_Page_061.jpg
366826f33fb98035a9a81b71308f432e
a85727ba137b7c8634877f1244de9adc4ddb7ca0
39450 F20101204_AACEGA villasenor_v_Page_015.pro
7b53f1c4e6624ea09353217f6a008542
fb19736aaec9ab404580daa782b24bef78fc0b13
68859 F20101204_AACEFM villasenor_v_Page_095.jpg
9c7d505f6a7f4a48db10cd21c59dafeb
3f96bfc2483c3a852e693c6306e829e4035954ec
7682 F20101204_AACEEY villasenor_v_Page_111.QC.jpg
409166804953336ea016efafd1129045
6695cab4ee169e8630fa82ab9b7304a5c81640a0
26703 F20101204_AACDZS villasenor_v_Page_021.QC.jpg
431eec6a8f929207470e7260e3c78a14
1d907ba3e45f35f7716f385c9ba4e28c9c2c2b27
4566 F20101204_AACEGB villasenor_v_Page_008thm.jpg
e4d6f1d6de960a62f2afa77a79559689
796e6dd9d2bbee2db02188ccc6937203ad430df7
5518 F20101204_AACEFN villasenor_v_Page_097thm.jpg
b38d3d57020895f3f88494c3c41b75d4
df30f328ef5a636f3771fa99497bdad5019cb738
50341 F20101204_AACEEZ villasenor_v_Page_106.pro
16fa2825865842826fe5fd04dc1b004c
0dc518132def07da7d6cad2add1fec7d53096091
6374 F20101204_AACDZT villasenor_v_Page_029thm.jpg
c0f812ad7f09f93eeefb97401d2e07a3
cebb6ae64f6a9f7ba6926a8ce2adcfdb2fdd06ae
F20101204_AACEGC villasenor_v_Page_098.tif
c1149e3db67c486607fc02c1b0b40a59
1807f5e5753df8af041ed82cf5dde01441706eac
5937 F20101204_AACEFO villasenor_v_Page_100thm.jpg
7026cbb799c8c5a4e902bd1316c571c2
ba4dc2cec5393a21aeaadcc36841c051a936752b
52571 F20101204_AACDZU villasenor_v_Page_080.pro
7236ba674e79744c7e3b7126b368d6f7
70e3c154cbaaa9e8b8621133c6e61d7dc1405482
1054428 F20101204_AACEGD villasenor_v_Page_093.tif
6852da9d89ef360396d36a869ad5d7f6
a2d60feaff1784dfa476fdc3914e1652aac8addb
6158 F20101204_AACEFP villasenor_v_Page_055thm.jpg
33fb0cbbf4ce435aefdf2bc7bf4bc3b5
d6cc9d410622914a6467d02ef8feb0c1bd058af4
5476 F20101204_AACDZV villasenor_v_Page_050thm.jpg
900db27c6026140ac437ca387931b579
afd08449429ab98147d976fc44b5f93b6577a8a7
2284 F20101204_AACEGE villasenor_v_Page_039.txt
9519576694c0ade78850b5a8cfabae06
2b25e3af987deb37702426e10923539a38320a7e
100784 F20101204_AACEFQ villasenor_v_Page_090.jp2
f2d7d522f7c0709c51018db2b8b9c5ee
7507f7c73d56a8f9c9019a6f953d646af1509699
66385 F20101204_AACDZW villasenor_v_Page_082.pro
aff5001a19bb9233ae73617e659a21ed
a842f5aba08bb45a53949eb160a1c9ed025ccd04
61151 F20101204_AACEGF villasenor_v_Page_013.jpg
fc312fb17c4c60d85d60e8fd528ad918
81e7143fe5cb7de91a8ce1921800bc850c0ea71c
78968 F20101204_AACEFR villasenor_v_Page_074.jpg
a96784e15cdf306cefc6aaf104341120
8444c64c1df0fd599a7a2659db07f647e407d1f8
2242 F20101204_AACDZX villasenor_v_Page_034.txt
6a9664434f2d9bc98448e3581a683806
b606394dc06fd81552a0b8c8fce90bd8abe80878
F20101204_AACEGG villasenor_v_Page_079.tif
983934b3aef9c6720c9930982f0c9128
fdd7e890b746da70ac53fc5341524aaa921a5049
105614 F20101204_AACEFS villasenor_v_Page_052.jp2
d5c5bf61f79a7b52b36b81b154d3ab0d
7637d17b4d35ea82b9a7d4f630afab5a1f27946e
97434 F20101204_AACDZY villasenor_v_Page_011.jp2
ac0c93890dccc6b0da7b751a46bfe2ef
9b512a287cd6e7bcf791348d28e0453cf7018541
6053 F20101204_AACEGH villasenor_v_Page_099thm.jpg
7da2d2192c6b6c85eb8fa2efcb356cff
5f1d4e44cc497873ade376ec72d9ded0d015c122
21739 F20101204_AACEFT villasenor_v_Page_020.QC.jpg
8dd1b237349d5208b66ea4506ba4a1be
972e7b7c1343f96ba59ed2927ba0a47f60421e4a
107478 F20101204_AACDZZ villasenor_v_Page_087.jp2
c79818002a39f992656739c7c6912de6
1cb43ea519298b5b29f3765a6109788d2d053920
F20101204_AACEGI villasenor_v_Page_110.tif
f341b628f10bb37da75c8ce8fae2d835
7298b4057b9c012f4701ce9f1d99af5f2d4e3a1f
6423 F20101204_AACEFU villasenor_v_Page_063thm.jpg
4cd175a49094e7b5ced09c5b88909a24
5871aba2a63d2480cd658c5d65c56053d94893b6
2092 F20101204_AACEGJ villasenor_v_Page_080.txt
63e4006cd3b8b90ecec0aa2f4086890f
24bb83a0582d194c835ffcf045f31236a19793c5
76705 F20101204_AACEFV villasenor_v_Page_075.jpg
c06c6bc8ebac85f23c1dc722a850ae3a
9ec9632b8b64816a08ead927aff604cc4d36214e
5752 F20101204_AACEGK villasenor_v_Page_098thm.jpg
a1f2559dc5ef5fcea07d52211a1394e2
f2d80f1743a45ae1b53992c498a73ae4a67973a3
F20101204_AACEFW villasenor_v_Page_086.tif
a84e23f6c25163f09f350faf27c806ef
41754063d4d6dc4dd7c33b02c395a7dfee14d132
44141 F20101204_AACEGL villasenor_v_Page_011.pro
d2442d0f7432cfd894161aaec98886e9
f6efa209d21253ef80a33b5f62bc08b6e629b0e7
F20101204_AACEFX villasenor_v_Page_053.txt
3160683da4a28c8a6af625a848e2e54e
1ff57c0d2479f54a1fbee6e50227d34a29db5ddd
538 F20101204_AACEHA villasenor_v_Page_002thm.jpg
924afc7264a8f1dffac660092c9edb33
794e3aa1b6756decef966857e4342d369587aa1e
11332 F20101204_AACEGM villasenor_v_Page_046.pro
2fd1e2ff12a664bbd96ee3c49ade7687
8528d706e3ba68cef210dc9e0d2407fa4e9543c1
24021 F20101204_AACEFY villasenor_v_Page_059.QC.jpg
800c97ac9a112e48c0b284da5865bd4a
5353de7fdd93587eaf9ca13e2f4bcf8610d61c18
43132 F20101204_AACEHB villasenor_v_Page_041.pro
40aef7ab4f8fe451033775549e646aaf
e54482005f1fcf68d10caad85129684d6d1fda07
1214 F20101204_AACEFZ villasenor_v_Page_004.txt
da1660c6449df51cb02b525ebd55ac48
29b24fae7e41aba0aa22e3de8ced600704294797
41393 F20101204_AACEHC villasenor_v_Page_019.pro
5ff3d0e1ded33ed78bdee05c040d3c72
1998132c4c0452326e5301bbdd7fa90d361448b6
1946 F20101204_AACEGN villasenor_v_Page_058.txt
a49a7d5baceab53990061526c7ae6952
4ecd0dba6df615964d14588926f079782b5509a7
F20101204_AACEHD villasenor_v_Page_112.tif
a29823c7f42bdf6c184426b3e6ef2d65
4168c1ac7a2e238680b14dcebaaf8e9582f8fbd6
45173 F20101204_AACEGO villasenor_v_Page_069.pro
8c36bd6fd8713d3271681b603edee12a
e2467b051e7885eaec09cea503e3f198a263b883
F20101204_AACEHE villasenor_v_Page_049thm.jpg
1244c3d97016da510d8c49bbafb604bb
dcd9902ab2d2736c6e5462d28aa66277c891d798
F20101204_AACEGP villasenor_v_Page_017.tif
ad98c58cdbb41bf6f268091bb1059a7f
87b06ca9f480a079911e78037e26476f83b04ad7
50885 F20101204_AACEHF villasenor_v_Page_018.jp2
01393c66ea7e4fb78cd73ff12ecb2cd7
a1884ced8e569394a7a1278d705cce72c89eed3e
2096 F20101204_AACEGQ villasenor_v_Page_078.txt
3feb1bac85a1c061676f17e79d65729b
c6274f09360ac82a097559e697c3eb0bba5a9568
58217 F20101204_AACEHG villasenor_v_Page_039.pro
58dd0c6ec0312d93c29eb5053d9420d9
0ee17e78e60e148c81150465ebaecc182a7a8a86
1051960 F20101204_AACEGR villasenor_v_Page_116.jp2
427a30b186f0bc715d8d7077b919a62f
2b6f67258e64e2beafaa4486dec235b27ac135ce
1951 F20101204_AACEHH villasenor_v_Page_087.txt
73e51d3ada2cb45f64a6761981ad2187
633c5bbdb4100ac49a9aac4cd4d251c622084d82
F20101204_AACEGS villasenor_v_Page_055.tif
b0de8e248dd89552f83e8d6e3acf0221
e96a937a1945779da82a908e035a7d03a8407f6d
131240 F20101204_AACEHI villasenor_v_Page_079.jp2
1565e5432b043d02981d1819c3e1598b
e26acf28215b3ff6892393ca999a02e0e87da18e
22085 F20101204_AACEGT villasenor_v_Page_015.QC.jpg
607f1b9ac55b6672c355d019b21f596f
9e0b23f31a95f72396567362242e6965ebc7bd7f
F20101204_AACEHJ villasenor_v_Page_067.tif
a470ed1e338ce79b83bcf80a4ae0eb1a
ca7f92cdd3ce2d8b1a07b67ccc6baec5a6091a76
80044 F20101204_AACEGU villasenor_v_Page_089.jp2
32effa068cb5e34079d7868250519b8d
5ba4056e71d398a7993d17988aa11775f9d0d428
6303 F20101204_AACEHK villasenor_v_Page_028thm.jpg
631cffcae96897e6036251fccfe643f0
540059c815b620a639fc6ea3679e038457ee9719
932 F20101204_AACEGV villasenor_v_Page_121.txt
8e973b18f01352f10e087d1d2b566053
ea68609c21a023e3d9428db67f5419b62e5bc459
26060 F20101204_AACEHL villasenor_v_Page_035.QC.jpg
bdf3f173d0223c57fd40f14daed67f4c
55310c5a359935d2cf530ef4a2189ec1ee56a080
77760 F20101204_AACEGW villasenor_v_Page_083.jpg
53c03842607e6d2232d79a08df42d880
bfaeab15d99e2c5cdad076a0119dfda4509abd5d
4849 F20101204_AACEHM villasenor_v_Page_089thm.jpg
30c658af56635a570aa7ccce837860e1
4d7673c0418a4653f5076d2e92b165d2ac7710bc
27463 F20101204_AACEGX villasenor_v_Page_081.QC.jpg
20089c92c920f40e7522edc66c991184
a2bf8e66f59973f3fcf0822be298c8bef05e0f13
2289 F20101204_AACEIA villasenor_v_Page_022.txt
cc1f2498056d9b26b1abccf547e3161b
41d346221dfdb351634cfcdd3187225d79cdb06a
1912 F20101204_AACEHN villasenor_v_Page_020.txt
46b2f68c816ed2665ffefbb3be51dc6b
9a484b46e9a6eee00762e80b5b9cc109b9da017d
84133 F20101204_AACEGY villasenor_v_Page_035.jpg
973a158b74726cbea014a4baab881ba5
1aea6cc97be89cb02cd583fbe57fed36e58237ba
19975 F20101204_AACEIB villasenor_v_Page_013.QC.jpg
ba81ab4bfd26454ca2788351a8e25edf
67be0ccfec3187bfa7edd21bb58cee1b514c8362
2767 F20101204_AACEGZ villasenor_v_Page_070.txt
6108091002a1158d9fcb96947de45a5a
dcf4bc1d0860bd05b899b2b113e23b59b370de2a
F20101204_AACEIC villasenor_v_Page_042.tif
b2cd7e40e060f6a74617e3b571b4b9f4
389674f704ce666dd9cc94e9a7a39f3176a0250d
2915 F20101204_AACEHO villasenor_v_Page_007.pro
94d0f16ae10dec001ba9c430b92993d3
801a134bf57ed4b20255dbee91949ad6a92a979c
5235 F20101204_AACEID villasenor_v_Page_051thm.jpg
e6dc38c9c8eea1db201b14a26d2c488e
e56f1c8aa550c72b887a076719981c13ba5a4bcd
2560 F20101204_AACEHP villasenor_v_Page_005.txt
2900202afddf88129cd897dad1bba512
ec750541d85009d205e6bfdb24441b6d97fadae7
F20101204_AACEIE villasenor_v_Page_050.tif
550948ba403698fd199c0d4fce22de7a
798a39af943bd3704cd11d5f177fe7204b0fe07e
26361 F20101204_AACEHQ villasenor_v_Page_080.QC.jpg
ffe004a1402de9d09e3dc6906235c156
53a3781fccd6f87a1d54a493933e175033dc68f3
1051985 F20101204_AACEIF villasenor_v_Page_067.jp2
6cf80b04b3d2ec56a7afddd390d7c0c9
eeefbefbed704f42306d90ebb7b466b819efcda2
52673 F20101204_AACEHR villasenor_v_Page_027.pro
5c155daa70caed2f81639fe888c6a2fc
30ed4d30dd0f926bafa57bfb6f4dd81f038d4a4c
6142 F20101204_AACEIG villasenor_v_Page_105thm.jpg
f21ce1bdd619fa30ab9e8ff470ba325b
871d0bba461a7ab8812097325f49ab2b92c57d77
1703 F20101204_AACEHS villasenor_v_Page_010.txt
fa322bccee974341795b1d22d5170dac
7fad241c4051a276e54ccf018704e25feeae616e
F20101204_AACEIH villasenor_v_Page_085.tif
c1c4b439b80614e4a66a6ff4ebe79e17
144a5ddca5dae43d22770e16c33830c5353dfd51
122415 F20101204_AACEHT villasenor_v_Page_028.jp2
a4077d36a5f3f179990bdc43e96f0442
f66a99ce5c83a8a7394fc42cfa15aa0ceccb0211
F20101204_AACEII villasenor_v_Page_029.jp2
7ad6760d97947739a89d1e6f1b47279c
1671cf4377e46473e60ddaa7728f8562da3278ab
100633 F20101204_AACEHU villasenor_v_Page_056.jp2
e5ef4cf5edc3a2e3595bce6de00f7d3f
9378b4ec99df56c9599828bced6dca80803c238f
F20101204_AACEIJ villasenor_v_Page_016.tif
16137f3bd77f4be9a665478efa16090a
4304a56255f13aeb1d01af48de683614e23a4a83
23060 F20101204_AACEHV villasenor_v_Page_062.QC.jpg
9ca6c8a1dcca98e2b6c6ce2f3734668e
10c8138a97344357fca87f05b41f91aa813d42ac
109439 F20101204_AACEIK villasenor_v_Page_072.jp2
d88903078fc4d718726abc7be5fc1ea5
2bd64193698c2ef745222e3f1f5073a78edc0a41
F20101204_AACEHW villasenor_v_Page_084.tif
8a09cb691f0ea4bf02e1bb6c98b96dc2
642928da198b41edaca111bc166fbb2c52334356
F20101204_AACEIL villasenor_v_Page_089.tif
66099b2d546dc92f2b2f0a7285eab604
3850ff96cbe7655cda3b5d8b1a75bd47c093d3c0
106981 F20101204_AACEHX villasenor_v_Page_058.jp2
f5c7dcee01e772e074389734012faccd
5dbe87b500ee58647556ec3f30f0e42ed989cbdd
1051977 F20101204_AACEJA villasenor_v_Page_008.jp2
55e0c5169cb1c7f74bb3a0a8a1c12ad1
22faf1877dd6286e891b14f6a567d3a498e2f058
5631 F20101204_AACEIM villasenor_v_Page_066thm.jpg
d3fc7ac4cf64b1b0ed2df1db0495a4f8
2c0ea0aac31abbf892f6da117cbf047dcb738648
6094 F20101204_AACEHY villasenor_v_Page_047thm.jpg
522ad648e3e35a6e928b829fa4f5d815
7263701ca6ff023a20d5269e0334b8cdd238c7fe
49646 F20101204_AACEJB villasenor_v_Page_068.pro
608dee6e16a4e124f6899fe008351b0a
18f20f3615a39624843dcbed34d8bb28ffcdb8f7
6382 F20101204_AACEIN villasenor_v_Page_039thm.jpg
55957229aeb618ce0db5a01e9f84e5b4
42bb65a289578431e141f10c9a7d97f59c7f5d0c
18367 F20101204_AACEHZ villasenor_v_Page_089.QC.jpg
10167b256a57ad6e40e1e6419d439324
561847a1098ecfa6f137dd3b4ecc7ad23129dac7
48117 F20101204_AACEJC villasenor_v_Page_052.pro
40be677a77354f781c6f01ad04c53d83
cd247e80a9a5fc33bce6ffec8cc95ee89b59ede8
25153 F20101204_AACEIO villasenor_v_Page_003.jp2
3dba2733ccd1149b7799406887f9dac9
ee5d4080098be58304bd2799c80f2bdc97a6b8de
F20101204_AACEJD villasenor_v_Page_061.QC.jpg
c84bc71aa32328b273cff63607416240
c74053d129242c0a30a12cf700d9266359db2a1a
F20101204_AACEJE villasenor_v_Page_020.tif
e088d62e6c9b0eeadf7591af30949f3c
25c3311b9dcacd856f7d90bbe5b99c1a204fc728
1051976 F20101204_AACEIP villasenor_v_Page_046.jp2
eba2c89f1e4c37bb45d11d8a725d60d5
02b39d0d038884a66c69cdc91fbc4e3007fb463a
76040 F20101204_AACEJF villasenor_v_Page_102.jpg
bdcde82dc8862ac96ae7abf621c96f84
433e8c9973ccf1cef6078648ad650d7a76a59ca3
1711 F20101204_AACEIQ villasenor_v_Page_103.txt
c0a19b1147590d09b06ea28aaea37d56
fae26d21d28d9b3992c6393363495ff501913bc0
21516 F20101204_AACEJG villasenor_v_Page_034.QC.jpg
5db086787be1a522550e9528d583e4ec
81a6e3e353f6f0af63bfcb315623f6d60c50d2e2
82251 F20101204_AACEIR villasenor_v_Page_088.jpg
d4b2a357cbee025135335796e1f59ab7
5d66ea077851b59ff42ff8cd97372c66a0fe78b1
24193 F20101204_AACEJH villasenor_v_Page_094.QC.jpg
9a2436e4033570015e72b3464448afa4
9d55a4b03905caeee2e34b97b07854763d2980d7
44184 F20101204_AACEIS villasenor_v_Page_092.pro
81044f8292323613aa120f729e3a77e1
6196c3130bb4149a200c86e283a192ab8444721e
F20101204_AACEJI villasenor_v_Page_036.tif
92661501cec7c6046fdca3313c43be31
cd8b07826b5ecbce628f5292542591f7f698ea43
68403 F20101204_AACEIT villasenor_v_Page_042.jpg
2427ff3e6749cbc71b5ff9f7d04ab477
59b139407c7a4c47b4fd1ab074c3e2cf92ca7650
76844 F20101204_AACEJJ villasenor_v_Page_100.jpg
ede7df22b9f385b9ed9d1c3756a3bd66
3dca73cc6a482926a1cab0732f22f1fe10b5c8ef
24902 F20101204_AACEIU villasenor_v_Page_096.QC.jpg
676983ad62c6c85a1583ec04233e624d
2ce7fa724934b08b2188e6742a378f35a62bd3b7
87851 F20101204_AACEJK villasenor_v_Page_031.jpg
fd6b744d96bf53c78a1fedb1d3d859a9
58bce00e933607f376e5b147ea2b0649b9b58e62
88369 F20101204_AACEIV villasenor_v_Page_036.jpg
24219e852e5c777145829c730c32cfcb
a808f4f9c27d7d46af8b1461ab3a8843d83255a2
24463 F20101204_AACEJL villasenor_v_Page_104.QC.jpg
e9f3234ce16899d75bfc2875041a3d6b
08445931fedfa4f910c834a6a78d407fea970f3d
1579 F20101204_AACEIW villasenor_v_Page_009.txt
06aa62d0ad74e15c60454fa5bcb2dd47
0181b807e37662cd7af6e94828ec2f0668f9a647
21944 F20101204_AACEKA villasenor_v_Page_019.QC.jpg
fd1a9d5445daa87231aa6361b1b688ae
abbec55dda7c06c6323ee1175ddc074110023425
1288 F20101204_AACEJM villasenor_v_Page_122.txt
a06c96c03fca29ff0bd17d711349b214
211691f4f17328ca05662d0c8835872c632e32c8
108496 F20101204_AACEIX villasenor_v_Page_063.jp2
a958277f1eef479d4b9fa27baa38798c
87ed15aab6facc7f53c33b8f97b51b6cb4f1d574
87497 F20101204_AACEKB villasenor_v_Page_021.jpg
b26a8155d8fa633fe7f3479c93e72c70
a15ef3273f56075aab2e0732e1bb1684806153bf
F20101204_AACEJN villasenor_v_Page_100.tif
375500094f6326dccc167e92bfa42d6d
8ff1460d0e3cbc32cc37385e309cef39aa28d68a
F20101204_AACEIY villasenor_v_Page_068.tif
9288239f0a2bfea35c9a313ba1fac3cb
f706f13ec90f0d70b2db175fef16d844a42d4ad5
186475 F20101204_AACEKC UFE0017740_00001.xml FULL
bf704e4ec2b2d5042c8dd00544e8c46a
df9933aa307ac9164e8a4f05a6f39367b9f13c36
46218 F20101204_AACEJO villasenor_v_Page_100.pro
0a00033950e7169138cafdcb06f362a8
2066f9bc9a30a2ab76d6d8ba95929b091f1fc843
5891 F20101204_AACEIZ villasenor_v_Page_092thm.jpg
55c90482222450026a7f2c0607fd73d0
f12422273e94df2cb9aef3d6bf55dec354ff2873
26958 F20101204_AACEJP villasenor_v_Page_055.QC.jpg
86c5f42b8c3efe0f020c1e93660c5a92
cd0127440ca82599b5b9a52737b35cceb782d5fc
22057 F20101204_AACEKF villasenor_v_Page_001.jpg
7fc846bf6bcda9f3de4f03ac5a201e47
949e910e86270d0567c58f5681bd8c4bcd6ccad6
75853 F20101204_AACEJQ villasenor_v_Page_107.jpg
d38ae44844ed38219856f4691370bf51
5537b751dfa7397bb399e215462dc2e766d07c4b
4404 F20101204_AACEKG villasenor_v_Page_002.jpg
17be3bbead19e5f799eb21738e01a5c9
9e8c3c39494c8723d2da99e4ceb9c98c029fd339
5016 F20101204_AACEJR villasenor_v_Page_013thm.jpg
b3d0bb455c88a0de84bb6868d88eeca3
531fc68e0b8a56a9307c097005d4ca726a1b4e38
83247 F20101204_AACEKH villasenor_v_Page_005.jpg
8f4067f0ad08d37cb517a9c9ed9462ae
39ff60da642220a1e75a0625c820d2a9d0b93b0e
44292 F20101204_AACEJS villasenor_v_Page_097.pro
9072741f8f19ac2c65cbb5b88ea31417
ddceb55c60a65d253fdaa2a7706e8f12a6f765a4
115592 F20101204_AACEKI villasenor_v_Page_006.jpg
ba2c20b37d2b3961322b44137de0fbc9
bb9fade2ca8e9b976f302384e749a8911685386b
5531 F20101204_AACEJT villasenor_v_Page_020thm.jpg
aa2643eb1fec4c9753c9f6f9fc8a9430
01a653c2b577bb69e7a29d74c8b44d0a056c0d43
79418 F20101204_AACEKJ villasenor_v_Page_014.jpg
6c3a049631b69b08c5c0302b667a1246
250ca46ed9129ca5f9ea532f91c2d79b479640b8
46847 F20101204_AACEJU villasenor_v_Page_056.pro
efcd488ce06cf5cedefb5a2883c31210
bab19e1621e824bbe186d06e35b390ffaad1891f
68654 F20101204_AACEKK villasenor_v_Page_015.jpg
73532a475dc31e1b809c01b0465bc476
c6ca03e418171ab0456ffa1856f4ba9ebbac15d6
119578 F20101204_AACEJV villasenor_v_Page_112.jp2
36d77f375b99d571e226c06c9c6bbf55
2e0cdb6a557d27777c2f3e9559851ae03c1b3ea3
70988 F20101204_AACEKL villasenor_v_Page_019.jpg
07a573672fffaa33be2b387486105aaa
aad93daf24f977e19273897d7c37bf0d776235c0
26984 F20101204_AACEJW villasenor_v_Page_027.QC.jpg
0f2f62b621ec61a0bd16d6f63bd3ddfe
6fa190244733d1b97807446055642692fd5c330f
91455 F20101204_AACEKM villasenor_v_Page_022.jpg
d366d6b50f0936210aa1765a1a1d6adf
78a1d52b4c1946a91fb7845ae7e78db07adae37e
73319 F20101204_AACEJX villasenor_v_Page_062.jpg
d8a70d569e686ae4e93bfcf578f3e877
e24b98cc0950c75a36fa52ce73f6da8236df2552
81022 F20101204_AACELA villasenor_v_Page_052.jpg
e61e49f1305c9427ce52fbd6c2743fbb
d3100308ffdfda68ce6e41ee9974b94f98ea7d66
78097 F20101204_AACEKN villasenor_v_Page_023.jpg
2d9651b617559a637e87e524bbbaa9e4
113cd3a21447e03071bdf8b619fdf328b7521a4d
2356 F20101204_AACEJY villasenor_v_Page_044.txt
b37b99e4bc9fa80c981c981d373acdec
71298dce0b5f7de769dd194843dd4d719b889c4b
76180 F20101204_AACELB villasenor_v_Page_053.jpg
04ad56c821b9cb239476dcfe5eed42d5
5cbd915dcc7002bf6ee41f83e182819a6e2a8f5d
78623 F20101204_AACEKO villasenor_v_Page_024.jpg
13b518c505d34dba7cbdeb5c75fe369f
3573ee3e77201e71f14ded247d8f5f276e8f3193
F20101204_AACEJZ villasenor_v_Page_012.tif
919b760cf8f47ba5245fedbb640cdd03
0c43858dbfe6da51ac7e638df3930f592e1f9158
89660 F20101204_AACELC villasenor_v_Page_054.jpg
8e21704c886e1cc619be6931d0bd22d6
76f7fbe4dcac0c9f12e295bc18f59d81156f89f4
85853 F20101204_AACEKP villasenor_v_Page_027.jpg
dd7f497a0825f5e57b3e88140ab5b287
63dbbe532c0808987c32aa9d98770905fe07e97f
77013 F20101204_AACELD villasenor_v_Page_056.jpg
92af24230f640ea42e7629d2ace998c5
4e91b4190a8c4cd60a8999f6d17c54b62dc99835
92359 F20101204_AACEKQ villasenor_v_Page_028.jpg
933952969e6b3992cd2c9958b93844e2
7da611707749c132f5a45d063ecd588ebc851da4
47355 F20101204_AACELE villasenor_v_Page_057.jpg
1cf33f7cf02498edd97f6ba1589835c8
69f784c31c76cd85cf5e486e59aa3a5fe854cd05
81751 F20101204_AACELF villasenor_v_Page_058.jpg
8a85cc26dfa6ee9848afe180f078c6ee
d8e2c6a085b16182721a7d9e4ae298038b34a704
84387 F20101204_AACEKR villasenor_v_Page_029.jpg
f53863a6fd7b1df8a9a13b5d11e3eed1
0613acc9c5b70c53bbbfc805bfe07981fb7688a7
46765 F20101204_AACELG villasenor_v_Page_064.jpg
9db85c0e0d847fa1898a63fa3435c230
295df89def9a5513236e077b01eef72308d62e02
80830 F20101204_AACEKS villasenor_v_Page_032.jpg
01d43d57da2ed2692c10f61db392ba82
832bbef8a87533628ae7b959db8011e7cfeb7cde
78416 F20101204_AACELH villasenor_v_Page_065.jpg
7f91812a213d6f776a92f41045008d41
bdaa959fd7110a7160f4172829d0f19ea75f6ba0
70688 F20101204_AACEKT villasenor_v_Page_037.jpg
1e1334c554e618a58a2277de9ed87161
4c24949fcb8b0b40f7c2e4b6e6d02f81605f6bed
75474 F20101204_AACELI villasenor_v_Page_066.jpg
42a07836ab05e4a223e2fd2f13331b4e
a7ad2ad54a7ead8b5a42b7289c392c9cff1fcf4d
70798 F20101204_AACEKU villasenor_v_Page_041.jpg
94c916a3fdbf02f23755d5f28152afdc
d4b3838cf009543960119eeebc5622489d0dfe9a
91161 F20101204_AACELJ villasenor_v_Page_070.jpg
707f41a55c4bde8da7ff6a0be0dbf8d4
300e527736f399a51f96f621267ec5cafc04fb0b
68809 F20101204_AACEKV villasenor_v_Page_043.jpg
525d0a90ccf2fff73bb372f8e1f08930
4428463fff9b4fb5bcc841473bb4885f758e5a95
92190 F20101204_AACELK villasenor_v_Page_071.jpg
c556815847820e0b93cd63a406f3911e
3e70ac3cc2956900cdab555fb95cf27c196e60ab
91801 F20101204_AACEKW villasenor_v_Page_044.jpg
d510d9a1479063e472bc5abc0247adcf
12a5fa4782113181f3fe48de4cf0f01c9a8213fa
80306 F20101204_AACELL villasenor_v_Page_082.jpg
deac69fefd355f5a0e977027de3fc046
29b19ad015bf0ab3a708772b82b538c343d1687a
82752 F20101204_AACEKX villasenor_v_Page_048.jpg
216acfbbe89663cf3b40331e89966e9a
932b7158bdf5da5721130209a3daf21b97fd3d22
91233 F20101204_AACEMA villasenor_v_Page_012.jp2
685ec41957e9df3cc8128da30d51b458
1a199e43876b43e65c474185f22ad7cedcaab1bd
88160 F20101204_AACELM villasenor_v_Page_086.jpg
50d01fca85d687453f56c042d6d12703
a11fe164864767a7fd092562b3ab0de4318ce17c
817671 F20101204_AACEMB villasenor_v_Page_013.jp2
cf90341a6cdc09f8a4530e9fe003cfeb
a9ba651605ef6b902651f8c12239b913163d1da0
60185 F20101204_AACELN villasenor_v_Page_089.jpg
43bc147b64148055f3c2fce1eecb962a
8d3edb938ab1c499a750656ca87502173e4e2c6a
78922 F20101204_AACEKY villasenor_v_Page_049.jpg
01a2699dfe52537630d631c284d857de
465402e68390466bcdd24fd74a8acc4f504fa101
87139 F20101204_AACEMC villasenor_v_Page_015.jp2
b065106921bb7df313d069775520f16b
1b25d346c14c2ecebaa9666d8c4f9f9d8119549a
76740 F20101204_AACELO villasenor_v_Page_090.jpg
8087f06288115eafd9773e87260dc425
f63f1329c1e43090c603aca47eff0584e6d84cae
68314 F20101204_AACEKZ villasenor_v_Page_051.jpg
09028d2a9d3005852931d4824d893871
530fca891f16c72ff1d25c0a633892b18015f0fc
90847 F20101204_AACEMD villasenor_v_Page_019.jp2
16cffe4fe2656b22b3f202d6646918c0
74790d50572f154bc9e16f36f1b2da5c1cb34090
73852 F20101204_AACELP villasenor_v_Page_092.jpg
e452890fd7cbffac809bc2ee3941f8c1
45c0ccf282640b6a7abeb5b9d045f71c771ededc
115681 F20101204_AACEME villasenor_v_Page_021.jp2
2c622dd175bfd20b3b35ca0cc95ad56a
2173e89e429547add0c84ed6abbd3f679203d52c
66895 F20101204_AACELQ villasenor_v_Page_101.jpg
5d989422bb00c780e3a303da4598d3c6
8fec6f973921e8324f95bf4cd069f7d8581b437b
121687 F20101204_AACEMF villasenor_v_Page_022.jp2
b7b6defd97477fec228e35976bea100f
c408f6b86552ccf6985396ceb9fabd2fdcac789e
80200 F20101204_AACELR villasenor_v_Page_104.jpg
37d7aac13b9d8d86691fd7509e16b26d
24ca09d8b04fddabf7156f548d908370d909474e
102041 F20101204_AACEMG villasenor_v_Page_023.jp2
76c686db384d93da1adb6f6f07ae7aae
9496fca1ae9c8d5ae2f66e6ef38614c713652e1f
1051930 F20101204_AACEMH villasenor_v_Page_024.jp2
f8e00e2c2d5b617d49f09bc9e9685e89
776633fd4b25c6a54799214c3f89398fae496688
82635 F20101204_AACELS villasenor_v_Page_105.jpg
13a5ff57eebfc4a9e5b83736cf5652d8
157229bdb6bddb2e358674e369170f0a74792455
108880 F20101204_AACEMI villasenor_v_Page_025.jp2
8a37cca02bdf7acdc747b75145e3feb7
f00426ef282150e8cc6fc2c3c84a2df9df551a88
11876 F20101204_AACELT villasenor_v_Page_108.jpg
6f1ac43f834305ce4228c54ed375e856
11efa05dc3bc06b65680cc4a380d7000fa43bd72
108775 F20101204_AACEMJ villasenor_v_Page_026.jp2
8364ccb0e647b62f07e1605385d68d40
ee814ed983ccd08c410e5865f74af18840d175bb
86752 F20101204_AACELU villasenor_v_Page_112.jpg
919296949e14b477c8f051e6e23e7c25
45f14ca60f1869e6d78c35fc0130f6fff25682fb
114182 F20101204_AACEMK villasenor_v_Page_031.jp2
e4ab1fede7d5710084eaa13b4b2d8c7d
496eac355c6d456240196b0ba3370e55652ea915
99234 F20101204_AACELV villasenor_v_Page_113.jpg
757b096c609c2f15e0a2e699b6943229
25559ca82551f78f9cb894233ee0ba6b9cd6f020
103305 F20101204_AACEML villasenor_v_Page_033.jp2
b74dd778ea6fe250256e6e93fc8ba3d0
1bf9f248ea85b7421b29fe7fc525e806c83dcae7
104248 F20101204_AACELW villasenor_v_Page_116.jpg
fc3b4ebd5f5af14acb3cb8c510b15109
e31a66f42bb8808015da882f77355b00a5a3ac1d
109932 F20101204_AACEMM villasenor_v_Page_035.jp2
c269ccb832d689abe95c4fa1866e9c80
32ab2ec8162c800ca588ac2ff93a40c67f801102
103068 F20101204_AACELX villasenor_v_Page_119.jpg
3cf6767a6f8d2053ccff5a63aec946c2
c6c1d39bd38a64f79b1b584bb1990c5390a9fe0c
98105 F20101204_AACENA villasenor_v_Page_066.jp2
65650b545f44c9e190befa2e8004fbc7
734b9f1633e3deb2005b3c2b2452204c994c6083
915862 F20101204_AACEMN villasenor_v_Page_037.jp2
60b9628ac4322d399e56defc444b1f43
eaaa1a10930533ac39d0fde31f8c6d93f08a2f16
85870 F20101204_AACELY villasenor_v_Page_007.jp2
e6841cb69abf44c2fe94183d6bf46470
2a3032598b45ecbb6c65cab697b70b7273d3ecfd
100857 F20101204_AACENB villasenor_v_Page_075.jp2
611798fd12ed6734661fd37d54765a05
b7249265faba0b49eaf04403665eab69de7ff55f
127920 F20101204_AACEMO villasenor_v_Page_038.jp2
c8d24d1d8d37002d7f3ec0d666b22c13
c08111a7a1d29fd06c7c357f551317306a5c37f4
83487 F20101204_AACELZ villasenor_v_Page_010.jp2
12c90ab91e82be5a938beef166abe988
393d4e577c1bbc99f7bdfb755a02c85803102158
114723 F20101204_AACENC villasenor_v_Page_077.jp2
64e08912dde721b4d871fbfe24982391
5df0377c814dc0a9770600b8f63b8bad997ba2ac
120618 F20101204_AACEMP villasenor_v_Page_039.jp2
d3db4d0e6602f4360c946f3d3ae48e4d
b9f625b2a7af1c330c6f59accfe2901b209b6397
113559 F20101204_AACEND villasenor_v_Page_080.jp2
e3d0eb4535ff48a765fa0239856a7a78
25f875cc74121d1a36f04c0b77b5e0759ea47c86
15251 F20101204_AACEMQ villasenor_v_Page_040.jp2
d28d79dbb9a198d56e80a52913aeeca2
8f02fc425929632cfbe8b47bd7a9ec7cbe9d5bdb
110964 F20101204_AACENE villasenor_v_Page_085.jp2
0a8a05e4501da2c7f20fec548395d6c1
ecce1aa336871f3d8dd16c17cfb1e442cd177aaf
1051983 F20101204_AACEMR villasenor_v_Page_042.jp2
0c620b02542b306b9b4f1e785a236bd1
95e042ff13c5c7afec7e3aa2392be1276374664e
115506 F20101204_AACENF villasenor_v_Page_086.jp2
a179801edb780e7dbe6a0a54ab625c13
18425cc742e10d3890dcd4dcf5ec4a0dbf6f8dfa
108512 F20101204_AACEMS villasenor_v_Page_047.jp2
cad64d892d27e8d7a144e8109f1b55bb
80240487c50d7a58fd32a6e4e14c6c83090e4ef8
105363 F20101204_AACENG villasenor_v_Page_091.jp2
96db58ca1f9ccce7c04c7a8365c251a3
fd9b7899f464c932a1b70d0a6f6fb827867d49fd
96711 F20101204_AACENH villasenor_v_Page_092.jp2
834f40a0f77c8e88a97a15c8d978f748
bc30f6d16d23c3873cc6007b7427cb288c3cda63
94118 F20101204_AACEMT villasenor_v_Page_050.jp2
00aa08640180493025711f7f2898130f
e6a5d985d2318e87ef19edcc18999f257d2b3d69
42435 F20101204_AACENI villasenor_v_Page_093.jp2
f072d2f78b00418c1befe62d2b6fbf51
ced7ccd4d2c0ae44f3738d747e867a0d19f9cd34
927637 F20101204_AACEMU villasenor_v_Page_057.jp2
db229c4af9d0134d65661f60eb2b17f2
da1bcfcad371444200699916e4636c1338d1f504
105754 F20101204_AACENJ villasenor_v_Page_096.jp2
9fd44f45aa6984f902632153ecbc8016
de2271ef8a0c74abb90e439171ca95331f866bec
99366 F20101204_AACEMV villasenor_v_Page_059.jp2
f434b06eb6f0d0cf50cb731abfd1b5bd
cedeb7b641efccb36652a0036dfc0c211932b438
97966 F20101204_AACENK villasenor_v_Page_097.jp2
1bcb680a841f8af660c9c89f7748e7bd
9877210bbfb573ce0e0f48fca286c4e84ddfc858
112869 F20101204_AACEMW villasenor_v_Page_061.jp2
b6ea67d0a5d280a4fdcdf52bc68ef7c9
0154073d68587f71cfdb61f380e7f10ab0eac86d
102030 F20101204_AACENL villasenor_v_Page_098.jp2
fe4f50f0fbfc73eed767ecf84023ce7e
82613de26cc7d2a8413d0000a9f79ce696ad7f6b
94794 F20101204_AACEMX villasenor_v_Page_062.jp2
0aff04b6e8a0d2278533b4c69edce04a
d92023c9f70a006b28ba334e41dc6f467fd3430e
F20101204_AACEOA villasenor_v_Page_011.tif
06d6db05b95230c30e35e3a6c291a60e
6fdc81a40dae7248b21235e45b2a56db20d71330
110411 F20101204_AACENM villasenor_v_Page_099.jp2
187466c896dc69b156567e039eedef26
53944c03e90cff9a34d0af8dd665411f610d8517
60051 F20101204_AACEMY villasenor_v_Page_064.jp2
1c2600ddf3b7a2528740802f439c9074
0ac6cff424f8dba9d56b9119040d28ac284d1687
F20101204_AACEOB villasenor_v_Page_013.tif
398260da792cb03cd4e07270339cb8d6
698e32d899c82d38cfd09cbf3efd5c587680562d
87912 F20101204_AACENN villasenor_v_Page_101.jp2
d955faf63752089c9166741893adc4bc
941e58fd528fafadf8c0121641fcce2979e76002
1024737 F20101204_AACEMZ villasenor_v_Page_065.jp2
eee67ede460897c666c43923fa7cd716
e9b599e0612798873cc24e0483086cdd07d9d4ca
F20101204_AACEOC villasenor_v_Page_018.tif
b7a0da05ec742f461cb423a5dc7f6a2f
df3eeab5dc8ae922015cf6dcf52cedb47e666cab
1051967 F20101204_AACENO villasenor_v_Page_103.jp2
9adb7140adcfc909a53c63d2a8cd0038
b87faf855e5ef305a990d4305b4be2e1e0c3cc89
F20101204_AACEOD villasenor_v_Page_021.tif
b9e4679fbd6f18a9c0f41ed6bc2aaeaf
c4510a5d106100e4fa412a82200e72a7aafbb4e2
105204 F20101204_AACENP villasenor_v_Page_104.jp2
656047a6a32a436818090c9f3c731561
21b25e13f591bc206ffe1eac5c225b445731f779
F20101204_AACEOE villasenor_v_Page_022.tif
c349b22adae155623b8fa4370d7db57e
ebeb0ec17b43dfb2a0439daf6957369acb5442a3
98140 F20101204_AACENQ villasenor_v_Page_107.jp2
fae473826790edd17a1b1dcf3f9e109f
66024eda93c0644d318d3e0003736b0a5921a0ed
F20101204_AACEOF villasenor_v_Page_025.tif
3621b04fe67165740857e58956ca4530
122f4d7c116682fd35cb5e30493c512d7c1c1a90
15429 F20101204_AACENR villasenor_v_Page_108.jp2
dcb1ccbe09b4079ae9e36c62ca0335c3
7fa478a1048676492903e53473dc801cfceb63ee
F20101204_AACEOG villasenor_v_Page_026.tif
1f781f7597c530913494fa0b4b294b36
26cac4ce79c14c23c39c4cf85d0141aea7cb2c81
F20101204_AACENS villasenor_v_Page_113.jp2
e0108ca20553fbb99c02b93221ae9ee5
86d9eb0af79423f47325f098451b86afc4867ffe
F20101204_AACEOH villasenor_v_Page_034.tif
0d2a7a29accf6df5cfde60456e0a73e7
32c2d41de024ca5e643c63fbcb96ee5f7d2481b0
1051954 F20101204_AACENT villasenor_v_Page_119.jp2
bf7efc9bad287348ff3b19c8f9458ea6
fa9e5f12edcd96b23ed9ed0456ea857294ca03bd
F20101204_AACEOI villasenor_v_Page_035.tif
3e2d5e9e0ab1ac2cd0e3879b3b0a8b5c
05d087603f9a4d15e4a79cad7e5c849827601fa1
F20101204_AACEOJ villasenor_v_Page_037.tif
f3bb887a0f5c21308f6d331cd62e0617
26f48837862aad922da4ea51202e0f81f1e63d9c
F20101204_AACENU villasenor_v_Page_120.jp2
a3539b45a2809952d9518af41b7a3fdc
2668311dc398530d4d6d0e8a36efb81e612e254f
F20101204_AACEOK villasenor_v_Page_040.tif
196e6e548b24cbb61735ebae36f19ad0
fe38b4a9970f529764d13e1b07623369507f0195
F20101204_AACENV villasenor_v_Page_002.tif
26a342a32b2a87cdd2a6a243b2351310
2dd0ee052d55ded3f481a0e50793eece187b9686
F20101204_AACEOL villasenor_v_Page_041.tif
613bc00622d38bd4c8ea1f3a4868a08f
d21009858799c815a6c7e568016589a34b37fc38
F20101204_AACENW villasenor_v_Page_003.tif
1aeda740c0f0e6e5e2993d6bf210c4a2
76be3ebd805ac61b32d5b52a6361fdd5bd41ccba
F20101204_AACEPA villasenor_v_Page_083.tif
e026235f0cc0ddf04a09a329e850fdd9
503ed22ace31b665f65437b347a76d46d811c164
F20101204_AACEOM villasenor_v_Page_045.tif
cab586219283b1876a467117eade99d1
278630791fa057f011e06de6df613430a18063f9
F20101204_AACENX villasenor_v_Page_004.tif
beaa41e671c56365f7dd4d2a16b3142e
7d89357d7675fe840981ea53d3e6b710282c32dd
F20101204_AACEPB villasenor_v_Page_088.tif
5342011c5b9f2d249297c3165faaee14
e4e10e5710089f494ca8673131f30395c9f59c16
F20101204_AACEON villasenor_v_Page_047.tif
7a27a8eb1f9953a41f4046fdd6c15ffe
c23eaeac9ee6946445d2e4e5a98c2459d37a02ac
F20101204_AACENY villasenor_v_Page_008.tif
46fa1d92fee6be339907a42dfd1723be
559844ebd48a7a890b155eebccef098d11f8dc5e
F20101204_AACEPC villasenor_v_Page_090.tif
4dc42ef095d9b1674bc83d4d3aa75e0a
62d31b817984d429752775353f9d1e2f20ab7cc5
F20101204_AACEOO villasenor_v_Page_053.tif
538158eb8bd81a26e6d9ba9df2266fab
e1f7de2c1393aa21f0af1a2a55e017d0d7daa6e2
F20101204_AACENZ villasenor_v_Page_009.tif
1ef44b14f60843e6dc1970c8ca15b023
f369290627551a3704b8a5c5b564129c4f493a56
F20101204_AACEPD villasenor_v_Page_091.tif
74c1a9bdc39bebc40bc640730bee6080
35dbadf1fcf90e2e383d352a8cee2bc258923517
F20101204_AACEOP villasenor_v_Page_059.tif
01e2d89d4bc6dfbe01168cd7bd540eaa
e1a73cf3697fd88e4c8bee4aa914bf206b95aa72
F20101204_AACEPE villasenor_v_Page_092.tif
e30ab21e071e25755368a571d8e82f5c
d5a475ec7d4e534f04d4a196659d4b175311e3c9
F20101204_AACEOQ villasenor_v_Page_060.tif
119ecb8eff68b7642ee8c0a2ce908ad1
2583b375cdaa43d70648fc1c2eb2a8d17a22c5e4
F20101204_AACEPF villasenor_v_Page_094.tif
31bdff1ad7d6dc81425ba7d80877d93e
58b9bcae72f8a76489c9a8179e1a37694c55e902
F20101204_AACEOR villasenor_v_Page_063.tif
be0ba0c88af3307eb92f455ca0c697e5
24b594da5d784f22725d899c09c1b2555c461f75
F20101204_AACEPG villasenor_v_Page_097.tif
519538cb546d3679e2228723320eb5e7
cbc7924ab6425df673bef21300a53888ad4f55de
F20101204_AACEOS villasenor_v_Page_064.tif
ce1bcd5359fd8f5da42a9300a1d300d7
2a32f5d3e632dbbf08748d609da9184fdf20d887
F20101204_AACEPH villasenor_v_Page_102.tif
7b2736821b6af5b0f2e9fc013230a211
673fd1094caeed32c1c225c23d16b7c9cd0c6396
F20101204_AACEOT villasenor_v_Page_075.tif
0aef14cfd95d0f9bc14c660afc852c2f
c1a3694537ace933bcd8a9d6cfadbb0121d1efa9
F20101204_AACEPI villasenor_v_Page_103.tif
d6bae142a1af7efa38e7af8daed3b5b2
c30db28be727bfc6fb5d922f6b8dea68aec6c3d2
F20101204_AACEOU villasenor_v_Page_076.tif
ef15e42b11f44d6a43f548f155ed75bd
9e4011765cdf9e93183d4ade2604f6a17908914a
F20101204_AACEPJ villasenor_v_Page_106.tif
6e2640ae554d14c7f46af0d7e916f676
34f4c2fa869824fd921607530ab15b85a7b9bb0d
F20101204_AACEPK villasenor_v_Page_107.tif
5371fc3246adc0682e33bf23e1ca7497
c223e13495a1746c62bf10bdb63af916841847df
F20101204_AACEOV villasenor_v_Page_077.tif
5b6bd9602e65e5d9667d2083ef27cf3e
2b018d201e01cdf1793f2751fbf22b03b9b4ac1b
F20101204_AACEPL villasenor_v_Page_109.tif
c44e373602e0a496dd599d58dac50a4e
c12ca4d9909be5a439dd1ef13fc164e8d7f4dad4
F20101204_AACEOW villasenor_v_Page_078.tif
2be901d2ad2ccd558257664fd14d18b5
474acf4f6343ee1f0f74278560c10cd079f80b90
F20101204_AACEPM villasenor_v_Page_113.tif
c97e5d2c44851460050c37fb10bdaa3a
fbdf4feb7c4ba30dda4d338109cbf64329288056
F20101204_AACEOX villasenor_v_Page_080.tif
e860c59122c54e9979852d702640237b
a15a55e3f005ac76cf58eb82b652c69fc37a69f3
38027 F20101204_AACEQA villasenor_v_Page_009.pro
168c2e3bd635186768aafed59f618e6e
8493a9509968b1f00ced7ebcec59dd0516b4acbe
F20101204_AACEPN villasenor_v_Page_114.tif
85e389d06847ff47087e85f9130bef5c
d2231ffa07d8f83f4aad3c517e52123267176f1b
F20101204_AACEOY villasenor_v_Page_081.tif
4af0677eee649247169b28f0e36d3020
eee31aba41dd1aabbeecf9b397a3ed3e39719cf3
38021 F20101204_AACEQB villasenor_v_Page_010.pro
afe1f5efecf3ef27ee7fa2d79676916b
07744db7cc18ad01666d4c9009946ba3cbec773a
F20101204_AACEPO villasenor_v_Page_115.tif
9ea4493aee862368385472db80e3222b
b75e33a0184d56a6585ff83104cdf9a0b1fa879a
F20101204_AACEOZ villasenor_v_Page_082.tif
0b1517b6f9d7b8abff019ed91bedaade
f6d2a428a30de3b724c12346862e30c906fd0d23
42089 F20101204_AACEQC villasenor_v_Page_012.pro
582dc1a4af3175d0b9c9fcfcfc59b525
3f4c3b19cc1f0d003e05bc566965951b711d24a8
F20101204_AACEPP villasenor_v_Page_117.tif
618e2773792cd14fbd4c8221cbda4cb3
33593cabe172227601c4265cf50e5f1149e36187
36782 F20101204_AACEQD villasenor_v_Page_020.pro
d836f2fb0e1a459296656b574de97cf1
4281dd96d7eb1f8eb44909807aac661094414b94
F20101204_AACEPQ villasenor_v_Page_119.tif
6fe2838af3165e4ec60d262fc2d905e9
bfae91b96169f872ea5c60507c4e212e30ab9597
55637 F20101204_AACEQE villasenor_v_Page_021.pro
24ff0908dc89080ec56035f0f81d92c6
96d13297e805e13581b40e1af75d2d18f511e143
F20101204_AACEPR villasenor_v_Page_120.tif
e28d739565006db598bec951f55888cb
05b4d2ee681ecd3053007a769472c9ffd5a768c0
49659 F20101204_AACEQF villasenor_v_Page_026.pro
b98876f218d8463c7b42fef1b3d566b1
4ecac00fb00df30ece366e0a3f4a7a388e2c3bda
F20101204_AACEPS villasenor_v_Page_121.tif
edb982858842537b8128fb995f3d0ada
7aa8cec03575aadfb5d14f758fa22923ae16345d
62302 F20101204_AACEQG villasenor_v_Page_028.pro
4029fa9ee962009f7e7bd050ffabe143
00ca648909324e3feb1022f1f2460a1f09aefd63
F20101204_AACEPT villasenor_v_Page_122.tif
21779b5bdb6db4fb649cb51f488e13e9
35b7fad5e60accefc710a2eded9f9d694211539c
49773 F20101204_AACEQH villasenor_v_Page_029.pro
0b97075c15189f7c01f8d33111bd5638
261e04f09bcb57931fb379829e0aac0bcefb0edc
8270 F20101204_AACEPU villasenor_v_Page_001.pro
6a5afe86dd052c6f5e9d0c5232e4690d
ae253df4ff3f91bcde9eaf9ec3c5b1936bbb1000
48074 F20101204_AACEQI villasenor_v_Page_030.pro
03abc72d3845fde8c1c261e4779006b4
e44c43c2a7a8d2b6f0207f8d20a1dd91a49c2986
1280 F20101204_AACEPV villasenor_v_Page_002.pro
f0c69f802ffe5a1e50a3434c71f80bd7
7f70ddbece489af38ea1a4c0f6b809bf2a6c4333
52377 F20101204_AACEQJ villasenor_v_Page_031.pro
7fa3b92f5bffcfb29dd3cf23b64686b6
8e423b5f0d7e3f3f0ce198a821f417c485622ee3
46748 F20101204_AACEQK villasenor_v_Page_033.pro
48a8165033931a598c328b7130a67d54
78569274117c9974a0558075f9028e792c3e5199
54492 F20101204_AACEQL villasenor_v_Page_034.pro
a9246479a073fc23fa631fd0a6b16698
60a71f31d1dc0f979e5645f74f7ac2bbe38bca1a
10773 F20101204_AACEPW villasenor_v_Page_003.pro
1f6208eae13e42f8030d695cfeea752e
c7266842ff5d3313fe9da7532277a17b571b2b54
48494 F20101204_AACERA villasenor_v_Page_076.pro
3cea0d4295fd0d14c2104753cffb7373
62a66a7bc6c3d66f53bb2b8892075616d68e0575
66660 F20101204_AACEQM villasenor_v_Page_038.pro
9e8fb50df43c7b21c2e5215a71c8e029
d021d585855f4349f8b5c1829fe8e473ece268af
58555 F20101204_AACEPX villasenor_v_Page_005.pro
6c49c77f460b309b87989c62079af669
53d9a24be8ee9c90ff32d4d37c07d03f5bec0454
53072 F20101204_AACERB villasenor_v_Page_081.pro
769bdd4b41e150b8ee4e9f2a4cffc571
d138ca709c03dfe332e6945686b498fd12015939
5655 F20101204_AACEQN villasenor_v_Page_040.pro
6f46076c999b16d72fd9799d394d03d9
1d19bcb45e937bb7fea8da2cffdd239586ab2d76
84329 F20101204_AACEPY villasenor_v_Page_006.pro
bcddc32071a9062b007b519f0daa1502
eb23b7a23afa8045e91583734689d74f0ed7022e
53354 F20101204_AACERC villasenor_v_Page_086.pro
ccb257c229f3f5bfa66c6abf5dbcd2c6
73e5237c6cba305747cc0fa0066d00a7f1ab942a
33297 F20101204_AACEQO villasenor_v_Page_043.pro
b881b94aa13fe17a05b2d04b836eecf8
603ebb1eea218b1a469d5d0456ccfaddcfb54a2e
43324 F20101204_AACEPZ villasenor_v_Page_008.pro
839d807f90dbd506729930501e4c0e75
b51820e70783be98e1e9f3673910c15439d7f171
48071 F20101204_AACERD villasenor_v_Page_088.pro
beae26a6f68b520b6cb4592c3e5494a9
102c813fb8b7f9432e9541c35b961368a5a2e551
60910 F20101204_AACEQP villasenor_v_Page_044.pro
7b0d069bd4da5961ff45178a4f0e94dc
993a63d7c99c42e7d3e2435c100f630ff0c1d3ac
17619 F20101204_AACERE villasenor_v_Page_093.pro
622cdc62e2e6774665a7f3781c67f2f0
8cd09e3e9e37ac098e4c10bc185e488a142f2186
50142 F20101204_AACEQQ villasenor_v_Page_048.pro
9846e8a8a897cfe0e0f33ba8e551febd
01fc4526ce4c7dfdb74faf9642be1dd85e45a01a
44599 F20101204_AACERF villasenor_v_Page_098.pro
aef61476e25f5d5646ead38d79359580
a3c56166d0afb2f6a58d3b5ce7a7216c21599a94
42154 F20101204_AACEQR villasenor_v_Page_050.pro
fca9531797f9003616fa8fa0c6f752e0
426dad560af90540a4358daa35c9483d9deb7c4c
40023 F20101204_AACERG villasenor_v_Page_101.pro
d8e5028ad332c59935a5f6620881127e
2379878ad4201de16614384da75990facf539191
51919 F20101204_AACEQS villasenor_v_Page_051.pro
5751f5b114e7d55100aa10b3c7625eae
db30976db2e7d105e20fe676729ab1c8fec23897
45177 F20101204_AACERH villasenor_v_Page_102.pro
1042ab67ce1ddd595a362f44ff1c27e3
8a95c0a0437039b7a2c3ebaa53556b6562e91653
55402 F20101204_AACEQT villasenor_v_Page_054.pro
fa45caa6871d5db09c8cc54b1e600da4
c524d360b784d18bfeb05bce19f8957f83a50668
37215 F20101204_AACERI villasenor_v_Page_103.pro
ed9bf19a14372cc95ef3306c1bdea127
7cd1d849df6dc7b53a0df4e7724f373765be6593
43593 F20101204_AACEQU villasenor_v_Page_060.pro
7c8dc7daf3706fc23bad552f8cf5822d
2808bf6043ddee0cd42dc6c48d92a7b6a49caac7
48004 F20101204_AACERJ villasenor_v_Page_104.pro
f952a6ea588d5b447e01eaf04efe13d6
7dbaac5e96c73d2e043d6156baef4145fc4c411c
53600 F20101204_AACEQV villasenor_v_Page_061.pro
44b2dcebed59caaf7df89ee1d5138b63
92d196cae6b1942cd205a31fe714239dbc9105b0
45480 F20101204_AACERK villasenor_v_Page_107.pro
08f6c2e182e89cc408b7df44f70b129c
e5ed8fd0669c6eb3cb0490db77652d8536c1d147
42195 F20101204_AACEQW villasenor_v_Page_062.pro
b3800580c1c7b5e6e8756385c0227649
aa60b3561f3e0cc266e25ff7352ab490b2b977da
57378 F20101204_AACERL villasenor_v_Page_113.pro
a0bb7c243284ee6f5895e2941bff7902
46a435450af4cba28e32452d8b2535d50c0aa9d1
62953 F20101204_AACERM villasenor_v_Page_118.pro
330abf4243ef8ce8651ed4ef305fe291
133b3776d72c97aa8eaa608816c0fc906f390ef9
45035 F20101204_AACEQX villasenor_v_Page_065.pro
f8e66d338979709d4944c61963ce8ac8
5967b2b029f12b6efb515864f54216fac9c898dd
1784 F20101204_AACESA villasenor_v_Page_037.txt
2fefff453c88b15c5e291c16b86668aa
5a3a1e94547e5717aeed303d9089fc90a3f6c0aa
3598 F20101204_AACERN villasenor_v_Page_006.txt
af7b68e5975f7c7bcf96e0de5dc830e7
f5cdd0e7e920e949f832583272a6c7e56d5ef4ba
53672 F20101204_AACEQY villasenor_v_Page_072.pro
e006db5b72680758a55fc87267c24218
d4f08d437ae00c85787d79ff9ca784cb3786a70c
2583 F20101204_AACESB villasenor_v_Page_038.txt
6ca691481d1cdcaaa3f21696fbbb0b7d
9db93225c06bba0b7471244ef8b651e6d7aa59a2
108 F20101204_AACERO villasenor_v_Page_007.txt
791532eea089a06181217f748286da81
8606cae7af6ffe5eef9eceef052a3968a721eb88
45715 F20101204_AACEQZ villasenor_v_Page_075.pro
ab9a1ddcd481b0d3903834a8c562e3ce
ef56ba2caf4e5ee09c334e9e19fa06d44c39d0a7
2169 F20101204_AACESC villasenor_v_Page_042.txt
68248c7cbc4790546b359b36c3b23be4
a80e0a9c493049423ecc5a5da324800dca2f9cdc
1754 F20101204_AACERP villasenor_v_Page_011.txt
7991bfc8a5b30b4980cf2c1b7b555ea8
62a79bc92694d5ac6d1ed15fce9f7ce86b59ab71
1997 F20101204_AACESD villasenor_v_Page_047.txt
211a996235accf9928562de1bddee105
09dd25932df3a08993cdac7cb03aa99e14e591b3
1759 F20101204_AACERQ villasenor_v_Page_012.txt
2c6d4c7fde1710549bd255911ebbd95d
277a6a660f25c61f2aecccb3994795a7c5c25ef8
1677 F20101204_AACESE villasenor_v_Page_050.txt
7b187266d7c1dbe9489929c57dbbb01b
e9a768cdae077d5f8e8e4e46570011cd05f762db
1592 F20101204_AACERR villasenor_v_Page_015.txt
87de600f69603562994d96f653d77447
b491215da790ef9f38211671f53f361707e2c758
2512 F20101204_AACESF villasenor_v_Page_055.txt
b4036b3333f1aa6498e1159243dede67
8e9160da093f8211c1920c2a627136f21c531027
1761 F20101204_AACERS villasenor_v_Page_019.txt
740f19854a385a947e7c3d23e3d0c001
d2ebba1ca9ae098988ae3eb6f7399fa891db582f
1872 F20101204_AACESG villasenor_v_Page_056.txt
1b8a38c67d30c3c2706c693dfc449a00
1f76ac8862347fd82b7144b7d42e98c77cf577eb
1819 F20101204_AACERT villasenor_v_Page_023.txt
9dbecf795af768372d5f60e82f5e27c8
bd1c5b2a33fba1edf1b6a4c9bcc577984aa3986b
805 F20101204_AACESH villasenor_v_Page_057.txt
3c9cc278b2a9105dbb6c556cdea62fe2
5f1a36362502c8c03076f7705ce58c0adb37d488
1938 F20101204_AACERU villasenor_v_Page_025.txt
581cf07d4bd40e059ad4df5ff0d80413
ae1d1c880ff862e5a199e29b8717035299010c1c
F20101204_AACESI villasenor_v_Page_059.txt
e7084c64fba1572576b20f3c752bba41
b01860bff8848cb84c413801b244699a374520e6
1963 F20101204_AACERV villasenor_v_Page_026.txt
c346896bbff1d9146f39b74cd0634ab6
3065a57f975e088526f1fe56a49aaae04b29b3cc
1993 F20101204_AACESJ villasenor_v_Page_063.txt
c6c54a77d3d9ba192466dc9b230ce2b8
465365a182c4a4e106e08bd93f036d776d6e76f3
1959 F20101204_AACERW villasenor_v_Page_029.txt
4253f03662c6db0a1fc34a18196bcea2
6b5d26a1ff1bfa6fbc519b1481b63f27619181cf
1081 F20101204_AACESK villasenor_v_Page_064.txt
365a652ab9f3f6cf1d58154df2328218
0cc5c48dc72306090548ad9e652599603ca50846
1899 F20101204_AACERX villasenor_v_Page_030.txt
b279bef6c1435d334144431c5b829761
b8d60bbd77d272cedf182997fb62e07d2322e1ab
1832 F20101204_AACESL villasenor_v_Page_065.txt
f587aa9452bf312f0a5cfc34d54b3fde
087d10847b57e8ba6bcc4a2d6e535405d8760c08
1992 F20101204_AACETA villasenor_v_Page_092.txt
c5a9525b9efc2ee6a2ffa1f72e4b5e06
b3d776838e54177bc58cd715a35f1fa9bfdb4781
1786 F20101204_AACESM villasenor_v_Page_066.txt
2384dab1948aac002fcb75756f06b784
2b3644da116dc19d16597ad127a76dea93ca0f68
1852 F20101204_AACERY villasenor_v_Page_033.txt
1a7c6c5fcd749a54feaced0f16b13ab8
40eda73919101e489cdfaa4909895b573a63780c
983 F20101204_AACETB villasenor_v_Page_093.txt
cebec3bae79fc44aaa09f0bdeda9ca86
0215931e8e89336351168c1b6f7799a7ecdd3246
1975 F20101204_AACESN villasenor_v_Page_067.txt
63f78e751a894b5ed79902563a003d83
8b51e24cbbff6684745e06c09ca01b44a3787874
2060 F20101204_AACERZ villasenor_v_Page_036.txt
f7b3ebf31713fb705f062c226f8d342d
cd8887dba2a5cec5fd34607d2f456b6492d1f3cb
1760 F20101204_AACETC villasenor_v_Page_097.txt
f76e5d824d51a52b0cbd47163baa5e05
98c8854cf3b4d9919b00aa6a7be9c94f590f6280
2237 F20101204_AACESO villasenor_v_Page_071.txt
f48a41e86e212c3bb19b244d4a6c5fe1
517415c4b7a8851ece5a73a5ae7016256ffafd9c
1791 F20101204_AACETD villasenor_v_Page_098.txt
ae4de72cf76469799c226751f20168f2
ff9272f13d5d4c107e1a7146219342013a4f61f0
2113 F20101204_AACESP villasenor_v_Page_072.txt
200f300faf3f5429968ff321e421ea2f
3948c53b86ceac82c366a5c796974a2e0b2c2e56
2011 F20101204_AACETE villasenor_v_Page_099.txt
3cc710b22e7f26e9aa6d2444a02e46c9
2d8eaf2e22c5c31c19eccb286fc8ae3d47a0a99f
1904 F20101204_AACESQ villasenor_v_Page_074.txt
6324383a7a182786e9b65718b9a48c9b
b1c4b8e1fb992296669cc8b04a479f7b6f118ff6
1838 F20101204_AACETF villasenor_v_Page_100.txt
681867d828d2f902760bc000dcc5a64a
1ce7d863f529a243e64a23f9f0def356ff9ba5c7
F20101204_AACESR villasenor_v_Page_076.txt
01746c21ed63a012e5051ceb7ddb4e21
b5a9666e665d3f5898846952296d3a610fc271b7
1849 F20101204_AACETG villasenor_v_Page_102.txt
a8c1465648cef03bab4cc5a5294691de
511a30ac5ceb234e9a245ad2cf7ccfe7efbe71df
2106 F20101204_AACESS villasenor_v_Page_077.txt
37e3943b4748cf658601ca4615001880
a864d43340769450f0bf86eeaf195d89ec8a0099
1891 F20101204_AACETH villasenor_v_Page_104.txt
b414c83337be3dd9a70211570f808343
1657e42c2c08ace3c1f47da4b53e07db8b1c6efb
3567 F20101204_AACEST villasenor_v_Page_082.txt
c3b308266553336674fe7917fcbbbb6a
4ff77e1c0023897ae57dddfbc5056e90189f0909
2004 F20101204_AACETI villasenor_v_Page_105.txt
cce41cb1e165387dc98015c16ebf4ea6
b4a1c91a17e9e32570a018f2dacb95f6f6bf6e55
2054 F20101204_AACESU villasenor_v_Page_083.txt
9ed117f75bafff74c397ae9838f9e4be
f54c5c3ade50fe7d43b25687babad67637f2e065
1984 F20101204_AACETJ villasenor_v_Page_106.txt
71a2fb0f8181c536c54fc634d701b290
d475c0fd4fa5e48f7cd31f546615594e0d243c95
F20101204_AACESV villasenor_v_Page_084.txt
7dc1f8097e5419fc6f54502c91cef2b0
cd1630511c632af4e34c1248a7e74fe8d718e7fe
266 F20101204_AACETK villasenor_v_Page_108.txt
108ae1bdb5769eca6df0bc5f6fbaddf7
b3cd0794a3dbe97869dfae8c8ffcb1c0d3213376
F20101204_AACESW villasenor_v_Page_086.txt
07600498566c9d67076c12a9c98fce96
fa06815d49d76d9026d6b985d90390f879ffad26
1964 F20101204_AACETL villasenor_v_Page_109.txt
db29276490e28becadbb0fd4cca1e373
fbed2e286f19dfa373379580e9052e0280d71660
2303 F20101204_AACESX villasenor_v_Page_089.txt
6acab8b12d576f227b1093c56acfeea1
d02375f5166b8dd23f6f058c39628bce30f45d64
17465 F20101204_AACEUA villasenor_v_Page_008.QC.jpg
8e01ff10b634048bf5d05219f3072929
35bb796b22342be4b86be378f211b15317b07996
2373 F20101204_AACETM villasenor_v_Page_110.txt
0d645e3ede606dd3c635dfc366c03211
bb584f94824317f72ae8e3b731c99c5f451f1598
1960 F20101204_AACESY villasenor_v_Page_090.txt
3421fa8cb145b67bb15419bbae5c969a
ab88057705df7968f3aec1be220058e4ee91044b
18051 F20101204_AACEUB villasenor_v_Page_009.QC.jpg
a5d88bbd453a62558fbe2f442176d439
75443a0f39c6950953282a8e638f29b2d21ad3f4
2270 F20101204_AACETN villasenor_v_Page_112.txt
e3c09ba42bd8bb799bb53021ea8bbf95
1a535a3c954812327dc6120fe03998b9fc015f9f
4485 F20101204_AACEUC villasenor_v_Page_009thm.jpg
15863389e37d46e74b4141950e35191c
d20bd64597de1630089a5f8069ca3c71cd9c03b1
2330 F20101204_AACETO villasenor_v_Page_113.txt
7a0b68284b826e4c4376490fd979828b
93ad9bb054067f823ef5edd94cbcb9d8b37e00a9
1893 F20101204_AACESZ villasenor_v_Page_091.txt
a1cfe54840635e037bbb223f35aae561
041a98022e4fd488a0150c703786b8fa8a649ccc
4802 F20101204_AACEUD villasenor_v_Page_010thm.jpg
9a7c970602b77dd382c3beca330c843e
56f91c8cff774ace4e3f3e572f3063f32cfa0f89
2549 F20101204_AACETP villasenor_v_Page_115.txt
2cc1da3c8cc4438f6bcc93dd19257492
5da97e239ed288123bca530a563855364c9f4def
5548 F20101204_AACEUE villasenor_v_Page_011thm.jpg
e4c5b8613b2b1daddba677d317c5be68
3da1a4c776bf35c33cb5cf59822d1ac94a8d5d18
2304 F20101204_AACETQ villasenor_v_Page_116.txt
118030b3754f42557bc6040f4dcba15c
7d3c36b5822320de0e89390b6d32b3c7034769b4
1010712 F20101204_AACDRD villasenor_v_Page_109.jp2
5d278004e0bc6ca4a1eeeae9e68dd5b3
05297219a2451f81703f96ce258157c2f43a668f
5204 F20101204_AACEUF villasenor_v_Page_012thm.jpg
c6850aee52021f6bf499ae4624af43d4
691fa0812cb2248a916876fa8c2d4fdad2d38cfd
2474 F20101204_AACETR villasenor_v_Page_119.txt
d7391894f35d3b37926be432ab817085
bf9244aa547d4f3a7bcb31aabf64b62ede400fed
F20101204_AACDRE villasenor_v_Page_101.tif
c78e0333e64bd8517a9a5ad959e590d3
2b1bbffd9af7e315d454db882e74f95ab00b39b2
F20101204_AACEUG villasenor_v_Page_014.QC.jpg
d8adaef40dabd173037bcd441ca94a5e
0d3c94a991151c5be02bca3f8906d10064986ff0
F20101204_AACETS villasenor_v_Page_120.txt
b97877456fabc89e966f3557bc0fb7fc
d425ddc6a15cb0489d8d943f3480fdafb5938d79
71406 F20101204_AACDRF villasenor_v_Page_122.jp2
e67cfea75cafbf5365190a3039b72662
bb9c99c5b49a098658ce5c36029ef0cfdeeb2dde
5879 F20101204_AACEUH villasenor_v_Page_014thm.jpg
635f9dc47a6d597377999d0225339924
76baeee3cc93245c7a96a04d3082fe00832ef619
1775 F20101204_AACETT villasenor_v_Page_001thm.jpg
1c6c453e1e5a7fb1c3bd05d5b3f124a8
7a642b21df41ba65d3b8030779f55577826a0fcc
121369 F20101204_AACDRG villasenor_v_Page_044.jp2
f7e4a3f411c696e3ec8df95756803a0f
bad05e5749f9874c09c37c4fe4c818ae8858cbc0
25164 F20101204_AACEUI villasenor_v_Page_017.QC.jpg
a65893257b541b0114133faf1b241c14
526aeb890cad27028ca746c23fddc8718f2e44cf
143865 F20101204_AACETU UFE0017740_00001.mets
64abd5074494c75e770791ecd3b96042
0943cb92f68a57f95ebcbf45780a804f0a89f47f
269 F20101204_AACDRH villasenor_v_Page_040.txt
8aa7f3ab6857eb048089a45920043b71
fce5e03dcfb1b61f325e0c3d4cce4b859901bb90
3098 F20101204_AACEUJ villasenor_v_Page_018thm.jpg
8f3d55156b8f57f589e506098aae2cb9
3cb79969173a47c54fcf20ca688087f576f16613
1434 F20101204_AACETV villasenor_v_Page_002.QC.jpg
5b1c0821e95fc8f20a2e27ebf50be6f8
6eade8e5c6daabbfcd50c999866e1d9b5a2b963d
6270 F20101204_AACEUK villasenor_v_Page_021thm.jpg
93ebbe04c8b356af4874b11c95b3017e
2876928f669a3fe18f1140bb988994d6cc7f1104
1223 F20101204_AACETW villasenor_v_Page_003thm.jpg
bdcf1ffb7609868f89ad63097f615748
4e302d67e77456b2aceaa46d05ae7e403301c289
100301 F20101204_AACDRI villasenor_v_Page_114.jpg
feca0ac9ecb5cb054f911c9260c87b7f
fe5f7ec5d2c92d8b509cb21ab07fb24055cd37a8
25562 F20101204_AACEUL villasenor_v_Page_022.QC.jpg
22d11bfeda32135f27dcb7f11cfa57e3
533462538ad1e1ed19e6e7bbb25790f7e0dc9b91
4178 F20101204_AACETX villasenor_v_Page_004thm.jpg
282e7dcf9c2af494a2558cf793db46bc
46d779d157ae49fa92953f1ad295bb2ac369bc3a
23546 F20101204_AACDRJ villasenor_v_Page_001.jp2
8e92075ddd89bd98cf405c5a72c362ef
1862cc4a3ef540de185238534cb8e128eeab5ed6
6313 F20101204_AACEUM villasenor_v_Page_022thm.jpg
a4d4d0f7bd6936bc109173c04fcfdbff
595d8c8346bfcf87d4588a2c8273d061b3677a12
25947 F20101204_AACETY villasenor_v_Page_006.QC.jpg
f3518bf663da440d10a936abc524263c
9a252001b52e6888bea2e0fc72bb99c3af820ca1
22628 F20101204_AACEVA villasenor_v_Page_037.QC.jpg
98e1c6d57f4803dccd9365dbffc5a3fa
2bc069e96bda1404bc7c5bc83a8585f8c1af4792
F20101204_AACDRK villasenor_v_Page_032.tif
ae43f40ab8ef305d2e69303bc0890036
8a12af33d81a8f8b03603abddfdf0cc5684700e9
5593 F20101204_AACEUN villasenor_v_Page_023thm.jpg
5aa6ebd3780e89dcaa35c42e393039de
6cd9e3b21368419c5148bffb01930856dfd0683d
2153 F20101204_AACETZ villasenor_v_Page_007.QC.jpg
f2bb03aaa1705f75074f71133690b03a
bc7944be4bd9409252a24df83e087441c42f3db6
27707 F20101204_AACEVB villasenor_v_Page_038.QC.jpg
01ce5dd937df31784785028f1f417eab
b6d57c1be93aa43e06eef48b69106401f4e1c099
56986 F20101204_AACDRL villasenor_v_Page_110.pro
0a51302dc018b57a2be9ff71759bbbcf
45761512faf67115103451b5689605d83c337550
23809 F20101204_AACEUO villasenor_v_Page_024.QC.jpg
57b741ba3aa689c4bd0a403222aad1fc
688782a760b91cfd9741ede62bfe56fa9adacbdd
40333 F20101204_AACDSA villasenor_v_Page_037.pro
e09771d06d4fa73be2c0cbb3dbc011e2
179cbb8446bc70b294557cd45a1e32458f864724
27717 F20101204_AACEVC villasenor_v_Page_039.QC.jpg
62305a68b5da3a4dc575b5be56b93416
2769ae4387fc0c7edcb461adaf1c6a4a7f3cca36
115858 F20101204_AACDRM villasenor_v_Page_110.jp2
de9d5a256530825e4708fbe42ff402a5
67768850f311d2f5ebcf7053b11ae4f358b7d9a8
24759 F20101204_AACEUP villasenor_v_Page_025.QC.jpg
fd7671f002e5a610fd6f262d91e74597
f15b8d5213e957eaac1c60fdfa986601bbc64c12
6853 F20101204_AACDSB villasenor_v_Page_115thm.jpg
4584da1ef0f533630a508de41e4397bc
1fd54344ca71f27be95ba6f1f9beebc4c56c5b11
4185 F20101204_AACEVD villasenor_v_Page_040.QC.jpg
8dd30bea26c5ff683dffb0746bf91263
21474e02e65f5802f6680becfa2ec631b3cb48a1
20702 F20101204_AACDRN villasenor_v_Page_101.QC.jpg
5dd77f11e1343ec63b38b284a61358eb
7119ab008adbb7844d9afffc3d6d960a804c4a87
6000 F20101204_AACEUQ villasenor_v_Page_025thm.jpg
b297c6c97bf52b5e609146d5b5e679df
bfa6f7cbcf4a9868e5333a46419e8ceb7ed7161f
98144 F20101204_AACDSC villasenor_v_Page_053.jp2
701952b4998a5509da9677903a83276f
0f16ab4b3554f5938e9d239fa3799edb8c2b54de
1137 F20101204_AACEVE villasenor_v_Page_040thm.jpg
37c8c1e8a345d2e61ffb92802d816a0c
5fd243967947f785e7f87a5617a099c48508d42a
67186 F20101204_AACDRO villasenor_v_Page_009.jpg
57f8ae6832bed410ff395ff6428a44a5
da4c5a4bd4ce643a64ed7d324928bb63eafa9006
25521 F20101204_AACEUR villasenor_v_Page_026.QC.jpg
4f9ea8ea83ab0a48e07ab8e3a26e9d09
f4673074d7b712a967d3f6096dfdd827a46b88dc
44180 F20101204_AACDSD villasenor_v_Page_066.pro
001f8d05915d36fa34d554178d21cc8a
fbf84089673b4763bcec927050f1c6404361ea60
20319 F20101204_AACEVF villasenor_v_Page_041.QC.jpg
0371b7cb718bedeb98af0904e0b134b6
e7472c97b0119ed96987ec8d3a3eaaecd3afa87b
2563 F20101204_AACDRP villasenor_v_Page_117.txt
3681d089a52ad4c50b3d9e5d86122de1
95c89d255184183cde36b3793af27df2fc498904
F20101204_AACEUS villasenor_v_Page_027thm.jpg
0a8c9e2251c01d92c3101cb204f86ee1
82fb1e78ff4d5ac1c2c55d7cf4443e5030efc3ad
75492 F20101204_AACDSE villasenor_v_Page_097.jpg
2010e1f615d54875ddad3a6934faff01
96b788ca1f1b3338d3e7a8a21ddddc5f4cd7a990
5091 F20101204_AACEVG villasenor_v_Page_041thm.jpg
c18703a13fe4a69b9128308ffa74c115
8be4c5c0ed7f4280e0584ab83729c48ca9bdc884
97440 F20101204_AACDRQ villasenor_v_Page_060.jp2
a828e4229bffc867e6f2c8aaa6c91f11
8513b0c482e632c88b25864fdc1788085484ab99
21773 F20101204_AACDSF villasenor_v_Page_012.QC.jpg
d0a06efd127a5bc5a69f7d58cb6845cb
78d3d81a4635b9206b8ce96642650867d4065a96
21238 F20101204_AACEVH villasenor_v_Page_042.QC.jpg
a71b979426fb39c3fa79b124eb5dd7be
f01c12cc864e879feaa677a685eec6caf80cadcf
1901 F20101204_AACDRR villasenor_v_Page_111thm.jpg
f580d41ef5bdc1f2050b10e3d44592b5
fbe09dca25b6a9051736aa157f309012fb3f7684
26165 F20101204_AACEUT villasenor_v_Page_029.QC.jpg
9c13f0be66ae67c9a48edb3df93f4fea
36a299bf41f1257d11cb3385c658ceaef0cf0d28
46691 F20101204_AACDSG villasenor_v_Page_090.pro
7ce622c70e917c371be05cafb50b150f
3a90d0eb2f09d4848ac19cbd9f818f34fabffc0b
5540 F20101204_AACEVI villasenor_v_Page_042thm.jpg
594230bdd23cdc33f762d60f609ddcaa
50883b967bdd847906aa6a84fcd3fb37aca93ba3
F20101204_AACDRS villasenor_v_Page_095.tif
daa134643211e633f4f48c2b420a3fd0
1254b98735a327ea380abf0448557177cf477cc4
5958 F20101204_AACEUU villasenor_v_Page_032thm.jpg
6311e7d62a11178c77d201b758ac58ca
dc5e370aa87bc861d9fc1e16e8aac773a874c2c0
21888 F20101204_AACEVJ villasenor_v_Page_043.QC.jpg
dc2a875dceed110496751d3bbdf54162
586c9941a029dbf61f3aca57b72bf6a641125464
F20101204_AACDSH villasenor_v_Page_074.tif
183cbe1f47852b1729bea90a52b4b89e
db69c04a925f1d7f1f6856cd4c9c8e27bc193eb9
F20101204_AACDRT villasenor_v_Page_031.tif
2b2f5382caaa27944ebb63137cfcc5ea
46d0561f5a1b6fe7ecf2fbe7bd2410d1215aa0b1
23926 F20101204_AACEUV villasenor_v_Page_033.QC.jpg
044c43ae8f5541aa32b1e8f07af024a6
99db4dbcb3d2a79ef703d5b86267d3b3236be1a2
5612 F20101204_AACEVK villasenor_v_Page_045thm.jpg
644cbcd4bc7b621a6bcadc00a0edea52
c46c229c13be65df8c1c4af98be5f9077fe45f0c
F20101204_AACDSI villasenor_v_Page_044.tif
347b29c2ae6eaaded6c760ff74463a0f
af4b7bfb33ff0916094ac627fc3b05b3252e1288
F20101204_AACDRU villasenor_v_Page_069.tif
ea3d502e8bd8d54df79b52d7cde1acc0
639e8019689892e1fe0a2181c5a898d436622052
5354 F20101204_AACEUW villasenor_v_Page_034thm.jpg
d4ed9dadb1e5e74523c40f35ed1d8366
1dd97772993b230e6cb8a9efb526be12ab19a3f2



PAGE 1

THE CHALLENGE OF CA TTLE RANCHING TO COMMON PROPERTY: A CASE STUDY IN THE ISOSO, BOLIVIA. By VERONICA VILLASENOR 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 2007

PAGE 2

Copyright 2007 by Veronica Villasenor

PAGE 3

To Diego and Laura, whose love made lif e more meaningful. They have been my inspiration to believe in conservation and deve lopment as an alternative for a better world for them and the next generation. This dedicat ion is also for my family, Elisa(s), Laura and Carlos, whose love and support have b een always unconditional. To the IsoseoGuarani people who introduced me to part of their andereko

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to my thesis committee. Gre nville Barnes, Carmen Diana Deere and Ignacio Porzecanski for their guidance and patience. To Ignacio Porzecanski for the intellectual support he provided and for his he lpful advice. Thanks to Andrew Noss for his willingness to step in at s hort notice to read this thesis. Thanks also to my children Diego and Laur a, without their love I would not have survived this process. Special thanks to Cece Noss who has supported my writing over the first drafts. My studies in Gainesville were founded by Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and a Tropical Conservation and Developmen t Program (TCD) Fellowship supported me during part of write-up process. In Bolivia, there are so many people to tha nk. Thanks to WCS, Capitania del Alto y Bajo Isoso (CABI) and the Ivi Iyambae Founda tion for facilitating my research and to Andy Noss, Zulema Barahona, Oscar Castillo, Erick Eulert, Jose Avila and Veronica Calderon for their valuable advice. In Is oso I would like to th ank Felicia, Juanita, Isadora, Crecencio, Ilda. Thanks to WCS and CABI administrative team.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Capitania del Alto y Bajo Isoso (CABI) and the Isoso.................................................1 Research Questions.......................................................................................................2 Methods........................................................................................................................3 Structure of the Thesis..................................................................................................5 2 COMMON PROPERTY AND THE EXPA NSION OF CATTLE RANCHING: LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................8 Security of Tenure and Property Rights Arguments.....................................................8 The Common Property Argument a nd Community-Based Conservation..................11 Common Property and Indigenous People.................................................................16 Factors Favoring the Expansion of Cattle Ranching..................................................20 Increase in Consumption.....................................................................................21 Market-Driven Changes in Production Practices................................................21 Livestock Production-Geographic Shift..............................................................24 Government Incentives........................................................................................24 Cattle Ranching as a Complement to the Rural Livelihood Strategy of the Poor..................................................................................................................25 National Context and Bolivian Lowlands...................................................................26 3 THE ISOSO AND STAKEHOLDERS......................................................................30 The Isoso and the Gran Chaco....................................................................................30 The Guarani Isoseo Communities............................................................................36 The Guaran Way of Life : The andereko .........................................................37 Guaran-Isoseno Communities............................................................................38 The Isoso frontier.........................................................................................38

PAGE 6

vi The Alto Isoso..............................................................................................39 The Central Isoso.........................................................................................39 The Corazn Histrico del Isoso..................................................................39 The Karai-Isoso............................................................................................41 The Bajo Isoso..............................................................................................42 Returning to Isoso........................................................................................42 Land Use in Guaran Isoso..................................................................................42 CABI, the Guarani Isoseo Political Organization.............................................47 Other Stakeholders......................................................................................................47 Cattle Ranches and Agro-Industry......................................................................48 Mennonites..........................................................................................................49 Peasants or Small Farmers...................................................................................51 Institutional Stakeholders....................................................................................51 4 THE ISOSEO IVI IYAMBA E AS COMMON PROPERTY.................................54 andereko : Nature and Characteristics of the Group.................................................55 Moa : Space and Natural Resources Use and Boundaries...........................................58 Tekoata and Mbaapo: Institutional Arrangements and Normative Regime...............62 Rules....................................................................................................................62 Monitoring and Sanctions Iyambae .....................................................................63 Collective Arrangement and Conflict Resolution...............................................65 eemoai : Relationships between the Group and External Forces..............................66 Contrasting the Common Property (CPR) and Community-Base Management (CBM) Framework to the Mbayu ............................................................................70 5 CATTLE RANCHING IN ISOSO.............................................................................73 The Expansion of Cattle Ranching in Isoso...............................................................73 The Conquest of Original Peoples Te rritories La Conquista de la Vaca........74 Modernization: Cattle Ranching Subsidized by the Bolivian State....................75 Big Projects and the Cattle Ra ising Incentive Among Isoseos.........................76 The Isoseos Cattle Ranching....................................................................................77 The Individual Cattle Ownership Regime...........................................................78 The Semi Private-family System.........................................................................80 The Isoseo Cattle Communal Ownership System.............................................80 Land Use by Cattle Ranching Ownership Regime and Management System....83 The Private Landholders in the Isoso.........................................................................84 Individual Cattle Ranching System.....................................................................85 The Mennonite System........................................................................................86 Ecological and Socioeconomic Effects......................................................................88 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS.........................................................91 APPENDIX FIELD QUESTIONNAIRE.........................................................................98 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................101

PAGE 7

vii BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................111

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Total Interviews..........................................................................................................4 2-1 Different Types of Property Regimes......................................................................11 2-2 Population, Land and Cattle Herd in Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) Contrasting to World Indexes..................................................................................23 2-3 Cattle Ranching Systems of Meat Production..........................................................23 3-1 Population in the Communities of Isoso..................................................................40 3-2 Main Land Use in Isoso, per Sub-zones...................................................................44 3-3 Private Stakeholders, Not-Isoseo Owners, in the Isoso.........................................48 3-4 Mennonite System in the Isoso................................................................................51 5-1 Number of Isoseos Owners and Number of Head of Cattle by Type of Property Regime by Community in Isoso...............................................................................78 5-2 Distribution of Indivi dual Cattle Ownership............................................................79 5-3 Family System in Isoso............................................................................................81 5-4 Cattle Ranching Projects..........................................................................................82 5-5 Number of Head of Cattle a nd Land Use by Ownership Regime and Management System in the Guaran-Isoso...............................................................83 5-6 Cattle Ranching Systems Non-Guaran Isoseo in the Isoso...................................84 5-7 Demographic and Productive Characte ristics of Mennonite Colonies in the Isoso.........................................................................................................................87

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Map of the Isoso and the Kaa Iya National Park in the Santa Cruz Gran Chaco.......2 2-1 Evolutionary Theory of Property Rights and Potential Role of the Mbayu ...............9 2-2 The Common Property and Comm unity Based Resource Management Framework...............................................................................................................13 2-3 Distribution of Poor Live stock Keepers Worldwide. ..............................................26 3-1 Location of the Communities in the Alto y Bajo Isoso............................................31 3-2 Annual Rainfall in Charagua....................................................................................32 3-3 Map of the TCO-Isoso and Loca tion of Different Stakeholders..............................35 3-4 Land Use in the Frontier and Alto Isoso (Sub-zone 1 & 2).....................................46 3-5 Land Use in the Central, Historic H eart and Kara and Bajo Isoso (Sub-zone3, 4 and 5)........................................................................................................................46 4-1 Guaran-Isoseo Strategically VisionMbayu ..........................................................56 4-2 Guaran Isoseo Strategically Planning Based on Mbayu Contrasting to Common Property and Community Ba se Management Theories............................71 4-3 Contrasting the Garani Isoseo Mbayu and Common Property and CommunityBase Framework.......................................................................................................72 6-1 A Cattle Ranching Strategy based on the Guarani Isoseo Mbayu.........................92

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts THE CHALLENGE OF CATTLE RANC HING TO COMMON PROPERTY: A CASE STUDY IN THE ISOSO, BOLIVIA By Veronica Villasenor May 2007 Chair: Grenville Barnes Major Department: Latin American Studies The Isoseos live along the Parapeti River in th e eastern lowlands of Bolivia. Like many other indigenous groups in Latin America, th ey share a common property territory and their main organizational structures are well developed. These structures, particularly the communal asambleas and the strong inter-institutional links between Capitania del Alto y Bajo Isoso (CABI) and the external world, have allowe d them to adapt and incorporate their economic strategies but still maintain their andereko (the Guarani way of life) and the Mbayu (vision as People). Cattle ranching is the principal productive activ ity in the area and it is also the main ecological concern because it leads to overgra zing. The goal of this research was to understand the forces contributing to the expans ion of cattle ranching in the Isoso as well as their effects on the Guarani Isoseos common property institutions and natural resources. I examined the Guaran -Isoseo institutions based on their Mbayu vision within the Common Property and Community Based Management frameworks. I

PAGE 11

xi employed individual and group interviews to ga ther data and participated in several community meetings. The participant observa tion approach and research of secondary documents helped me to understand their livi ng conditions as well as their demographic and production systems. Through group interv iews with community members I explored issues such as access to natura l resources on common land as well as the role of cattle in the Isoseos life. At the community level, the Isoseo pe ople are concerned with problems that accompany the expansion of cattle ranching, including the increas ed pressure on land and natural ecosystems such as the riverine forests. Certain communities are taking specific decisions to regulate the presence and imp act of cattle. Because cattle ranching as a productive activity was only relativ ely recently adopted by the Is oseos, it is essential for them to adapt local institutions and norms, and establish monitoring systems to balance economic benefits with the maintenance of the ecological integrity of the Chaco ecosystem. Cattle-raising will continue to play a part in the Isoso because it complements the livelihood of the communities, providing prot ein and income. Cattle ranching can also contribute to socioeconomic development, and, if the management is sustainable, it could support a biodiversity conserva tion strategy in their communal land Tierra Comunitaria de Origen (TCO) Isoso. In contrast to i ndustrial agriculture with its concomitant deforestation, cattle-ranching can be a less thre atening activity, and for this reason it is included as a central element in the CA BI and Isoseos development strategy.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Capitania del Alto y Bajo Isoso (CABI) and the Isoso The study site of this thesis is the Alto y Bajo Isoso (Isoso) the home of 10,000 Guarani-Isoseo people living in more than 20 communities along the banks of the Parapeti River (Figure 1-1). Like many other indigenous gr oups in Latin America, the Isoseos share a common property territory. I have been connected with the Isoso since the end of 1997 when I began my work as the coordina tor of the Kaa Iya National Park (KNP) management plan. The Guarani Isoseo political organization, Capitania del Alto y Bajo Isoso (CABI), was the leader of that planni ng process. Since then, my interest in indigenous peoples has emerged through my anal ysis of conservation issues. During that process, planning was viewed as social mobilization because it was focused on the perspective of those most a ffected by the protected area administration the local population. For this reason, I de veloped a deep concern for the process of conservation and development in the Bolivian Chaco. The Isoso and KNP is part of the region of the Gran Chaco in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. The Bolivian Gran Chaco is ecologically significant worldwide because it is one of the few remaining well conserved dry tropical forest s and it protects important endemic species of flora and fauna (Navarro et al 1998). A regional evaluation made by Nature Serve (2006) consided the dry Gran Chaco as a priority site for conservation. Cattle ranching is the principal productive activ ity in the area (PLUS 1996; CI PCA 1997; CABI 2001) It is

PAGE 13

2 also the main ecological concern because it leads to overgrazing (S aravia Toledo et al. 1996; Navarro 1998, 2002; Taber, Na varro and Arribas 1997). The objective of this research is to un derstand the forces contributing to the expansion of cattle ranching in the Isoso as well as their effect on the Guarani Isoseos common property institutions and na tural resource management. Gasbol G a s y r g Figure 1-1. Map of the Isoso and the Kaa Iy a National Park in the Santa Cruz Gran Chaco. (Source: Jose Avila Kaa-Iya Project/CABI) Research Questions The broad question addressed in my research is whether it is possible to develop a cattle ranching strategy that is economically, so cially and ecologically beneficial to the Isoseo community. To attempt to answer this I address several more specific questions: What are the factors contributing to expansion of cattle in the Isoso?

PAGE 14

3 What are the effects of this expansion on common property institutions and natural resources? How does cattle ownership affect access to land and natural resources among the Isoseos? What are the social and ecological cost s of expanding cattle ranching in the community? Who is introducing cattle in the communa l areas in the Isoso and how is it influencing other liv elihood strategies? Methods I have used an ethnographic qualitative method for this research including openended interviews, participant observation and of secondary document s researche (Bernard 1994). I adopted an inductive rese arch approach: departing for the field with the research questions in hand, but once on site maintain ing an open mind (Bernard 1994). This allowed me to deal with dynamic challenges su ch as the cattle ranc hing in Isoso. In many senses I maintained my original questions although some theore tical and practical arguments were formulated resulting from en counters with people at the field site and from the interviews conducted during the summer of 2005 when I visited the Isoso. More specifically, my research involved th e following steps. In Isoso, I participated in community meetings and in the Isoseos daily life, so I could understand their living conditions as well as their demographic and production systems. I employed two different kinds of interviews, one individua l and the other in a group (Table 1-1). I interviewed people from the following four Isoseo communities: Pikirenda, Rancho Nuevo, Ivasiriri and Isiporenda. These comm unities are representativ es of the region (Chapter 4). Through these group interviews wi th community members I explored issues such as access to natural resources on the comm on land as well as the role of cattle in the Isoseos life.

PAGE 15

4 Table 1-1. Total Interviews Community Group interview (total participants) Communal Meeting Key informant Isiporenda 4 Ivasiriri 25 1 2 Rancho Nuevo 15 3 Pikirenda Coropo 20 1 2 Key informant CABI* 6 Group interviews were conducted in three communities as unstructured surveys. Each interview was conducted with 15 to 25 members of each community. Due to the fact that few Isoseos spoke Spanish fluen tly, the communal captain from Ivasiriri and Rancho Nuevo translated questions into Guaran i and responses were th en translated back into Spanish. These interviews were a quick and effective means of gathering data. Women were well represented in all the group interviews. For the individual interviews I interviewed other representatives from CA BI, KNP personnel and others involved in CABI projects. This thesis is not only the result of three months of field research, but also an accumulation of my experiences and contact with Isoseos culture. As a CABI-WSC technical staff member I maintained contact with Guarani leaders and Guarani people, I participated in several assemblies and I s upported CABI in meetings with different authorities and private stakeholders such as cattle ranchers, No Governmental organizations (NGO) and petroleum companies. I visited some cattle ranches neighboring the Isoso. As a member of CABI-WCS, I was part of a research team and had formal contact with scientists and other technicians working in the area. The formal as well as

PAGE 16

5 the informal conversations with community members during tea hour ( porear ) also provided me with valuable insights. Structure of the Thesis The thesis is comprised of seven chap ters. The present chapter (Chapter 1) introduces the problem and the methods used on this research. Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature on common property and commun ity base natural resource management as well as the main factors linked to the expansion and gl obal integr ation of cattle ranching are identified. Common property theory arose partially as a response to the ideas exposed by Garrett Hardin in his well-known Tragedy of the Commons article (1968). Hardin largely overlooked social institutions and rules among common users and predicted that open access would lead to the destruction of natural resources. According to the main proponents of common property regimes (CPR), Berkes (1989) and Ostrom (1990), CPR are structured ar rangements in which group membership is known, outsiders are excluded, and rules are de veloped and enforce d. Consequently, CPR offer potential for community-based cons ervation (CBC) which could benefit from interdisciplinary science conservation which incorporates a more elaborate understanding of social-ecological inte ractions (Berkes 2004). On the other hand different factors motiv ate the expansion of cattle ranching in Latin America: population growth, changes in consumption patterns, the relation to the market economy, national and internationa l policies favoring cattle ranching. Today, cattle ranching plays two main roles: it is part of a subsistence and food security strategy to millions of poor people. Cattle ranching is also a major international agribusiness supported by national and inte rnational development policie s. No matter which causes,

PAGE 17

6 cattle expansion is one of the greatest pr essures leading to land use change and deforestation in the tropical forests of Latin America. Chapter 3 describes the physical and soci al landscape of the study area, the Tierra Comunitaria de Origen (TCO) Isoso in the Bolivian Chaco. Differe nt stakeholders are described. Special emphasis is given to description and analysis of the Guaran-Isoseos, whose community tenure system is a main characteristic. The Isoseos differ from their neighbors and other stakeholders in terms of ethnicity, historical pr esence in the area, livelihood systems, and culture. However, they have had a long term contact within the market economy as temporary wage workers for harvesting sugar can e, assisting cattle ranchers and other wage jobs. As a result th ey have not been as isolated as other indigenous groups in Latin America. Despite th is history of market activity, the Isoseos maintain a subsistence economy and a strong cultural identity based on common property rights to the land and natural resources the Ivi Iyambae or land without owners. Chapter 4 presents a comparative analysis of the theoretical basis of CPR and CBM frameworks and the development visi on of the Guaran-Isoseos their Mbayu I analyze similarities, coincidences, and cont rasts between the Guaran-Isoseo vision and the CPR/CBM theoretical framework. The purpos e of this comparative analysis is to establish the degree to which the Guar an-Isoseo, through their particular Mbayu conform, practice, and will be able to main tain CPR institutions in the face of cattle expansion. Chapter 5 describes cattle ranching in th e TCO-Isoso. Originally cattle were introduced by the karai (in the Isoseo language the word is used to define white people and criollos). Today 8% of the Isoseo population owns cattle. W ithin the TCO-Isoso

PAGE 18

7 boundaries cattle raising is the main productive activity. Cattle is raised by several private cattle ranchers including Mennonites who a rrived in the mid-1990s, and the recently established agro-industry in the area based on private ow nership of land. Chapter 6 presents my conclusions and recommendations. The main challenge, in Isoso, is to improve and develop cattle ranc hing management systems that will maintain the natural potential of the resources and trad itional social values in a changing context. To make that possible, internal institutions and political organizations need to be adapted to use community governance effectively to develop the economic potential of cattle ranching. Guarni Isoseo political organizati ons must position themselves so as to influence local, departmental, and nationa l policies that favor those changes.

PAGE 19

8 CHAPTER 2 COMMON PROPERTY AND THE EXPA NSION OF CATTLE RANCHING: LITERATURE REVIEW The fruits belong to all and the earth to no one --Rousseau Security of Tenure and Property Rights Arguments A variety of theories and a pproaches regarding property rights and tenure security have been proposedwa which have infl uenced tenure policy, land reform and development programs in developing countries According to Ellsworth (2002), scholars differ in their perception of what tenure secu rity is, who should get it, its virtues for society, and how it is obtained. In addition, empiri cal evidence shows th at there is not a single property regime that is inherently more efficient, optimal or ideal. In developing countries, varying commun ity property rights systems can be found, some of which have survived the colonial er a, despite the attempts to destroy them as well as their natural resource base. In the wo rds of Ellsworth, during all this time the voices of their members have been demandi ng a place in the world emphasizing the nonmarket value of tenure security. Based on the western understanding of efficiency, scholars and policy makers have generally suppo rted property rights as individual, private and tradeable titles. Private property is viewed as the indispensable precondition for economic growth and development, and therefore assumed to be the cause of the prosperity of Western countries. Two main th eories supporting this view can be traced back to Demsetz and Hardin (Figure 2-1). The evolutionary theory of property rights

PAGE 20

9 proposed by Demsetz (1967) and Alchian a nd Demsetz (1973) argues that increasing population pressure and commercialization of ag riculture tend to cause the emergence of private property rights as if it were a natu ral change in land tenure systems with time (Otsuka and Place 2001). Hardin's (1968) trag edy of the commons model predicted the eventual overexploitation or de gradation of all resources a nd proposed that privatization of public holding of resources was the solution. Figure 2-1. Evolutionary Theory of Prope rty Rights and Potential Role of the Mbayu The evolutionary theory has influenc ed the resource management paradigm, including protected areas policies (Maphos a 2002; Richards 1997; Berkes 1989, Brogden, 2003; Piurek 2003) and land reform programs. In the late 1980s and 1990s most countries under the influence of the World Bank promot ed individualized property regimes as the means to achieve higher investment and incr eased productivity. It was argued that more

PAGE 21

10 individualized land tenure regimes would not only allow a greater return on investment but also create a demand for land improveme nts and increase credit worthiness and farmers access to formal credit (Wilson and Nolan 2001; Deininger 2003). At the same time to protect wildlife-rich areas and ev ade the tragedy of the commons the World Bank supported the creation of new protecte d areas and the strengthening of national protected area administration in different countries. Accordin g to this policy, protected areas would evade the tragedy of the comm ons by taking them away from community property and conferring them to state admini stration under a state property regime (West and Brockington 2006). From these points of view, community property and indigenous systems provided inadequate tenure security to obtain the rewards of investments made to improve productivity or conserve biodiversit y. In the context of land markets and land redistribution, it was generally assumed that land would be transferred to the most efficient user. Nevertheless, in more recent times those assumption has been questioned 1 (Jodha 2001; Wilson and Nolan 2001 ). Land titled to private landlords resulted in the smallholder, peasant communities as well as from indigenous peoples loosing access to land and a greater concentration of land among a few landholders (Jodha 1992, 2001; Romero 2003; Scoones 2002; Wilson and Nolan 2001). Furthermore, accumulated evidence and an expanding body of literature have revealed that arbitrary local population exclusion from natural resource manageme nt can have negative effects upon natural resources and their conservation (Jodha 1992, 2001; ILRI 1995; Kolhler-Rollefson 1993) 1 Wilson and Nolan (2001) cite different studies su pporting as the main outcome of land registration programs a decreased incidence of land disputes as a sign of tenure security. However, little relationship could be found between land rights or land title and the use of formal credit; with regards to productivity or farm investments, no relation could be found.

PAGE 22

11 The nature of resource management within ea ch major property regime is summarizes in Table 2-1 below. Table 2-1. Different Types of Property Regimes. Open Access Resource rights are neither ex clusive nor transferable and are owned in common, but openly accessibl e to everyone, and therefore effectively the property of no-one. State Property Ownership and management control is held by the nation state. Access can be severely limited e.g., military areas, government office and buildings, or more open as with state property that is held on behalf of the public e.g., highw ays, navigable rivers, beaches, and forests. Common Property (private and customary) Use rights for the resources are controlled by an identifiable group and are not privately owned or ma naged by governments; there exist rules concerning who may use the resources, as well as who is excluded from using the resources, and how it may be used. Often defined as indivisible, inalienabl e, not open to prescription, and land cannot be attached for mortgage or lien purposes (inembargable). Individual Private Property Use rights to resources is attach ed to land ownership and freely transferable as a market commod ity; in some instances the state imposes minimal management requirements e.g., management plan or plan de ordenamiento predial (POP) in Bolivia Several studies reveal different factors that either enable or in hibit collective action, and demonstrate how, in many cases, local populations are able to find ways to appropriately manage the commons even under relatively complicated and adverse conditions (Berkes 1989; Ostrom 1990, 1999; Ot suka and Place 2001). While the list of those factors continues to grow, what is clear is that Hardins and Demsetzs predictions are far from the only possible outcomes. Alongside individual private property, different types of property regimes persist worldwide (Table 2-1) The Common Property Argument and Community-Based Conservation Common property activists and academics argue that common natural resources make a significant contribution to the liv elihood and economy of rural people. Common

PAGE 23

12 property resources fill crucial gaps in th e resource and income flows from other resources, provide complementary inputs into agricultural system s, and often supply a major source of livelihoods for indigenous peoples. According to Ellsworth (2000), common property scholars identify the following virt ues of common property: It supports a physical and cultural space that strengthens social links among people across time It can be the most efficient way to manage natural resources It often provides access to survival resources and sustenance (gives a place in the world) to millions of peoples worldwide. Broadly speaking, under common property systems the natural resources are accessible to the whole community and no indi vidual has exclusive property rights (Jodha 1994). Research has shown that under comm on property, the rights of individuals are defined and limited (Jodha 1994; Richards 1997; Otsuka and Place 2001, Berkes 1989, 2004; Ostrom 1990, 1992, 1999). Common property re gimes are structured arrangements in which group membership is known, outside rs are excluded, and rules are developed and enforced. Hence, common property diffe rs from open access. The examination of existing common property regimes shows a number of factors favoring viable and sustainable common property resources (C PR) management. Agrawal (2001: 1653) argues that these factors can be split into four sets of va riables: characteristics of the resources, the nature of groups that depend on resources, the particulars of regimes or institutions through which resources are manage d and the nature of relationships between a group and external forces and authoritie s such as markets, states, and technology (Figure 2-2).

PAGE 24

13 Figure 2-2. The Common Property and Co mmunity Based Resource Management Framework. On the other hand, community-based conser vation (CBC) was defined by Lane and Mc Donald (2005) in general terms, like t he deliberate, progra mmatic decentralization of authority and resources to communiti es for the purposes of environmental management. CBC as an inclusive and people oriented approach to conservation is in part a reaction to the failures of exclusionary conservation (Berkes 2004). It consists of a diverse set of practices, but common con ceptual and operational foundations to this bottom-up vision include (Agrawal and Gibs on 1999; Lane and McDonald, 2005; Berkes 2004): Decentralizing government agencies and in stitutions concerned with environmental management

PAGE 25

14 Recognizing the local communities role for the development and implementation of environmental policies Enabling local participation in mo re context-sensitive planning. Despite the general acceptance of CBC, as a theoretical and practical approach among resources management programs, some conservationists have concerns about the emphasis on community-participation because this emphasis may attenuate the conservation efforts (Campbell et al. 2000). According to Campbell et al. (2000) the institutional control over common resources, which is essential for effective common property resource management, is challenged by the pressure for removing it from the traditional institutional systems based on a complex of norm. The factors, identified as challenges to the CBC and CPR include national policies and legislati on supporting privatization; projects that do not take in account local organization; changing and differentiated household strategies; new connections to markets; the loss of legitimacy of local organizations; and changing resource characteristics. The discussion about the use of CBC and CPR approaches, Berkes (2004), Agrawal and Gibson (1999), Ostrom (1999 and 2006) a nd Lane and Mac Donald (2005) express concern about the conceptualization of a co mmunity which is generally defined as community as a distinct, relatively homogenous, spatially fixed social group that shares a consciousness of being a community and which is characterized by consensus and solidarity (Lane and MacDonald 2005. pp713) Those authors argue that communities are not static and harmonious social groups On the contrary, communities are, and are composed by, actors with interests, imperativ es and agendas of their own. Consequently, recognize and understand the manner in whic h they deal with differences within

PAGE 26

15 community is fundamental to avoiding the further entrenchment of elites and the increased marginalization of certain social groups leading to unjus t outcomes. For that reason, these authors propose that a focus on local institutions, rather than communities, might provide for a more robust and effec tive approach. Berkes (2004) affirms that communities are embedded in larger systems, and proposes that it may be more useful to (re)think CBC in terms of environmental gov ernance and conservati on action that stars from the ground up but deals with cross-scale re lations [promoting] a systems view of the environment, a perspective that sees humans as part of ecosystems, and an emerging practices of participatory management (Berkes 2004 pp 28). Land and MacDonald (2005) suggest that the CBC fram ework has the potential to ta ke into account terms of responding to environmental issues, in the c ontext of the realitie s and complexities of environmental governance. On other hand, CBC re quires us to consider the overlap of formal and informal institutions engaged in resource management a nd their interactions at multiple political scales. Regarding CP R action, Berkes (2004, 2005) Olsson, Folke & Berkes (2003), Bowles and Gintis (2000) a nd Brogden (2003) argue th at the identity and permanence of a group are not static, and therefore, successful natural resources management depend on certain essential conditions cooperation, reciprocity, indi vidual reputation and trust among the different groups members and between the group and the external institutions; the resilience of local groups and communities; the capacity to learn from crisis and to nurture their organization; the capacity for self organization and conflict management; the capacity to combine knowledge and cooperative learni ng, learning by doing; and correctly information flow.

PAGE 27

16 From thus literature review a trend in the CPR and CBC approaches is noticed: Agrawal (2001), Ostrom (1999, 2006), Berkes (1989, 2004, 2005), Olsson, Folke & Berkes (2003) shifted from the community as th e center of attention in a local context to one that focuses more broadly on the nature of groups and their internal institutions as well as their relationship with external inst itutions in a cross scale context. CPR, including CBC, approaches has provided a general framework for analysis which integrates ecological and socioeconomic systems under common property regimes. Common Property and Indigenous People We are on the edge of our last spatial fr ontiers, there are no additional territories and resources, at a global scale, to mitig ate the consequences and misbalances of the actual predominant developm ent patterns. [Castillo 2006] While scholars discuss the issue, grassr oots movements are looking for a place in the world (Ellsworth 2000). Indigenous and tr aditional peoples inhabit a significant part of the most bio-diverse regions of Latin America and the world. For indigenous peoples the environment is intrinsically linked to their livelihood and cultural values, and consequently with their territorial right s and struggle for autonomy (Arambiza 1998). Even though indigenous peoples are not homogenous groups, as was previously assumed, common access to land and to natural resource s characterize them all around the world. Far from being a simple open access system, individual rights are culturally restricted. Rights of individual community members are usually established through customs, and transfers of these rights are vested in th e extended family, clan, or community (Otsuka and Place 2001). In recent years, different countries in Latin America have been increasingly confronted with the need to address the territorial demands of indigenous peoples, especially where they comprise a high percen tage of their rural popul ation. Since the end

PAGE 28

17 of the 1980s the indigenous movement has ga ined a voice in the international forum and has been increasingly integrated into international agendas,2 including that of conservationists3 recognizing their rights to common access to natural resources and the right of ownership and possession of the land s which they traditionally occupy has come to be internationally recognize d. In contrast to a discourse that favors the privatization and individualization of rights to valued res ources, the indigenous m ovement struggles to defend their traditional tenure systems which typically are characterized by collective rights. Indigenous common prope rty systems continue to thrive and grow in Latin America (Riverstone 2005). Indigenous pe ople focus on land tenure issues because property rights affect the way in which other policies will work. Escobar (2005) and Hayck (2002) refer to indigenous peoples as perhaps the most striking challenge to the domi nant culture and socio-economic models of Latin American societies. Indigenous people must confront opposing valu e systems. The capitalist system, which is growth-oriented an d embedded in globalizing imperatives4 sees human beings as economic entities driven by self-i nterest. This is oriented around the wide exclusion of direct access to the means of production and liveli hood, and the requisite outside-controls such as government or law to solve conflicts be tween self-interested individuals (Heilbroner 1 985). Opposing these values are the indigenous peoples 2 Convention No 169 of the General Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO) adopted, at its seventy-sixth session (1989), concerns about indigenous and tribal peoples. It recognized officially the aspirations of indigenous peoples to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic development and maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions within the framework of the States in which they live. 3 Rio 1992 for example. 4 Globalization as predominant econom ic driving force during the last decades (1989 to 2005), determine the global agenda of crucial themes and the corresp ondent integration and modification of the institutional politic of multilateral organisms like the IMF, WB, UN and at national levels the structural adjustments of the states.

PAGE 29

18 attitudes toward the land as common property, a nd particular relationshi ps to it as part of their culture and identity. In capitalism, natu re is an inert object, and people are the master to transform it to their own benefit (Heilbroner 1985; Richards 1997). Therefore, the path to development and growth is to make the land productive by cutting forests, setting up cattle ranches, dril ling oil, and promoting expor t agriculture. In contrast, indigenous peoples maintain thei r own approach to the land that sees human activity as part of, and dependent on, the natural world based on the idea of self-sufficiency (Hayck 2002). In Latin America before the 1990s indige nous peoples were widely viewed as backward, primitive, even deficient, and deep racism was rampant because of a failure to see anything positive in their cultures, language s, and way of life. Kirby (2003) identifies some structural and non-structural causes th at opened a space for the emergence of the indigenous question in the 1990s which took gov ernments and analysts by surprise. At that time, a well-educated young indigenous lead ership developed a new political agenda and dedicated themselves to fostering and protecting their people s distinct cultural traditions, languages and world view. Kirby ( 2003) distinguishes the undermining of the socialist paradigm with the end of the Cold Wa r and with it the left who tended to view indigenous peoples as a part of the oppressed class rather th an having their own identity. At the same time, indigenous groups thr oughout Latin America mobilized to oppose the official celebration of the 500 years of the Am ericas discovery, ca lling their response years of indigenous resistance Moreover, in Rio 92 indigenous peoples were recognized as important stakeholders in cons ervation, as forest guardians and holders of ancestral knowledge.

PAGE 30

19 There is no convincing empirical evidence that one type of property rights is inherently more efficient, optimal, or ideal. The notion of what constitutes efficiency, ideal, and optimal are themselves context-specific and constantly changing in a given society. Today, various types of property rights can be found coexisting worldwide: state ownership, individual or private and co mmon property. The actual world economic system supports the privatiza tion and individualization of land property (Richards 1997). Despite this, in many parts of the world the common property regime survives; in others, the common property regime does not survive at all or it changes over time to adapt to new circumstances; and, in other places, enti rely new common prope rty rules have been built (Ellsworth 2004). According to Richards in 1997 a total of two million square kilometers in the Amazon Region were indigenous territori es under common property management regimes (CPMR), including the Amazon Regi on of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Surinam and Venezuela. This means that 25% of the Amazon Region is occupied by an indigenous population of 925,000 peoples (Richards 1997). Evidence suggests that over a half of Mexicos forest ar e on community land (Antinori and David 2004). According to Castillo (2006), protected areas and indigenous territories are becoming the last remaining reserves of natural resources in Latin America. The configuration of indigenous territories overlapping prot ected areas, despite the contradictions, are part of the best possible alternatives for increasing the quality of life, and at the same time, preserve the environment. Moreover, th e social, ethnic and cultural institutions and rights of local people may be strengt hened in the process.

PAGE 31

20 Thus, this could simultaneously and preser ve the environment, in other words to achieve conservation and development. Factors Favoring the Expansion of Cattle Ranching Over thousands of years, human cultures and the physical environment across vast rangeland areas have been shaped by herdi ng animals (FAO/GIEWS 2001). Cattle have been a central element in th e African pastoralists liveli hood and culture (Scooner 2002; Cousins 1992; Bodley 1988). Cattle ranchi ng was supported by European governments as a strategy to conquer territories in the Americas and support the European accumulation of wealth in the silver mines. The introduc tion of cattle was the main way that changed the ancestral livelihood of Indigenous peoples in the New World. Today, livestock production accounts for more than the half of total value of agricultural output (Steinfeld 2002; Kaimow itz 1996). The strong increase of production of meat, particularly in the developing worl d over the past twenty-five years, is called the food revolution or t he livestock revolution ( Owen 2002). This revolution has changed not only farming and distribution practices but also the economic, social and physical landscapes (Steinfeld 2002; Hall, Ehui and Delgado 2004; Black and Nicholson 2004; FAO 2005; Naylor et al. 2005). The co sts of social equity, environmental sustainability and public health have often b een increased (Steinfeld 2002; Naylor et al., 2005). According to Steinfeld (2002) the liv estock revolution is connected to the following factors: (1) a rapid and dynamic incr ease in consumption of livestock products principally in developing countries, (2) a ch ange in livestock pr oduction practices from local multi-purpose activity to an increasingl y market-oriented business, (3) a geographic shift of livestock production from temperate to warmer ant tropical environments, (4) the national government and intern ational-development incentives and subsides, and (5) an

PAGE 32

21 increasing requirement and competitivene ss on grazing and water resources, managed today under common property regimes. Increase in Consumption In developing countries between 1980 and 2004, per capita consumption of meat doubled and production tripled (FAO 2005). Gl obally, population growth and changing food consumption habits are predicted to double the demand for livestock and its production in the developing countries over th e next twenty years (Pica-Ciamarra 2005; Leonard 2005; Owen 2002). Urbani zation, rising incomes, and the globalization of trade are the main reasons mentioned for the gr owth in meat consumption in developing countries favoring meat consumption (Vera 2001, Blake and Nicholson 2004). According to Blake and Nicholson (2004), about 70% more meat will be consumed in 2020 than in 2000, and most of it (60% global production) wi ll be consumed in developing countries (Delgado et al. 1999 cited by Bl ake and Nicholson 2004). In contrast with worldwide indices, in Latin America the 77% of the total population lives in cities (Ver a 2001) while the world average is 49% (Table 2-2). The consumption of meat in Latin America was cal culated as 35 to 45 kg per capita, with the bovine meat making up approximately 50% of that total (21 kg). This indicates that in contrast to per capita consumption African a nd developed countries, Latin Americans eat considerable more bovine (and buffalo) meat per capita (Table 2-2). Market-Driven Changes in Production Practices The livestock revolution has focused on industrial-scale oper ations that have increasingly gained cont rol over raising, processing and marketing of meat. Industrializing livestock systems have based on declining real prices for feed grains, advances that have improved feed-to-meat conversion efficiencies, animal health, and

PAGE 33

22 reproduction rates, as well as cheaper transpor tation costs and trade liberalization (Naylor et al. 2005; Uptom 2004; Vera 2001). Today we see different production systems (Table 2-3), although there is a tend to shift from the traditional system based on natural grassland to a more intensiv e cattle ranching systems base d on management and market specialization: a) hi ghly intensive grass-feed finishi ng operations, b) breeding-growing systems, and c) extensive breeding system s (Vera 2001; Porzecanski personal comment 2006). FAO has estimated that industrial livestock operations are growing twice as fast as traditional mixed farming systems and six times as fast as grazing systems (Steinfeld 2002; FAO 2005). This fast grow th has defined economies and ways of life across many prairies and rangelands across the world. In Central and South America land has become concentrated in the hands of a few and larg e areas have been transformed into soybean monoculture and cattle ranches (Hillstron & Hillstron 2004; Naylor et al. 2005). This situation has become a threat, not only to the tropical forest but also to the survival of local communities and indige nous people who inhabit it. Despite the industrial livestock system prevalence, an alternative market for extensive grass-feed system production is developing globally. Product from pastoral systems have become more valuable because there is evidences that the meat of these systems has a lower saturated fat and is ri cher in iron and omega 3 fatty acids (Vera 2001). Together with those nutritional charact eristics of meat produced on pastoral systems, those systems are, in general, more compatible with ecosystems and the maintenance of biodiversity, than high ly intensive and industrial ones.

PAGE 34

23 Table 2-2. Population, Land and Cattle Herd in Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) Contrasting to World Indexes. LAC World LAC/Total (%) Human Polulation, millions (2005) Total 553 6499 8.50% Rural 127 (22.6%) 3315 (51%) 3.80% Total area (million ha) 2054 13098 15.7 Ha per capita (2005) 3.7 2.0 Consumption of animal protein (% of total protein) 1992 43.3 34.8 124 Meat per capita consumption (1992), kg/year 21 10 210 Cattle million head (1995) 337.9 1306.5 25.9 Head per capita 0.7 0.23 Grassland (million ha) 590 3361.7 17.6 Meat production, millions of tons (1995) LAC 11.2 53.2 21.1 LAC-tropical 8.1 15.2 Source Vera (2001) and FAOstast 2006 Table 2-3. Cattle Ranching Sy stems of Meat Production. System of Production & Management Characteristics Ecological Characteristics Social and Economic Characteristics Highly intensive (industrial) Grass-feed finishing operation. Not connected to the local environmental characteristics. Intensive production. Include the urban or peri-urban production in developing countries It is strongly market driven, making them less resilient to market upheavals than other systems. Connected to industrial systems Mixed farming systems breeding-growing. Based on grass with strategic feed supplementation which integrates livestock and crop production on the same farm. These represent the main systems for smallholder farmers; resource use is often highly self-reliant as nutrients and energy flow from crops to livestock and back Extensive razing system. Grass-feed systems based mainly on native grassland with little or no crops integration. Agro-ecological conditions strongly define the nature and scope of livestockenvironment interactions in grazing systems. In this system livestock interact with land, water, and plant and animal biodiversity, especially wildlife. Grazing livestock is a fundamental source of livelihood for million people around the world, mostly living on common property. Many of them have become the base to extensive breeding systems

PAGE 35

24 Livestock Production-Geographic Shift For several reasons, including higher ener gy prices and more rigorous pollution controls, livestock production in the industrial world is moving to warmer areas of developing countries (Steinfeld 2002; Naylor 2005; Kaimowitz 1996). In the developing world, there has been a strong shift in produc tion to the more tropical zones aided by the recent availability of be tter disease control, advances in ruminant nutrition, and breeding systems technologies. Modern, inte nsive meat production is threatening important ecosystems since it requires the use of large quantities of natural resources, particularly land and water (Hill and York 2003). In Latin America the index of land per capita is higher than the world one (Table 22). This supposed availability of land made South America, in particular, together with Africa, the biggest world arable reserve of land (Vera 2001:6 ba sed on Gallopin et al., and WRI 1996). Over the last decades, millions of cattle have been moved into the more humid savannas in Asia, Africa a nd Latin America, challenging community property rights to natural resources and in turn the subsistence systems of rural people (Steinfeld, 2002). For example, China and Brazil alone increased production by 59 million ton between 1967 and 1998 (FAO 2005). Brazil has become the worlds largest producer of beef and is the second-largest consumer, only behind the United States. Government Incentives Government incentives related to developm ent of infrastructure used in livestock production feed, water, energy, roads, fenci ng as well as policies regarding market prices and subsidies are increasi ngly being recognized as the direct driving forces related to cattle ranching expansion (Hill and York 2003). At the same time, credit and trends toward privatization act as important indire ct incentives promoting the expansion of

PAGE 36

25 cattle ranching. During the 1960s and 1970s, inte rnational agencies such as the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank a nd the US Agency for International Development (USAID) supported efforts to pr omote beef production and exports as a central focus of economic growth (Williams 1986 cited by Kaimowitz 1996). In the 1970s the cattle industry came unde r criticism on both environm ental and social grounds. A series of critical studies prompted by Pa rsons focused the attention on the negative effects of livestock expansion on forests (Kaomowitz 1996). Over the last few decades Latin American countries have been pushed to adopt economic reforms designed to encourage investment and entrepreneurship, promoting the privatization of large tracts of land. According to Naylor et al. (2005), land conversion in the Brazilian grassland and rainforest exem plifies the large impact of the continued expansion of cattle ranching, a product of a national development policy. The large and medium-sized ranches account for about 70% of the total clearing ac tivity (Naylor et al. 2005). According to Fearnside (2005) by 2003 th e forest cleared in Brazilian Amazonia had reached 648,500 km2 the 16.2% of the 4 millions km2 originally forested portion of Brazil's Legal Amazon Region, including approximately 100,000 km2 of "old" (pre-1970) deforestation in Par and Maranho. Cattle Ranching as a Complement to the Rural Livelihood Strategy of the Poor There are around 500 million rural poor people around the world that depend on raising livestock for some or all of their food and income (Figur e 2-3) (FAO 2005; PicaCiamarra 2005). Small farmers rely on lives tock to pull their ploughs, fertilize their fields, and serve as a source of food and as saving that can be cashed in when needed. Many rural households base their livelihoods on a few animals fed on grass and forage from common property pastures and forest. Peasant and indigenous communities are also

PAGE 37

26 increasing their livestock numbers as a comp lement to their subsistence economy and as a savings account to use in times of scarcity and emergency (Mock 2005). Asia Latin America Sub Sahara Africa West Asia and North Africa Figure 2-3. Distribution of Poor Livestock Keepers Worldwide. Source FAO (2005: 6) National Context and Bolivian Lowlands Located at the core of the South America, Bolivia is characterized by its natural and cultural diversity. The total area is 1,098,581 km2 with altitudes varying from 6,000 meters above sea level in the Andean cordille ra to fewer than 200 meters above sea level in the lowland of the Eastern plain. Bolivia is characterized by a great diversity of ecological and cultural conditions. Accordi ng to the 2002 National Census the total population was 8,274,325. The Indigenous populati on represents 62% of the total population; the great majority are Quechua s and Aymaras living in the highland and valleys. In contrast, the eastern lowla nds indigenous are 150,000 to 200,000 peoples representing 2.5% of the to tal population, but belonging to more than 38 ethno-linguistic groups (1995 indigenous census). Am ong those 60,000 Guaranies live in 246 communities (FAO 2004). Even though Bolivia is identified as an Andean highland country, three-fourths of the territory is tropical lo wlands. Due to the ecological conditions of the Bolivian lowlands and the mineral interest of the co lonial and early repub lican governments, the

PAGE 38

27 lowland Bolivian indigenous pe oples were not militarily controlled during the colonial and early Republican times. However, the Je suit and Franciscan mi ssions and the rubber boom in the second half of th e nineteenth century made life difficult for lowland Bolivian indigenous peoples. But the subsistence base of hunter-gatherers a nd cultivators in the remaining tropical forests never was as thre atened as it was by the later advance of loggers, settlers, agribusiness, drug dealer s, cattle raisers, and miners who have intensified their activitie s since the 1950s. The Bolivian national development5 strategy since the 1950s has been or iented towards the interna tional market and economic diversification proposed by the Plan Bohan.6 Consequently, the 1953 Agrarian Reform supported the distributio n of land in the valley and th e Andes, while in the eastern lowlands the n eo-latifundio was legalized to embrace agro-industrial development (Urioste 1992; Kay & Uriost e 2005). Therefore, the righ ts of lowlands indigenous peoples were denied or viewed as a barrier to be eliminate d. The markets advance in the form of the businessmen, ranchers, and entr epreneurs motivated by the riches of the forests has been supported by policies of governments, international agencies, and political parties. The development policies were reflected in the 1955 Government Plan which urged the colonization of tropical lowlands by Europeans and hi ghland peasants. Considering western technology as the solution to the l ack of productive use of regional lands, 5 Development as a concept was created after the Wo rld War II. Harry Truman offered development as fair deal for the undeveloped world; by this concept prosperous western societies constitute the model that the rest of the world should strive to attain. The concept was created to justify the assistance of the more prosperous, or first world countries to the less prosperous third world in becoming more advancedhigh levels of industrialization and urbanization, technicalization of the agriculture, rapid growth of material production, and the adoption of modern education and cultural values (Escobar 1994). 6 US Bohan mission that visited Bolivia in 1948. As a result of this in 1953 the Bolivia received $5 million in economic aid. By 1958 total US assistance accounted for one th ird of the nationa l budget, making Bolivia became the largest re cipient of US aid in Latin America (Klein 1982: 238 in Beneria-Su rkin 2003)

PAGE 39

28 between 1954 and 1962, colonies of foreign Me nnonites were establis hed, and colonies of Russians, Eastern Europeans, and Japanese were also set up. These foreign colonizers were seen as a means to ensure the mode rnization of lowland agriculture. Since 1985, with the Supreme Decree No. 21060,7 the Bolivian economy has changed even more radically, with the liberalizat ion of the markets. Agro-indus try mechanized agriculture, cattle ranching and logging continued rece iving important support from the Bolivian state in the name of development. They had access to cheap and abundant credit, subsidized prices, and failed to pay rural property taxes (Bojanic 1988 cited by BeneriaSurkin 2003; Kay & Urioste 2005). This agri cultural bonanza also resulted from a shift to large-scale production of export crops, which were more profitable. Land concentration and high rates of deforestation we re registered. For example, in Santa Cruz in 1950 the cultivated area was only 60 thousa nd hectares and that increased to over a million after the mid 1980s. In the 1990s, just 4 % of land holders in Beni and Santa Cruz owned 82% of the land (Fundacion Tierra, 2005). According to Camacho et al. (2001) in Santa Cruz Department 1,424,033 ha were deforested between 1993 and 2000. Private cattle ranching is an important productive activ ity in the lowland depa rtments of Beni and Santa Cruz (Fairfield, 2004; Plan del Uso del Suelo 1996). The cattle herd in Bolivia consists of 5,730,025 head, and the 72. 6% of this herd is found in those departments. Cattle ranching is an important productive activity in Bolivian lowland contributing to Bolivias GPD (Bojanic 2001, cited by Fa irfield, 2004) and it significantly supports 7 By 1983, the foreign debt represented 80% of Bolivia s gross domestic product, and the country fall into hyperinflation. President Paz Estenssoro (1985-89) in 1985 adopted the New Economic Plan known as Decree # 21060, termed a free-mark et shock treatment. The decree deregulated prices, eliminated subsidies and supports, devalued the currency, and suspended foreign payments. The impact was immediate: unemployment and migrati on of relocated workers was massive.

PAGE 40

29 rural incomes and diversified household activi ties (Faifield 2004). De spite this increased role of cattle ranching, its in fluences on communal institutio ns are poorly researched in the Bolivian context.

PAGE 41

30 CHAPTER 3 THE ISOSO AND STAKEHOLDERS todos esos lugares no tenan dueos karai, por eso al primer Ca pitn lo llambamos Iyambae (sin dueo). Este territorio era libre. As era nuestra tierra [all those places did not have an owner, thus the first Captain was named Iyambae ( without owner). This territory was free. That our land was] Agustn Chiraye, araakua iya (dueo del consejo), La Brecha. (cited by Dixhoorn 1996) The Isoso and the Gran Chaco The Isoso is part of the southern portion of the Bolivian department of Santa Cruz in the Chacoan province of Cordillera, and the Municipality of Charagua1 is located between 63and 61 30 West longitudes and 17 and 2015 South latitudes (map 31). Situated in the tropical dry forest of the Bolivian Chaco, it is part of the Gran Chaco Americano ecoregion which is the continents se cond most extensive forested region after Amazonia. The Gran Chaco extends over parts of Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia, with a small portion in Brazil, o ccupying in all more than 1,000,000 km2. The broad climatic gradients, together with geologica l and topographic characte ristics, generate a wide diversity of environments such as wide plains, swamps, and seasonally flooded savannas, and a great variety of forest and scrublands. The Gran Chaco is characterized by a high diversity of animal and plant species adapted to its extreme conditions (Taber et al. 1994, 1997; Navarro et al. 1998). 1 Charagua is the municipality (Bolivian administrativ e unit) which includes the Isoso. There is also a town of Charagua, west of the Isoso, which is the municipal headquarters.

PAGE 42

31 Figure 3-1. Location of the Communiti es in the Alto y Bajo Isoso. The Bolivian Chaco is a physiographic unit, a continuation of the Beni plain (llanura Beniana), extending across 13,766,3 km and three Bolivian departments: Chuquisaca, Tarija and Santa Cruz. The Chaco has a semi-tropical, semi-arid climate with extreme temperatures with the medi an temperature from 26C to 25C; and extremes reaching 43 C under shadow in summer (January) and in winter the temperature could drop below zer o degrees because of cold wi nds from Antarctica, called surazos from June to August (Dixhoorn 1996; Navarro 1998; Taber 1994). The dry season lasts from 4 to 8 months per year fr om May to September, some years extending until December. Rainfall is less than 1000 mm in the northern part and in the Andean foothills and averages 300 mm in the plain. The annual and monthly va riability in rainfall

PAGE 43

32 (Figure 3-2) as well as the soil mosaic is an important characteristic of the Chaco landscape. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 16001978 1981 19 83 19 8 5 1987 1989 19 92 19 94Rainfall mm/year Rainfall (January) Rainfall (Feb to Dec) Figure 3-2. Annual Rainfall in Charagua, Source Dixhoorn (1996). The Chaco has been known since the Inca times as the territory of good hunting, because of its richness of fauna, principally large mammals such as the Chacoan peccary ( Catagonus wagneri), white lipped peccary ( Tayassu pecari), collared peccary ( Pecari tajacu), tapir ( Tapirus terrestris), guanaco ( Lama guanicoe vogli), giant armadillo (Priodontes maximus), gray brocket deer ( Mazama gouazoupira), and jaguar ( Panthera onca). The Bolivian Gran Chaco located in the de partment of Santa Cruz represents the best conserved area of this threatened ecorregion. The Bolivian Gran Chaco is a center not only of natural but also of cultural diversity. The region was home to groups of nomadic hunters, gath erers and fishermen, and some sedentary agriculturalists. Different linguistic groups such as the Zamuco Ayoreode; Tupi Guaran Isoseo, Ava, a nd Simba; and Matako/ Maka Mataco and Weenhayek are present in the Bolivian Gran Chaco (TNC et al. 2005). The Bolivian Tupi

PAGE 44

33 Guaran or Chiriguanos2 were characterized by their strong warrior society and the ability to defend their land; they maintained their independence much longer than any other indigenous group in Latin America. This, along with their historical interaction with the external world (colonial, post-colonial, other indige nous groups, etc.) makes them somewhat unique. Unfortunately, what they sh are with the rest of the indigenous peoples of America is having witnessed the severe erosion of both their land base and access to natural resources (Albo 1992, Bene ria-Sukin 2003). During the first half of the twentieth century, the Guaran were on the brink of extinction. After the Republican military intervention in 1892 with the battle of Kuruyuki,3 their resistance was shattered leaving little hope for their future. Some Guaran comm unities lost almost all of their population. Guaran people moved to haciendas in the Bo livian Chaco or emigrated to Argentina to work in the sugar cane harvests as zafreros temporary rural workers in the sugar cane harvest (Albo 1992; Heyck 2002). Francisco Pifa rre (cited by Albo 1990) estimated that 26,000 Guaran emigrated to Argentina in the ear ly decades of the twentieth century, and nearly 80,000 Guaran and mestizos were obligatorily sent to the northern rain forest to work on rubber plantations. Throughout this period, multiple forms of resistance including both armed struggle and strategi es of negotiation had developed. The Chaco War in the Guaran territory, which lasted from 1932 to 1935, dispersed them even more and the few remaining people were absorbed by the haciendas. The 1953 Agrarian 2 The term Chiriguano is not accepted by the Guaran themselves due it use in a discriminatory way by the others. Guaran is a more generic name referring to the wide family present in five nations: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Ch iriguano is a more specific name for Guaran in the west near to the Andes Cordillera in Bolivia including the Mbya, Ava, Isosenos and Simba (Albo 1990). 3 In one day more than 800 Guaran were killed by the Bolivian army. In total Guaran deaths exceeded more than 3000, and 2000 Guaran were taken prisoner and dispersed in different regions as peones (Albo 1990).

PAGE 45

34 Reform did not benefit the Guaran people. The Agrarian Reform formalized the newlatifundio to support the government al programs based on agro-industrial development (Urioste 2003, n/d; Kay and Urioste 2005). The Guaran neve r accepted the redistribution of land that they still regarded as theirs. Despite the dispersion, the Guaran people were not assimilated as peasant or simple labor workers but continued the struggle through a strategy of political negotiation, maintaining their basic values language and dignit y. Through the years many Guaran have returned to their commun ities, even though today some of them are still captives on the haciendas while others are living in isol ated communities with very little land (Villegas 2006). However, in some cases the Guarani exert political control over relatively large land areas through co mmunities united in the form of Capitanias. One of these areas is the Isoso where the Capitania del Alto y Bajo Isoso (CABI) is located. At present, the Isoseo villages are the only ones in the study area, however, several other stakeholders neighbor and interact w ith the Isoseo people: 1. Cattle ranchers and Agro-industry entrepreneurs. 2. Mennonite colonies. 3. Peasants. 4. The local, regional and nationa l authorities. The Municipality of Charagua, the province of Cordillera and departme ntal authorities of Santa Cruz. 5. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Apoyo para el Campesino Indgena del Oriente Boliviano (APCOB), Centro de Investigacin y Promocin del Campesinado (CIPCA). 6. Catholic and Evangelical chur ches that support developmen t and production projects. 7. Private petroleum companies.

PAGE 46

35 Figure 3-3. Map of the TCO-Isoso and Location of Different Stakeholders.

PAGE 47

36 The Guarani Isoseo Communities More than twenty communities, dispersed along the banks of the Parapeti River, are politically organized in the Capitania del Alto y Bajo Isoso (CABI). The National Census (2002) registered 6,363 people in Isoso. However, according to CABIs own estimation there are around 10,000 inhabitants. That difference may be explained by the high seasonal migration outside of the Isoso to the sugar cane harv est. Despite those differences Table 3-1 based on the Bolivian Na tional Census of 2002, gives an idea of the population distribution among the Isoseo comm unities. Isiporenda, the southern-most community, is about 60 kilometers from th e municipal center Charagua. The most northern-most community along the Parapeti river banks, Kuarirenda, is over 150 kilometers from Charagua (Map 3-1). Even though during the dry season several routes4 lead to Isoso, the most stable access from Santa Cruz city is through Charagua, requiring about 7 to 9 hours to reach La Brech a, the central Isoseo community. The Guaran -Isoseo people are original ly derived from a fusion between a migratory TupiGuaran group and the Ar awak-Chane peoples established on the Parapeti banks. The Guaran -Isoseo communities have experienced the aggression of the colonizers and the Republican military repression, and later the Chaco War, which practically left the Isoso empty. The present communities in Isoso share a set of specific cultural characteristics: the ande reko our Guaran way of life; a common origin and history; the Mbayu (vision or dream); CABI as thei r political organization; and the TCO Isoso as their common territorial demand. Therefore, they constitute a demographic entity. 4 Between the 1940s and 1960s the area was intensively explored by hydrocarbon companies. The seismic testing lines opened at that time are used as roads.

PAGE 48

37 The Guaran Way of Life : The andereko Despite having suffered military devastation, the Guaran-Isoseo maintain many aspects of their traditional livelihood st rategies. The andereko is based on cooperative work and reciprocity as one of the main internal values which keeps the society and the extended family units together, it is the ba sis of social and ec onomic relations (Albo, 1992; Beneria-Surkin 2003; Heyck 2002).The household is the unit of production and reproduction. Each household is composed of an extended family and is part of a social network known as Teta (community or village). The communal life characterized by strong kinship ties and recipr ocal relationships is the mo st important element of the andereko The Isoseo livelihood is based on a subsis tence economy. They farm for their own consumption5 and only the excess is sold. Th e main crops are corn, rice, yuccamanioc, kumanda or beans and joco (squash). Some households cul tivate fruit trees such as banana, citrus and papaya. Hunting, fishing a nd gathering are important elements of their livelihood strategy. There are more than 135 sp ecies of plants used by the Isoseo and botanically described (Bourdy 2002). Bourdy de scribes the medicinal and non medicinal uses such as human food, animal feed, handi craft, construction mate rials, firewood, toys, decoration, agricultural pr actices and veterinary medicine. According to Cuellar et al. (2004), 21 different species of mammals, 9 of birds and one reptile are the most frequently hunted animals by the Isose os. Breeding domestic animals and their integration into the labor market are impor tant complements to livelihood strategies. They raise goats, pigs, chickens and cattle. Many Isoseo are wage-workers such as 5 According to Beneria-Surkin (1988) to replace the subs istence production the Isoseo must earn 17.46 Bs per work-hour.

PAGE 49

38 peons in cattle ranches or jornaleros in the sugar cane harvest, school teachers, technicians in NGOs and governmental institutions. Guaran-Isoseno Communities The present-day Guaran Isoseo communities are not completely uniform. According to common kinship, history, ethnicity, etc., the communities can be grouped in six different sub-zones (Combes 1999), going from south to nor th, summarized as follows (Figure 3-1). The Isoso frontier Coming from town of Charagua, which is located west of Isoso the first two communities are Isiporenda and Karapari (Fi gure 3-4). This is a fragile but fertile frontier. Fragile because the closeness to town of Charagua and the more constant contact with nonGuaran people makes them susceptib le to many different cultural influences, and fertile because the rivers water is availa ble almost all the year allowing them a rich harvest. This is a transition between the karai and Guaran worlds. The community is occupied, in addition to Is oseos, by AvaGuaran a nd Tapiete, and also many karai6 have had their ranches and homes in Isipor enda. They have developed a relation of mutual cooperation with the Mennonites neighbors (my observation). The Mennonites and Isiporenda inhabitants have exchanged of experiences and know ledge. In the summer of 2005, I observed that the Mennon ites presence was crating incentive for agricultural market-oriented production in Isiporenda. The Guarani producers rent machinery and use technology from the Mennonites, who, in turn, rent land from Isipor enda. Interviewees talked about school children a nd teachers helping Mennonites ha rvest cotton as a part of 6 Karai is the Guaran term referring to criollos mestizos and whites, all those groups that are not Guaran or other indigenous people that they identify

PAGE 50

39 an unofficial agreement of cooperation between the Isiporenda community and the Mennonite community. The Alto Isoso Continuing to the north by the main road, one reaches Kopere Guasu, Kopere Montenegro, Kopere Brecha, Kopere Loma Kapeatindi and Yapiroa. All these communities originated from the ancestral communities Urundeiti and Samouti The four Koperes are almost like neighborhoods of one large community (Figure 3-4). In Kopere Guasu there are many AvaGuaran, whose pr edecessors came to work as peons in the ranches. Those communities conser ve Guaran traditions such as Arete Guasu (the main celebration of good harvest) a nd together they began negot iating for a legal communal title beginning in 1922. They received the official title in 1948. The Central Isoso Ivasiri, La Brecha and Tamachindi are included in the same communal title received in 1947 and reconfirmed in 1978. This zone of Isoso once was known as Guirayoasa. At the beginning of the 1 900s only one community was located on the eastern bank of the Parape ti River (Figure 3-5). Experi encing severe problems with ranchers, people decided to move to the western bank where they founded three communities before the Chaco War. Today one of those communities, La Brecha, is the political center of Isoso. The Corazn Histrico del Isoso The historical heart of the Isoso is located on the eastern bank (F igure 3-5) and it is the place where the first Guaran Isoseo arri ved; guided by female leader, Kaa Poti, they established the first community known as K ovei. The present communities of Koropo,

PAGE 51

40 Table 3-1. Population in the Communities of Isoso. Community No of inhabitants Male Female No. Households ARAKAE 1999 INE 2002 (INE2002) The Isoso Frontier 1 Isiporenda 274 300162138 62 2 Karapari 85 1498069 26 The Alto Isoso 3 Kopere Guazu 124 1256461 19 4 Kopere Montenegro 108 793544 12 5 Kopere Brecha 229 1739380 39 6 Kopere Loma 287 22894134 40 7 Kapeatindi 196 232125107 31 8 Yapiroa 780 555294261 95 The Central Isoso 9 Ivasiriri 463 364173191 73 10 La Brecha SD 724348376 136 11 Tamachindi 525 380172208 89 The Corazn histrico del Isoso 12 Rancho Nuevo 870 493222271 114 13 Mini 311615 11 14 Yuqui* 15 Rancho Viejo 378 217108109 50 16 Aguaraigua 379 277122155 44 17 Yovi 725 435215220 81 18 Koropo 370 314147167 51 19 Pikirenda* The Karai Isoso 20 San Silvestre 145 1025646 19 21 Paraboca 35 904545 16 The Bajo Isoso 22 Kuarirenda 728 586307279 85 23 Aguarati 376 338179159 47 24 Guandare* The Returning Isoso 25 Joseravi 15810157 28 26 Tetarembei 1385 3 TOTAL 7,077 6,3633,1663,197 1,171 Source INE Bolivia, National Census 2002 and Combes (1999). Notes: The Bolivian National Census of 2002 did not register the population of Yu qui, Pikirenda and Guandare, probably because those communities are too small, dispersed and closely rela ted to other communities. Thei r population may have been included in the counts for other communi ties, ( Yuqui could be included in Mini Pikirenda in Koropo and Guandare in Kuarirenda). Combes (1999) does not re port population of Mini, Yuqui, Pikirend a, Guandare, Joseravi and Tetarembei because those communities were established af ter 1999, originally being cattle ranches ( puestos ganaderos ). Because the communities frequently change location, as well as experiencing disintegration and the establ ishment of new communities, it is not surprising that figures of the numb er of villages and population differ accordin g to different sources. Today, it seems that infrastructure such as schools and health services are factor s that influence a more fixed location.

PAGE 52

41 Aguaraigua,Yovi, Guairapembi (Rancho Viej o) and Yarumbairu (Rancho Nuevo) all originated from the first Guarani-Isoseno comm unity of Kovei. According to Albo (1990) the first title for Yovi and Aguaraigua was received in 1927. And in 1947 Koropo was included. Koropo, Yovi and Aguaraigua always have worked together, and have shared Arete Guasu. Despite the same origin Guairapemb i was left behind. Unfortunately it has been surrounded by ranches with which there we re perpetual confrontations, issues that deeply affected them. Land tenure problems were growing, as well as problems of access to natural resources, and they could not ti tle their land. The community was divided; some of them moved to the western river ba nk for a more peaceful life, and established Yarumbairu (Rancho Nuevo), later Mini and Yuki. In 1962 the titling process was initiated by the three communities together a nd when they received the title in 1969 it was for land located on the western bank. Gu airapembi never got a title until it was included in the common TCO-Isoso title. The Karai-Isoso Many karai have lived in the Isoso since they first arrived in the mid-1800s. Some of them live far away on their ranches, but others live in the communities together with the Guarani-Isoseos. Those that live in the communities and take part in the communal life are considered members. Mixed commun ities as Koropo and Aguarati are examples of such communities. But three communities are inhabited almost only by karai: Paraboca, Tamane and San Silvestre (Figure 35). They were incorporated into the CABI organization in 1997. Then during the TCO titling process Tamane negotiated to become private property, and they received one family title. Paraboca and San Silvestre officially decided to be part of CABI as communities.

PAGE 53

42 The Bajo Isoso Kuarirenda and Aguarati (Figur e 3-6) are part of a histor y of moves. Because of the changes in the river (floods and drought) and the ranchers pressures, these communities have continually changed location. Kuarirenda received a title to its land in 1972, but the conflicts with cattle ranchers continued. Returning to Isoso A new Guaran -Isoseo sub-zone is recen tly taking shape in the TCO-Isoso. The Isoseos that had lived outside the Isoso, including some that worked as peons on neighboring ranches, decided to estab lish two new communities Joseravi and Tetarembei, both supported by CABI. These new communities are located north from Kuarirenda and their organiza tion of production differs from the rest of Guaran Isoso. Land is divided into nuclear family plots which in many cases are clearly delimited by fences. Inside those areas are located the house, the farming plot and domestic animals7. Each community has a communal capitan w ho maintains relationships with CABI leaders. The community members still have st rong ties with the urban areas, for example most of the children are studying in urban schoo ls (in Santa Cruz city) and only visit their parents during the holidays. So metimes the mother lives with the children in the city during the school year. Land Use in Guaran Isoso Land is considered to be common property that the ancestors have left for all members of the community (Ben eria-Surkin 2003). Land tenure will be deal in Chapter 4, but the history is summarized briefly below. Customary common property rights 7 Observation made during my Tetarembei field trip 2004, when I was gathering information for a waste management program and visited several houses

PAGE 54

43 characterized the Guaran Isoseo andereko The cattle ranchers arrival forced the Guaran Isoseo people to seek a new way to defend the common access to land and natural resources. After shifting from warri ors to negotiators, they obtained seven communal titles that included almost all communities 65,000 ha, (Figure 3-1). The Territory is the central element in the struggle to subsist, around which the indigenous peoples have tended to project an essential constr uction of identity. For this reason and their immersion in land tenure dyna mics, since the 1980s indigenous people in the lowlands have mobilized to demand the t itling of their lands and territories (Albo 1996). As a result, Bolivia, and other Lati n American countries, has recognized some indigenous land and territorial rights over the last few decades The agrarian reform or Ley INRA (Law no. 1725 of 1996) recognizes th e indigenous peoples territorial demand as Tierras Comunitarias de Origen (TCO) in accordance with the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169 (Romero 2003) During the elaboration of the Santa Cruz Land Use Plan (Plan del Uso de Suel o de Santa Cruz, PLUS, from1992 to 1995) and the INRA Law (from 1994 to 1996) CABI actively participate d, designing their own proposal for indigenous territories. Together with other indigenous peoples, forming the Central Indigenous Peoples of Eastern Boliv ian (CIDOB), they argued for the legal recognition of indigenous peoples territories or communal la nd of origin (TCO). The Guaran Isoseos officially presented their demand for TCO-Isoso, at the time the INRA Law was approved in 1996, and CABI guarantee d the financial support to complete the administrative title process ( saneamiento SAN-TCO). Following the approval of INRA Law (1996)8 CABI has been a key actor in the SAN-TCO process. 8 The results of the process of TCO titling saneamiento in Bolivian lowland shows the next data: 55 TCO formally demanded 25,794,177 hectares of them only 3,214,565 hectares were titled as TCO only five TCO completely titled

PAGE 55

44 The Guaran Isoseo people can hunt and co llect everywhere in their territory and each family or household can clear and farm the quantity of land that is needed to support their livelihood. Farming, hunti ng and gathering are part of the Guaran Isoseos andereko The main use areas, to agriculture, ca ttle ranching, and village facilities including housing, were surveyed by FII-C ABI technicians, at the end of 2004 and beginning of 20059 (Table 3-2). Table 3-2. Main Land Use in Isoso, per Sub-zones. CattleArea AgriculAreaUrbanArea Total Area Sub-zone (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) The Isoso Frontier 7,02818046 7,254 The Alto Isoso 28,817896108 29,821 Central Isoso 16,228971106 17,305 The Corazn histrico del Isoso 19,570821183 20,573 The Karai Isoso 30,549547 30,601 The Bajo Isoso 28,160454137 28,751 Returning to Isoso 4,0200164 4,184 TOTALS (ha) 134,3723,326790 138,489 Source CABI Data Base 2005 Urban Area in Table 3-2 is the area wher e houses and village infrastructure are located. School buildings, health services and churches, as well as a soccer field are found in almost every community or village. The households are dispersed on both sides of the road. Beneria-Surkin (2003) provides a description of a typica l Isoso household: Beyond on both sides of the road one can see typical one ro om Izoceo houses. The area immediately surroundi ng the house is cleared of any vegetation but nearby a few trees and vegetation is always left. Usually roofs are th atched with palm leaves but some houses have corrugated metal roofs and others are made of tiled roofs. Occasionally, one finds an isolat ed house, but it is more common to find and 30 partially. Ironically, 4.2 million hectares were titled as private to third party inside the TCOs demands. The government weakness, the agrarian elit es pressure, and corruption among the governmental officers are the main elements that characterize the land saneamiento during these ten years. As a result of this negative balance the peasant and indigenous movements still support the common property as a ke ystone to their strategy to subsist and take a place in the world. 9 In summer of 2005 I interviewed Zulema Barahona and Cr ecencio Arambiza (FII-CABI technicians responsible for the survey) and other peoples in the communities. I had access to CABI data base.

PAGE 56

45 several houses near each other, each one belonging to one of the nuclear families that make up a household. [Beneria-Surkin 2003] With respect to agricultural areas, all hous ehold farming plots ar e located together in the same area on the banks of the Parapeti River (Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 where the agricultural plots are represented by green polygons). Agricultural plots belong to the families, or households and, who have the right to use, but not to sell or rent the land to others. According to Beneria-Surkin (2003), the Isoseos believe that one should not exaggerate and should use only what is neede d. Therefore, the farming plots vary from approximately 2.3 to 7 hectares (this size of fa miliar plot substantially differs from the peasant or small farmers and colonists who le gally demand 50 ha plot s). Some areas are planted and the rest of the pl ot is left fallow. The Kar ai and Returning to Isoso subzones present a notable difference in househ old structure and land use distribution in relation to the other Isoseo communities. In Tetarembei and Joseravi (Returning to Isoso) there is not a common agricultural area because each family has a rectangular plot where they have the house, animals and cultivated area, following the more typical Bolivian peasant land settler pattern. The Kara i Isoso has the smallest farming area and the larger dedicated to cattle ranching. The total areas used as cattle ranching are shown in Table 3-2. While cattle ranching characteristics in Isos o will be developed in Chapter 5. However, it is important to highlight that the area o ccupied by cattle ranching is considerably greater than that under other uses. According to the data, imme nse areas of the commonly held lands are used for herds of cattle.

PAGE 57

46 Figure 3-4. Land Use in the Frontier and Alto Isoso (Sub-zone 1 & 2). Figure 3-5. Land Use in the Cent ral, Historic Heart and Kara and Bajo Isoso (Sub-zone3, 4 and 5).

PAGE 58

47 Other important land uses areas, such as hunting and gathering areas, are more difficult to identify. Some gathering and hunting areas have been identified by WCS technical staff which has rese arched hunting and collecting pr actices for several years. Those areas partially overlap with farming a nd cattle ranching areas, and are not included in this table. CABI, the Guarani Isose o Political Organization The communal Mburubicha or captain is the customar y authority in each Guarani Isoseo community. The main decisions affecting the Isoso are taking in the Gran Asamblea which is the meeting of all communal Mburubicha headed by the Capitan Grande that is the Capitania del Alto y Bajo Isoso (CABI). CABI is a strong grassroots organization that is key at local and regional levels. It has become a political actor adopting a practical strategy of negotiation (Beneria-Surkin 2003). CABI has achieved several successes with resp ect to participate in and control of na tural resource management and development projects (Chapter 4). Other Stakeholders Other stakeholders in the TCO Isoso incl ude several private properties are located within the TCO-Isoso. According to the INRA law, a process of land tenure regularization must be completed ( saneamiento o SAN-TCO) to obtain a communal title. The saneamiento of the TCO Isoso is still in pro cess; for technical and administrative purposes the area was divided into five polygons. The national and departmental governments are responsible for the legal proces s of SAN-TCO, beside the application of development and conservation policy. After th e passing of the Popular Participation Law in 1994 the municipal government became the most important institution at the local level. The Municipality is charged with planning, implementing and supervising

PAGE 59

48 environmental and development programs and projects. Various non governmental organizations (NGO) also are present in th e TCO Isoso such as CIPCA, APCOB, WCS, as well the Catholic and Evangelical chur ches. Two gas pipelines run near the TCO borders (Figure 3-1). One runs from Santa Cruz to Argentina on the western limits of the TCO Isoso. The other runs from Santa Cruz to the Brazilian border to the north, inside of TCO Isoso. Therefore, the petroleum companies ar e important stakeholders in this area. According to the SAN-TCO preliminary data th e following kinds of pr ivate properties are located in the TCO-Isoso (Table 3-3). Table 3-3. Private Stakeholders, No t-Isoseo Owners, in the Isoso. Stakeholders Pol 1 Pol 3 Pol 4 Pol 5 Total TCO Isoso Cattle ranchers No. Owners 84553044 213 Hectares 166,223164,558116,103269,378 716,262 Agro-industry No. Owners 24 24 Hectares 116,339 116,339 Mennonites Colony* No. Owners 24 6 Hectares 23,86644,217 68,083 Peasant "unions" (sindicato campesinos) No. Owners* 24 6 Hectares 8,951433 9,384Total owners 112633044 249 Total hectares 315,379209,208116,103269,378 910,068Source preliminary data SAN-TCO 2006 O. Castillo Six Mennonite colonies include almost 1,460 families (Table 3-4). Six peasants unions involve several families. Cattle Ranches and Agro-Industry Cattle ranches in the Southern areas (pol ygons 3 and 5) are extensive. It is an activity with a low yield, co mplementing other livelihood stra tegies (Linzer 1998). In the north (Polygons 1 and 4) the cattle ranches are generally la rger, varying in size between 2,000 hectares and 15,000 hectares and characte rized by a high investment in machinery

PAGE 60

49 and infrastructure. Their administration and management are handled by full-time technicians as well as temporary personnel dur ing the harvest season. The main crops are rice, sorghum, soybean, cotton, sunflower, and improved grass. Those ranches are influenced by agro-industri al activity and market orie nted production, from the surrounding plain to Santa Cruz city and Pail on, and are linked with the credit system and main Bolivian markets. The agro industry, in the plains surrounding Santa Cruz city and Pailon, began in the 1970s with credit suppor t from the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank (Kay and Urioste 2005). The Tierras Bajas project, during the 1980s and 1990s, supported the fast-expa nding agricultural frontier based on extension, through intensive production. Cattle ranchers, of both zones, are organi zed in local and regional associations which offer them important political and t echnical support. At the local level the Asociaciones de Ganaderos de Charagua, y de Cordillera (AGACHARAGUA and AGACOR) and at the regional level the Federacion de Ganaderos de Santa Cruz (FEGASACRUZ) are strong civil institutions that have tended to exert decisive influence at regional and national levels in polic y-making and implementation of official development programs. Mennonites In the southern part of the Isoseo te rritory between Isiporenda and Charagua (Polygon 3), four Mennonite colonies are located in the TCO-Isoso: Pinondy, Pinondy Itaguazurenda, Casa Grande and Durango. In addition two colonies are located in the northern (Polygon 1): La Milagrosa and Santa Clara. The members of these colonies

PAGE 61

50 came from Canada, Mexico, Paraguay and some from different parts of Bolivia.10 The Mennonites who recently came from Canada ha ve economic and technical support from their Canadian Mennonite-institutions, and they te nd to be more flexible in their religious practices. The Mennonites who moved from Para guay and other parts of Bolivia tend to be more orthodox and do not have technical support. The total Mennonite population is more than 10,000 peoples or 1,465 families (Table 3-4). They have one or several general titles for the entire colony (Table 3-3), but in ternally they divide the area into family plots. The nuclear family is the economic and reproductive unit, they have big families with an average of seven members. There is a strict gender and ge nerational division of labor within the family and colony. The Mennonites practice intensive agrarian entrepreneurship, pr esenting particular characteristics. Their production system is based on a stable social organization; they have common religion, customs, culture, educa tion, values, etc. Colonies are established and organized under a chief administrator of each colony. Diversification of the productive system is an important Mennonite strategy. They grow different crops and livestock for domestic consumption and the market. Their industry of milk products (cheese and butter) is an im portant income to individua l households. They practice mechanized agriculture and the livestock is a complementary activity. However, it is intensively-managed. Altogether Mennonites, in the TCO Isoso, have 17,092 head of cattle (CABI 2005; SAN TCO 2006 FII-CABI, Castillo pers comments 2006). Mennonites use family labor and sometimes hire workers. Their population growth is high; consequently their cr easing need for land is a main concern for them and for their 10 The first Mennonites came to Bolivia in the 1950s. Their actual population depends from the internal high population growth and their slowly but permanently immigration to Bolivia.

PAGE 62

51 Table 3-4. Mennonite System in the-Isoso. Colony Homes Population AreaTotal (ha) Polygon 3 Pinondi 3002,70015,734 Pinondi Itaguazurenda 1641,4728,180 Durango 3743,36613,834 Casa Grande 1099816,469 Sub total 9478,51944,217 Polygon 1 La Milagrosa 3533,17816,245 Santa Clara 1661,4917,621 Sub total 5194,66923,866 TOTAL 1,46513,18968,083 Source O. Castillo and Noss personal comments (CABI-WCS) Preliminary data SAN-TCO-Isoso 2006 neighbors. After ten years of their presence in the areas they o ccupy shows the highest rate of deforestation and the most intensiv e agricultural use in the entire TCO Isoso. Peasants or Small Farmers The peasants, located in Polygon 1 and Pol ygon 3, are migrants or colonist from the western highlands and valleys. They arrived before the TCO-Isoso was immobilized (in 1996). They are organized in agrarian union ( sindicatos agrarios ), a typical strategy among the Bolivian peasants. Even though they have communal title in the name of the agrarian union the land is divided in family pl ots of 50 hectares; the nuclear family is the unit of production and reproduction. They pr oduce crops for the market and domestic consumption, normally they raise small domestic animals (chickens, swine and ducks). According to saneamiento data, six sindicatos agrarios occupy 9,384 ha. There is no information about how many families there are. Institutional Stakeholders Administratively the Isoso is a municipa l district within the municipality of Charagua, in the province of Cordillera within the Santa Cruz department. Altogether the

PAGE 63

52 representatives of those governmental institu tions are important regional stakeholders and CABI maintains a permanent relationship a nd coordination with them (Chapter 4). Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) or APCOB (Apoyo y Promocin de l Campesinado del Oriente Boliviano) technically support CABI in th e implementation of different activities. WCS has provided an important support in environmental and conservation programs as well as in the institutional strengthening pr ocess of CABI in arenas lik e negotiation with hydrocarbon companies, or with the national government on the arena of the NPK administration agreement. Other Bolivian NGO, like AP COB and CIPCA focus their support on productive projects. The Franciscans and Jesuit Missionaries co uld not influence the Isoso during the colonial period as they did on a vast area of the Bolivian lowlands. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, the Catholic and later the Ev angelical Church esta blished presence in the area. The Catholic and Evangelical church es have promoted productive projects such as cattle ranching. According to Benaria-Surkin (2003) the Evangelical presence in Isoso is promoting cultural and socioeconomic changes among Guaran Isoseos. Two gas pipelines are located alongside the northern and the west ern borders of the TCO Isoso: Gasbol and Gasyrg. (F igure 1-1 and Figure 3-1). Since 1997, GasTransBoliviano (GTB), a consortium of oil companies11 has been present in the area. GTB is the owner of the massive Bolivia-B razil gas pipeline (G asbol). Due to the international and national requirements the owners of the pipeline had to implement a 11 GTB consortium includes the multinationals ENRON and Shell, the Bolivian partially state-owned Yacimientos Petroliferos y Fiscales de Bolivia (Y PFB), the Brazilian state-owned Petrobras and a other partners.

PAGE 64

53 Plan de Manejo Ambiental (Environmental Management Plan, PMA) and a Plan de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indigenas (Indige nous Peoples Development Plan, PDPI) in order to limit the socio-economic and ecol ogical impacts of th is pipeline. Transierra12 now operates the Gasyrg pipeline which began its construction in 2002 and its operation in 2003. The Gasyrg extends from Yacuiba to Rio Grande (Figure 1-1 and Figure 3-1) and connects the southern Bo livian gas fields of San Alberto and San Antonio with the Gasbol pipeline. Tran sierra supports the Indigenous Peoples Development Planning Program (PA-PDI) and the PRAC (Programa de Relacionamiento y Apoyo Comunitario). The Isoso area is a complex fabric of different stakeholders. Among them the Guarani Isoseos are key actors in planni ng and implementing development programs in their territory. 12 Transierra is a consortium integrated by Andina S.A., Repsol YPF S.A. Petrobras Bolivia S.A. and Total E&P Bolivie S.A.

PAGE 65

54 CHAPTER 4 THE ISOSEO IVI IYAMBAE AS COMMON PROPERTY Current theory describes common property as an institution of self-governance that evolves when participants agree to impose limits on their individual claims The survival of common property resources in Isoso implies a long-term history. Despite the current process of transformation and the uncerta in future, the Guarani-Isoseos have consciously decided to preserve the Ivi-Iyambae land without owner or communal ownership right and community tenure system as the keystone of their Mbayu dream or vision as indigenous pe ople. The Guaran-Isoseo Mbayu embraces five central elements: Moaete identity; Araku knowledge; Mborerekua union; Iyambae without owner or autonomy; and Yandeyarigui the common origin related to grandmothers. All these components are closel y tied together, and cannot be separated from the territory land and natural resour ces. In other words: the Guaran-Isoseo Mbayu is the vision to remain united as Gu aran-Isoseo people, having a common origin, strong identity and culture, respecting the traditional knowledge the andereko or Guaran-Isoseo way to be. The Guaran-Isoseo territory is the Mbayu s space dimension including the land and natural re sources. The political and administrative autonomy of their territory is a crucial objective. The Mbayu was formally incorporated into CABIs strategy planning by the asamblea of Mburuvicha the main Guaran-Isoseo communal institution. The asamblea is a meeting where decisions are done by Guaran-Isoseo captains of all communities. In July 2005 I interviewed Oscar Castillo, who is a technician supporting

PAGE 66

55 CABI, at his office in Santa Cruz. He explai ned how CABI developed their strategic plan with the purpose to maintain, support a nd develop self-governance in the Isoso. I understand that this planning is not a static formula, nor a th eoretical one. The plan was elaborated by Mburuvicha asamblea on the basis on their vision or Mbayu to survive as Guaran-Isoseo People. The Mburuvucha identified those customary institutions which have supported their subsistence as People. C onsequently the strate gic plan is supported by four pillars (Figure 4-1). eemoai that refers to CABI as the Guar ani Isoseo political organization and its relationship with the external institutions. Moa, referring to organization and use of the space and natural resources, the management of their territory. Tekoata that is the institutiona l and organizational strength. Mbaapo the self organization, productive al ternatives, education and sustainable development. More extensive explanation is developed in this chapter, which focuses on the cultural elements and institutions that shape and support the Guarani Isoseo Mbayu as well as on the similarities and differences among the Mbayu and the Community Base (CBM) and Common Property (CPM) management frameworks. andereko : Nature and Characteristics of the Group According to common property theory th e membership of a communal group must be well defined. Size of the group, common knowl edge, past successful experiences, trust and identity are other mentioned group charac teristics needed to be successful in common resource management (Berkes 1989; Ostrom 1990; Agrawal 2001; Olsom, Folkes and Berkes 2003).

PAGE 67

56 Figure 4-1. Guaran-Isose o Strategically VisionMbayu. The Isoseos have a strong identity that allows them to resist and survive as indigenous peoples. The andereko or Guarani Isoseo way of life is based on their communal life. According to Al bo (1990) there are three aspect s that reveal the GuaranIsoseo communal life: The celebration which involves the convite (to share). On different occasion members of the community share hunted pr ey, harvested corn, food, etc. with other members. The Arete Guasu or celebration of good harvest is a special occasions to share among communities. The group work is based on cooperation a nd reciprocity. The Isoseo as a group share generalized norms of reci procity and trust that are part of their social capital. Therefore, the adult men are required do communal work such as maintaining water channels and fence repair, clea ning farming areas, construction and maintenance of roads, serving in comm unal offices, etc. Women support bringing food and chicha The asamblea are the decision-making space at communal and entire Isoso levels.

PAGE 68

57 In day to day life each Isoseo belongs to a tta or community or village. Communities are small enough for people to know each other. Therefore, membership is explicitly defined. Each Isoseo household is provided with exclusive rights to use a farming plot and forest resour ces inside the common property. In the Isoseo communities, I observed that use rights to the communal forest were clearly defined by interviewees. The authority interviewed in Isiporenda indicated, for example, that a third party does not have the right to cut a tree inside the communal boundaries. The interviewees in Pikirenda me ntioned one case, an issue concerning a neighboring karai or criolla -family who had gained a privat e title to a plot of property and who then was also trying to use communal lands to raise their herd. The members of this family are well known, and like other local karai they took part in some communal activities, but once they obtained a private title the comm unity no longer considered that those karai are no part of Isoseo community. Problems came when the family still wanted to claim communal advantag es. In the same way Tamane, a Karai community, decided to title their land as private property. Once the Asamblea approved it, they lost the right to participate in communal programs and benefits. Isoseos participate in different ac tivities, organizing work-groups or/and associations that use the communal resour ce pool, for example a group of hunters, or the Cupesi-flour producers associations in Pikirenda a nd Ivasiriri. Those groups are generally voluntarily made up of neighbors or close kinship members who are well known to each other. Therefore, I observed th at, the membership within those groups is well defined based on limited size, trust, common knowledge and past successful experiences.

PAGE 69

58 Some cattle ranching associations have b een formed by the Isoseo. In Isiporenda the association takes care of a communal herd of cattle (Edda Parada informant). The Isoseo membership is well defined by their Guarani Isoseo way of life or andereko and their common vision of themselves reflected on the Mbayu The Guarani Isoseo people have a common origin Yandeyrigui a strong union Mborerekua and they shared the tr aditional knowledge Arakua all these are characte ristics distinguishing them from the others. Moa : Space and Natural Resources Use and Boundaries According to the common property theo ry, defined boundaries are one of the most basic characteristics essential to eff ective common property institutions (Ostrom, 1990, 1999; Agrawal 2001). To Isoseos, the Moa one of the strate gic pillar of the Mbayu refers to the use of space and natural resources, as well as the definition of the physical boundaries. The Isoseos identify different types (lev els) of boundaries w ithin their territory (1) the broader territorial boundaries, ancestral dominium and actual TCO in process of titling; (2) the customary v illages boundaries; (3) the hous ehold use areas like family farming plots; and (4) the boundaries introduced by projec ts and institutions for productive activities or natural resource management. According to Albo (1990) when the Guaran i people arrived at the Parapeti bank they were searching for the Ivi Iyambae which means the land without owners. Once they settled in Isoso and conquered the Chan e people, they continued to struggle to consolidate their territory. The concept of territory holistically includes the farming area,

PAGE 70

59 the forest, rivers, flora and fauna that s upport the Isoseos live lihood and with whom they coexist (Albo 1990). For the Isoseo these resources are accessible to all, they can collect fish and hunt in this common territory. A ccording to Castillo (2006) between the 1700s and the beginnings of the 1900s the Isoseo original dominion was at least 3 million hectares. The boundaries have been defined to exclude others and to gu arantee their right of access to their means of subsistence, and formally be recognized as People. The Isoseo fought physically to defend their territorial access to na tural resources. First, they fought against other indigenous peoples like the Avas a nd Ayoreode, and late r against the cattle ranchers, and the crowns and Republican governments military forces. After the Kuruyuki battle in 1894, the Isose os shifted their strategy fr om defending their territory militarily to seeking legal r ecognition and requesting legal titling. The first communal title dates from 1932 and include d two communities: Yovi and Aguaraigua. By the 1980s 65,000 ha. were titled and almost all comm unities were included in seven communal titles (Combs 1999; Winer 2003; Albo 1990; Ca stillo 2006). Despite the legal titles, problems with cattle ranchers continued. Moreover, the 1980s brought more complexes issues.1 The expansion of the Bolivian agricu ltural frontier suppor ted by the Lowland Project ( Proyecto Tierras Bajas del Este ), an initiative of the World Bank and Bolivian government, threatened the Is oseo peoples survival. 1 Throughout the 1970s and 80s, numerous other national development plans also focused on areas occupied by indigenous peoples, pushing them onto marginal lands. This situation and the democratic transition in the country inspired among indigenous peoples the resistance to new market forces that led to alliances, not only at the national but also at the international level. In 1982 the Confederacion Indigena del Oriente de Bolivia (CIDOB) was created cong regating all indigenous groups of the Bolivian lowlands; and was an important forum permitting the definition of their own vision of development and resistance strategies. The struggle for their rights has led to a process of empowerment taking numerous forms such as mass mobilization and marches1, and day by day activities; winning seats in parliament and municipalities; and taking part in consultations at national and international level with mult ilateral bodies. From 1993 to 1997 was a period of constant reiteration of indigenous rights and Bolivia has redefined its relations with indigenous peoples by sanctioning new laws (Hirsch 2003).

PAGE 71

60 Lo que ah se necesita es un titulo comn para todo el Isoso, desde Tarenda (junto a San Antonio de Parapeti) hasta el ltimo baado. (What is necessary there is one title for all the Isoso, from Tatarenda [near to San Antonio de Pa rapeti] to the last swamp). [Testimony from Juan Feliciano Arandico, the communal captain of Rancho Viejo recovered by Albo 1990 pp 37] Dn. Arandico referred to one title for all communities as a way to defend the Isoseo territory all together Mborerekua against the cattle ranc hers and agro industry encroachment. Because the Isoseo maintain ed the structure as indigenous people, combining concepts of territo ry, autonomy, and identity (C astillo 2006), they visualize their territory as a geographic space in the Chaco in which th ey can not only survive, but thrive, as an indepe ndent people in the Ivi Iyambae and sustain the Isoseo Mbayu and the ande reko As a result of Bolivian normative reform between 1993-1996, some approved Laws became key legal instrument to seek the consolidation of Isoseo territory and natural resources management. In their role of nego tiators, the Isoseos s upported the creation of the protected area in the Gran Chaco, th e National Park Kaa Iya (NPK) in 1995. The environmental Law No. 1333 enacted in 1993 allowed CABI participation on the elaboration of the technical proposal to create the NPK. CABI worked together with WCS and the National Direction of Biodiversit y Conservation to de fine the protected area boundaries as well as their participat ion in the NPK administration. The NPK encloses important areas of Isoseos tradit ional use and mystical. The creation of the NPK was viewed by the Isoseo as a way to define boundaries and to stop the aggressive advance of the agricultural frontier. Therefore, the Isoseo people pr otect their territory. Once the new agrarian reform law was approved, the INRA Law no 1725 in 1996, CABI requested the official recogn ition of Isosos boundaries as Tierra Comunitaria de Origen Isoso (TCO Isoso) to formalize their owne rship right. The titling of the TCOIsoso has

PAGE 72

61 been in process since 1998. At present2 more than 560,000 hectares are communally titled in CABIs name (A. Noss and O. Castillo pers. comm.). At the same time, internal boundaries sepa rating different use ar eas are established inside the Isoso. Clear inte rnal boundaries reduce conflict over limited resources. For example, the farming plots limited to irri gated land in the Parapeti river banks are distributed to each Isoseo family. The fire wood collection areas ar e well distinguished among communities. Some hunting areas are ex clusive to those who have good relation with the Iyas (Combes 1998; Noss and Painter 2004). Members of each community are familiar with their village boundaries, excluding outsiders from using their communal resour ces. But not all Isoseos have a clear understanding of the TCO-Isoso boundaries. Before the titling process had begun, during the elaboration of NPKs management plan in 1999, almost all old men could identify the boundaries of the TCO-Isoso and the historical attachment with their ancestors territory. But for young people and women who almost never leave the community the TCO boundaries were difficult to identify (Linzer and Villasenor 1999). In the summer of 2005, during the communa l meetings, the TCO-Isoso boundaries seem to be more appreciated among Is oseos. They are expanding their spaceexpectation. During an interview in summer of 2005, the Mburuvicha of Rancho Nuevo narrated to me how they are fencing a new area far away from the village but inside the 2 According to CABIs register 564,000 hectares ar e titled to CABI as communal and 165,000 to private owners. According to press information in Bolpress.com published on October 2005 and the note of press there were titled 560,636 hectares in favor to CABI an d 10 thousand Guaranie peoples families. In all the process of TCO Isoso it was titled 174,159 hectares to 71 properties. According to the last preliminary data (data facilitated by Castillo CABI-WCS).

PAGE 73

62 TCO titled area. In Isiporenda, the communal Mburuvicha and his adviser complained about one individual who permanently tries to invade into the TCO titled land the Isiporendas people recognize that area as th eirs, being the traditional hunting area and source of wildlife to the community members. The boundaries among Guaran Isoseo comm unities are not physically established and are relatively flexible among the Guar an Isoseo people (comments from interview and personal observation). Inside the boundari es characteristic so cial and ecological systems are present. The Moa together with the andereko integrates the ecological and social systems existent in the TCO-Isoso and the Kaa Iya NP. These elements are central to develop the rules and institutions for natural resource management in Isoso. Tekoata and Mbaapo: Institutional A rrangements and Normative Regime The biggest challenge to CABI is to s eek a better way of life for the Guarani Isoseo people, respecting the Mbayu and the ande reko Consequently, to guarantee appropriate management, it is necessary to de velop institutional arrangements and rules. Cooperative decision making and implementation of activities are essential elements. The Tekoata and Mbaapo, CABI consciously has incorporat ed elements to improve self organization, education and tr aining, to strength technical sk ill, negotiation capacity and decision making, and to develop natural resource management experiences. Rules Rules of use are essential for the management and access to common natural resources. The rules regarding appropriation of natural resources must be well defined and adapted to the particular natural and social common pr operty context (Ostrom 1990). Johnson and Nelson (2004) suggest that collectiv e arrangements must be perceived as fair by the communal members of the common proper ty institution, and must be collectively

PAGE 74

63 made to be responsive to all of the resource users and to changing ecological or social conditions, and be acceptable (Johnson and Ne lson 2004). In addition there must be mechanisms of conflict resolution, correction a nd sanctions for departures from the rules (Berkers 1989; Agrawal 2001; Olsson et al. 2003). Within the Isoseo well-known rules are esta blished ascribing certain activities and use in the different areas. For example, all fishing and hunting areas are not the same: the access to remote sacred ar eas, such as the ponds of Yandeyari,3 or other areas in the forest near to the hills, are restricted to those with a respectful behavior (Combs 1988). Only those who know and have the approval of the Kaa Iya, or spirit guardian responsible for ensuring the forest, can gain access (C ombs 1998; Noss and Painter 2004). According to Combs (1998), Beneria-Surk in (2003) and Noss and Painter (2004) some cultural rules have weakened. Noss and Pa inter suggest that some traditional rules that contribute to sustainable use and conservation are being undermined by socioeconomic changes over the past decad es, including new hunting technologies and changes in employment patterns; reduction of the areas accessible to Isoseo hunters by the installation of private properties and Mennonite colonies; and the growing population in the Isoso, among other changes. Monitoring and Sanctions Iyambae Monitoring common resource use ensures that a communal management system, defined by rules and boundaries, allows only th e group members to carry out the intended activities. According to Ostrom (1990), m onitoring and sanctions imposition should be applied by members of a communal entity or by persons accountable to the members of 3 Yandeyari here is referring to the place.

PAGE 75

64 the group. Monitoring and sanction of violations are necessary to rule enforcement within a common property institution. Monitoring and sanctions of inappropri ate activities are established among Isoseos. The Mburuvicha or captains are responsible for dealing with infractions of internal rules and for maintaining order w ithin the community. At the same time the community is small enough that everyone ge nerally knows what everyone else is doing, and therefore an unofficial monitoring is going on. Despite monitoring every day activities is customary experience, the Isoseo have to adapt new rules to the present harsh soci oeconomic and ecologica l changes. Attitudes towards wildlife are not severe they are conti nuously adapted to peoples experiences in a changing socioeconomic and ecological environm ent. There is some experience of self monitoring by hunters, combining and supportin g scientific and local knowledge that supply elements to raise awareness of natura l resources (wildlife) management at the communal and indigenous territory level (Noss, Cuellar and Cuellar 2001, 2004; Noss and Cuellar 2003; Noss and Painter 2004). The Cupesi associations in Pikirenda and Ivasiriri. In those communities a group of women have organized themselves in an association. Those associ ations are supported by CABI and their communal assemble to ex perimentally produce Cupesi flour for the market. In both communities, the interviewed identified administrative training as a key necessity. They are looking for support to develop skills such as bookkeeping to monitoring the administration of the cupesi pr oduction. In those cases the introduction of new productive activity involves ne w skills to monitoring it.

PAGE 76

65 Collective Arrangement and Conflict Resolution The communal asamblea is the place where communal decisions affecting the community are made jointly. It is the forum where all members of one community together to the communal Mburubicha make decisions and coordinate community activities such as reparation of water channels or communa l infrastructure, and decide whether to participate or not in a project or program. The Isoso Gran Asamblea is the place where all communal Mburuvichas or captains, the womenMburuvicha, and the communal assistants make the major decisions affecting all Isoso. In general, Isoso has a well-established a nd functional means of ensuring collective decision-making and conflic t resolution with the participation of community members according to the central principles of Mborerekua unity and Iyambae autonomy. The decision-making process takes time. One asamblea is not enough. The analysis, discussion and joint deci sions must be internalized. The asamblea has rules too: respect for elders gives them more author ity than any one younger; shouting and verbal confrontations are not allowed (pers onal comment Angel Yandura). Albo (1990) describes the main role that the ee ija literally elders owner s of the word play in the community life and asamblea. There are some trend of communal cattle ranching organization and institutional development that can be identified. In a few communities, such as in Isiporenda and Yapiroa, a core of cooperative organizati on is found. Members of the cooperative take weekly turns taking care of the herd and the infrastructure. Decisions are made in the communal asamblea In Aguarati and Ipapio (Tamachi ndi) cattle owners have formed associations to improve and implement cat tle ranching practices, having invested in

PAGE 77

66 infrastructure acquisition and maintenan ce. Mixed-management (private/communal): private cattle herds are allocated inside the communal fences, with the owners agreeing to contribute to the communal infrastructures maintenance. Some communities administer a monetary fund and owners pay monthly (Based on interviews : Zulema Barahona, Crecencio Arambiza, Eda Parada, Alejandro Arambiza, Andrew Noss). Individually-owned free-gr azing cattle which some times invades agricultural plots, and always feeds on the riverine fore ststill represents the main challenge to Guarani Isoseo institutions. The free-grazing he rds comprise a majority of the cattle in the region (68% of total cattle of Guarani Isosenos owners) and it involves a large number of smallholders w ithout investment capacity w ho consider their cattle a complementary form of sustenance. Different communities are taking specific decisions attempting to regulate the cattles presence. For example, in 2001 the cattle owners from Koropo were made to move further North a nd establish Pikirenda, a new cattle ranching community (From interview with the captain of Pikirenda). In this way, they solved the invasion to farming plots by free grazing cattle but did not alleviate the pressure on the riverine forest. On the other hand, in Yapiro a the community reacted against the planned clearance of the riverine fo rest. The clearance was suggested by the technical people from the cattle-ranching projects, a nd the community decided to m ove the project away from the riverine forest to prot ect that valued ecosystem which brings them shadow, temperature regulation, wood, firew ood, fruits, and flood protection. eemoai : Relationships between the Group and External Forces Common property institutions are not isol ated. Therefore the relationship between the community or group and the external forces and authorities are important elements to take into account. CABI refers to its relati onship with the external institutions as the

PAGE 78

67 eemoai which includes their relationship w ith other grassroots indigenous organizations, the municipal government, the regional and national governments, the civil society and the private sector. The relationship between the Isoso and ex ternal forces has been changing through time. The Guaran-Isoseos were essentially warriors and they de fended their territory militarily against the cattle ranching expansion la conquis ta de la vaca during the colonial and early republican period (Albo 1992). The Spanish crown officially declared war against the Guaran people who resisted until the beginning of the 1890s. After a military defeat, the Isoseo leaders shifted their struggles strategy from warriors to negotiators (Albo 1990; BeneriaSurkin 2003). Therefore, the Mburuvisha Casiano Barrientos in 1927 and later Bonifacio Barrie ntos in the 1940s were the first local authorities officially recognized as Capitan Grande del Alto y Bajo Isoso by the regional and national government. They traveled to Santa Cruz and La Paz to demand the legalization of their communal land as a strate gy to be recognized as indigenous peoples with their own identity. They [the Guaran] demonstrate a rene wed cultural energy, this time focused on inclusion rather than resistance, but with the crucial caveats that their culture and language be respected, via bilingual edu cation, and their history rescued from official distortion. [Albo,1990 c ited by Beneria-Surkin 2003] During the 1980s a Natural Resources Protec tion Plan for the department of Santa Cruz was designed and implemented. Then, a discussion process wa s stimulated among Isoseo about the scale and impact of Santa Cruzs expanding agro-industries and about how they were to improve their own economic status without losi ng traditional social structures and values. Therefore, CABI es tablished strategic alliances with other indigenous groups. CABI supported the formation of the Central de Pueblos Indigenas de

PAGE 79

68 Santa Cruz in 1981 and ten years later the C onfederacon Indigena del Oriente Bolivano (CIDOB). CABI has achieved a strong capacity to nego tiate at local, regional and national levels. They exercise their rights based on official and legal mechanisms. The following facts are the most important achievements on the natural resource management terrain: The co-management of the Gran Chaco-K aa Iya National Park (KNP) (1995). In 1995, after the creation of the KNP an ag reement of its co-administration was signed between CABI and the national government. With a surface of 3.4 million hectares this park is the largest in Lati n America and the first co-administrate by an indigenous organization in Latin America. The governance of an indigenous munici pal district, making CABI the legal political authority in Isoso. Under the P opular Participatory Law (1994), CABI is recognized as the first indigenous munici pal district government in Bolivia. The coordination of development activities of NGOs working in Isoso. Agreement with APCOB, CIPCA, CABI also formed alliances with Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) since the beginning of 1990s. WCS had begun a program in 1995, to both develop the Park and promote a sustainable rural developm ent process. The alliance gave them access to USAID funding and other revenue generated from hydrocarbon activity within the Park and the TCO-Isoso. The co-administration of the Plan de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indigenas4 (PDPI) through an important agreement with the petroleum private companies (Chapter 3 Stakeholders) and the state (1997 to 2004). The PDPI sought to reduce or mitigate any negative social and economic impact s of the pipelines on the indigenous peoples living in the area affected by its construction. The PDPI is supported by a found of $3.7 million that included $ 1.5 million to support land titling for indigenous territorial clai ms by the Guaran-Isoseos, the Chiquitanos and Ayoreodes. 4 The Bolivia-Brazil Gas pipeline (Gasbol) carries ga s from south of Santa Cruz to Porto AlegreBrazil, crosses 250 kilometres of TCO-Isoso and KNP la nd. As a condition the World Bank and the InterAmerican Development Bank required the pipeline owners to design and implement the PMA and the PDPI (Chapter 3). The PMA defined the actions to be taken during and after the construction of the pipeline to reduce any negative environmental impacts associat ed with the construction of the pipeline.

PAGE 80

69 The agreement between CABI and Transi erra the petroleum consortium (20022006) to implement and monitoring the PRAC and PDI. Their territorial demand as TCO-Isoso is recognized by the Bolivian government and other international institutions such as the World Bank and USAID which are supporting their demarcation and natura l resource management planning. CABI entered those arrangement having as its main objective the defense of Guarani-Isoseo land rights as well as strength self governance. These successful achievements are unprecedented among lowla nd indigenous organization in Bolivia. National recognition as authority in the region enables CABI to prevent further incursions into their territory by ranchers and largescale agriculturalists (Arambiza 1996 cited by Beneria-Surkin 2003). There is not doubt that CABI is an impor tant stakeholder that is officially recognized at local and national levels. Desp ite CABIs political achievements it has not been strong enough to confront the influences exercised by the larg e cattle ranchers. Large cattle ranchers in th e eastern lowland are well organized both locally and nationally. During three different presidential governments th ey have impeded the titling of TCO-Isoso through different mechanisms. Th e carrying capacity for cattle ranching is one of the most contradict ory technical arguments used by the landlords and cattle ranchers to impede TCO land titling. On the other hand, cat tle ranchers have taken advantage of the TCO titling process as many private owners received titles before TCO titles were signed and they did not pay the cost of the titling. The current president, Evo Morales, during his inaugural speech used the words of a Guaran leader tratenme como a una vaca meaning treat me as you would treat a cow referring to 25 hectares for each cow used by cattle ranchers to justify the land concentration in the Chaco region (Ortiz 2006). The relationship between CABI and the

PAGE 81

70 current government representati on is difficult to predict. Af ter the nationaliz ation of the Bolivian hydrocarbons, the issue of land began to gain attention at the national level (La Razn 2006). The Bolivias tu rbulent political climate (H ylton 2006) is covering the hope of great advances. The current governme nt does not clearly differentiate between highland and lowland Indigenous people a nd it seeks land to distribute among the highland peasants (La Razon 2006-2, 3). Conse quently, the lowland indigenous territories are threatened and lowland Indigenous pe oples are on the alert (La Razn 2006-2). On the other hand, the cattle ranchers and pr ivate owners of the eastern lowlands do not have the national support th at they had before, but they are part of the Santa Cruz departmental social movement at regional le vel. That gives them the power to have political and economic influence in the d ecision making process. Therefore, CABIs political strategies to relate to external inst itutions has to be adapte d to different contexts. A the present time CABI is playing in differe nt local and national scenarios. For example the main Guarani Isoseo l eader Bonifacio Barrientos capitan grande actually occupies a Congressman at national level and Marce lino Apurani is the provincial authority strengthening CABIs regional relationships. The Guarani Isoseo are making progress in developing practical negotiation capaci ties develop negotiation capacities. Contrasting the Common Property (CPR) and Community-Base Management (CBM) Framework to the Mbayu It is possible to find a close similari ty between the theoretical CPR and CBM framework and the Guarani Isoseno stra tegically planning process based on the Mbayu (Figure 4-2). Nevertheless the Mbayu is not a fixed theoretical framework it is the result of practical experience with a long history. Its creators ar e their own protagonist. The Guarani Isoseos resolution to surv ive as indigenous peoples is the Mbayu s main

PAGE 82

71 objective. The Ivi Iyambae or land without owner or the land without evil has guided the Guarani through centuries. They fight to reach self governance in a territory shaped by different social a nd ecological systems. The elements of the Mbayu are tied to each other and they are part of the all spheres of Guarani Isoseo life. The Mbayu is also a political decision. Figure 4-2. Guaran Isoseo St rategically Planning Based on Mbayu Contrasting to Common Property and Community Base Management Theories. CABI is a strong grassroots organization that decided to keep communal land as a central element in their subs istence as indigenous people. They do not deny improving the well being of their communities and therefore they have a vision of themselves as the Mbayu. The Mbayu incorporates the main principles to maintain social unity and allow live in comoono t the Guaran Is oseo as social unity and live in a common territory.

PAGE 83

72 On the other hand I argue that the Mbayu is a vision that encompasses a political dimension and decision making mechanisms. The Mbayu is a conscientious political decision related to their subsistence as Guaran i Isoseo people, it is a life project. The Mbayu is a practical and historical experien ce and the communities are the responsible stakeholders (Figure 4-3). Figure 4-3. Contrasting the Garani Isoseo Mbayu and the Common Property and CommunityBase Management Framework. The andereko is a social and ecological fabric embracing the main social principles in a specific landscape or territo ry which includes the land and ecosystems. The autonomy or self governance is a central element to the Guarani Isoseos and they are strengthening their traditional institutions in the changing context they seek for external co-responsible part nerships that support their Mbayu

PAGE 84

73 CHAPTER 5 CATTLE RANCHING IN ISOSO Cattle raising is the largest land use in the TCO-Isoso. The regional land use plan of Santa Cruz Department (PLUS) recomme nds extensive cattle ranching as the main productive activity on the Santa Cruz Chaco and farming and protection on the river banks of Parapeti river (PLUS 1995). Acco rding to Combs (1999) and Alb (1992), once livestock were introduced by the karai in the middle of the nineteenth century, this radically changed the life in Is oso. Since that point, the history of Isoso has been a history of conflicts between the Isoseos and the cattle ranchers. In sp ite of this, this one sees a growing number of cows belonging to Isoseo in the communities. At present, cattle ranching activities are in the hands of two different social groups: 1) Guarani Isoseo cattle ranching charac terized by the customary and legal communal land ownership; and 2) the private landholders characterized by indi vidual private land ownership regime. The Expansion of Cattle Ranching in Isoso Three phases of cattle ranching expansi on can be identified in Isoso: The conquest of original peoples territories ( la conquista de la vaca ). Since the colonial period with the implementa tion in the 1950s of Bohan plan The Bolivian agrarian modernization private livestock production nourished by the State and international cooperation. Fr om the 1950s to the beginning of the 1990s The big cattle ranching projects char acterized by the intr oduction of communal livestock projects founded by NGOs and churches in the Isoso.

PAGE 85

74 A brief description of each of them help s to understand the present cattle ranching situation in Isoso. The Conquest of Original Peoples T erritories La Conquista de la Vaca In Bolivia, cattle expansion has been associated with the extension of the conquerors power and then the Republican (Government) occupation of the original peoples territories. First the missionary, then the military and private interests introduced cattle as a way to civilize and conquer the aboriginal cultures. According to Saravia Toledo (n/d), cattle livestock were introduced in the Chaco forest after the mid-1700s by the Franciscan missions. After Bolivian i ndependence (1825) the Chaco region of the country was designated for livestock producti on. As an incentive, the government offered one square legua (5.6 square kilometers or approximately 3.5 square miles) to whomever occupied the area. The deepest penetration was through the Parapeti and Pilcomayo rivers to the East. The Isoso is not an exception to this pattern, despite a long resistance which denied the religious missions access and re pelled the colonial and Republican military. Finally during the 1840s or 1850s cattle were introduced by a Mr. Mercado, a criollo or karai (Combs 1999). According to testim ony collected by Combs (1999), Mr. Mercado come to Isoso as a young person and lived among the Isoseo. As an adult, he introduced the first head of cattle and opened the Isoso to other cattle ranchers who came to Isoso with their cows and laborers. Th e cattle invaded Indigenous farming, gathering and hunting areas. The growth in number and extension of ranches limited the Isoseos access to land and natural resources that they previously had access to. And worst of all, ranchers came with the in tention to reproduce the criollo hierarchical system within the Isoso, which the Isoseo had to continually resist. Combs (1999) relates how cattle

PAGE 86

75 ranchers intended to impose themselves as captains in the communities, or tried to incorporate the Isoseo people as labo rers in the hacienda system. Modernization: Cattle Ranching Subsidized by the Bolivian State Since 1960s under the banner of moderniza tion, a gradual expansion toward the Chacoan plain was officially stimulated by the Bolivian government which granted the land and infrastructure for livestock production. For example, during this time the government built water reservoirs and wells to stimulate cattle ranching, particularly northwest of the actual TCO -Isoso (in the area knowing as Medanos Fociles or Arenales de los Guanacos ) (Saravia Toledo 1996). During the military governments in the 1970s and 1980s land and monetary resources were distributed through a web of corruption. Close friends and family members of the military elite received vast expanses of land and credit (credit which never had to be repaid, and which led the Banco Agricola to bankruptcy). According to Romero (2005) almost seven million hectares were distributed during the Banzer military government (1971 to 1978). In the Chacoan province of Cordillera one indi vidual could receive more than one mega-parcel of land, for example, the well known Gutierrez family received five parcels with a total of 96,874 hectares in the Santa Cruz Chacoan region (Romero 2005). During my visits to Isoso, I had participat ed in the relaxed chatter that accompanied drinking tea at my host families. In Pikirenda several neighbors shared with me their stories about: thousands of cows grazing on the neighboring plain and great feasts at Otto Len ranch. The men were peons at Mr Lens ranch a close friend of that time President Banzer. Surrounding the community of Rancho Viejo, one can see the evidence of the ranchers good times: Otto Lens abandoned infrastructure machinery, cleared land, and water channels. The community it self was completely surrounded by ranches

PAGE 87

76 which limited access to natura l resources and livelihood sources (Combes 1999; Albo 1990). Therefore, it is possible to unde rstand why Rancho Viejo is the poorest community today (Beneria-Surkin 2003). Over time many of the great private ra nchers like Otto Len have collapsed. Without subsidies from the Banco Agricola, and after overgrazing the pastures, they could not survive economically (personal co mment of veterinarian Mr Eurlet).The golden era passed, but the peons and co wboys settled in the Isoso establishing the Karai Isoso sharing their attachment to cattle ranching activities and poverty with the Isoseo. More recently, since 1995, some Mennonite colonies have been established. The first Mennonite arrived in Bolivian territo ry between 1954 and 1962, together with other colonizers (colonies of Russian s, Eastern Europeans, and Japanese were also set up). These foreign colonizers were seen as mean s to ensure the modernization of lowland agriculture. Therefore, they received severa l incentives to colonize new areas and clear the forest. Even though cattle raising is not a main productive activity for the Mennonite, they have significant herds. The Mennonite land management system is actually questioned by some because their agricultural practices are highly destructive of soil properties (Linzer 1998, CABI, FII and WCS 2001). Big Projects and the Cattle Raising Incentive Among Isoseos The Big projects ( Los Grandes Proyectos) phase began in 1995 with the Kovei project which fenced 6,781 has fo r communal livestoc k production. Since 1995 nine big projects have been supported by di fferent resources and implemented through NGOs working with community members. NGO s such as CIPCA and APCOB together with the Catholic and Evangeli cal churches are the most in fluential promoters of cattle

PAGE 88

77 ranching within Isoseo. At present the gove rnment of the Autonomous Community of Valencia is a main sponsor of cattle ranc hing projects in Isoso, supporting projects in Kopere(s), San Silvestre and Yapiroa. The ge neral outputs of those projects have been more fenced area, water wells, rustic water reservoirs and cowboys shelters, leading to the introduction of more herds of cattle. Projects have not yet achieved their objectives : communal production of commercial meat. The big projects introduced cattle by different ways, but of ten by buying one or more bulls with project funds, while the communitys members contributed heifers. Barahona (2005) relates how dairy cows we re introduced through 25 pregnant Holland cows. Each person who received one of those co ws had in turn to give one pregnant cow to another community member and so on. As a result there are 45 Holland -cows in Isoso today (Barahona 2005). The Isoseos Cattle Ranching Many Isoseo have begun independently raising livestock as a complementary subsistence activity. Cattle is introduced by individual in itiative among the GuaraniIsoseo people via different means: buying or receiving them as wages from neighboring ranchers; or as a pay for taki ng care of the cattle herd of family or communal neighbors, who live or work in the city (Barahona 2005). The 2004 cattle census registered the number of cattle per owner, as well as so me management characteristics, which are summarized in Table 5-1. According to th e data among the Isoseo three main cattle ownership regimes can be differentiated: Individual cattle ownership (under free gr azing or fenced management systems) Communal cattle ownership (under free gr azing or fenced management); and Family or group cattle ownership under fenced management.

PAGE 89

78 Table 5-1. Number of Isoseos Owners and Number of Head of Cattle by Type of Property Regime by Community in Isoso. Community Population No. individual owners Cattle individually owned Cattle communally owned Family owned cows Owners Free grazing cows Owners Using Big projects fences Free Grazing cows Fenced cows Free grazing cows Fenced 1 Isiporenda 300 31 171 67 2 Karapari 149 4 48 10 3 Kopere Guazu 125 3 3 176 20 20 378 4 Kopere Montenegro 79 5 Kopere Brecha 173 8 6 31 50 13 188 6 Kopere Loma 228 7 96 15 7 Kapeatindi 232 17 87 48 8 Yapiroa* 555 30 703a 9 Ivasiriri 364 40 510 10 La Brecha* 724 51 529a 47 11 Tamachindi 380 6 114 10 346 12 Koropo 314 8 74 64 300 27 150 13 Pikirenda* 8 189 7 14 Aguaraigua 277 18 94 11 15 Rancho Viejo* 217 10 121a 0 16 Rancho Nuevo 493 16 238 0 17 Yovi 435 33 230 0 18 Yuqui* 0 0 10 19 Mini 31 2 49 10 20 San Silvestre 102 40 635 0 99 21 Paraboca 90 7 107 10 22 Kuarirenda 586 18 14 382 60 10 140 353 23 Aguarati 338 15 7 296 180 25 5 24 Guandare* 4 490 10 25 Joseravi 158 8 15 26 Tetarembei 13 9 320a TOTAL 6,363 393 104 5,695 610 283 928 798 Total owners 497 Total head of cattle 8,314 Source CABI data base June 2005; Barahona 2005 a. Data of Yapiroa, La Brecha, Rancho Viejo and Tetarembei were uncompleted, having the name of owners but not the number of cattle. I understand that data were introduced latter, and Barahona 2005 includes the general number of cattle heads for those communities. I used her gene ral data, in bold italics in this table. The Individual Cattle Ownership Regime The majority (76% of the total) of th e Isoseo herd is individually owned. According to my interviews, cattle are as signed to different members within the

PAGE 90

79 household as a means to secure an effective source of cash for each person. I take into account a total of 300 owners registered in the CABI database1 (Table 5-2) to calculate the median and the mode of herd of cattle per person. The median is seven head of cattle per owner, and the mode two head of cattl e per owner. The maximum number of cows belonging to one individual is 263 head (in Guandare). Table 5-2. Distribution of Individual Cattle Ownership. Number of head of Cattle per owner Number of owners Percent of owners Total cattle Percent of total cattle herd 1-5 12742%3739% 6-10 7324%59114% 11-15 4314%57314% 16-20 176%3258% 21-50 248%72517% 51-75 83%56113% 76-100 31%2376% 101 52%79819% Total 300100%4,183100% Source CABI data base June 2005 It is important to notice that 66% of ow ners have between one and ten head of cattle. 6% of the owners have more than 50 head of cattle. There is an indicator of possible wealth accumulation. The social imp acts resulting from this situation must be studied. There are differences among individual s and communities but, in general, herd management is almost absent. The largest part of those herds (89%) is freely grazing on the communal land, invading the farming plot s, river banks and household areas (field observation). This situation should be regulat ed because so many free grazing cows are overgrazing the communal forest and grassla nds. This is a challenge to the Guarani institutions that should regulate it. On the other hand individually owned herd (11% of 1 I do not take in account data of Yapiroa, La Brech a and Rancho Viejo because I did not have access to the detailed data of those communities. I use the data of Barahona 2005 to complete table 5.1

PAGE 91

80 individual ownership cows) is located insi de the communal fences (Table 5-1). Free grazing herds can be grouped only during the dry season when the cows seek water and then the communal water-reservoirs are the only source for the cattle (Saravia Toledo personal comment, Barahona 2005 and field observation). Therefore, cattle are individually or priv ately owned but their management depends on communal resources such as communal water-reservoirs, communal fences and communal grassland and forest. The Semi Private-family System Some Isoseo families or groups of families ar e able to invest in cattle and fences. With the approval of the community, the he rds are located on communal land, and cattleowners do not have ownership rights to the land but have usufruct rights to natural resources: wild fruit, forage, pasture and wa ter. According to the CABI data base (June 2005) and cattle census (2004) there are 18,824 hectares fenced under this management system. Around 10 % (798 cows) of the total Isoseos herd belong to seven family groups (Table 5-1 and Table 5-3). I did not collect information about the technical management (sanitary, feed, and reproductive) However, according to the calculated mean of 23 hectares per cattle head as animal this is an exceedingly extensive managed system. The Isoseo Cattle Communal Ownership System The communal property system is direc tly related to the big projects Los Grandes Proyectos . Barahona (2005) includes a descri ption and background of each one of the nine projects established in Isoso. Two main trends can be differentiated. On the one hand, the herd belongs to the whole community and it is placed in the fenced area of the communal land (Table 5-1 and Table 5-4). A total of 43,851 hectares were fenced by the

PAGE 92

81 Table 5-3. Family System in Isoso. Name Community Owners No head of cattle Fenced area (hectares) Propieda Karapiti Kapeatindi Group of families 494.2 Familia Sacarias Montenegro San Silvestre Sacarias Montengro 99 3,528.4 Propiedad Ipapiao Tamachindi D. Garcia, Nolberta and Maquiades Castro 346 1,708.4 Campo Grande San Silvestre/ Koropo Family Snchez 8,162.7 Fortaleza Kuarirenda Francisco Snchez 172 4,930.5 Chunka Kuarirenda 181 Guandare Aguarati Group of families Total 798 18,824.1Source: CABI data base June 2005 big projects; within this area a total of 928 head of cattle are owned and managed communally. As was mentioned before, these fences, infrastructure and head of cattle were sponsored by NGOs: CIPCA 16%, APCO B 35% and the government of Valencia sponsoring the 49% of total fenced areas. Th e second trend refers to those cows in communal ownership that are freely grazing (Table 5-1). Those herds belong to 17 different communities and 70% of them were acquired though the PRAC program (CABI database 2005). The Big Projects have generally had the sa me strategy: to build the infrastructure including fences, water wells, and other faci lities and to introduce reproductive bulls. The life time of project implementation and technical support is two years on average. After the NGOs support finished few commun ities find their own way to organize the cattle ranching production. Frequently the projects are almost abandoned. In Isisporenda the Yaitarenda project left 20 heifers and one bull (stallion) today they have 67 head of cattle. Yaitarenda proj ect in Isiporenda has an animal charge of

PAGE 93

82 Table 5-4. Cattle Ranching Projects. Project-name Community Sponsor SituationCattle Head Communal Cattle Head Private Total cattle Fenced area (hectars) Guaripaku Kopere (4) GV 378 20 398 10,596.64 Kovei Koropo, Yovi, Aguaraigua APCOB 150 300 450 6,781.15 Karumbei Kuarirenda APCOB 140 60 200 1,186.97 Comunidad Guaricusari Kopere (4) CIPCA/PDPI 188 50 238 2,830.84 Aguarati Aguarati APCOB 5 180 185 7,486.95 Yateirenda Isiporenda Isiporenda CIPCA 67 67 4,279.78 Yapiroa Yapiroa GV 637.5 Propiedad SanSilvestre San Silvestre GV 9,833.73 Rancho Nuevo Rancho Nuevo 159.68 Rancho Nuevo2 Rancho Nuevo GV 28.72 Total 928 610 1538 43,821.96 Source CABI data base 2005

PAGE 94

111.7 hectares per head of cattle and Guaripaku project in Kopere has an animal charge of 26.6 hectares per head of cattle. These hi gh numbers are related to poor management. Land Use by Cattle Ranching Ownershi p Regime and Management System Table 5-5 shows that free grazing indivi dual cattle are the most numerous, as well as using the most extensive area, without control over where the animals forage, when they give birth, etc. Owners expend the minimu m effort, time and resources on their herd. Among the main problems of big projects are (1) the implementation of cattle ranching technology without observation of the Chaco ecological condi tions, (2) the short term support that do not allow develop lo cal institutions, and (3) absence of commercialization strategy. Despite that, the Isoseos accept big projects because they bring more heads of cattle and infrastructure such as fences and water well which are high valued by the communities. Table 5-5. Number of Head of Cattle and Land Use by Ownership Regime and Management System in the Guaran-Isoso. Cattle Ownership Regime / Individual Cattle Ownership Communal Cattle Ownership Family Cattle Ownership Total Management system Free grazing Fenced (1) Free grazing Fenced (1) Fenced (2) No. Head of Cattle 5,695 610283928798 8,314 Land Use (hectares) 68,340 3,39643,85118,824 134,411 Hectares/head of cattle 12 1247.323.6 16.17Note (1) the individual cattle fenced is located inside of the communal ow nership fenced area. (Source: CABI data base June 2005). The individual herds inside communal fences, 610 head of cattle which belong to 104 owners (Barahona 2005 and CABI data base June 2005) seems to be an interesting trend. According to Barahona (2005) and Aram biza (interviewed in summer 2005), some

PAGE 95

84 communities are establishing norms to use co mmunal fences. For example, in Kovei the Isoseos private cattle use the fenced area a nd their owners pay monthly per head to the communal administration. The Private Landholders in the Isoso Cattle ranching by private landholders is the most extensive activity overall in TCO-Isoso. A complete private landholders register should result from the SAN-TCO process. The partial information was avai lable through FII technical office and is summarized in Table 5-6. Table 5-6. Cattle Ranching Systems Non-Guaran Isoseo in the Isoso. Polygon/ category Number of owner Total Area (ha) Head of cattle Agriculture (ha) POLYGON 1 Agroindustry Cattle ranching1164,6776,333 12,117 Mennonite Colony 223,8663,700 8,000 Privates 40106,70612,542 1,183 Cattle ranching 3487,62510,152 Mixed 619,0812,390 1,183 Subtotal 53195,24922,575 21,300 POLYGON 3 Mennonite Colonies 444,21713,392 8,000 Privates Cattle ranching 26115,56111,804 336 Peasant-Agriculture 4433 Subtotal 34160,21125,196 8,336 POLYGON 4 Military 111,918200 100 Privates Cattle ranching 29104,18516,294 Subtotal 30116,10316,494 100 POLYGON 5 Private Cattle ranching 44269,37836,555 Subtotal 44269,37836,555 TOTAL 161740,941100,820 29,736 Source preliminary data Saneamiento TCO Isoso FII-CABI

PAGE 96

85 Data reveal that there are two main type s of private cattle ow nership systems. On one hand, there is the indivi dual cattle ranching system that includes the extensive traditional cattle ranches, the mixed-ranches with agricultural forage as food supplement and the agro-industry. On the other hand, ther e is the Mennonite ca ttle ranching System differentiated by the collective organization of production and strong social fabric inside the colonies. Individual Cattle Ranching System According to Linzer (1998) as well as th e preliminary data of TCO-Isoso titling process (SAN-TCO-Isoso ) the cattle ranches with extensive management are located on the Southern area of the TCO -Isoso (polygons 3 and 5) while the mixed ranches and agro-industry are generally located on the Northern part (polygons 1 and 4). Different ecological and socioeconomic factors influen ce this pattern. Firstl y, ecological factors such as the annual rainfall regime that varies from SE to NW from 475 mm to 1000mm annual rainfall. Rainfall pattern s are associated with different natural forage availability. Secondly, the distance and access to the main cities influence the commercialization opportunities. The northern area is closer to Pailon and Sa nta Cruz which are most important agro-industrial developed areas in Bolivia. The southern areas are more isolated and the access is t oo difficult on the rain season. Cattle ranches in the Southern areas pract ice more extensive cattle ranching, an activity with low yield complementing other livelihood strategies (L inzer 1998). The herd is frequently free-ranging with poor management, without control over livestock movements or genetic selection. The criollo race predominates because it resists the extended dry season (CABI 2001). The cattle is so ld year round but prin cipally in the dry

PAGE 97

86 season. The cattle is transported on the hoof by truck to the commercial areas of Santa Cruz and Chuquisaca (cattle ranchers comments). Concordant with south-north ecological transition, cattle ranching systems tend to shift from extensive to mixed cattle ranchi ng. Mixed cattle ranchi ng in this area is characterized by cultivated grass, fenced area s, application of breeding, health and feed technologies. This activity is influenced by the agro-industry located in the northern areas of the TCO-Isoso (Polygons 1 and 4), which is characterized by th e high investment in machinery and infrastructure. The private properties in those areas are generally large, between 2,000 hectares and 15,000 hectares. The administration and management are handled by full-time technicians as well as temporary personnel during the harvest season. The market oriented production is linked with the credit system and main markets in Santa Cruz and Pailon. The Mennonite System Mennonites have been established in two areas of the TCO Isoso (Table 3-4 and Table 5-6). In the South between the Isoseo communities of Isiporenda and the town of Charagua (Polygon 3), four Mennonite col onies were established in 1995: Pinondy, Pinondy Itaguazurenda, Casa Grande and Dura ngo. Two other colonies, La Milagrosa, and Santa Clara, were established later in th e Northern part of the TCO Isoso (polygon1). The population of all together is approxima tely 10,000 peoples. Commercial agriculture is their main activity and livestock is a co mplement, however, it is intensively-managed. Altogether, the Mennonites have 17,092 head of cattle (database CABI May 2006 and personal comment Castillo).

PAGE 98

87 Table 5-7. Demographic and Productive Charact eristics of Mennonite Colonies in the Isoso. Colonia Homes (c) Population(c) AreaCattle (ha) (b) AreaAgric (ha) (a) Cattle (a) AreaTotal (ha) (a) Poligon 3 Pinondi 300 2,7009,8002,8004,500 15,800 Pinondi Itaguazurenda 164 1,4726,5001,8002,600 8,000 Durango 374 3,36611,4802,4004,195 13,980 Casa Grande 109 9815,4371,0002,097 6,437 Sub total 947 8,51933,2178,00013,392 44,217 Poligone 1 La Milagrosa 353 3,2786,4008,0001,200 16,245 Santa Clara 166 1,4916,035..?2,500 7,621 Sub total 519 4,76912,4358,0003,700 23,866 TOTAL 1,466 13,28845,65216,00017,092 68,083 Sources:(a)preliminary data SAN-TCO. (b) CABI-FII Oscar Castillo comments. (c) INE national census 2002 Mennonites raise dairy cattle for auto c onsume, butter and cheese industry. Among Mennonites women are responsible for the herd of cattle. Strong cultural believes limit mens participation in cattle raising activities Despite that fact, there is evidence that some Mennonites are shifting to more cattle ra nching activities in the northern part of the TCO Isoso (field visit 2003). One Mennonite was interviewed and he identified the subsequent poor harvest and dry season as ma jor motivation to shif t from agricultural production to more cattle ra nching production. Many Mennonite s have preferred selling their land before adopting more cattle ranc hing activities because this shift implies significant cultural changes. Those Mennonite s who are raising more cattle are buying more land to expand the cattle ranching activ ity. Consequently, t hose Mennonite-ranchers are increasing their plot size a nd becoming more individual owners.

PAGE 99

88 Ecological and Socioeconomic Effects There is evidence of overgrazing and soil eros ion caused by the herd of cattle in the Isoso (Leon 2003; Winer 2003; Navarro 1998, 20 02; Guerrero 2002). The Isoseos free grazing cattle contribute to th e overgrazing in more extens ive area using 71,736 hectares. Two main elements contribute to the overgrazing in Isoso, the fi rst is directly related to the management system and the second is re lated to the natural condition of the dry Chaco. On one hand, the livestock in Isoso has been characterized as unmanaged (Linzer, 1998; Saravia Toledo1996, personal comments2002). Unmanaged means that livestock have been generally under-rotated, temporally or locally overstocked, without sanitary and reproductive control. On the other hand, the rainy s eason in the Chaco is concentrated at the end of spring and su mmer (September to February), and is characterized by a high variab ility inter-annually, seasonally, and monthly. That means a high fluctuation of grass pr oduction from year to year. Therefore, variability and unpredictability are part of the Chaco climate. The forage-resources in the Chaco are num erous and belong to different strata: arboreal, shrub and herbaceous (Saravia Toledo 1994; Avila 2002). Saravia-Toledo (1994) indicates that in El Salvador an experimental cattle ranch in the Bolivian Chaco it was observed that cattle consume fo liage, fruits, twigs or entire plants of 11 arboreal species, 20 shrubs, 66 herbaceous nongrasses and 50 grasses. Despite of that variability and that the Isos eo herds occupy extensive woodlands and grassland areas, the herds in Isoso tend to congregate in some areas because, as other herbivore-ungulates, they forage selectively (Saravia Toledo 1994; Gordon 2004) and because they seek water sources which are scarce in the Chaco dr y forest (Adamoli 1972; Saravia Toledo 1994

PAGE 100

89 personal comment 2002; Linzer 199 8). In others words, the ca ttle concentrate in some areas where the grass is more palatable and wh ere water is available. Consequently those areas become overgrazed According to Saravia Toledo (1996), Nava rro and Avila (in Guerrero 2002), Leon (2002) the major effects relate d to overgrazing are: Soil-co mpaction, degradation and loss of forage resources, transformation of th e landscape due to the invasion of woody elements in the grassland, changes in the vegetation composition and habitat degradation for the wild animals and change in ve getation composition du e the alteration of vegetation regeneration, the limited natural re -growth of palatable species, favoring the non-palatable. The riverine forest is one of the ecosyst ems more pressured by the free Isoseo cattle. For example, an evaluation of that fo rest resource shows that the natural re-growth of mesquite ( Prosopis chilensis ) is threatened by the cattle grazing, and to find specimens under 30 years of age in some areas of Is oso is almost impossible today (Leon, 2003). The new community of Tetarembai wa s established in the area of the Baados del Isoso (wetland). Their cattle ranching development is a threat for this important ecosystem. In the social terrain, data reveals that few individuals only 3% of the owners are accumulating individual wealth in form of cattle and they are using considerable area in the communal land. There is not information a bout social consequences from this fact even though it is possible expect differences in power relations. In the other hand cattle is an important livelihood in general the Isoseo are expecting to raise more cattle they are seeking for more cattle ranching projects.

PAGE 101

90 Despite the fact that cattle is individually owned within the household, the women are only 29% of the total owners. In gene ral among the Isoseos cattle ownership is linked to a cash economy. For example, the wo mens association of cupesi producers in Ivasiriri decided to buy cattle with their profit. Those fact s tell us that the low women ownership is a result of the less women connection with the cash money economy but this a issue to be explored. Well-defined boundaries in the case of cattle ranch activities can be a positive asset for better management and limited the area of ecological damage. But on the other hand, extensive fenced areas limit access to natural resources and exclude part of the Isoseo population from common property resources. The Mennonite agricultural and livestock activity is highly intensive. Their herd of cattle are concentrated in a small areas cons equently they feed th em with high quality products are maintained in good health and sanita ry care. This investment has its returns: milk and cheese production are quite high. Ho wever, the Mennonites higher rates of deforestation, soil erosion and water consumpti on are the main problems associated with their activity in the Isoso. Additionally, Mennonites do not have enough land to support their population growths n ecessities. Today they are leasing communal land in Isiporenda for their agricultu ral production. Therefore they represent one of the most immediate ecological and socioeconomic threats in the TCO Isoso.

PAGE 102

91 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS Having examined the Guaran-Isos eo institutions based on their Mbayu vision within the CP and CBC framework, I argue th at the Isoseo communities can face cattle ranching expansion challenges su ccessfully on the strength of their internal institutions. As long as the Mbayu continues to be the prevaili ng institutional arrangement, the Isoseo communities will find the design of the organizational structure to manage the expansion of cattle at social, economic and ecological levels (Figure 6-1). Figure 6-1 illustrates how the Mbayu is a holistic approach that allows Isoseo to take advantage of economic opportunities a nd integrate them into their own social ecological approaches. The main organizationa l structures are in place and are operative, including in the Tekoata and the eemoa. These, particularly the asambleas and the strong inter-institutional links between CABI and the external world, allow them to adapt and incorporate changes into cattle initia tives that will achieve social equity and environmental sustainability. Worldwide, and the Isoso is no an excepti on, pressure on land and water resources from livestock production will increase (Upton 2004; Fairfield 2004; Kaimowitz 1996; Naylor et al. 2005). So will the threat from poorly managed operations. The extent of these pressures highlights the need to suppor t traditional institutions so that they are capable of making adequate management deci sions, elaborating proper goals, promoting technological changes and monitoring thei r implementation. This will ensure that livestock contribute to br oad development goals, minimi zing the potential damage to

PAGE 103

92 social and environmental sustainability: to k eep the ecosystem functi onality and access to healthy natural resources a nd to achieve wellbeing for the Guarani Isoseo people. Figure 6-1. A Cattle Ranching Strate gy based on the Guarani Isoseo Mbayu The Guarani Isoseo institutions have s hown to be resilient. Despite having experienced different shocks, from the c onquest to market penetration, the GuaranIsoseo institutions have retained essentia lly the same function and structure based on their identity or andereko At present, the Isoseo pe ople are discussing the cattle ranching problems in the communities with the support of the CABI -Ivy Iyambae Foundationwhich gathered information (C ABI/FII 2005; CABI/FII 2006) and organized a set of workshops in the communities (Barahona 2005; field observation). People understand that their survival and autonomy as people is connected to the way they will

PAGE 104

93 maintain the andereko and the Mbayu Different communities are taking specific decisions attempting to regulate the cattles presence. The examples of Coropo-Pikirenda, and Yapiroa (Chapter 4) demonstrate that if the Guaran Isoseo institutions have adequate information, they are able to take decisions favoring CP resources and their access by community members. Their vision and their practice, emphasizing selforganization, support an adaptive management strategy and collabo rative learning. The support of technical and scientific information is helpi ng make decisions in a changing context. Therefore, collaboration of institutio ns and advisers plays an important role. The Mbaapo and eemoa in Figure 6-1 are the strategically elements of the Mbayu that deal with these issues. Cattle, insofar as it may complement the Isoseo household income, may play a positive part in their economy, but it also represents a threat to important ecosystems such as the riverine forests that prov ide firewood, wild fruits, wood, temperature regulation and protection from floods. Fre quently, individual own free-grazing herds destroy fences on farming plots and invade them. In this way cattle can compete against the communities stability and can become a source of conflict. This reinforces the present conclusion about the importance of management of the herd, of availability of cattle ranching technology and the developm ent of regulations among Guarani Isoseo cattle owners. In the andereko the individual approach coexists with communal institutions. Hence the challenge is to rec onciler the individual cattle ranching with the community base management according to the Mbayu because it provides a framework for establishment of an adequate regula tion. It can also provide a basis for the

PAGE 105

94 introduction of newer manageme nt strategies. Internal in stitutions ruling communal life are responding to these challenges. Among the CABIs main concerns are to build up alternatives and models of sustainable development and strength the intern al capacities and institutions to afford the changing context. Cattle-raising will continue to play a part in the Isoso because it complements the livelihood of the communities, providing protein and income. Cattle ranching can also contribute to socioeconomic development, and, if the management is sustainable, it can also suppor t a biodiversity conservation strategy in the TCO -Isoso. As opposed to industrial agriculture with its co ncomitant deforestati on, cattle-ranching can be a less threatening activity, and for this reas on it is included as a central element in the CABI and Isoseos development strategy. But it must direct management toward sustainable practices, combining development with conservation. Cattle ranching is, a productive activity only relatively recently adopted by the Isoseos. Consequently, it is necessary to adapt local institut ions and norms, and establish monitoring systems in order obtain socio-economic benefits while maintaining the ecological integrity of the most important and representative Chaco ecosystems. The role of scientific and technical informati on is essentially to develop the specific management rules and regimes. CABI must pl ay an important role in seeking financial and technical support to strengthen institu tions and promote technologies that will increase productivity, fulfillment with sta ndards and market access by Isoseo herds of cattle. This initiative must begin at local leve l, and it may be as pilot experience. It will be essential to include other stakeholders such cattle ranc hing associations, Mennonites, development agencies and non-governmental organizations in the elaboration and

PAGE 106

95 implementation of a local strategy for cattle ranching. CABI development strategy based on the Mbayu must maintain both dimensions c onservation and development, because both objectives are interdependent. The local strategy for cattle ranching must be contemplated as part of the TCO zoning on the basis of its ecological characteri stics, taking into account not only the desirable integrity and functionality of the ecosystems, but also the way the communities are prepared to establish best practices fo r its exploitation by cattle. This has deep ecological and social implications that will certainly affect the kinds of institutions: individual, cooperative, associ ation or communal, that th e communities will eventually choose to employ. Other subsistence and econo mic opportunities must be contemplated: farming as the main resource to feed themse lves; hunting as an important source of meat, gathering and harvesting fruits, honey and pl ants collection areas, sources of wildlife areas, for example. Private initiatives of conservation must be included. Those areas could be biodiversity corridors, wildlife source areas, or extensive-use areas for recreation or ecotourism, for example. WCS, CABI and the communities should expe ct to develop proposals regarding the conservation of the Chaco ecosystem, while ac cepting, at certain levels, cattle production systems. The possible scenarios vary accordi ng to how to face cattle expansion; whether by accepting an increase in individually owned he rds in fenced parcels, or to promote the expansion by means of well-regulated commu nal herds grazing in communal lands, or more probably a combination of those. Su ch a course of action requires accurate information about the ecosystem, in the form of ecological data of local forage potential, soil and vegetation fragility and interactions between cattle and wildlife. The above are

PAGE 107

96 all ecological and they should be stud ied with a double purpose: knowledge for conservation and possible cattle management implications. At another level, CABI must strengthen thei r capacity to negotiate to maintain local regional, national (and interna tional) relationships eemoa i (Figure 6-1). CABI has to attempt firstly to consolidate and secure TCO-Isoso land tenure rights in order to negotiate with authorities a nd prevent the immigration, expa nsion, or occupation by other stakeholders. The main objective is to ma intain the control over the territory and resources. Secondly CABI has to attempt to support pro-poor policies that deliberately promote the potential for poverty reduction. Therefore, the Isoseo communities and small producers are not likely to be exclude d from the benefits of cattle market. In other words, an effective Isoso cat tle-ranching strategy must cover different fronts. All fronts are import ant and are complementary: the technical and productive spheres; the natural resources base and functionality, the in ternal institutions of self governance and social learning; the political sphere (that is, the relationships with external institutions); and th e economic front. CABI should adopt an adaptive focus in their planning process. They should play atte ntion to what is happening in the context of local, regional and intern ational environment. Respond to new situation or environmental, social and economic signals adjusting the actions by innovation through local experimentation based on local and scie ntific knowledge and practical application. Adjusting management practices according to what is happening on the ground and face of non-linear dynamics and uncertainty.

PAGE 108

97 And concordant with Brogdens (2003) sugge stion, other international-stakeholders together to Isoseos are responsible for worl dwide events to maintain the global system under collective watch.

PAGE 109

98 APPENDIX FIELD QUESTIONNAIRE Interview: Natural resources and la nd access in the TC O-Isoso, Bolivia. Community __________ Date ___________ Location ____________ Interviewee position(s) ________________ I. NATURAL RESOURCES TENURE AND ACCESS. A. Cupesi uses and access i. If some body wants to harvest cupesi fruits can they do so anywhere within the communal land? For subsistence onl y, or also for commercialization? iii. Is permission needed? Whom? iv. Is harvesting conducted as an indivi dual or group economic activity? v. If the trees are harvested within ones parcel how benefit are distributed? vi. Is there a limit on how many trees can be harvested to commercialization? vii. If the crops are harvested and sold. Wh at is the product selling? Is there additional work (transportation, transf ormation, conservation, storage)? Who does the additional work? viii. How are benefits distributed? ix. Is trees harvest a common or individual action? x. Does much harvest occur in the co mmunity (for subsistence and for commercialization)? xi. Who does the work? Do the men a nd women equally participate in harvesting? xii. Who buys the product? Where? What price? xiii. Do only the people who do the work get money, or is it shared with other community members (or in communal necessities)? xiv. How much time are the members of a family involved in the project? xv. Is the family/community perceived benefits from the project? xvi. Are there changes about decision making? xvii. Why people decide participate or not? xviii. Do people abide by the communal rule s on harvesting activity, and if not, what measures are taken? B. Cattle ranching i. How long has the cattle ranching proj ect existed for? Who is the institutional sponsor?

PAGE 110

99 ii. How does the community select the place for cattle ranching project? Who decide? Does the community pa rticipate in the decision? iii. Who is the cattle owner? Is an indi vidual, group or community ownership? iv. Who does the work in the project? Is individual, group or communal activity? iii. How many members participate? iv. How are distributed the benefits? v. Are there an administrative structure and the decision making inside cattle ranching project? Explain vi. Is there cattle extra project in the community? Is there a limit on how many cattle can be owned by each communal member? How are the characteristics of the individual cattle management? vii. Is there a limit of how many cattle can be per surface? viii. Do people abide by communal and management rules on cattle ranching? ix. Why people chose to participate or not? x. How much time are the members of a family involved in the project? xi. Is the family/community perceived benefits from the project? xii. Are there changes about decision making? xiii. What the men do in the project? What the women do? II. LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES CONFLICTS A. External conflicts: Land i. Have there been or are there currently any conflicts over land with outsiders? ii. What is/was the nature of th e conflict? (e.g., land invasion..) iii. What is/was the role of external govern ment (State, regional, or local) or NGOs? iv. What is/was the role of technology (e.g., land titles, maps, GPS, etc.)? B. External conflicts: Natural Resources i. Have there been or are there currently any conflicts with outsiders over natural resources? ii. What is/was the nature of the conflict? (e.g., illegal loggi ng, hunt, extraction) C. Internal conflicts: Land i. Have there been or are there curren tly any conflicts ove r land within the community or between communities? ii. What is/was the nature of the conflic t? (e.g., boundary disputes, conflicting claims) iii. What is/was the role of local and ex ternal government (State, regional, or local) or NGOs? iv. What is/was the role of the internal government? v. What is/was the role of technology (e.g., land titles, maps, GPS, etc.)

PAGE 111

100 D. Internal conflicts: Natural Resources i. Have there been or are there currently any conflicts over natural resources within the polygon? ii. What is/was the nature of the conflict? (e.g., different uses, ore different users to the cupesi trees or cattle ranching surface) iii. What is/was the role of internal a nd external governmen t (Local government, State or regional) or NGOs? iv. What is/was the role of the internal government? v. What is/was the role of technology (e.g., land titles, maps, GPS) Take note about informant gender and age.

PAGE 112

101 LIST OF REFERENCES Adamoli, J., R. Neumann, A. D. Ratier a nd J. Morello. 1972. El Chaco aluvional salteo. Revista de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, INTA Buenos Aires, Argentina. Serie 3. Clima y Suelo. 9 (5), 165-237. Agrawal, A. and C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development. 27 (4), 629-649. Agrawal, A. 2001. Common Property Institut ions and Sustainable Governance of Resources. World Development. 29 (10), 1649-1672. Albo, X. 1990. Los Guarani-Chiriguano: La comunidad hoy Cuadernos de Investigacin no.32. CIPCA. La Paz. Ankersen,T. and G.Barnes. 2004. Inside th e polygon: Emerging community tenure systems and forest resource extraction. In Working Forests in the Neotropics D. Zarin, R. Janaki, F. Putz and M. Schmink (Eds.). Columbia University Press, N.Y. 156-177 Antinori, C. and B. David. 2004. New interd isciplinary research on Mexicos common property forests. Panel abstract tenth bi ennial conference of the international association for the study of common property (IASCP). Oaxaca, Mxico. Arambiza, E. 1998. El rea protegida Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco: cuando pueblos indgenas y conservacionistas colabora n. In Andrew Gray, Marcus Colchester, and Alejandro Parellada (eds.), Derechos Indgenas y Conservacin de la Naturaleza. Copenhagen: IWGIA. Avila, J. 2002. Edafologa y forrajes Parque Nacional y ANMI Kaa Iya del Gran Chaco. In Ecologa del Fuego en el Parque Nacional y Area Natural de Manejo Integrado Kaa Iya del Gran Chaco, Santa Cruz. Bolivia J. Guerrero (ed.). CABI/WCS. Santa Cruz, Bolivia.135-165. Barahona, Z. 2005. Estudio ganadero en el Alto y Bajo Isoso ao 2004: Informe de resultados. Informe tcnico no. 128 WCS-CABI Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Beneria-Surkin, J. 2003. Decentralization questioned: The structuring and articulation of Guarani participation in conservati on and development in Izozog, Bolivia A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for PhD of Philosophy in Urban Planning. UC Berkeley.

PAGE 113

102 Berkes, F. 1989. Common Property Resources. Ec ology and Community-based Sustainable Development Bekhaven Press. Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-base conservation. Conservation Biology 18 (3), 621-630 Berkes, F and C. S. Seixas. 2005. Building resilience in Lagoon social-ecological systems: A local-level perspective. Ecosystems 8 (8), 967-974 Bernard, H. 1994. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Blake, R.W. and C.F. Nicholson. 2004. Li vestock, land use change and environmental outcomes in the developing world. In Responding to the Livestock Revolution the Role of Globalization and Imp lication for Poverty Alleviation Owen et al (Eds.). Notingham University Press, UK. 133-153. Blaser, M., H.A. Feit and G. McRae. 2004. Indigenous peoples and development processes: New terrai ns of struggle. In: In the Way of Development. Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects and Globalization Blaser, M., H.A. Feit and G. McRae (Eds.). Zed Books. Bodley, J.H. 1988. Tribal Peoples and Development Issues: A Global Overview Mountain View, California. Mayfield publication. Bourdy, G. 2002. Plantas del Chaco II. Usos tradicionales Izoceno-Guarani Santa Cruz, Bolivia. UMSA-FUNDACI ON KAA IYA-IRD-CABI-WCS-HNB-CYTED-OEA Bowles, S. and Gintis. 2000. Social capital and community governance. University of Massachusetts. Working paper. Brogden, M. 2003. Assessing environmental outcomes of community-based collaborative: What research and theory streams can help us? Paper prepared for the CBCRC.June 12, 2006 from http://www.cbcrc.org/2003sp eakerpapers/Mette%20Brogden.pdf Camacho, O., W. Cordero, I. Martnez, D. Rojas. 2001. Tasa de Deforestacin del Departamento de Santa Cruz, Bolivia 1993-2000 Santa Cruz. Ed. El Pais. CABI, FII and WCS. 2001. Plan de Manejo del Parque Nacional y rea de Manejo Integrado Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco Santa Cruz Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificacin, Servicio Nacional de reas Protegidas. CABI/FII. 2005. Base de Datos Electrnica. CABI/FII 2006. SAN-TCO Isoso Preliminary Data 2005 and 2006.

PAGE 114

103 Campbell, B., W. Jong, M. Lucket. 2000. Challenges to proponents of CPR systmesdepairing voices from the so cial forests of Zimbabwe. IES Working Paper 13. Insitute of Enviromental Studies University of Zimbabwe. Castillo, O. 2006. The actual existe nce of communal land. (unpublished). CIPCA. 1997. Plan de Desarrollo del Municipi o de Charagua (1998-2002): Tomo I diagnostico socioeconmico. Charagua, Bolivia : Gobierno Municipal de Charagua. Combs, I., N. Justiniano, I.Segundo, D.Vaca, R.Vaca, A.Yandura, J.Yandura. 1998. Kaa Iya Reta: Los Dueos del Monte Technical paper # 40 Kaa Iya. Santa Cruz, Bolivia Combs, I. 1999. Arakae: Historia de las Comunidades Izoceas Kaa Iya Project. Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Cousins, B. 1992. Institutional dynamics in communal grazing regimes in Southern Africa. Proceedings of a workshop held in Harare, Zimbabwe, December 1990. Centre for Applied Social Sciences. Cuellar, R.L., A.J., Noss y A. Arambiza. 2004. El registro de cacera como base para el monitoreo y manejo de fauna en el Isoso. Revista de Ecologa y Conservacin Ambiental 16, 29-40. Deininger, K. 2003. Land Policies for Grow th and Poverty Reduction. A World Bank Policy Research Report Washington, D.C. : World Bank and Oxford University Press. Dietz, T. 2003. What is a good decision? Cr iteria for environmental decision making. Human Ecology Review. 10 (10), 33-38. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom and P.C. Stern. 2003. Th e struggle to govern the commons. Tragedy of the Commons? Science. 302, 1907-1912. Dixhoorn, van N. 1996. Manejo de Agua en el Chaco Guarani Cuadernos de Investigacin Centro de Investigacin y Promocin del Campesinado CIPCA No. 48, SNV-Bolivia. Ellsworth, L. 2002. A Place in the World: Tenure Secu rity and Community Livelihoods, a Literature Review. Ford Foundation. Washingt on D.C. Forest Trends Escobar, A. 2005. Imagining a post-development era. In: The Anthropology of Development and Globalization: From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Edelman, M. and A. Haugerud Blackwell Publishing. Escobar, A. 1994. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, 1945-1992 Princeton: Princeton University Press

PAGE 115

104 FAO/GIEWS. 2001. Food Outlook No.4: Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture. FAO. 2004. Yasarekomo Una Experiencia de Comuni cacin Indgena en Bolivia Comunicacin para el Desarrollo Estudio de Caso No. 26. Grupo de Comunicacin para el Desarrollo. Servicio de Extens in, Educacin y Comunicacin. Direccin de Investigacin, Extensin y Capaci tacin. Departamento de Desarrollo Sostenible. Roma. FAO. 2005. Responding to the Livestock Revolut ion: The Case for Livestock Public Policies. Available on in ternet |June 16, 2006 from http://www.fao.org/ag/AGAInfo/resources /documents/polbriefs/01/EN/AGA01_10. pdf FAOStats, 2006. July 20,2006 from http://faostat.fao.or g/site/346/DesktopDefault.aspx?paseID=346 Fairfield, T. 2004. The Politics of Livestock Sect or Policy and the Rural Poor in Bolivia. PPLP Working Paper No. 15. Fearnside, P.M. 2005. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonian: History, rates, and consequences. Conservation Biology 19 (3), 680-688. Fundacin Tierra. 2005. El Saneamiento en su Laberinto. Dossier so bre el proceso de saneamiento y sus perspectivas en cinco municipios de tierras bajas y el Chaco. July 22, 2006 from http://www.ftierra.org/ft ierra1104/publicaciones/074.pdf Fuentes, C., A., J. Avila and J. Guerrer o. 2001. Caracterizacin eco lgica de la Tierra Comunitaria de Origen del Isoso: Base s para su zonificacin. Informe Tcnico No.66. Proyecto Kaa-Iya, Santa Cruz. Garca Linera, A. 2006. State Crisis and Popular Power. New Left Review. 37,73-85. Gordon, I.J., A.J. Hester and M. FestaBianchet. 2004. The management of wild herbivores to meet economic, cons ervation and environmental objectives Journal of Applied Ecology. 41, 1021-1031 Guerrero, J. (ed.). 2002. Ecologa del Fuego en el Parque Nacional y Area Natural de Manejo Integrado Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco, Santa Cruz, Bolivia CABI/WCS Haan, C., H. Steinfeld and H. Blackburn. 1996. Livestock & Environment: Finding Balance Report of Study by the Commission of the European Communities, the World Bank and the governments of De nmark, France, The Netherlands, United Kingdom and The United States of America. FAO/UN/USAID/WB Hall, D.C., S. Ehui and C. Delgado. 2004. The livestock revolution, food safety, and small-scale farmers, why they matters to us all. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (45), 425-444.

PAGE 116

105 Harding, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science. 162 (3859),1243-1248. Heilbroner, R. L. 1992. The Nature and Logic of Capitalism New York. Norton. Heyck, D.L.D. 2002. Surviving Globalization in Three Latin American Communities. Peterborough, Ont. Broadview Press. Hill, G. M. and York R. 2003. Social st ructure influences on meat consumption. Human Ecology Review, Society for Human Ecology. 10 (1),1. ILRI. 1995. Livestock Policy Analysis: Trai ning Manual 2. International Livestock Research Institute Nairobi, Kenya. 264. July 20, 2006 from http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/il ri/x5547e/x5547e1q.htm#TopOfPage Instituto Nacional de Estadstica (INE) 2000. La Paz: INE, June 16, 2006 from http://www.ine.gov.bo/ Jodha, N.S. 1992. Common Property Resources: A Mi ssing Dimension of Development Strategies Washington, D. C. Worl d Bank discussion papers 169. Jodha, N.S. 2001. Life on the Edge: Sustaining Agricu lture and Community Resources in Fragile Environments Oxford University Press. Johnson, K. and K.C. Nelson. 2004. Common pr operty and conservation: The potential for effective communal forest management within a national park in Mexico. Human Ecology 32 (6),703-733. Jones, J.C. 1984. Native People of Lowland Bolivia. In: Frontier Expansion in Amazonia M. Schmink and C.H. W ood.UFL Press Florida. 62-104. Kay, C. and M. Urioste. 2005. Land reform policies, rural poverty and development strategies in Bolivia. Paper prepared fo r the UNDP global project: Lad Policies, Poverty Reduction and Public Action: E xperiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Kirby, P. 2003. Introduction to Latin America, Tw enty-First Century Challenges London: Sage Publications Khler-Rollefson, I. 1993. Traditional pastoralis ts as guardians of biological diversity. Indigenous Knowledge & Development Monitor. 1(3),14-16. La Razn. 2006. Morales Concertar el Plan sobre las Tierras. El Evento de La Razn May 18, 2006. from www.larazon.com/versiones/20060518_005546/nota_249_287879.htm La Razn -2. 2006. 2,1 Millones de Hectreas de Tierra estn Disponibles. July 23, 2006 from www.la-razon.com/planillas

PAGE 117

106 La Razn -3. 2006. En Busca de Tierras Fiscales en Bolivia. May 18, 2006 from www.larazon.com Lane, M.B. and G. McDonald. 2005. Community-based environmental planning: Operational dilemmas, planning pr inciples and possible remedies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48(5), 709-731. Leon, J. 2003. Evaluacin Forestal Para el Manejo Sostenible del Bosque Ribereo del Parapeti Isoso en el rea de in fluencia del Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco Santa Cruz, Bolivia. CABI/WSC. Linzer, K. 1998. Informe Sistemas de Ganadera en la Zona de Influencia del Parque Nacional y Area Natural de Manejo Integrado Kaa Iya del Gran Chaco. Santa Cruz, Bolivia Informe Tcnico para Plan de Manejo. Santa Cruz, Bolivia.Proyecto Kaa Iya WCS/CABI. Linzer, K. and V. Villaseor. 1999. Memorias de Talleres de Planificacin en las Comunidades del Alto y Bajo Isoso Informe Tcnico para el Plan de Manejo. Santa Curz, Bolivia. Proyecto Kaa Iya WCS/CABI. Mahanty, S., J. Fox, M. Nurse, P. Stephen and L. Malees. 2006. Hanging in the Balance: Equity in Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Asia RECOFTC and East-West Center. Maphosa, F. 2002. Management and Use of the Common Property Resources in an Era of Globalization: An Introduction. In. Managing Common Property in an Age of Globalisation. E.Manzungu (ed.). Zimbabwean Experiences. Weaver press. Marafe, Y. 1992. Achievements, Constraints and Problems of Livestock Development and Management in Communal Areas: The Botswana case. In: Institutional Dynamics in Communal Grazing Regimes in Southern Africa: Proceedings of workshop held in Harare, Zimbabwe, December 1990. B. Cousins(ed.). Center for Applied Social Sciences, 189-202. Mc,Gregor. 2004. Traditional Ecological K nowledge and Sustainable Development: Towards Coexistence. In: In the Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects and Globalization M. Blaser, H.A. Feit, and G. McRae. Zed Books. Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente (MDSMA). 1994. Parque Nacional y rea Natural de Manejo In tegrado Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco: Propuesta Tcnica y tnica La Paz, Bolivia. Montes de Oca, I. 1997. Geografia y Recursos Naturales de Bolivia Third edition. EDOBOL. La Paz, Bolivia. Mock, G (Ed). 2005. World Resources Report. September 8, 2006 from http://www.grida.no/wrr/001.htm

PAGE 118

107 Muhereza, E.F. 1999. Ranching, Common Proper ty Relations and the Alienation of Pastoral Lands in Uganda: A Study of Buruli Ranching Scheme. ALARM Working Paper No.10 Nash, J. 1994. Global integration an d subsistence insecurity. In American Anthropologist 96(1),181-204 NatureServe Latin America Prio rity Sites. May 10, 2006 from hppt://www.natureserve.org/la tinamerica/prioritysites Navarro, G., A. Fuentes, J. Guerrero, E. Cuellar, L. Mafey, L. Gonzalez. 1998. Tipificacin y Caracterizaci n de los Ecosistemas del Parque Nacional Kaa Iya del Gran Chaco (Departamento de Santa Cruz) Plan de Manejo del Proyecto Kaa Iya CABI-WCS-USAID. Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Navarro, G. 2002. Ecologa estructural y din mica de reas quemadas en el PN-ANMI Kaa Iya del Gran Chaco. In Ecologia del Fuego en el Parque Nacional y Area Natural de Manejo Integr ado Kaa Iya del Gran Chaco. Guerrero, J. (ed.). CABI/WCS. Santa Cruz, Bolivia. 17-90. Naylor, R., H. Steinfeld, W. Falcon, J.Gallo way, V. Smil, E. Bradford, J. Alder, H. Mooneye. 2005. Losing the links between livestock and land. Science. 310 (10), 1621-1622 Noss, A. 2000. La Sostenibilidad de la cacera de subsistencia Izocea In Manejo de Fauna Silvestre en Amazona y Latinoamrica E. Cabrera, C. Mercolli y R. Resquin (eds.). CITES Paraguay, Fundacin Mo ises Bertoni, University of Florida. Asuncin, Paraguay. 535-544. Noss, A.J. and R. L. Cuellar. 2001. Community attitudes towards wildlife management in the Bolivian Chaco. ORYX 35 (4), 292-300. Noss, A.J., E. Cuellar and R.L. Cuellar. 2003. Hunter self-monitoring as a basis for biological research: Data from the Bolivian Chaco. Mastozoologia Neotropical /J. Neotropic Mammal. 10(1), 49-67 Noss A.J. and M.Painter. 2004. Community-bas ed wildlife management in the Gran Chaco, Bolivia. In People in Nature Wildlife Conservation in South and Central America. Silvius, K, R.E. Bodmer and J.M.V. Fragoso. 59-76. Noss, A.J., E. Cuellar and R.L. Cuellar. 2004. An evaluation of hunter self-monitoring in the Bolivian Chaco. Human Ecology. 32(6), 685-702. Olson, P., C. Folke and F. Berkes. 2003. Adaptative co-management for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Ortiz, P. 2006. Guaranes: La Tierra sin Ma l ya no se busca, se compra. EL DEBER: EXTRA. Santa Cruz, Bolivia. March.

PAGE 119

108 Ostrom, E. 1990. Gov erning the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Actions. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press. Ostrom, E. 1992. Crafting Institutions for Self Governing Irrigation Systems San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies. Ostrom, E. 1999. Self-Governance and Forest Resources CIFOR-occasional paper No.20. Ostrom, E., J.Burger, C.Field, D.B.Norg ard, D.Policansky. 1999. Revising the Commons: Local lesson, global challenges. Science. 284, 278-282. Ostrom E. 2006. The value-added of laborator y experiments for the study of institutions and common-pool resources. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Article in press. April 10, 2006 from http://www.elsevier/locate/ecobase Otsuka, K and F. Place. 2001. Land Tenur e and Natural Resource Management; a Comparative Study of Agrarian Communitie s in Asia and Africa. International Food Policy Research Institute. Owen, E. 2002. Animal Science Editorial. Animal Science British Society of Animal Science. 75(1), 1. Pica-Ciamarra, U. 2005. Livestock Policies for Poverty Alle viation: Theory and Practical Evidence from Africa, Asia and Latin America PPLPI paper No. 27 Piurek, R. 2003. Governing Commons still a Struggle, but Fight not Without Hope, According to new Report. April 22, 2006 http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_r eleases/2003-12/iu-gcs120903.php Plan del Uso del Suelo. 1996. Memoria del PLUS: Plan del Uso del Suelo del Departamento de Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Me moria explicativa de la Propuesta Tcnica a la Subcomisin de Uso del Suelo Prefectura del DepartamentoConsorcio IP/CES/KWC, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Reed, R. 1997. Forest Dwellers, Forest Protectors: Indigenous Models for International Development Massachutsetts. Allyn & Bacon. Richards, M. 1997. Tragedy of the Commons for Community-Based Forest Management in Latin America? Over Development Institute, Natural Resources Perspectives No.22 Romero, C. 2003. La Reforma Agraria en las Tierras Bajas de Bolivia. In Reforma Agraria 50 anos-TCO y Tierras Campesinas Romero (Eds.). Santa Cruz-Bolivia Articulo Primero 7(14). Salvatierra, H. 2003. A 50 aos de la reforma agraria. In Reforma Agraria 50 Aos-TCO y Tierras Campesinas Romero (Eds.). Santa Cruz-Bolivia. Articulo Primero 7(14).

PAGE 120

109 Saravia-Toledo, C., M. Virieux, G. Segovia and E. Salas. 1996. Manual de Ganadera del Chaco Boliviano Talleres Grficos Andes Sur. Sucre, Bolivia. Scoones, I. 2002. Pathways of Changes in Africa: Crops, Livestock and Livelihood in Mali, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe Oxford University Press. Shackleton S., G. von Maltitz and J. Evans. 1998. Factors, conditions and criteria for the successful management of natural resources held under common property regime: A South Africa perspective Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies at the School of Government, University of Western Cape. Stabile, D. 2000. Community Association: The Emergence and Acceptance of a Quiet Innovation in Housing Greenwood Press. Steinfeld, H. 2002. Increasing Global Demand for Animal Products. April 12, 2006 from http://bsas.org.uk/downloads/mexico/001.pdf Stocks, A. 2005 Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Idigenous Land Rights in Latin America. Annual Review of Anthropology. 34, 85-104 Taber, A., G. Navarro and M.A. Ribas. 1997. A new park in the Bolivian Chaco, an advance in tropical dry forest conserva tion and communitybased management. Oryx 31 (3), 189-198. Thornton, P.K., R.L. Kruska, N. Henninger, P.M. Kristjanson, R.S. Reid, F. Atieno, A.N. Odero and T. Ndegwa. 2002. Mapping Livestock and Poverty in Developing World ILRI. April 12, 2006 from http://www.ilri.cgiar.org/InfoServ /Webpub/Fulldocs/Ma ppoverty/index.htm Transierra Gasoduto Gasyr. 2004. Programa de Apoyo a los Planes de Desarrollo Indgena Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Unites Nation Organization (UNO). 1992. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development April 10, 2006 from http://www.unep.org/Documents/ Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 Vera, R. 2001 Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles. Bolivia. April 20, 2006 from http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOI NFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof /Bolivia/Bolivia.htm Uptom, M. 2004. The Role of Livestock in Economic Development and Poverty Reduction. PPLPI working pape r No. 10. April 10, 2006 from http://www.fao.org/ag/pplpi.html Urioste, M. n/d. Bolivia descentraliz acin Municipal y Participacin Popular (unpublished)

PAGE 121

110 Villegas, R. 2006. Guaranies: La Tierra sin Mal ya no se busca, se compra. Reportaje especial del Deber Extra, Ma rch 2006. April 10, 2006 from http://www.eldeber.com.bo/ extra/1267/nota_013a.html West and Brockington. 2006. An anthropol ogical perspective on some unexpected consequences of protected areas. Conservation Biology. 20 (3), 609-616 Wilson, A. and P. Nolan. 2001. Land reform and sustainable livelihoods in Kibaala Research conducted jointly by department of Food Business and Development, University College Cork and Makerere In stitute of Social Research. Makerere University Kampala. Winer, N. 2003. Review and Strategic Planning Cons ultancy Kaa-Iya Del Gran Chaco Project Santa Cruz: WCS/CABI. (Inform unpublished). Wolf, E. 1997. Europe and the People without History University of California Press. Berkley.

PAGE 122

111 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Veronica Villasenor was born in Mexico City. She received her Bachelor of Science in biology from the Karkov State Univ ersity, Ukraine. She was a member of the technical team implementing the Bolivian Biodiversity Conser vation Project (PCBB) 1994 to 1997 responsible for the implement of the Bolivian National Protected Areas System. As a PCBB member she participated in the supervision of three management plans and the organization of national rangers system. From 1998 to 2000, Veronica technically supported the KAA-IYA project (joint project of the Capitana de A lto y Bajo Isoso and the Wildlif e Conservation Society). She was responsible for coordinating the preparati on of the management plan for the Kaa Iya del Gran Chaco National Park (KINP), using an integrated, multidisciplinary and participatory focus. From 2001 to 2004, she coordinated other studi es that could provide information to the management plan for the Tierra Com unitaria de Origen (TCO) Isoso. She also supported the implementation of the manageme nt plan strategy and promoted the binational coordination between Bolivian a nd Paraguayan conservation initiatives.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017740/00001

Material Information

Title: The Challenge of Cattle Ranching to Common Property: A Case Study in the Isoso, Bolivia
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: UFE0017740:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017740/00001

Material Information

Title: The Challenge of Cattle Ranching to Common Property: A Case Study in the Isoso, Bolivia
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: UFE0017740:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











THE CHALLENGE OF CATTLE RANCHING TO COMMON PROPERTY: A CASE
STUDY INT THE ISOSO, BOLIVIA.

















By

VERONICA VILLASENOR


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
2007

































Copyright 2007

by

Veronica Villasenor






























To Diego and Laura, whose love made life more meaningful. They have been my
inspiration to believe in conservation and development as an alternative for a better world
for them and the next generation. This dedication is also for my family, Elisa(s), Laura
and Carlos, whose love and support have been always unconditional. To the Isosefio-
Guarani people who introduced me to part of their Nandereko.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to my thesis committee. Grenville Barnes, Carmen Diana Deere and

Ignacio Porzecanski for their guidance and patience. To Ignacio Porzecanski for the

intellectual support he provided and for his helpful advice. Thanks to Andrew Noss for

his willingness to step in at short notice to read this thesis.

Thanks also to my children Diego and Laura, without their love I would not have

survived this process. Special thanks to Cece Noss who has supported my writing over

the first drafts.

My studies in Gainesville were founded by Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS),

and a Tropical Conservation and Development Program (TCD) Fellowship supported me

during part of write-up process.

In Bolivia, there are so many people to thank. Thanks to WCS, Capitania del Alto

y Bajo Isoso (CABI) and the Ivi lyambae Foundation for facilitating my research and to

Andy Noss, Zulema Barahona, Oscar Castillo, Erick Eulert, Jose Avila and Veronica

Calderon for their valuable advice. In Isoso I would like to thank Felicia, Juanita,

Isadora, Crecencio, Ilda. Thanks to WCS and CABI administrative team.




















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LI ST OF T ABLE S ............ ...... ._._ .............._ viii.


LI ST OF FIGURE S .............. .................... ix


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........x


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


Capitania del Alto y Bajo Isoso (CABI) and the Isoso............... ...............1..
Research Questions............... ...............2
M ethods ................ ...............3...
Structure of the Thesis............... ...............5.


2 COMMON PROPERTY AND THE EXPANSION OF CATTLE RANCHING:
LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............8.......... ......


Security of Tenure and Property Rights Arguments............... ...... ...........
The Common Property Argument and Community-Based Conservation ..................1 1
Common Property and Indigenous People ................. ...............16........... ...
Factors Favoring the Expansion of Cattle Ranching ................. ................. ...._20
Increase in Consumption ................. .... ... ..............2
Market-Driven Changes in Production Practices .............. .....................2
Live stock Production-Geographic Shift ................. .............. ......... .....24
Governm ent Incentives.................... ... ... ... .....................2
Cattle Ranching as a Complement to the Rural Livelihood Strategy of the
Poor ................ ....... ... ..... ........... .............2
National Context and Bolivian Lowlands................ ...............2


3 THE ISOSO AND STAKEHOLDERS .....__.....___ ..........__ ...........3


The Isoso and the Gran Chaco ............ ......__ ...............30.
The Guarani Isosefio Communities .............. .... ...............36..
The Guarani Way of Life : The Nandereko ......___ ..... ... ._ ........._.....3 7
Guarani-Isoseno Communities .............. ...............38....
The Isoso frontier ............. ..............38.....











The Alto Isoso .............. ...............39....
The Central Isoso ................ ...............39...
The CorazC~n Hist6rico del Isoso ................. ...............39...............
The Karai-Isoso ................. ...............41.................
The Bajo Isoso............... ...............42.
Returning to Isoso .............. ...............42....
Land Use in Guarani Isoso .............. .... ..... .............4
CABI, the Guarani Isosefio Political Organization .............. ....................4
Other Stakeholders............... ........... ........4
Cattle Ranches and Agro-Industry .............. ...............48....
M ennonites .............. ...............49....
Peasants or Small Farmers............... ...............51
Institutional Stakeholders ............ .....__ ......__ .......... 5

4 THE ISOSENTO IVI IYAMBAE AS COMMON PROPERTY ................ ...............54


Nandereko: Nature and Characteristics of the Group ............ ..... .._.__............55
Moa: Space and Natural Resources Use and Boundaries..........._.._..... ......_.._.. .....58
Tekoata and Mbaapo: Institutional Arrangements and Normative Regime ...............62
R ules ................ ... .... .. ..... .............6
Monitoring and Sanctions lyamnbae .................. ....___ ......___...........6
Collective Arrangement and Conflict Resolution .............. ....................6
Neemoai: Relationships between the Group and External Forces ................... ...........66
Contrasting the Common Property (CPR) and Community-Base Management
(CBM) Framework to the Mba~yu ......__...._.__._ ......._._. ...........7

5 CATTLE RANCHING IN ISOSO .............. ...............73....


The Expansion of Cattle Ranching in Isoso ..................... .......................... 7
The Conquest of Original Peoples' Territories "La Conquista de la Vaca"........74
Modernization: Cattle Ranching Subsidized by the Bolivian State ....................75
Big Proj ects and the Cattle Raising Incentive Among Isosefios ................... ......76
The Isosefios Cattle Ranching ............... ...............77....
The Individual Cattle Ownership Regime ................. .......___ .........__ ..78
The Semi Private-family System ............... ... .......___.....__ ............8
The Isosefio Cattle Communal Ownership System ................ .........__ .......80
Land Use by Cattle Ranching Ownership Regime and Management System ....83
The Private Landholders in the Isoso .............. ...............84....
Individual Cattle Ranching System ................ ...............85........._....
The Mennonite System ........._.._.. ........ ...............86......
Ecological and Socioeconomic Effects .............. ...............88....

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS............... .............9


APPENDIX FIELD QUESTIONNAIRE .............. ...............98....

LI ST OF REFERENCE S ....._.._................. ........_.._.........11












BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............111......... ......


















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg

1-1 Total Interviews............... ...............

2-1 Different Types of Property Regimes. ........._.._.. ........._.. ......11_._. ...

2-2 Population, Land and Cattle Herd in Latin America and Caribbean (LAC)
Contrasting to World Indexes. ............. ...............23.....

2-3 Cattle Ranching Systems of Meat Production ................. ................. ..........23

3-1 Population in the Communities of Isoso. ................ ................. ..............40

3-2 Main Land Use in Isoso, per Sub-zones. ...._.._.._ .... .._._. ........_..........4

3-3 Private Stakeholders, Not-Isosefio Owners, in the Isoso. ............. ....................48

3-4 Mennonite System in the Isoso. ............. ...............51.....

5-1 Number of Isosefios Owners and Number of Head of Cattle by Type of Property
Regime by Community in Isoso. ......___ ... .....___ ....___ ...........7

5-2 Distribution of Individual Cattle Ownership .......__ ..........__ ........._.__.....79

5-3 Family System in Isoso. ............. ...............81.....

5-4 Cattle Ranching Proj ects. ................ ...............82..___.. ....

5-5 Number of Head of Cattle and Land Use by Ownership Regime and
Management System in the Guarani-Isoso ................. .............. ......... .....83

5-6 Cattle Ranching Systems Non-Guarani Isosefio in the Isoso ................. ...............84

5-7 Demographic and Productive Characteristics of Mennonite Colonies in the
Isoso. ............ ..................87.


















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pg

1-1 Map of the Isoso and the Kaa lya National Park in the Santa Cruz Gran Chaco.......2

2-1 Evolutionary Theory of Property Rights and Potential Role of the M~bayu. .............9

2-2 The Common Property and Community Based Resource Management
Fram work. ............. ...............13.....

2-3 Distribution of Poor Livestock Keepers Worldwide. .........._.._. ........_.. ........26

3-1 Location of the Communities in the Alto y Baj o Isoso............._ .........._ .....3 1

3-2 Annual Rainfall in Charagua. .............. ...............32....

3-3 Map of the TCO-Isoso and Location of Different Stakeholders ................... ...........35

3-4 Land Use in the Frontier and Alto Isoso (Sub-zone 1 & 2). ............. ...................46

3-5 Land Use in the Central, Historic Heart and Kara and Bajo Isoso (Sub-zone3, 4
and 5) ............... ...............46...

4-1 Guarani-Isosefio Strategically Vision-M~bayu .............. ...............56....

4-2 Guarani Isosefio Strategically Planning Based on Mba~yu Contrasting to
Common Property and Community Base Management Theories............................71

4-3 Contrasting the Garani Isosefio M~bayu and Common Property and Community-
Base Framework. ............. ...............72.....

6-1 A Cattle Ranching Strategy based on the Guarani Isosefio Mbayu. ........................92
















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

THE CHALLENGE OF CATTLE RANCHING TO COMMON PROPERTY:
A CASE STUDY INT THE ISOSO, BOLIVIA

By

Veronica Villasenor

May 2007

Chair: Grenville Barnes
Major Department: Latin American Studies

The Isosefios live along the Parapeti River in the eastern lowlands of Bolivia. Like many

other indigenous groups in Latin America, they share a common property territory and their main

organizational structures are well developed. These structures, particularly the communal

asa~mblea~s and the strong inter-institutional links between Capitania delAlto y BajolIsoso

(CABI) and the external world, have allowed them to adapt and incorporate their

economic strategies but still maintain their Nandereko (the Guarani way of life) and the

M~bayu (vision as People).

Cattle ranching is the principal productive activity in the area and it is also the main

ecological concern because it leads to overgrazing. The goal of this research was to

understand the forces contributing to the expansion of cattle ranching in the Isoso as well

as their effects on the Guarani Isosefio's common property institutions and natural

resources. I examined the Guarani-Isosefio institutions based on their M~bayu vision

within the Common Property and Community Based Management frameworks. I










employed individual and group interviews to gather data and participated in several

community meetings. The participant observation approach and research of secondary

documents helped me to understand their living conditions as well as their demographic

and production systems. Through group interviews with community members I explored

issues such as access to natural resources on common land as well as the role of cattle in

the Isosefio's life.

At the community level, the Isosefio people are concerned with problems that

accompany the expansion of cattle ranching, including the increased pressure on land and

natural ecosystems such as the riverine forests. Certain communities are taking specific

decisions to regulate the presence and impact of cattle. Because cattle ranching as a

productive activity was only relatively recently adopted by the Isosefios, it is essential for

them to adapt local institutions and norms, and establish monitoring systems to balance

economic benefits with the maintenance of the ecological integrity of the Chaco

ecosystem.

Cattle-raising will continue to play a part in the Isoso because it complements the

livelihood of the communities, providing protein and income. Cattle ranching can also

contribute to socioeconomic development, and, if the management is sustainable, it could

support a biodiversity conservation strategy in their communal land Tierra Comunitaria

de Origen (TCO) Isoso. In contrast to industrial agriculture with its concomitant

deforestation, cattle-ranching can be a less threatening activity, and for this reason it is

included as a central element in the CABI and Isosefio's development strategy.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Capitania del Alto y Bajo Isoso (CABI) and the Isoso

The study site of this thesis is the Alto y Bajo Isoso (Isoso) the home of 10,000

Guarani-Isosehio people living in more than 20 communities along the banks of the Parapeti

River (Figure 1-1). Like many other indigenous groups in Latin America, the Isosefios share a

common property territory. I have been connected with the Isoso since the end of 1997

when I began my work as the coordinator of the Kaa lya National Park (KNP)

management plan. The Guarani Isosefio political organization, Capitania delAlto y Bajo

Isoso (CABI), was the leader of that planning process. Since then, my interest in

indigenous peoples has emerged through my analysis of conservation issues. During that

process, planning was viewed as social mobilization because it was focused on the

perspective of those most affected by the protected area administration the local

population. For this reason, I developed a deep concern for the process of conservation

and development in the Bolivian Chaco.

The Isoso and KNP is part of the region of the Gran Chaco in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. The

Bolivian Gran Chaco is ecologically significant worldwide because it is one of the few

remaining well conserved dry tropical forests and it protects important endemic species

of flora and fauna (Navarro et al 1998). A regional evaluation made by Nature Serve

(2006) consider the dry Gran Chaco as a priority site for conservation. Cattle ranching is

the principal productive activity in the area (PLUS 1996; CIPCA 1997; CABI 2001) It is










also the main ecological concern because it leads to overgrazing (Saravia Toledo et al.

1996; Navarro 1998, 2002; Taber, Navarro and Arribas 1997).

The obj ective of this research is to understand the forces contributing to the

expansion of cattle ranching in the Isoso as well as their effect on the Guarani Isosefio's

common property institutions and natural resource management.


XpoEaClo~


Figure 1-1. Map of the Isoso and the Kaa lya National Park in the Santa Cruz Gran
Chaco. (Source: Jose Avila, Kaa-lya Project/CABI)

Research Questions

The broad question addressed in my research is whether it is possible to develop a

cattle ranching strategy that is economically, socially and ecologically beneficial to the

Isosefio community. To attempt to answer this, I address several more specific questions:

*What are the factors contributing to expansion of cattle in the Isoso?










* What are the effects of this expansion on common property institutions and natural
resources?

* How does cattle ownership affect access to land and natural resources among the
Isosefios?

* What are the social and ecological costs of expanding cattle ranching in the
community?

* Who is introducing cattle in the communal areas in the Isoso and how is it
influencing other livelihood strategies?

Methods

I have used an ethnographic qualitative method for this research including open-

ended interviews, participant observation and of secondary documents research (Bernard

1994). I adopted an inductive research approach: departing for the field with the research

questions in hand, but once on site maintaining an open mind (Bernard 1994). This

allowed me to deal with dynamic challenges such as the cattle ranching in Isoso. In many

senses I maintained my original questions, although some theoretical and practical

arguments were formulated resulting from encounters with people at the field site and

from the interviews conducted during the summer of 2005 when I visited the Isoso.

More specifically, my research involved the following steps. In Isoso, I participated

in community meetings and in the Isosefio's daily life, so I could understand their living

conditions as well as their demographic and production systems. I employed two

different kinds of interviews, one individual and the other in a group (Table 1-1). I

interviewed people from the following four Isosefio communities: Pikirenda, Rancho

Nuevo, Ivasiriri and Isiporenda. These communities are representatives of the region

(Chapter 4). Through these group interviews with community members I explored issues

such as access to natural resources on the common land as well as the role of cattle in the

Isosefio's life.









Table 1-1. Total Interviews
Community Group Communal Key informant
interview (total Meeting
participants)
Isiporenda 4
Ivasiriri 25 1 2
Rancho Nuevo 15 3
Pikirenda Coropo 20 1 2

Key informant 6
CABI*

Group interviews were conducted in three communities as unstructured surveys.

Each interview was conducted with 15 to 25 members of each community. Due to the

fact that few Isosefios spoke Spanish fluently, the communal captain from Ivasiriri and

Rancho Nuevo translated questions into Guarani and responses were then translated back

into Spanish. These interviews were a quick and effective means of gathering data.

Women were well represented in all the group interviews. For the individual interviews I

interviewed other representatives from CABI, KNP personnel and others involved in

CABI proj ects.

This thesis is not only the result of three months of field research, but also an

accumulation of my experiences and contact with Isosefios' culture. As a CABI-WSC

technical staff member I maintained contact with Guarani leaders and Guarani people, I

participated in several assemblies and I supported CABI in meetings with different

authorities and private stakeholders such as cattle ranchers, No Governmental

organizations (NGO) and petroleum companies. I visited some cattle ranches neighboring

the Isoso. As a member of CABI-WCS, I was part of a research team and had formal

contact with scientists and other technicians working in the area. The formal as well as









the informal conversations with community members during tea hour (porear) also

provided me with valuable insights.

Structure of the Thesis

The thesis is comprised of seven chapters. The present chapter (Chapter 1)

introduces the problem and the methods used on this research. Chapter 2 presents a

review of the literature on common property and community base natural resource

management as well as the main factors linked to the expansion and global integration of

cattle ranching are identified. Common property theory arose partially as a response to

the ideas exposed by Garrett Hardin in his well-known "Tragedy of the Commons"

article (1968). Hardin largely overlooked social institutions and rules among common

users and predicted that open access would lead to the destruction of natural resources.

According to the main proponents of common property regimes (CPR), Berkes (1989)

and Ostrom (1990), CPR are structured arrangements in which group membership is

known, outsiders are excluded, and rules are developed and enforced. Consequently, CPR

offer potential for community-based conservation (CBC) which could benefit from

interdisciplinary science conservation which incorporates a more elaborate understanding

of social-ecological interactions (Berkes 2004).

On the other hand different factors motivate the expansion of cattle ranching in

Latin America: population growth, changes in consumption patterns, the relation to the

market economy, national and international policies favoring cattle ranching. Today,

cattle ranching plays two main roles: it is part of a subsistence and food security strategy

to millions of poor people. Cattle ranching is also a maj or international agribusiness

supported by national and international development policies. No matter which causes,










cattle expansion is one of the greatest pressures leading to land use change and

deforestation in the tropical forests of Latin America.

Chapter 3 describes the physical and social landscape of the study area, the Tierra

Comunitaria de Origen (TCO) Isoso in the Bolivian Chaco. Different stakeholders are

described. Special emphasis is given to description and analysis of the Guarani-Isosefios,

whose community tenure system is a main characteristic. The Isosefios differ from their

neighbors and other stakeholders in terms of ethnicity, historical presence in the area,

livelihood systems, and culture. However, they have had a long term contact within the

market economy as temporary wage workers for harvesting sugar cane, assisting cattle

ranchers and other wage jobs. As a result they have not been as isolated as other

indigenous groups in Latin America. Despite this history of market activity, the Isosefios

maintain a subsistence economy and a strong cultural identity based on common property

rights to the land and natural resources the Ivi lyambae or "land without owners".

Chapter 4 presents a comparative analysis of the theoretical basis of CPR and CBM

frameworks and the development vision of the Guarani-Isosefios their Mba~yu. I

analyze similarities, coincidences, and contrasts between the Guarani-Isosefio vision and

the CPR/CBM theoretical framework. The purpose of this comparative analysis is to

establish the degree to which the Guarani-Isosefio, through their particular M~bayu,

conform, practice, and will be able to maintain CPR institutions in the face of cattle

expansion.

Chapter 5 describes cattle ranching in the TCO-Isoso. Originally cattle were

introduced by the karai (in the Isosefio language the word is used to defmne white people

and criollos). Today 8% of the Isosefio population owns cattle. Within the TCO-Isoso









boundaries cattle raising is the main productive activity. Cattle is raised by several private

cattle ranchers including Mennonites who arrived in the mid-1990s, and the recently

established agro-industry in the area, based on private ownership of land.

Chapter 6 presents my conclusions and recommendations. The main challenge, in

Isoso, is to improve and develop cattle ranching management systems that will maintain

the natural potential of the resources and traditional social values in a changing context.

To make that possible, internal institutions and political organizations need to be adapted

to use community governance effectively to develop the economic potential of cattle

ranching. Guarni Isosefio political organizations must position themselves so as to

influence local, departmental, and national policies that favor those changes.















CHAPTER 2
COMMON PROPERTY AND THE EXPANSION OF CATTLE RANCHING:
LITERATURE REVIEW

The fruits belong to all and the earth to no one

--Rousseau

Security of Tenure and Property Rights Arguments

A variety of theories and approaches regarding property rights and tenure security

have been proposedwa which have influenced tenure policy, land reform and

development programs in developing countries. According to Ellsworth (2002), scholars

differ in their perception of what tenure security is, who should get it, its virtues for

society, and how it is obtained. In addition, empirical evidence shows that there is not a

single property regime that is inherently more efficient, optimal or ideal.

In developing countries, varying community property rights systems can be found,

some of which have survived the colonial era, despite the attempts to destroy them as

well as their natural resource base. In the words of Ellsworth, "during all this time the

voices of their members have been demanding a place in the world emphasizing the non-

market value of tenure security." Based on the western understanding of efficiency,

scholars and policy makers have generally supported property rights as individual, private

and tradeable titles. Private property is viewed as the indispensable precondition for

economic growth and development, and therefore assumed to be the cause of the

prosperity of Western countries. Two main theories supporting this view can be traced

back to Demsetz and Hardin (Figure 2-1). The evolutionary theory of property rights










proposed by Demsetz (1967) and Alchian and Demsetz (1973) argues that increasing

population pressure and commercialization of agriculture tend to cause the emergence of

private property rights as if it were a natural change in land tenure systems with time

(Otsuka and Place 2001). Hardin's (1968) tragedy of the commons model predicted the

eventual overexploitation or degradation of all resources and proposed that privatization

of public holding of resources was the solution.



Evolutionary Theory of Property Rights
and Potential Role of the M bayu
Physical
Private investment to
Individual Irnprove land
Ownership quality
Increase use of
Common or Population State Public labor us ng and
Customary increases Ownership land saving
Ownership Land become (Protected Areas)


"Tragedy of the
commons"
MbayuOpen access


Development of the land tenure institutions







Figure 2-1. Evolutionary Theory of Property Rights and Potential Role of the Mba~yu.

The evolutionary theory has influenced the resource management paradigm,

including protected areas policies (Maphosa 2002; Richards 1997; Berkes 1989, Brogden,

2003; Piurek 2003) and land reform programs. In the late 1980s and 1990s most countries

under the influence of the World Bank promoted individualized property regimes as the

means to achieve higher investment and increased productivity. It was argued that more










individualized land tenure regimes would not only allow a greater return on investment

but also create a demand for land improvements and increase credit worthiness and

farmer' s access to formal credit (Wilson and Nolan 2001; Deininger 2003). At the same

time to protect wildlife-rich areas and evade the "tragedy of the commons" the World

Bank supported the creation of new protected areas and the strengthening of national

protected area administration in different countries. According to this policy, protected

areas would evade the tragedy of the commons by taking them away from community

property and conferring them to state administration under a state property regime (West

and Brockington 2006). From these points of view, community property and indigenous

systems provided inadequate tenure security to obtain the rewards of investments made to

improve productivity or conserve biodiversity. In the context of land markets and land

redistribution, it was generally assumed that land would be transferred to the most

efficient user.

Nevertheless, in more recent times those assumption has been questioned (Jodha

2001; Wilson and Nolan 2001 ). Land titled to private landlords resulted in the

smallholder, peasant communities as well as from indigenous peoples loosing access to

land and a greater concentration of land among a few landholders (Jodha 1992, 2001;

Romero 2003; Scoones 2002; Wilson and Nolan 2001). Furthermore, accumulated

evidence and an expanding body of literature have revealed that arbitrary local population

exclusion from natural resource management can have negative effects upon natural

resources and their conservation (Jodha 1992, 2001; ILRI 1995; Kolhler-Rollefson 1993).


SWilson and Nolan (2001) cite different studies supporting as the main outcome of land registration
programs a decreased incidence of land disputes as a sign of tenure security. However, little relationship
could be found between land rights or land title and the use of formal credit; with regards to productivity or
farm investments, no relation could be found.










The nature of resource management within each maj or property regime is summarizes in

Table 2-1 below.

Table 2-1. Different Types of Property Regimes.
Open Access Resource rights are neither exclusive nor transferable and are owned
in common, but openly accessible to everyone, and therefore
effectively the property of no-one.


State Property





Common
Property

(private and
customary)


Individual
Private Property


Ownership and management control is held by the nation state.
Access can be severely limited e.g., military areas, government
office and buildings, or more open as with state property that is held
on behalf of the public e.g., highways, navigable rivers, beaches,
and forests.

Use rights for the resources are controlled by an identifiable group
and are not privately owned or managed by governments; there exist
rules concerning who may use the resources, as well as who is
excluded from using the resources, and how it may be used. Often
defined as indivisible, inalienable, not open to prescription, and land
cannot be attached for mortgage or lien purposes (inembargable).

Use rights to resources is attached to land ownership and freely
transferable as a market commodity; in some instances the state
imposes minimal management requirements e.g., management plan
or plan2 de ordenamniento predial (POP) in Bolivia.


Several studies reveal different factors that either enable or inhibit collective action,

and demonstrate how, in many cases, local populations are able to find ways to

appropriately manage the commons even under relatively complicated and adverse

conditions (Berkes 1989; Ostrom 1990, 1999; Otsuka and Place 2001). While the list of

those factors continues to grow, what is clear is that Hardin' s and Demsetz's predictions

are far from the only possible outcomes. Alongside individual private property, different

types of property regimes persist worldwide (Table 2-1)

The Common Property Argument and Community-Based Conservation

Common property activists and academics argue that common natural resources

make a significant contribution to the livelihood and economy of rural people. Common










property resources fill crucial gaps in the resource and income flows from other

resources, provide complementary inputs into agricultural systems, and often supply a

maj or source of livelihoods for indigenous peoples. According to Ellsworth (2000),

common property scholars identify the following virtues of common property:

* It supports a physical and cultural space that strengthens social links among people
across time

* It can be the most efficient way to manage natural resources

* It often provides access to survival resources and sustenance (gives a "place in the
world") to millions of peoples worldwide.


Broadly speaking, under common property systems the natural resources are

accessible to the whole community and no individual has exclusive property rights (Jodha

1994). Research has shown that under common property, the rights of individuals are

defined and limited (Jodha 1994; Richards 1997; Otsuka and Place 2001, Berkes 1989,

2004; Ostrom 1990, 1992, 1999). Common property regimes are structured arrangements

in which group membership is known, outsiders are excluded, and rules are developed

and enforced. Hence, common property differs from open access. The examination of

existing common property regimes shows a number of factors favoring viable and

sustainable common property resources (CPR) management. Agrawal (2001: 1653)

argues that these factors can be split into four sets of variables: characteristics of the

resources, the nature of groups that depend on resources, the particulars of regimes or

institutions through which resources are managed and the nature of relationships between

a group and external forces and authorities such as markets, states, and technology

(Figure 2-2).







13




Com mon Property Framework
(Agaw- 201 B1Eril.- 19; Os-o 19 b 192


Common Prope rtyeue Bounarie *Natural Resources Characteristics.
*Well defined boundaries and Size

Community Based
*Clearly defined membership
Management (CBRM) I Group *Past successful experiences
Leadership
characteristics ,, ,,g ,, t identities and interest
*Concemed with environmental Local knowledge
management ue n om
Institutional ansn r
*Enabling local participation arrangement & *Monitoring
*Recognizing the local communities' normative *Enforcement and sanction
role for the development and *Accountability
implementation of environmental regime *ef. .
policies
*External rules, policies and
*Context-sensitive planning Relationship institutions.
with the external *External support Nested
institutionS *Level of support, enforcement
& contradictions
Governance :Social and Ecological Systems
Self organization, Trust, Mutual monitoring, Combining different kind of knowledge, Learning from
crisis; Collaborative learning; Social networks; Reciprocity...
(Berkes 2004, 2005; Lane and McDonald 2005; Ostrom 199 .

Figure 2-2. The Common Property and Community Based Resource Management
Framework.

On the other hand, community-based conservation (CBC) was defined by Lane and

Mc Donald (2005) in general terms, like "the deliberate, programmatic decentralization

of authority and resources to communities for the purposes of environmental


management." CBC as an inclusive and people oriented approach to conservation is in

part a reaction to the failures of exclusionary conservation (Berkes 2004). It consists of a

diverse set of practices, but common conceptual and operational foundations to this

bottom-up vision include (Agrawal and Gibson 1999; Lane and McDonald, 2005; Berkes

2004):

*Decentralizing government agencies and institutions concerned with environmental
management










* Recognizing the local communities' role for the development and implementation
of environmental policies

* Enabling local participation in more context-sensitive planning.


Despite the general acceptance of CBC, as a theoretical and practical approach

among resources management programs, some conservationists have concerns about the

emphasis on community-participation because this emphasis may attenuate the

conservation efforts (Campbell et al. 2000). According to Campbell et al. (2000) the

institutional control over common resources, which is essential for effective common

property resource management, is challenged by the pressure for removing it from the

traditional institutional systems based on a complex of norm. The factors, identified as

challenges to the CBC and CPR include

* national policies and legislation supporting privatization;
* proj ects that do not take in account local organization;
* changing and differentiated household strategies;
* new connections to markets;
* the loss of legitimacy of local organizations; and
* changing resource characteristics.

The discussion about the use of CBC and CPR approaches, Berkes (2004), Agrawal

and Gibson (1999), Ostrom (1999 and 2006) and Lane and Mac Donald (2005) express

concern about the conceptualization of a community which is generally defined as

"community as a distinct, relatively homogenous, spatially fixed social group that shares

a consciousness of being a community and which is characterized by consensus and

solidarity" (Lane and MacDonald 2005. pp713). Those authors argue that communities

are not static and harmonious social groups. On the contrary, communities are, and are

composed by, actors with interests, imperatives and agendas of their own. Consequently,

recognize and understand the manner in which they deal with differences within









community is fundamental to avoiding the further entrenchment of elites and the

increased marginalization of certain social groups leading to unjust outcomes. For that

reason, these authors propose that a focus on local institutions, rather than communities,

might provide for a more robust and effective approach. Berkes (2004) affirms that

communities are embedded in larger systems, and proposes that it may be more useful to

(re)think CBC in terms of "environmental governance and conservation action that stars

from the ground up but deals with cross-scale relations [promoting] a systems view of the

environment, a perspective that sees humans as part of ecosystems, and an emerging

practices of participatory management" (Berkes 2004 pp 28). Land and MacDonald

(2005) suggest that the CBC framework has the potential to take into account terms of

responding to environmental issues, in the context of the realities and complexities of

environmental governance. On other hand, CBC requires us to consider the overlap of

formal and informal institutions engaged in resource management and their interactions

at multiple political scales. Regarding CPR action, Berkes (2004, 2005) Olsson, Folke &

Berkes (2003), Bowles and Gintis (2000) and Brogden (2003) argue that the identity and

permanence of a group are not static, and therefore, successful natural resources

management depend on certain essential conditions

* cooperation, reciprocity, individual reputation and trust among the different group's
members and between the group and the external institutions;

* the resilience of local groups and communities;

* the capacity to learn from crisis and to nurture their organization;

* the capacity for self organization and conflict management;

* the capacity to combine knowledge and cooperative learning, learning by doing;
and

* correctly information flow.









From thus literature review a trend in the CPR and CBC approaches is noticed:

Agrawal (2001), Ostrom (1999, 2006), Berkes (1989, 2004, 2005), Olsson, Folke &

Berkes (2003) shifted from the community as the center of attention in a local context to

one that focuses more broadly on the nature of groups and their internal institutions as

well as their relationship with external institutions in a cross scale context. CPR,

including CBC, approaches has provided a general framework for analysis which

integrates ecological and socioeconomic systems under common property regimes.

Common Property and Indigenous People

We are on the edge of our last spatial frontiers, there are no additional territories
and resources, at a global scale, to mitigate the consequences and misbalances of
the actual predominant development patterns. [Castillo 2006]

While scholars discuss the issue, grassroots movements are looking for a "place in

the world" (Ellsworth 2000). Indigenous and traditional peoples inhabit a significant part

of the most bio-diverse regions of Latin America and the world. For indigenous peoples

the environment is intrinsically linked to their livelihood and cultural values, and

consequently with their territorial rights and struggle for autonomy (Arambiza 1998).

Even though indigenous peoples are not homogenous groups, as was previously assumed,

common access to land and to natural resources characterize them all around the world.

Far from being a simple open access system, individual rights are culturally restricted.

Rights of individual community members are usually established through customs, and

transfers of these rights are vested in the extended family, clan, or community (Otsuka

and Place 2001).

In recent years, different countries in Latin America have been increasingly

confronted with the need to address the territorial demands of indigenous peoples,

especially where they comprise a high percentage of their rural population. Since the end










of the 1980s the indigenous movement has gained a voice in the international forum and

has been increasingly integrated into international agendas,2 including that of

conservationists TOCOgnizing their rights to common access to natural resources and the

right of ownership and possession of the lands which they traditionally occupy has come

to be internationally recognized. In contrast to a discourse that favors the privatization

and individualization of rights to valued resources, the indigenous movement struggles to

defend their traditional tenure systems which typically are characterized by collective

rights. Indigenous common property systems continue to thrive and grow in Latin

America (Riverstone 2005). Indigenous people focus on land tenure issues because

property rights affect the way in which other policies will work.

Escobar (2005) and Hayck (2002) refer to indigenous peoples as perhaps the most

striking challenge to the dominant culture and socio-economic models of Latin American

societies. Indigenous people must confront opposing value systems. The capitalist

system, which is growth-oriented and embedded in globalizing imperativeS4 Sees human

beings as economic entities driven by self-interest. This is oriented around the wide

exclusion of direct access to the means of production and livelihood, and the requisite

outside-controls such as government or law to solve conflicts between self-interested

individuals (Heilbroner 1985). Opposing these values are the indigenous people's

2 COnvention No 169 of the General Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO) adopted, at
its seventy-sixth session (1989), concerns about indigenous and tribal peoples. It recognized officially the
aspirations of indigenous peoples to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic
development and maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions within the framework of the
States in which they live.

3 Rio 1992 for example.

4 Globalization as predominant economic driving force during the last decades (1989 to 2005), determine
the global agenda of crucial themes and the correspondent integration and modification of the institutional
politic of multilateral organisms like the IMF, WB, UN and at national levels the "structural adjustments"
of the states.









attitudes toward the land as common property, and particular relationships to it as part of

their culture and identity. In capitalism, nature is an inert obj ect, and people are the

master to transform it to their own benefit (Heilbroner 1985; Richards 1997). Therefore,

the path to development and growth is to make the land productive by cutting forests,

setting up cattle ranches, drilling oil, and promoting export agriculture. In contrast,

indigenous peoples maintain their own approach to the land that sees human activity as

part of, and dependent on, the natural world based on the idea of self-sufficiency (Hayck

2002).

In Latin America before the 1990s indigenous peoples were widely viewed as

backward, primitive, even deficient, and deep racism was rampant because of a failure to

see anything positive in their cultures, languages, and way of life. Kirby (2003) identifies

some structural and non-structural causes that opened a space for the emergence of the

indigenous question in the 1990s which took governments and analysts by surprise. At

that time, a well-educated young indigenous leadership developed a new political agenda

and dedicated themselves to fostering and protecting their people's distinct cultural

traditions, languages and world view. Kirby (2003) distinguishes the undermining of the

socialist paradigm with the end of the Cold War and with it "the left" who tended to view

indigenous peoples as a part of the oppressed class rather than having their own identity.

At the same time, indigenous groups throughout Latin America mobilized to oppose the

official celebration of the 500 years of the Americas' "discovery", calling their response

"500 years of indigenous resistance". Moreover, in "Rio 92" indigenous peoples were

recognized as important stakeholders in conservation, as forest guardians and holders of

ancestral knowledge.









There is no convincing empirical evidence that one type of property rights is

inherently more efficient, optimal, or ideal. The notion of what constitutes "efficiency",

"ideal", and "optimal" are themselves context-specific and constantly changing in a given

society. Today, various types of property rights can be found coexisting worldwide: state

ownership, individual or private and common property. The actual world economic

system supports the privatization and individualization of land property (Richards 1997).

Despite this, in many parts of the world the common property regime survives; in others,

the common property regime does not survive at all or it changes over time to adapt to

new circumstances; and, in other places, entirely new common property rules have been

built (Ellsworth 2004).

According to Richards in 1997 a total of two million square kilometers in the

Amazon Region were indigenous territories under common property management

regimes (CPMR), including the Amazon Region of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador,

Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Surinam and Venezuela. This means that 25% of the Amazon

Region is occupied by an indigenous population of 925,000 peoples (Richards 1997).

Evidence suggests that over a half of Mexico' s forest are on community land (Antinori

and David 2004). According to Castillo (2006), protected areas and indigenous territories

are becoming the last remaining reserves of natural resources in Latin America. The

configuration of indigenous territories overlapping protected areas, despite the

contradictions, are part of the best possible alternatives for increasing the quality of life,

and at the same time, preserve the environment. Moreover, the social, ethnic and cultural

institutions and rights of local people may be strengthened in the process.









Thus, this could simultaneously and preserve the environment, in other words to

achieve conservation and development.

Factors Favoring the Expansion of Cattle Ranching

Over thousands of years, human cultures and the physical environment across vast

rangeland areas have been shaped by herding animals (FAO/GIEWS 2001). Cattle have

been a central element in the African pastoralists' livelihood and culture (Scooner 2002;

Cousins 1992; Bodley 1988). Cattle ranching was supported by European governments as

a strategy to conquer territories in the Americas and support the European accumulation

of wealth in the silver mines. The introduction of cattle was the main way that changed

the ancestral livelihood of Indigenous peoples in the "New World."

Today, livestock production accounts for more than the half of total value of

agricultural output (Steinfeld 2002; Kaimowitz 1996). The strong increase of production

of meat, particularly in the developing world over the past twenty-five years, is called

"the food revolution" or "the livestock revolution" (Owen 2002). This revolution has

changed not only farming and distribution practices but also the economic, social and

physical landscapes (Steinfeld 2002; Hall, Ehui and Delgado 2004; Black and Nicholson

2004; FAO 2005; Naylor et al. 2005). The costs of social equity, environmental

sustainability and public health have often been increased (Steinfeld 2002; Naylor et al.,

2005). According to Steinfeld (2002) the "livestock revolution" is connected to the

following factors: (1) a rapid and dynamic increase in consumption of livestock products

principally in developing countries, (2) a change in livestock production practices from

local multi-purpose activity to an increasingly market-oriented business, (3) a geographic

shift of livestock production from temperate to warmer ant tropical environments, (4) the

national government and international-development incentives and subsides, and (5) an









increasing requirement and competitiveness on grazing and water resources, managed

today under common property regimes.

Increase in Consumption

In developing countries between 1980 and 2004, per capital consumption of meat

doubled and production tripled (FAO 2005). Globally, population growth and changing

food consumption habits are predicted to double the demand for livestock and its

production in the developing countries over the next twenty years (Pica-Ciamarra 2005;

Leonard 2005; Owen 2002). Urbanization, rising incomes, and the globalization of trade

are the main reasons mentioned for the growth in meat consumption in developing

countries favoring meat consumption (Vera 2001, Blake and Nicholson 2004). According

to Blake and Nicholson (2004), about 70% more meat will be consumed in 2020 than in

2000, and most of it (60% global production) will be consumed in developing countries

(Delgado et al. 1999 cited by Blake and Nicholson 2004).

In contrast with worldwide indices, in Latin America the 77% of the total

population lives in cities (Vera 2001) while the world average is 49% (Table 2-2). The

consumption of meat in Latin America was calculated as 35 to 45 kg per capital, with the

bovine meat making up approximately 50% of that total (21 kg). This indicates that in

contrast to per capital consumption African and developed countries, Latin Americans eat

considerable more bovine (and buffalo) meat per capital (Table 2-2).

Market-Driven Changes in Production Practices

The "livestock revolution" has focused on industrial-scale operations that have

increasingly gained control over raising, processing and marketing of meat.

Industrializing livestock systems have based on declining real prices for feed grains,

advances that have improved feed-to-meat conversion efficiencies, animal health, and










reproduction rates, as well as cheaper transportation costs and trade liberalization (Naylor

et al. 2005; Uptom 2004; Vera 2001). Today we see different production systems (Table

2-3), although there is a tend to shift from the traditional system based on natural

grassland to a more intensive cattle ranching systems based on management and market

specialization: a) highly intensive grass-feed finishing operations, b) breeding-growing

systems, and c) extensive breeding systems (Vera 2001; Porzecanski personal comment

2006).

FAO has estimated that industrial livestock operations are growing twice as fast as

traditional mixed farming systems and six times as fast as grazing systems (Steinfeld

2002; FAO 2005). This fast growth has defined economies and ways of life across many

prairies and rangelands across the world. In Central and South America land has become

concentrated in the hands of a few and large areas have been transformed into soybean

monoculture and cattle ranches (Hillstron & Hillstron 2004; Naylor et al. 2005). This

situation has become a threat, not only to the tropical forest but also to the survival of

local communities and indigenous people who inhabit it.

Despite the industrial livestock system prevalence, an alternative market for

extensive grass-feed system production is developing globally. Product from pastoral

systems have become more valuable because there is evidences that the meat of these

systems has a lower saturated fat and is richer in iron and omega 3 fatty acids (Vera

2001). Together with those nutritional characteristics of meat produced on pastoral

systems, those systems are, in general, more compatible with ecosystems and the

maintenance of biodiversity, than highly intensive and industrial ones.





































Social and Economic
Characteristics


Table 2-2. Population, Land and Cattle Herd in Latin America and Caribbean (LAC)
Contrasting to World Indexes.


LAC/Total
(%)


LAC


World


Human Polulation, millions (2005)
Total
Rural
Total area (million ha)
Ha per capital (2005)
Consumption of animal protein (% of total protein)
1992
Meat per capital consumption (1992), kg/year
Cattle million head (1995)
Head per capital
Grassland (million ha)
Meat production, millions of tons (1995)
LAC
LAC-tropical
Source Vera (2001) and FAOstast 2006


553
127 (22.6%)
2054
3.7


6499
3315 (51%)
13098
2.0


8.50%
3.80%
15.7


43.3
21
337.9
0.7
590


34.8
10
1306.5
0.23
3361.7

53.2


Table 2-3. Cattle Ranching Systems of Meat Production.
System of Production & Ecological Characteristics
Management Characteristics


Highly intensive (industrial)
Grass-feed finishing operation.





Mixed farming systems
breeding-growing .





Extensive razing system.
Grass-feed systems based
mainly on native grassland
with little or no crops
integration.


Not connected to the local
environmental characteristics.
Intensive production. Include
the urban or peri-urban
production in developing
countries

Based on grass with strategic
feed supplementation which
integrates livestock and crop
production on the same farm.



Agro-ecological conditions
strongly define the nature and
scope of livestock-
environment interactions in
grazing systems. In this
system livestock interact with
land, water, and plant and
animal biodiversity,
especially wildlife.


It is strongly market driven,
making them less resilient to
market upheavals than other
systems. Connected to
industrial systems


These represent the main
systems for smallholder
farmers; resource use is often
highly self-reliant as nutrients
and energy flow from crops to
livestock and back

Grazing livestock is a
fundamental source of
livelihood for million people
around the world, mostly
living on common property.
Many of them have become
the base to extensive breeding
systems









Livestock Production-Geographic Shift

For several reasons, including higher energy prices and more rigorous pollution

controls, livestock production in the industrial world is moving to warmer areas of

developing countries (Steinfeld 2002; Naylor 2005; Kaimowitz 1996). In the developing

world, there has been a strong shift in production to the more tropical zones aided by

the recent availability of better disease control, advances in ruminant nutrition, and

breeding systems technologies. Modern, intensive meat production is threatening

important ecosystems since it requires the use of large quantities of natural resources,

particularly land and water (Hill and York 2003).

In Latin America the index of land per capital is higher than the world one (Table 2-

2). This supposed availability of land made "South America, in particular, together with

Africa, the biggest world arable reserve of land" (Vera 2001:6 based on Gallopin et al.,

and WRI 1996). Over the last decades, millions of cattle have been "moved" into the

more humid savannas in Asia, Africa and Latin America, challenging community

property rights to natural resources and in turn the subsistence systems of rural people

(Steinfeld, 2002). For example, China and Brazil alone increased production by 59

million ton between 1967 and 1998 (FAO 2005). Brazil has become the world' s largest

producer of beef and is the second-largest consumer, only behind the United States.

Government Incentives

Government incentives related to development of infrastructure used in livestock

production feed, water, energy, roads, fencing as well as policies regarding market

prices and subsidies are increasingly being recognized as the direct driving forces related

to cattle ranching expansion (Hill and York 2003). At the same time, credit and trends

toward privatization act as important indirect incentives promoting the expansion of









cattle ranching. During the 1960s and 1970s, international agencies such as the World

Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and the US Agency for International

Development (USAID) supported efforts to promote beef production and exports as a

central focus of economic growth (Williams 1986 cited by Kaimowitz 1996). In the

1970s the cattle industry came under criticism on both environmental and social grounds.

A series of critical studies prompted by Parsons focused the attention on the negative

effects of livestock expansion on forests (Kaomowitz 1996).

Over the last few decades Latin American countries have been pushed to adopt

economic reforms designed to encourage investment and entrepreneurship, promoting the

privatization of large tracts of land. According to Naylor et al. (2005), land conversion in

the Brazilian grassland and rainforest exemplifies the large impact of the continued

expansion of cattle ranching, a product of a national development policy. The large and

medium-sized ranches account for about 70% of the total clearing activity (Naylor et al.

2005). According to Fearnside (2005) by 2003 the forest cleared in Brazilian Amazonia

had reached 648,500 km2 the 16.2% of the 4 millions km2 Originally forested portion of

Brazil's Legal Amazon Region, including approximately 100,000 km2 Of "old" (pre-1970)

deforestation in Para and Maranhio.

Cattle Ranching as a Complement to the Rural Livelihood Strategy of the Poor

There are around 500 million rural poor people around the world that depend on

raising livestock for some or all of their food and income (Figure 2-3) (FAO 2005; Pica-

Ciamarra 2005). Small farmers rely on livestock to pull their ploughs, fertilize their

fields, and serve as a source of food and as saving that can be cashed in when needed.

Many rural households base their livelihoods on a few animals fed on grass and forage

from common property pastures and forest. Peasant and indigenous communities are also










increasing their livestock numbers as a complement to their subsistence economy and as

a "savings account" to use in times of scarcity and emergency (Mock 2005).



West Asia
and North
Africa
Sub Saharac~ Z
Africa A i


Latin
A me rica




Figure 2-3. Distribution of Poor Livestock Keepers Worldwide. Source FAO (2005: 6)

National Context and Bolivian Lowlands

Located at the core of the South America, Bolivia is characterized by its natural and

cultural diversity. The total area is 1,098,581 km2 with altitudes varying from 6,000

meters above sea level in the Andean cordillera to fewer than 200 meters above sea level

in the lowland of the Eastern plain. Bolivia is characterized by a great diversity of

ecological and cultural conditions. According to the 2002 National Census the total

population was 8,274,325. The Indigenous population represents 62% of the total

population; the great maj ority are Quechuas and Aymaras living in the highland and

valleys. In contrast, the eastern lowlands indigenous are 150,000 to 200,000 peoples

representing 2.5% of the total population, but belonging to more than 38 ethno-linguistic

groups (1995 indigenous census). Among those 60,000 Guaranies live in 246

communities (FAO 2004).

Even though Bolivia is identified as an Andean highland country, three-fourths of

the territory is tropical lowlands. Due to the ecological conditions of the Bolivian

lowlands and the mineral interest of the colonial and early republican governments, the










lowland Bolivian indigenous peoples were not militarily controlled during the colonial

and early Republican times. However, the Jesuit and Franciscan missions and the rubber

boom in the second half of the nineteenth century made life difficult for lowland Bolivian

indigenous peoples. But the subsistence base of hunter-gatherers and cultivators in the

remaining tropical forests never was as threatened as it was by the later advance of

loggers, settlers, agribusiness, drug dealers, cattle raisers, and miners who have

intensified their activities since the 1950s. The Bolivian national development strategy

since the 1950s has been oriented towards the international market and economic

diversification proposed by the Plan2 Bohan. 6 COnsequently, the 1953 Agrarian Reform

supported the distribution of land in the valley and the Andes, while in the eastern

lowlands the "neo-latifimdio was legalized to embrace agro-industrial development

(Urioste 1992; Kay & Urioste 2005). Therefore, the rights of lowlands' indigenous

peoples were denied or viewed as a barrier to be eliminated. The market' s advance in the

form of the businessmen, ranchers, and entrepreneurs motivated by the riches of the

forests has been supported by policies of governments, international agencies, and

political parties.

The development policies were reflected in the 1955 Govemnment Plan which urged

the colonization of tropical lowlands by Europeans and highland peasants. Considering

western technology as the solution to "the lack of productive use" of regional lands,



5 Development as a concept was created after the World War II. Harry Truman offered "development" as
fair deal for the undeveloped world; by this concept prosperous western societies constitute the model that
the rest of the world should strive to attain. The concept was created to justify the assistance of the more
prosperous, or "first world" countries to the less prosperous "third world" in becoming more "advanced"-
high levels of industrialization and urbanization, technicalization of the agriculture, rapid growth of
material production, and the adoption of modern education and cultural values (Escobar 1994).
6 US Bohan mission that visited Bolivia in 1948. As a result of this in 1953 the Bolivia received $5 million
in economic aid. By 1958 total US assistance accounted for one third of the national budget, making
Bolivia became the largest recipient of US aid in Latin America (Klein 1982: 238 in Beneria-Surkin 2003)










between 1954 and 1962, colonies of foreign Mennonites were established, and colonies

of Russians, Eastern Europeans, and Japanese were also set up. These foreign colonizers

were seen as a means to ensure the modernization of lowland agriculture. Since 1985,

with the Supreme Decree No. 21060,7 the Bolivian economy has changed even more

radically, with the liberalization of the markets. Agro-industry mechanized agriculture,

cattle ranching and logging continued receiving important support from the Bolivian

state in the name of "development". They had access to cheap and abundant credit,

subsidized prices, and failed to pay rural property taxes (Boj anic 1988 cited by Beneria-

Surkin 2003; Kay & Urioste 2005). This agricultural bonanza also resulted from a shift

to large-scale production of export crops, which were more profitable. Land

concentration and high rates of deforestation were registered. For example, in Santa Cruz

in 1950 the cultivated area was only 60 thousand hectares and that increased to over a

million after the mid 1980s. In the 1990s, just 4 % of land holders in Beni and Santa Cruz

owned 82% of the land (Fundacion Tierra, 2005). According to Camacho et al. (2001) in

Santa Cruz Department 1,424,033 ha were deforested between 1993 and 2000. Private

cattle ranching is an important productive activity in the lowland departments of Beni and

Santa Cruz (Fairfield, 2004; Plan del Uso del Suelo 1996). The cattle herd in Bolivia

consists of 5,730,025 head, and the 72. 6% of this herd is found in those departments.

Cattle ranching is an important productive activity in Bolivian lowland contributing

to Bolivia' s GPD (Bojanic 2001, cited by Fairfield, 2004) and it significantly supports



SBy 1983, the foreign debt represented 80% of Bolivia's gross domestic product, and the country fall into
hyperinflation. President Paz Estenssoro (1985-89) in 1985 adopted the New Economic Plan known as
Decree # 21060, termed a free-market "shock treatment". The decree deregulated prices, eliminated
subsidies and supports, devalued the currency, and suspended foreign payments. The impact was
immediate: unemployment and migration of relocated workers was massive.






29


rural incomes and diversified household activities (Faifield 2004). Despite this increased

role of cattle ranching, its influences on communal institutions are poorly researched in

the Bolivian context.















CHAPTER 3
THE ISOSO AND STAKEHOLDERS

todos esos lugares no tenian duefios karai, por eso al primer Capitan lo llamabamos
lyambae (sin duefio). Este territorio era libre. Asi era nuestra tierra [all those places
did not have an owner, thus the first Captain was named lyamnbae (without owner).
This territory was free. That our land was] Agustin Chiraye, araakua iya (duefio del
consej o), La Brecha. (cited by Dixhoorn 1996)

The Isoso and the Gran Chaco

The Isoso is part of the southern portion of the Bolivian department of Santa Cruz

in the Chacoan province of Cordillera, and the Municipality of Charagual is located

between 630and 610 30' West longitudes and 1703 8' and 20015' South latitudes (map 3-

1). Situated in the tropical dry forest of the Bolivian Chaco, it is part of the "Gran Chaco

Americano" ecoregion which is the continent's second most extensive forested region

after Amazonia. The Gran Chaco extends over parts of Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia,

with a small portion in Brazil, occupying in all more than 1,000,000 km2. The broad

climatic gradients, together with geological and topographic characteristics, generate a

wide diversity of environments such as wide plains, swamps, and seasonally flooded

savannas, and a great variety of forest and scrublands. The Gran Chaco is characterized

by a high diversity of animal and plant species adapted to its extreme conditions (Taber et

al. 1994, 1997; Navarro et al. 1998).







SCharagua is the municipality (Bolivian administrative unit) which includes the Isoso. There is also a
town of Charagua, west of the Isoso, which is the municipal headquarters.











SGuandere



V -brAguaratlThe Bajo Isoso

Plklrenda

San Silvestre I~ Koropo
Mlni 4 YovI
Yuqu lP Aguer gua Corazozn Histrodico
Rancho Nuevo )b Rancho Viejo
Tamachindl 1
Le Brecha 'C The Central Isoso
IvasIrlrl
Yepiroa
K~apeatindl I
K Lorna
K< Brecha )
K< Montenegro aThe Alto Isoso
Ki Guazu




K~araparl The Isoso Frontier
Isiporenda I


Figure 3-1. Location of the Communities in the Alto y Baj o Isoso.

The Bolivian Chaco is a physiographic unit, a continuation of the "Beni" plain


(llanura Beniana), extending across 13,766,3 km2 and three Bolivian departments:


Chuquisaca, Tarija and Santa Cruz. The Chaco has a semi-tropical, semi-arid climate

with extreme temperatures with the median temperature from 260C to 250C; and


extremes reaching 430 C under shadow in summer (January) and in winter the


temperature could drop below zero degrees because of cold winds from Antarctica, called

surazos from June to August (Dixhoorn 1996; Navarro 1998; Taber 1994). The dry


season lasts from 4 to 8 months per year from May to September, some years extending


until December. Rainfall is less than 1000 mm in the northern part and in the Andean


foothills and averages 300 mm in the plain. The annual and monthly variability in rainfall
















1600-
1400
S1200-
1000-
E 800
600-
*4400-
200-





0 Rainfall (January) in Rainfall (Feb to Dec)


(Figure 3-2) as well as the soil mosaic is an important characteristic of the Chaco

landscape.


Figure 3-2. Annual Rainfall in Charagua, Source Dixhoorn (1996).

The Chaco has been known since the Inca times as the territory of "good hunting",

because of its richness of fauna, principally large mammals such as the Chacoan peccary

(Catagonus wagneri), white lipped peccary (Talyassu pecari), collared peccary (Pecari

tajacu), tapir (Taxpirus terrestris), guanaco (La~na guanicoe vogli), giant armadillo

(Priodontes nzaxintus), gray brocket deer (Mazanza gouazoupira), and jaguar (Panthera

onca). The Bolivian Gran Chaco located in the department of Santa Cruz represents the

best conserved area of this threatened ecorregion.

The Bolivian Gran Chaco is a center not only of natural but also of cultural

diversity. The region was home to groups of nomadic hunters, gatherers and fishermen,

and some sedentary agriculturalists. Different linguistic groups such as the Zamuco -

Ayoreode; Tupi Guarani Isosefio, Ava, and Simba; and Matako/Maka Mataco and

Weenhayek are present in the Bolivian Gran Chaco (TNC et al. 2005). The Bolivian Tupi










Guarani or "Chiriguanos2" Were characterized by their strong warrior society and the

ability to defend their land; they maintained their independence much longer than any

other indigenous group in Latin America. This, along with their historical interaction with

the external world (colonial, post-colonial, other indigenous groups, etc.) makes them

somewhat unique. Unfortunately, what they share with the rest of the indigenous peoples

of America is having witnessed the severe erosion of both their land base and access to

natural resources (Albo 1992, Beneria-Sukin 2003). During the first half of the twentieth

century, the Guarani were on the brink of extinction. After the Republican military

intervention in 1892 with the battle of Kuryuki,3 their resistance was shattered leaving

little hope for their future. Some Guarani communities lost almost all of their population

Guarani people moved to haciendas in the Bolivian Chaco or emigrated to Argentina to

work in the sugar cane harvests as zafr~eros temporary rural workers in the sugar cane

harvest (Albo 1992; Heyck 2002). Francisco Pifarre (cited by Albo 1990) estimated that

26,000 Guarani emigrated to Argentina in the early decades of the twentieth century, and

nearly 80,000 Guarani and mestizos were obligatorily sent to the northern rain forest to

work on rubber plantations. Throughout this period, multiple forms of resistance

including both armed struggle and strategies of negotiation had developed. The Chaco

War in the Guarani territory, which lasted from 1932 to 1935, dispersed them even more

and the few remaining people were absorbed by the haciendas. The 1953 Agrarian


2 The term "Chiriguano" is not accepted by the Guarani themselves due it use in a discriminatory way by
the others. Guarani is a more generic name referring to the wide family present in five nations: Argentina,
Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Chiriguano is a more specific name for Guarani in the west near to
the Andes Cordillera in Bolivia including the Mbya, Ava, Isosenos and Simba (Albo 1990).

3 IH One day more than 800 Guarani were killed by the Bolivian army. In total Guarani deaths exceeded
more than 3000, and 2000 Guarani were taken prisoner and dispersed in different regions as peones (Albo
1990).










Reform did not benefit the Guarani people. The Agrarian Reform formalized the new-

latifimdio to support the governmental programs based on agro-industrial development

(Urioste 2003, n/d; Kay and Urioste 2005). The Guarani never accepted the redistribution

of land that they still regarded as theirs.

Despite the dispersion, the Guarani people were not assimilated as peasant or

simple labor workers but continued the struggle through a strategy of political

negotiation, maintaining their basic values, language and dignity. Through the years

many Guarani have returned to their communities, even though today some of them are

still "captives" on the haciendas while others are living in isolated communities with very

little land (Villegas 2006). However, in some cases the Guarani exert political control

over relatively large land areas through communities united in the form of Capitanias.

One of these areas is the Isoso where the Capitania del Alto y Baj o Isoso (CABI) is

located .

At present, the Isosefio villages are the only ones in the study area, however,

several other stakeholders neighbor and interact with the Isosefio people:

1. Cattle ranchers and Agro-industry entrepreneurs.

2. Mennonite colonies.

3. Peasants.

4. The local, regional and national authorities. The Municipality of Charagua, the
province of Cordillera and departmental authorities of Santa Cruz.

5. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS),
Apoyo para el Campesino Indigena del Oriente Boliviano (APCOB), Centro de
Investigaci6n y Promoci6n del Campesinado (CIPCA).

6. Catholic and Evangelical churches that support development and production proj ects.

7. Private petroleum companies.










Map. Location of different Property Regimes
andi stakeholders in the TCO-Is~oo


Santa Cruz














P_4


Argentina


/


Polygons 1- 5
SPrivate Properties (titled)
Private Properties (title in
rrrocess)
- CABI titled land
~I Rivers: Grrande and Parapeti
I TCO Isoso limits

SArea of Mennonite colonies in
Pol-3


Isoseriio communities


Figure 3-3. Map of the TCO-Isoso and Location of Different Stakeholders.


" %i









The Guarani Isosefio Communities

More than twenty communities, dispersed along the banks of the Parapeti River,

are politically organized in the Capitania delAlto y Bajo Isoso (CABI). The National

Census (2002) registered 6,363 people in Isoso. However, according to CABI's own

estimation there are around 10,000 inhabitants. That difference may be explained by the

high seasonal migration outside of the Isoso to the sugar cane harvest. Despite those

differences Table 3-1 based on the Bolivian National Census of 2002, gives an idea of the

population distribution among the Isosefio communities. Isiporenda, the southern-most

community, is about 60 kilometers from the municipal center Charagua. The most

northern-most community along the Parapeti river banks, Kuarirenda, is over 150

kilometers from Charagua (Map 3-1). Even though during the dry season several routes

lead to Isoso, the most stable access from Santa Cruz city is through Charagua, requiring

about 7 to 9 hours to reach La Brecha, the central Isosefio community.

The Guarani -Isosefio people are originally derived from a fusion between a

migratory Tupi- Guarani group and the Arawak-Chane peoples established on the

Parapeti banks. The Guarani -Isosefio communities have experienced the aggression of

the colonizers and the Republican military repression, and later the Chaco War, which

practically left the Isoso empty. The present communities in Isoso share a set of specific

cultural characteristics: the Nande reko "our Guarani way of life"; a common origin

and history; the Mba~yu (vision or dream); CABI as their political organization; and the

TCO Isoso as their common territorial demand. Therefore, they constitute a demographic

entity .

4 Between the 1940's and 1960's the area was intensively explored by hydrocarbon companies. The seismic
testing lines opened at that time are used as roads.









The Guarani Way of Life : The Randereko

Despite having suffered military devastation, the Guarani-Isosefio maintain many

aspects of their 'traditional' livelihood strategies. The Nandereko is based on cooperative

work and reciprocity as one of the main internal values which keeps the society and the

extended family units together, it is the basis of social and economic relations (Albo,

1992; Beneria-Surkin 2003; Heyck 2002).The household is the unit of production and

reproduction. Each household is composed of an extended family and is part of a social

network known as Teta (community or village). The communal life characterized by

strong kinship ties and reciprocal relationships is the most important element of the

Nandereko.

The Isosefio livelihood is based on a subsistence economy. They farm for their own

consumption' and only the excess is sold. The main crops are corn, rice, yucca- manioc,

kumanda or beans and joco (squash). Some households cultivate fruit trees such as

banana, citrus and papaya. Hunting, fishing and gathering are important elements of their

livelihood strategy. There are more than 135 species of plants used by the Isosefio and

botanically described (Bourdy 2002). Bourdy describes the medicinal and non medicinal

uses such as human food, animal feed, handicraft, construction materials, firewood, toys,

decoration, agricultural practices and veterinary medicine. According to Cuellar et al.

(2004), 21 different species of mammals, 9 of birds and one reptile are the most

frequently hunted animals by the Isosefios. Breeding domestic animals and their

integration into the labor market are important complements to livelihood strategies.

They raise goats, pigs, chickens and cattle. Many Isosefio are wage-workers such as

SAccording to Beneria-Surkin (1988) to replace the subsistence production the Isosehio must earn 17.46 Bs per
work-hour.










peons in cattle ranches or jornaleros in the sugar cane harvest, school teachers,

technicians in NGOs and governmental institutions.

Guarani-Isoseno Communities

The present-day Guarani Isosefio communities are not completely uniform.

According to common kinship, history, ethnicity, etc., the communities can be grouped in

six different "sub-zones" (Combes 1999), going from south to north, summarized as

follows (Figure 3-1).

The Isoso frontier

Coming from town of Charagua, which is located west of Isoso the first two

communities are Isiporenda and Karapari (Figure 3-4). This is a fragile but fertile

frontier. Fragile because the closeness to town of Charagua and the more constant contact

with non- Guarani people makes them susceptible to many different cultural influences,

and fertile because the river' s water is available almost all the year allowing them a rich

harvest. This is a transition between the karai and Guarani worlds. The community is

occupied, in addition to Isosefios, by Ava- Guarani and Tapiete, and also many karai'~~~~kkkkk~~~~kkkk

have had their ranches and homes in Isiporenda. They have developed a relation of

mutual cooperation with the Mennonites neighbors (my observation). The Mennonites

and Isiporenda inhabitants have exchanged of experiences and knowledge. In the summer

of 2005, I observed that the Mennonites' presence was crating incentive for agricultural

market-oriented production in Isiporenda. The Guarani producers rent machinery and use

technology from the Mennonites, who, in turn, rent land from Isiporenda. Interviewees

talked about school children and teachers helping Mennonites harvest cotton as a part of


6 Karai is the Guarani term referring to miollos, mestigos and whites, all those groups that are not Guarani or other
indigenous people that they identify.










an unofficial agreement of cooperation between the Isiporenda community and the

Mennonite community.

The Alto Isoso

Continuing to the north by the main road, one reaches Kopere Guasu, Kopere

Montenegro, Kopere Brecha, Kopere Loma, Kapeatindi and Yapiroa. All these

communities originated from the ancestral communities Grundeiti and Samnouti. The four

Koperes are almost like neighborhoods of one large community (Figure 3-4). In Kopere

Guasu there are many Ava- Guarani, whose predecessors came to work as peons in the

ranches. Those communities conserve Guarani traditions such as Arete Gua~su (the main

celebration of good harvest) and together they began negotiating for a legal communal

title beginning in 1922. They received the official title in 1948.

The Central Isoso

Ivasiri, La Brecha and Tamachindi are included in the same communal title

received in 1947 and reconfirmed in 1978. This zone oflIsoso once was known as

Guirayoasa. At the beginning of the 1900s only one community was located on the

eastern bank of the Parapeti River (Figure 3-5). Experiencing severe problems with

ranchers, people decided to move to the western bank where they founded three

communities before the Chaco War. Today one of those communities, La Brecha, is the

political center of Isoso.

The Coraz6n Hist6rico del Isoso

The historical heart of the Isoso is located on the eastern bank (Figure 3-5) and it is

the place where the first Guarani Isosefio arrived; guided by female leader, Kaa Poti, they

established the first community known as Kovei. The present communities of Koropo,










Table 3-1. Population in the Communities of Isoso.


Community


ARAKAE INE
1999 2002


(INE2002)


The Isoso Frontier
Isiporenda
Karapari
The Alto Isoso
Kopere Guazu
Kopere Montenegro
Kopere Brecha
Kopere Loma
Kapeatindi
Yapiroa
The Central Isoso


274 300 162
as 149 80


64
35
93
94
125
294

173
348
172


61
44
80
134
107
261

191
376
208

271
15

109
155
220
167


Ivasiriri 463
La Brecha SD
Tamachindi 525
The Corazon historico del Isoso


870


493 222
31 16


12 Rancho Nuevo
13 Mini
14 Yuqui*
15 Rancho Viejo
16 Aguaraigua
17 Yovi
18 Koropo
19 Pikirenda*
The Karai Isose
20 San Silvestre
21 Paraboca
The Bajo Isoso
22 Kuarirenda
23 Aguarati
24 Guandare*
The Returning i
25 Joseravi
26 Tetarembei


108
122
215
147


o







Isoso


102 56
90 45

586 307
338 179


158 101
13 8


279
159


TOTAL 7,077 6,363 3,166 3,197
Source INE Bolivia, National Census 2002 and Combes (1999).
Notes:


1,171


The Bolivian National Census of 2002 did not register the population of Yuqul, Plklrenda and Guandare, probably because
those communities are too small, dispersed and closely related to other communities. Their population may have been
included in the counts for other communities, ( Yuqul could be Included in Mini, Plklrenda In K~oropo and Guandare In
K~uartrenda). Combes (1999) does not report population of Mini, Yuqul, Plklrenda, Guandare, Joseravl and Tetarembel
because those communities were established after 1999, originally being cattle ranches (suestos ganaderos). Because the
communities frequently change location, as well as experiencng dlsintegratlon and the establishment of new communities, It
Is not surprising that figures of the number of villages and population differ according to different sources. Today, It seems
that infrastructure such as schools and health services are factors that Influence a more fixed location.


No.
No of inhabitants Male Female
Households










Aguaraigua,Yovi, Guairapembi (Rancho Viejo) and Yarumbairu (Rancho Nuevo) all

originated from the first Guarani-Isoseno community of Kovei. According to Albo (1990)

the first title for Yovi and Aguaraigua was received in 1927. And in 1947 Koropo was

included. Koropo, Yovi and Aguaraigua always have worked together, and have shared

Arete Gua~su. Despite the same origin Guairapembi was left behind. Unfortunately it has

been surrounded by ranches with which there were perpetual confrontations, issues that

deeply affected them. Land tenure problems were growing, as well as problems of access

to natural resources, and they could not title their land. The community was divided;

some of them moved to the western river bank for a more peaceful life, and established

Yarumbairu (Rancho Nuevo), later Mini and Yuki. In 1962 the titling process was

initiated by the three communities together and when they received the title in 1969 it

was for land located on the western bank. Guairapembi never got a title until it was

included in the common TCO-Isoso title.

The Karai-Isoso

Many karai have lived in the Isoso since they first arrived in the mid-1800s. Some

of them live far away on their ranches, but others live in the communities together with

the Guarani-Isosefios. Those that live in the communities and take part in the communal

life are considered members. Mixed communities as Koropo and Aguarati are examples

of such communities. But three communities are inhabited almost only by karai:

Paraboca, Tamane and San Silvestre (Figure 3-5). They were incorporated into the CABI

organization in 1997. Then during the TCO titling process, Tamane negotiated to become

private property, and they received one family title. Paraboca and San Silvestre officially

decided to be part of CABI as communities.










The Bajo Isoso

Kuarirenda and Aguarati (Figure 3-6) are part of a history of moves. Because of the

changes in the river (floods and drought) and the ranchers' pressures, these communities

have continually changed location. Kuarirenda received a title to its land in 1972, but the

conflicts with cattle ranchers continued.

Returning to Isoso

A new Guarani -Isosefio sub-zone is recently taking shape in the TCO-Isoso. The

Isosefios that had lived outside the Isoso, including some that worked as peons on

neighboring ranches, decided to establish two new communities Joseravi and

Tetarembei, both supported by CABI. These new communities are located north from

Kuarirenda and their organization of production differs from the rest of Guarani -Isoso.

Land is divided into nuclear family plots which in many cases are clearly delimited by

fences. Inside those areas are located the house, the farming plot and domestic animals .

Each community has a communal "capitan" who maintains relationships with CABI

leaders. The community members still have strong ties with the urban areas, for example

most of the children are studying in urban schools (in Santa Cruz city) and only visit their

parents during the holidays. Sometimes the mother lives with the children in the city

during the school year.

Land Use in Guarani Isoso

Land is considered to be common property that the ancestors have left for all

members of the community (Beneria-Surkin 2003). Land tenure will be deal in Chapter 4,

but the history is summarized briefly below. Customary common property rights


SObservation made during my Tetarembei field trip 2004, when I was gathering information for a waste
management program and visited several houses









characterized the Guarani Isosefio Nandereko. The cattle ranchers' arrival forced the

Guarani Isosefio people to seek a new way to defend the common access to land and

natural resources. After shifting from warriors to negotiators, they obtained seven

communal titles that included almost all communities 65,000 ha, (Figure 3-1).

The Territory is the central element in the struggle to subsist, around which the

indigenous peoples have tended to proj ect an essential construction of identity. For this

reason and their immersion in land tenure dynamics, since the 1980s indigenous people in

the lowlands have mobilized to demand the titling of their lands and territories (Albo

1996). As a result, Bolivia, and other Latin American countries, has recognized some

indigenous land and territorial rights over the last few decades. The agrarian reform or

Ley INTRA (Law no. 1725 of 1996) recognizes the indigenous people's territorial demand

as Tierra~s Comunitaria~s de Origen (TCO) in accordance with the International Labor

Organization (ILO) Convention 169 (Romero 2003). During the elaboration of the Santa

Cruz Land Use Plan (Plan del Uso de Suelo de Santa Cruz, PLUS, froml992 to 1995)

and the INTRA Law (from 1994 to 1996) CABI actively participated, designing their own

proposal for indigenous territories. Together with other indigenous peoples, forming the

Central Indigenous Peoples of Eastern Bolivian (CIDOB), they argued for the legal

recognition of indigenous peoples' territories or communal land of origin (TCO). The

Guarani Isosefios officially presented their demand for TCO-Isoso, at the time the INTRA

Law was approved in 1996, and CABI guaranteed the financial support to complete the

administrative title process (saneamniento SAN-TCO). Following the approval of INRA

Law (1996)8 CABI has been a key actor in the SAN-TCO process.


SThe results of the process of TCO titling "saneamiento in Bolivian lowland shows the next data: 55 TCO formally
demanded 25,794,177 hectares of thenl only 3,214,565 hectares were titled as TCO only five TCO completely titled










The Guarani Isosefio people can hunt and collect everywhere in their territory and

each family or household can clear and farm the quantity of land that is needed to support

their livelihood. Farming, hunting and gathering are part of the Guarani Isosefios

Nandereko. The main use areas, to agriculture, cattle ranching, and village facilities

including housing, were surveyed by FII-CABI technicians, at the end of 2004 and

beginning of 2005' (Table 3-2).

Table 3-2. Main Land Use in Isoso, per Sub-zones.
CattleArea AgriculArea UrbanArea Total Area
Sub-zone (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha)
The Isoso Frontier 7,028 180 46 7,254
The Alto Isoso 28,817 896 108 29,821
Central Isoso 16,228 971 106 17,305
The Coraz6n hist6rico del
Isoso 19,570 821 183 20,573
The Karai Isoso 30,549 5 47 30,601
The Bajo Isoso 28, 160 454 137 28,751
Returning to Isoso 4,020 0 164 4,184
TOTALS (ha) 134,372 3,326 790 138,489
Source CABI Data Base 2005


Urban Area in Table 3-2 is the area where houses and village infrastructure are

located. School buildings, health services and churches, as well as a soccer field are

found in almost every community or village. The households are dispersed on both sides

of the road. Beneria-Surkin (2003) provides a description of a typical Isoso household:

Beyond on both sides of the road one can see typical one room Izocefio houses.
The area immediately surrounding the house is cleared of any vegetation but nearby
a few trees and vegetation is always left. Usually roofs are thatched with palm
leaves but some houses have corrugated metal roofs and others are made of tiled
roofs. Occasionally, one finds an isolated house, but it is more common to find

and 3() partially. Ironically, 4.2 million hectares were titled as private to third party inside the TCO's demands. The
government weakness, the agrarian elites' pressure, and corruption among the governmental officers are the main
elements that characterize the land saneamiento during these ten years. As a result of this negative balance the peasant
and indigenous movements still support the common property as a keystone to their strategy to subsist and take a place
in the world.
9 In summer of 2()(5 I interviewed Zulema Barahona and Crecencio Arambiza (FII-CABI technicians responsible for
the survey) and other peoples in the communities. I had access to CABI data base.









several houses near each other, each one belonging to one of the nuclear families
that make up a household. [Beneria-Surkin 2003]

With respect to agricultural areas, all household farming plots are located together

in the same area on the banks of the Parapeti River (Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 where the

agricultural plots are represented by green polygons). Agricultural plots belong to the

families, or households and, who have the right to use, but not to sell or rent the land to

others. According to Beneria-Surkin (2003), the Isosefios believe "that one should not

exaggerate" and should use only what is needed. Therefore, the farming plots vary from

approximately 2.3 to 7 hectares (this size of familiar plot substantially differs from the

peasant or small farmers and colonists who legally demand 50 ha plots). Some areas are

planted and the rest of the plot is left fallow. The "Karai" and "Returning to Isoso"

subzones present a notable difference in household structure and land use distribution in

relation to the other Isosefio communities. In Tetarembei and Joseravi ("Returning to

Isoso") there is not a common agricultural area because each family has a rectangular plot

where they have the house, animals and cultivated area, following the more typical

Bolivian peasant land settler pattern. The Karai Isoso has the smallest farming area and

the larger dedicated to cattle ranching.

The total areas used as cattle ranching are shown in Table 3-2. While cattle

ranching characteristics in Isoso will be developed in Chapter 5. However, it is important

to highlight that the area occupied by cattle ranching is considerably greater than that

under other uses. According to the data, immense areas of the commonly held lands are

used for herds of cattle.

















: *piatindi
*. .a operr Loma
.- .I h. Montenegro
; Guazu





Karapari


SFenced area by Big Projects


f~aml caare ranch ng


- Parapetl river
Rural roads
-TCO -Isoso Ilrnits


Not scale


Village ".Urban. area


SFarrnng area


Figure 3-4. Land Use in the Frontier and Alto Isoso (Sub-zone 1 & 2).


fa ateranching


I I


Figure 3-5. Land Use in the Central, Historic Heart and Kara and Bajo Isoso (Sub-zone3,
4 and 5).


F enced area byt ig Pojects Villge Urban" aea pParapet rer Not scale

Fened reaI IFarrningarea TCO -Isose Ilmits









Other important land uses areas, such as hunting and gathering areas, are more

difficult to identify. Some gathering and hunting areas have been identified by WCS

technical staff which has researched hunting and collecting practices for several years.

Those areas partially overlap with farming and cattle ranching areas, and are not included

in this table.

CABI, the Guarani Isosefio Political Organization

The communal M~burubicha or captain is the customary authority in each Guarani

Isosefio community. The main decisions affecting the Isoso are taking in the Gran

Asamnblea which is the meeting of all communal Mbhurubicha headed by the Capitan

Grande, that is the Capitania del Alto y Bajo Isoso (CABI). CABI is a strong grassroots

organization that is key at local and regional levels. It has become a political actor

adopting a practical strategy of negotiation (Beneria-Surkin 2003). CABI has achieved

several successes with respect to participate in and control of natural resource

management and development proj ects (Chapter 4).

Other Stakeholders

Other stakeholders in the TCO Isoso include several private properties are located

within the TCO-Isoso. According to the INRA law, a process of land tenure

regularization must be completed (saneamniento o SAN-TCO) to obtain a communal title.

The saneamniento of the TCO Isoso is still in process; for technical and administrative

purposes the area was divided into five polygons. The national and departmental

governments are responsible for the legal process of SAN-TCO, beside the application of

development and conservation policy. After the passing of the Popular Participation Law

in 1994 the municipal government became the most important institution at the local

level. The Municipality is charged with planning, implementing and supervising










environmental and development programs and proj ects. Various non governmental

organizations (NGO) also are present in the TCO Isoso such as CIPCA, APCOB, WCS,

as well the Catholic and Evangelical churches. Two gas pipelines run near the TCO

borders (Figure 3-1). One runs from Santa Cruz to Argentina on the western limits of the

TCO Isoso. The other runs from Santa Cruz to the Brazilian border to the north, inside of

TCO Isoso. Therefore, the petroleum companies are important stakeholders in this area.

According to the SAN-TCO preliminary data the following kinds of private properties are

located in the TCO-Isoso (Table 3-3).

Table 3-3. Private Stakeholders, Not-Isosefio Owners, in the Isoso.
Total TCO
Stakeholders Pol 1 Pol 3 Pol 4 Pol 5
Isoso
Cattle ranchers
No. Owners 84 55 30 44 213
Hectares 166,223 164,558 116,103 269,378 716,262
Agro-industry
No. Owners 24 24
Hectares 116,339 116,339
Mennonites Colonv*
No. Owners 2 4 6
Hectares 23,866 44,217 68,083
Peasant "unions" ("sindicato
campesinos")
No. Owners* 2 4 6
Hectares 8,951 433 9,384
Total owners 112 63 30 44 249
Total hectares 315,379 209,208 116,103 269,378 910,068
Source preliminary data SAN-TCO 2006 O. Castillo
Six Mennonite colonies include almost 1,460 families (Table 3-4). Six peasants unions
involve several families.

Cattle Ranches and Agro-Industry

Cattle ranches in the Southern areas (polygons 3 and 5) are extensive. It is an

activity with a low yield, complementing other livelihood strategies (Linzer 1998). In the

north (Polygons 1 and 4) the cattle ranches are generally larger, varying in size between

2,000 hectares and 15,000 hectares and characterized by a high investment in machinery









and infrastructure. Their administration and management are handled by full-time

technicians as well as temporary personnel during the harvest season. The main crops are

rice, sorghum, soybean, cotton, sunflower, and improved grass. Those ranches are

influenced by agro-industrial activity and market oriented production, from the

surrounding plain to Santa Cruz city and Pailon, and are linked with the credit system and

main Bolivian markets. The agro industry, in the plains surrounding Santa Cruz city and

Pailon, began in the 1970s with credit support from the World Bank and Inter-American

Development Bank (Kay and Urioste 2005). The Tierra~s BJajas proj ect, during the 1980s

and 1990s, supported the fast-expanding agricultural frontier based on extension, through

intensive production.

Cattle ranchers, of both zones, are organized in local and regional associations

which offer them important political and technical support. At the local level the

Asociaciones de Ganaderos de Charagua, y de Cordillera (AGACHARAGUA and

AGACOR) and at the regional level the Federacion de Ganaderos de Santa Cruz

(FEGASACRUZ) are strong civil institutions that have tended to exert decisive influence

at regional and national levels in policy-making and implementation of official

development programs.

Mennonites

In the southern part of the Isosefio territory between Isiporenda and Charagua

(Polygon 3), four Mennonite colonies are located in the TCO-Isoso: Pinondy, Pinondy

Itaguazurenda, Casa Grande and Durango. In addition two colonies are located in the

northern (Polygon 1): La Milagrosa and Santa Clara. The members of these colonies









came from Canada, Mexico, Paraguay and some from different parts of Bolivia. 10 The

Mennonites who recently came from Canada have economic and technical support from

their Canadian Mennonite-institutions, and they tend to be more flexible in their religious

practices. The Mennonites who moved from Paraguay and other parts of Bolivia tend to

be more orthodox and do not have technical support. The total Mennonite population is

more than 10,000 peoples or 1,465 families (Table 3-4). They have one or several general

titles for the entire colony (Table 3-3), but internally they divide the area into family

plots. The nuclear family is the economic and reproductive unit, they have big families

with an average of seven members. There is a strict gender and generational division of

labor within the family and colony.

The Mennonites practice intensive agrarian entrepreneurship, presenting particular

characteristics. Their production system is based on a stable social organization; they

have common religion, customs, culture, education, values, etc. Colonies are established

and organized under a chief administrator of each colony. Diversification of the

productive system is an important Mennonite strategy. They grow different crops and

livestock for domestic consumption and the market. Their industry of milk products

(cheese and butter) is an important income to individual households. They practice

mechanized agriculture and the livestock is a complementary activity. However, it is

intensively-managed. Altogether Mennonites, in the TCO Isoso, have 17,092 head of

cattle (CABI 2005; SAN TCO 2006 FII-CABI, Castillo pers comments 2006).

Mennonites use family labor and sometimes hire workers. Their population growth

is high; consequently their creasing need for land is a main concern for them and for their

"' The first Mennonites came to Bolivia in the 1950's. Their actual population depends from the internal
high population growth and their slowly but permanently immigration to Bolivia.










Table 3-4. Mennonite System in the-Isoso.
Colony Homes Population AreaTotal (ha)

Polygon 3
Pinondi 300 2,700 15,734
Pinondi Itaguazurenda 164 1,472 8,180
Durango 374 3,366 13,834
Casa Grande 109 981 6,469
Sub total 947 8,519 44,217
Polygon 1
La Milagrosa 353 3,178 16,245
Santa Clara 166 1,491 7,621
Sub total 519 4,669 23,866
TOTAL 1,465 13,189 68,083
Source O. Castillo and Noss personal comments (CABI-WCS)
Preliminary data SAN-TCO-Isoso 2006

neighbors. After ten years of their presence in the areas they occupy shows the highest

rate of deforestation and the most intensive agricultural use in the entire TCO Isoso.


Peasants or Small Farmers

The peasants, located in Polygon 1 and Polygon 3, are migrants or colonist from the

western highlands and valleys. They arrived before the TCO-Isoso was "immobilized" (in

1996). They are organized in agrarian union (sindicatos agrarios), a typical strategy

among the Bolivian peasants. Even though they have communal title in the name of the

agrarian union the land is divided in family plots of 50 hectares; the nuclear family is the

unit of production and reproduction. They produce crops for the market and domestic

consumption, normally they raise small domestic animals (chickens, swine and ducks).

According to saneamniento data, six sindicatos agrarios occupy 9,384 ha. There is no

information about how many families there are.

Institutional Stakeholders

Administratively the Isoso is a municipal district within the municipality of

Charagua, in the province of Cordillera within the Santa Cruz department. Altogether the










representatives of those governmental institutions are important regional stakeholders and

CABI maintains a permanent relationship and coordination with them (Chapter 4).

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Wildlife Conservation Society

(WCS) or APCOB ("Apoyo y Promoci6n del Campesinado del Oriente Boliviano")

technically support CABI in the implementation of different activities. WCS has provided

an important support in environmental and conservation programs as well as in the

institutional strengthening process of CABI in arenas like negotiation with hydrocarbon

companies, or with the national government on the arena of the NPK administration

agreement. Other Bolivian NGO, like APCOB and CIPCA focus their support on

productive proj ects.

The Franciscans and Jesuit Missionaries could not influence the Isoso during the

colonial period as they did on a vast area of the Bolivian lowlands. However, during the

1970s and 1980s, the Catholic and later the Evangelical Church established presence in

the area. The Catholic and Evangelical churches have promoted productive proj ects such

as cattle ranching. According to Benaria-Surkin (2003) the Evangelical presence in Isoso

is promoting cultural and socioeconomic changes among Guarani Isosefios.

Two gas pipelines are located alongside the northern and the western borders of the

TCO Isoso: Gasbol and Gasyrg. (Figure 1-1 and Figure 3-1). Since 1997,

GasTransBoliviano (GTB), a consortium of oil companies has been present in the area.

GTB is the owner of the massive Bolivia-Brazil gas pipeline (Gasbol). Due to the

international and national requirements the owners of the pipeline had to implement a



11 GTB consortium includes the multinationals ENRON and Shell, the Bolivian partially state-owned
Yacimientos Petroliferos y Fiscales de Bolivia (YPFB), the Brazilian state-owned Petrobras and a other
partners.









Plan de Manej o Ambiental (Environmental Management Plan, PMA) and a Plan de

Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indigenas (Indigenous Peoples Development Plan, PDPI) in

order to limit the socio-economic and ecological impacts of this pipeline.

Transierral2 HOw operates the Gasyrg pipeline which began its construction in 2002

and its operation in 2003. The Gasyrg extends from Yacuiba to Rio Grande (Figure 1-1

and Figure 3-1) and connects the southern Bolivian gas fields of San Alberto and San

Antonio with the Gasbol pipeline. Transierra supports the Indigenous Peoples

Development Planning Program (PA-PDI) and the PRAC (Programa de Relacionamiento

y Apoyo Comunitario).

The Isoso area is a complex fabric of different stakeholders. Among them the

Guarani Isosefios are key actors in planning and implementing development programs in

their territory.
























12 Transierra is a consortium integrated by Andina S.A., Repsol YPF S.A. Petrobras
Bolivia S.A. and Total E&P Bolivie S.A.















CHAPTER 4
THE ISOSENTO IVI IYAMBAE AS COMMON PROPERTY

Current theory describes common property as an institution of self-governance that

evolves when participants agree to impose limits on their individual claims. The survival

of common property resources in Isoso implies a long-term history. Despite the current

process of transformation and the uncertain future, the Guarani-Isosefios have

consciously decided to preserve the Ivi-lyanabae land without owner or communal

ownership right and community tenure system as the keystone of their Mbayu dream

or vision as indigenous people. The Guarani-Isosefio Mba~yu embraces five central

elements: Moailete identity; Arakud knowledge; Mborerekua union; lyambae

"without owner" or autonomy; and Yandeyarigui the common origin related to

grandmothers. All these components are closely tied together, and cannot be separated

from the territory land and natural resources. In other words: the Guarani-Isosefio

M~bayu is the vision to remain united as Guarani-Isosefio people, having a common

origin, strong identity and culture, respecting the traditional knowledge the Nandereko or

Guarani-Isosefio way to be. The Guarani-Isosefio territory is the M~bayu' s space

dimension including the land and natural resources. The political and administrative

autonomy of their territory is a crucial obj ective.

The M~bayu was formally incorporated into CABI's strategy planning by the

asa~mblea ofMburuvicha the main Guarani-Isosefio communal institution. The

asa~mblea is a meeting where decisions are done by Guarani-Isosefio captains of all

communities. In July 2005 I interviewed Oscar Castillo, who is a technician supporting









CABI, at his office in Santa Cruz. He explained how CABI developed their strategic plan

with the purpose to maintain, support and develop self-governance in the Isoso. I

understand that this planning is not a static formula, nor a theoretical one. The plan was

elaborated by M~buruvicha asamblea on the basis on their vision or Mbayu to survive as

Guarani-Isosefio People. The M~buruvucha identified those customary institutions which

have supported their subsistence as People. Consequently the strategic plan is supported

by four pillars (Figure 4-1).

* NTeemoai that refers to CABI as the Guarani Isosefio political organization and its
relationship with the external institutions.

* Moa, referring to organization and use of the space and natural resources, the
management of their territory.

* Tekoata that is the institutional and organizational strength.

* Mbaapo the self organization, productive alternatives, education and sustainable
development.

More extensive explanation is developed in this chapter, which focuses on the

cultural elements and institutions that shape and support the Guarani Isosefio M~bayu as

well as on the similarities and differences among the M~bayu and the Community Base

(CBM) and Common Property (CPM) management frameworks.

Randereko: Nature and Characteristics of the Group

According to common property theory the membership of a communal group must

be well defined. Size of the group, common knowledge, past successful experiences, trust

and identity are other mentioned group characteristics needed to be successful in common

resource management (Berkes 1989; Ostrom 1990; Agrawal 2001; Olsom, Folkes and

Berkes 2003).

















Territory and
Natural Resources


MOA

*Use (occupation) of the
space & natural
resources
*Management planning
basing on the natural
and social
characteristics.


MBAAPO

*Self-organization
*Implementation of
sustainable productive
experiences.
*Education, Knowledge
and learning


TEKOATA

*Institution-build ra and

*Capacitating and
participation of Guarani
Isosenos members.
*Rules and internal
agreements


RIEEMOAl

*CABI and itsexternal
relationships:
*Other indigenous and
grassroots .: ?1~:~r ,
Government, private
sector, NGOs, a


Figure 4-1. Guarani-Isosefio Strategically Vision-Mbayu.

The Isosefios have a strong identity that allows them to resist and survive as


indigenous peoples. The Nandereko or Guarani Isosefio way of life is based on their

communal life. According to Albo (1990) there are three aspects that reveal the Guarani-

Isosefio communal life:


* The celebration which involves the convite (to share). On different occasion
members of the community share hunted prey, harvested corn, food, etc. with other
members. The Arete Gua~su or celebration of good harvest is a special occasions to
share among communities.

* The group work is based on cooperation and reciprocity. The Isosefio as a group
share generalized norms of reciprocity and trust that are part of their social capital.
Therefore, the adult men are required do communal work such as maintaining
water channels and fence repair, cleaning farming areas, construction and
maintenance of roads, serving in communal offices, etc. Women support bringing
food and chicha.


* The a~samnblea are the decision-making space at communal and entire Isoso levels.


MBAYU _Vision

Nanderek o


Moailete-Identity
Arakua -Knowledge
Mborerekua-Unity
lyambae- Autonomy
Yandeya rigu i-Origi n









In day to day life each Isosefio belongs to a teta or community or village.

Communities are small enough for people to know each other. Therefore, membership is

explicitly defined. Each Isosefio household is provided with exclusive rights to use a

farming plot and forest resources inside the common property.

In the Isosefio communities, I observed that use rights to the communal forest were

clearly defined by interviewees. The authority interviewed in Isiporenda indicated, for

example, that a third party does not have the right to cut a tree inside the communal

boundaries. The interviewees in Pikirenda mentioned one case, an issue concerning a

neighboring karaik~~~~kkkkk~~~~kkkk or criolla-family who had gained a private title to a plot of property

and who then was also trying to use communal lands to raise their herd. The members of

this family are well known, and like other local karai, they took part in some communal

activities, but once they obtained a private title the community no longer considered that

those karaik~~~~kkkkk~~~~kkkk are no part of Isosefio community. Problems came when the family still

wanted to claim communal advantages. In the same way Tamane, a Karai community,

decided to title their land as private property. Once the Asamnblea approved it, they lost

the right to participate in communal programs and benefits.

Isosefios participate in different activities, organizing "work-groups" or/and

associations that use the communal resource pool, for example a group of hunters, or

the Cupesi-flour producers associations in Pikirenda and Ivasiriri. Those groups are

generally voluntarily made up of neighbors or close kinship members who are well

known to each other. Therefore, I observed that, the membership within those groups is

well defined based on limited size, trust, common knowledge and past successful

experiences.









Some cattle ranching associations have been formed by the Isosefio. In Isiporenda

the association takes care of a communal herd of cattle (Edda Parada informant).

The Isosefio membership is well defined by their Guarani Isosefio way of life or

Nandereko and their common vision of themselves reflected on the M~bayu. The Guarani

Isosefio people have a common origin YanYYYYYYYY~~~~~~~~~deyrgi a strong union -M2borerekua and

they shared the traditional knowledge Arakua all these are characteristics distinguishing

them from the others.

Moa: Space and Natural Resources Use and Boundaries

According to the common property theory, defined boundaries are one of the

most basic characteristics essential to effective common property institutions (Ostrom,

1990, 1999; Agrawal 2001). To Isosefios, the M~oa one of the strategic pillar of the

Mba~yu refers to the use of space and natural resources, as well as the definition of the

physical boundaries.

The Isosefios identify different types (levels) of boundaries within their territory

(1) the broader territorial boundaries, ancestral dominium and actual TCO in process of

titling; (2) the customary village's boundaries; (3) the household use areas like family

farming plots; and (4) the boundaries introduced by proj ects and institutions for

productive activities or natural resource management.


According to Albo (1990) when the Guarani people arrived at the Parapeti bank

they were searching for the Ivi lyamnbae, which means the land without owners. Once

they settled in Isoso and conquered the Chane people, they continued to struggle to

consolidate their territory. The concept of territory holistically includes the farming area,










the forest, rivers, flora and fauna that support the Isosefio's livelihood and with "whom"

they coexist (Albo 1990).

For the Isosefio these resources are accessible to all, they can collect fish and hunt

in this common territory. According to Castillo (2006) between the 1700s and the

beginnings of the 1900s the Isosefio "original dominion" was at least 3 million hectares.

The boundaries have been defined to exclude others and to guarantee their right of access

to their means of subsistence, and formally be recognized as People. The Isosefio fought

physically to defend their territorial access to natural resources. First, they fought against

other indigenous peoples like the Avas and Ayoreode, and later against the cattle

ranchers, and the crown's and Republican government's military forces. After the

Kuruyuki battle in 1894, the Isosefios shifted their strategy from defending their territory

militarily to seeking legal recognition and requesting legal titling. The first communal

title dates from 1932 and included two communities: Yovi and Aguaraigua. By the 1980s

65,000 ha. were titled and almost all communities were included in seven communal

titles (Combes 1999; Winer 2003; Albo 1990; Castillo 2006). Despite the legal titles,

problems with cattle ranchers continued. Moreover, the 1980s brought more complexes

issues.' The expansion of the Bolivian agricultural frontier supported by the Lowland

Proj ect (Proyecto Tierra~sBJajas del Este), an initiative of the World Bank and Bolivian

government, threatened the Isosefio people's survival.


1 Throughout the 1970s and 80s, numerous other national development plans also focused on areas occupied by indigenous
peoples, pushing them onto marginal lands. This situation and the democratic transition in the country inspired among
indigenous peoples the resistance to new market forces that led to alliances, not only at the national but also at the
international level. In 1982 the Confeleracion Incliena clel Oriente cle Bolitid (CIDOB) was created congregating all indigenous
groups of the Bolivian lowlands; and was an important fonun permitting the definition of their own vision of development
and resistance strategies. The struggle for their rights has led to a process of enipowerment taking nmnerous fonns such as
mass mobilization and niarchesl, and day by day activities; winning seats in parliament and municipalities; and taking part in
consultations at national and international level with multilateral bodies. From 1993 to 1997 was a period of constant
reiteration of indigenous rights and Bolivia has redefined its relations with indigenous peoples by sanctioning new laws
(Hirsch 2003).










Lo que ahi se necesita es un titulo comun para todo el Isoso, desde Tarenda (junto a
San Antonio de Parapeti) hasta el ultimo bafiado. (What is necessary there is one
title for all the Isoso, from Tatarenda [near to San Antonio de Parapeti] to the last
swamp). [Testimony from Juan Feliciano Arandico, the communal captain of
Rancho Viej o recovered by Albo 1990 pp 37]

Dn. Arandico referred to one title for all communities as a way to defend the

Isosefio territory all together -M2borerekua against the cattle ranchers and agro industry

encroachment. Because the Isosefio maintained the structure as indigenous people,

combining concepts of territory, autonomy, and identity (Castillo 2006), they visualize

their territory as a geographic space in the Chaco in which they can not only survive, but

thrive, as an independent people in the "Ivi lyamnbae" and sustain the Isosefio 2bayu and

the Nande reko.

As a result of Bolivian normative reform between 1993 -1996, some approved Laws

became key legal instrument to seek the consolidation oflIsosefio territory and natural

resources management. In their role of negotiators, the Isosefios supported the creation of

the protected area in the Gran Chaco, the National Park Kaa lya (NPK) in 1995. The

environmental Law No. 1333 enacted in 1993 allowed CABI participation on the

elaboration of the technical proposal to create the NPK. CABI worked together with

WCS and the National Direction of Biodiversity Conservation to define the protected

area boundaries as well as their participation in the NPK administration. The NPK

encloses important areas of Isosefio' s traditional use and mystical. The creation of the

NPK was viewed by the Isosefio as a way to define boundaries and to stop the aggressive

advance of the agricultural frontier. Therefore, the Isosefio people protect their territory.

Once the new agrarian reform law was approved, the INRA Law no 1725 in 1996, CABI

requested the official recognition of Isoso' s boundaries as Tierra Comunitaria de Origen-

Isoso (TCO Isoso) to formalize their ownership right. The titling of the TCO- Isoso has










been in process since 1998. At present more than 560,000 hectares are communally

titled in CABI's name (A. Noss and O. Castillo pers. comm.).

At the same time, internal boundaries separating different use areas are established

inside the Isoso. Clear internal boundaries reduce conflict over limited resources. For

example, the farming plots limited to irrigated land in the Parapeti river banks are

distributed to each Isosefio family. The firewood collection areas are well distinguished

among communities. Some hunting areas are exclusive to those who have "good relation

with the lyas" (Combes 1998; Noss and Painter 2004).

Members of each community are familiar with their village boundaries, excluding

outsiders from using their communal resources. But not all Isosefios have a clear

understanding of the TCO-Isoso boundaries. Before the titling process had begun, during

the elaboration of NPK' s management plan in 1999, almost all old men could identify the

boundaries of the TCO-Isoso and the historical attachment with their ancestors' territory.

But for young people and women who almost never leave the community the TCO

boundaries were difficult to identify (Linzer and Villasenor 1999).

In the summer of 2005, during the communal meetings, the TCO-Isoso boundaries

seem to be more appreciated among Isosefios. They are expanding their space-

expectation.

During an interview in summer of 2005, the Mbhuruvicha of Rancho Nuevo

narrated to me how they are fencing a new area far away from the village but inside the



2 According to CABI's register 564,000 hectares are titled to CABI as conununal and 165,000 to private
owners. According to press information in Bolpress.com published on October 2005 and the note of press
there were titled 560,636 hectares in favor to CABI and 10 thousand Guaranie peoples families. In all the
process of TCO Isoso it was titled 174,159 hectares to 71 properties. According to the last preliminary data
(data facilitated by Castillo CABI-WCS).









TCO titled area. In Isiporenda, the communal Mbhuruvicha and his adviser complained

about one individual who permanently tries to invade into the TCO titled land the

Isiporenda' s people recognize that area as theirs, being the traditional hunting area and

source of wildlife to the community members.

The boundaries among Guarani Isosefio communities are not physically established

and are relatively flexible among the Guarani Isosefio people (comments from interview

and personal observation). Inside the boundaries characteristic social and ecological

systems are present. The M~oa together with the Nandereko integrates the ecological and

social systems existent in the TCO-Isoso and the Kaa lya NP. These elements are central

to develop the rules and institutions for natural resource management in Isoso.

Tekoata and Mbaspo: Institutional Arrangements and Normative Regime

The biggest challenge to CABI is to seek a better way of life for the Guarani-

Isosefio people, respecting the M~bayu and the Nande reko. Consequently, to guarantee

appropriate management, it is necessary to develop institutional arrangements and rules.

Cooperative decision making and implementation of activities are essential elements. The

Tekoata and Mbaapo, CABI consciously has incorporated elements to improve self

organization, education and training, to strength technical skill, negotiation capacity and

decision making, and to develop natural resource management experiences.

Rules

Rules of use are essential for the management and access to common natural

resources. The rules regarding appropriation of natural resources must be well defined

and adapted to the particular natural and social common property context (Ostrom 1990).

Johnson and Nelson (2004) suggest that collective arrangements must be perceived as fair

by the communal members of the common property institution, and must be collectively









made to be responsive to all of the resource users and to changing ecological or social

conditions, and be acceptable (Johnson and Nelson 2004). In addition there must be

mechanisms of conflict resolution, correction and sanctions for departures from the rules

(Berkers 1989; Agrawal 2001; Olsson et al. 2003).

Within the Isosefio well-known rules are established ascribing certain activities and

use in the different areas. For example, all fishing and hunting areas are not the same: the

access to remote sacred areas, such as the ponds of YandyariY~~~~YYYY~~~~YYY $ or other areas in the forest

near to the hills, are restricted to those with a respectful behavior (Combes 1988). Only

those who know and have the approval of the Kaa lya, or spirit guardian responsible for

ensuring the forest, can gain access (Combes 1998; Noss and Painter 2004).

According to Combes (1998), Beneria-Surkin (2003) and Noss and Painter (2004)

some cultural rules have weakened. Noss and Painter suggest that some traditional rules

that contribute to sustainable use and conservation are being undermined by

socioeconomic changes over the past decades, including new hunting technologies and

changes in employment patterns; reduction of the areas accessible to Isosefio hunters by

the installation of private properties and Mennonite colonies; and the growing population

in the Isoso, among other changes.

Monitoring and Sanctions lyambae

Monitoring common resource use ensures that a communal management system,

defined by rules and boundaries, allows only the group members to carry out the intended

activities. According to Ostrom (1990), monitoring and sanctions imposition should be

applied by members of a communal entity or by persons accountable to the members of


3 Yandeyari here is referring to the place.










the group. Monitoring and sanction of violations are necessary to rule enforcement within

a common property institution.

Monitoring and sanctions of inappropriate activities are established among

Isosefios. The Mbhuruvicha or captains are responsible for dealing with infractions of

internal rules and for maintaining order within the community. At the same time the

community is small enough that everyone generally knows what everyone else is doing,

and therefore an unofficial monitoring is going on.

Despite monitoring every day activities is customary experience, the Isosefio have

to adapt new rules to the present harsh socioeconomic and ecological changes. Attitudes

towards wildlife are not severe they are continuously adapted to peoples experiences in a

changing socioeconomic and ecological environment. There is some experience of self

monitoring by hunters, combining and supporting scientific and local knowledge that

supply elements to raise awareness of natural resources (wildlife) management at the

communal and indigenous territory level (Noss, Cuellar and Cuellar 2001, 2004; Noss

and Cuellar 2003; Noss and Painter 2004).

The Cupesi- associations in Pikirenda and Ivasiriri. In those communities a group

of women have organized themselves in an association. Those associations are supported

by CABI and their communal assemble to experimentally produce Cupesi flour for the

market. In both communities, the interviewed identified administrative training as a key

necessity. They are looking for support to develop skills such as bookkeeping to

monitoring the administration of the cupesi production. In those cases the introduction of

new productive activity involves new skills to monitoring it.










Collective Arrangement and Conflict Resolution

The communal asamblea is the place where communal decisions affecting the

community are made j ointly. It is the forum where all members of one community

together to the communal M~burubicha make decisions and coordinate community

activities such as reparation of water channels or communal infrastructure, and decide

whether to participate or not in a proj ect or program.

The Isoso "Gran Asamnblea is the place where all communal M~buruvicha~s or

captains, the women-M~buruvicha, and the communal assistants make the maj or decisions

affecting all Isoso. In general, Isoso has a well-established and functional means of

ensuring collective decision-making and conflict resolution with the participation of

community members according to the central principles of2~borerekua -unity and

lyamnbae autonomy.

The decision-making process takes time. One asamblea is not enough. The

analysis, discussion and joint decisions must be internalized. The asamblea has rules too:

respect for elders gives them more authority than any one younger; shouting and verbal

confrontations are not allowed (personal comment Angel Yandura). Albo (1990)

describes the main role that the flee ija, literally elders "owners of the word" play in

the community life and asamblea.

There are some trend of communal cattle ranching organization and institutional

development that can be identified. In a few communities, such as in Isiporenda and

Yapiroa, a core of cooperative organization is found. Members of the cooperative take

weekly turns taking care of the herd and the infrastructure. Decisions are made in the

communal asamblea. In Aguarati and Ipapio (Tamachindi) cattle owners have formed

associations to improve and implement cattle ranching practices, having invested in









infrastructure acquisition and maintenance. Mixed-management (private/communal):

private cattle herds are allocated inside the communal fences, with the owners agreeing to

contribute to the communal infrastructure's maintenance. Some communities administer

a monetary fund and owners pay monthly (Based on interviews: Zulema Barahona,

Crecencio Arambiza, Eda Parada, Alejandro Arambiza, Andrew Noss).

Individually-owned free-grazing cattle -which sometimes invades agricultural

plots, and always feeds on the riverine forest- still represents the main challenge to

Guarani Isosefio institutions. The free-grazing herds comprise a maj ority of the cattle in

the region (68% of total cattle of Guarani Isosenos owners) and it involves a large

number of smallholders without investment capacity who consider their cattle a

complementary form of sustenance. Different communities are taking specific decisions

attempting to regulate the cattle's presence. For example, in 2001 the cattle owners from

Koropo were made to move further North and establish Pikirenda, a new cattle ranching

community (From interview with the captain of Pikirenda). In this way, they solved the

invasion to farming plots by free grazing cattle, but did not alleviate the pressure on the

riverine forest. On the other hand, in Yapiroa the community reacted against the planned

clearance of the riverine forest. The clearance was suggested by the technical people from

the cattle-ranching proj ects, and the community decided to move the proj ect away from

the riverine forest to protect that valued ecosystem which brings them shadow,

temperature regulation, wood, firewood, fruits, and flood protection.

Reemoai: Relationships between the Group and External Forces

Common property institutions are not isolated. Therefore the relationship between

the community or group and the external forces and authorities are important elements to

take into account. CABI refers to its relationship with the external institutions as the









Neemoai which includes their relationship with other grassroots indigenous

organizations, the municipal government, the regional and national governments, the civil

society and the private sector.

The relationship between the Isoso and external forces has been changing through

time. The Guarani-Isosefios were essentially warriors and they defended their territory

militarily against the cattle ranching expansion "la conquista de la vaca" during the

colonial and early republican period (Albo 1992). The Spanish crown officially declared

war against the Guarani people who resisted until the beginning of the 1890s. After a

military defeat, the Isosefio leaders shifted their struggle's strategy from warriors to

negotiators (Albo 1990; Beneria-Surkin 2003). Therefore, the M~buruvisha Casiano

Barrientos in 1927 and later Bonifacio Barrientos in the 1940s were the first local

authorities officially recognized as Capitan Grande delAlto y Bajo Isoso by the regional

and national government. They traveled to Santa Cruz and La Paz to demand the

legalization of their communal land as a strategy to be recognized as indigenous peoples

with their own identity.

They [the Guarani] demonstrate a renewed cultural energy, this time focused on
inclusion rather than resistance, but with the crucial caveats that their culture and
language be respected, via bilingual education, and their history rescued from
official distortion. [Albo, 1990 cited by Beneria-Surkin 2003]

During the 1980s a Natural Resources Protection Plan for the department of Santa

Cruz was designed and implemented. Then, a discussion process was stimulated among

Isosefio about the scale and impact of Santa Cruz's expanding agro-industries and about

how they were to improve their own economic status without losing traditional social

structures and values. Therefore, CABI established strategic alliances with other

indigenous groups. CABI supported the formation of the Central de Pueblos Indigenas de









Santa Cruz in 1981 and ten years later the Confederacion Indigena del Oriente Bolivano

(CIDOB).

CABI has achieved a strong capacity to negotiate at local, regional and national

levels. They exercise their rights based on official and legal mechanisms. The following

facts are the most important achievements on the natural resource management terrain:

* The co-management of the Gran Chaco-Kaa lya National Park (KNP) (1995). In
1995, after the creation of the KNP an agreement of its co-administration was
signed between CABI and the national government. With a surface of 3.4 million
hectares this park is the largest in Latin America and the first co-administrate by an
indigenous organization in Latin America.

* The governance of an indigenous municipal district, making CABI the legal
political authority in Isoso. Under the Popular Participatory Law (1994), CABI is
recognized as the first indigenous municipal district government in Bolivia.

* The coordination of development activities of NGOs working in Isoso. Agreement
with APCOB, CIPCA,

* CABI also formed alliances with Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) since the
beginning of 1990s. WCS had begun a program in 1995, to both develop the Park
and promote a sustainable rural development process. The alliance gave them
access to USAID funding and other revenue generated from hydrocarbon activity
within the Park and the TCO-Isoso.

* The co-administration of the Plan de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indigenas4 (PDPI)
through an important agreement with the petroleum private companies (Chapter 3
Stakeholders) and the state (1997 to 2004). The PDPI sought to reduce or mitigate
any negative social and economic impacts of the pipeline' s on the indigenous
peoples living in the area affected by its construction. The PDPI is supported by a
found of $3.7 million that included $1.5 million to support land titling for
indigenous territorial claims by the Guarani-Isosefios, the Chiquitanos and
Ayoreodes.



SThe Bolivia-Brazil Gas pipeline (Gasbol) carries gas from south of Santa Cruz to Porto Alegre- Brazil,
crosses 250 kilometres of TCO-Isoso and KNP land. As a condition the World Bank and the Inter-
American Development Bank required the pipeline owners to design and implement the PMA and the PDPI
(Chapter 3). The PMA defined the actions to be taken during and after the construction of the pipeline to
reduce any negative environmental impacts associated with the construction of the pipeline.










* The agreement between CABI and Transierra the petroleum consortium (2002-
2006) to implement and monitoring the PRAC and PDI.

* Their territorial demand as TCO-Isoso is recognized by the Bolivian government
and other international institutions such as the World Bank and USAID which are
supporting their demarcation and natural resource management planning.

CABI entered those arrangement having as its main obj ective the defense of

Guarani-Isosefio land rights as well as strength self governance. These successful

achievements are unprecedented among lowland indigenous organization in Bolivia.

National recognition as authority in the region enables CABI to prevent further incursions

into their territory by ranchers and large-scale agriculturalists (Arambiza 1996 cited by

Beneria-Surkin 2003).

There is not doubt that CABI is an important stakeholder that is officially

recognized at local and national levels. Despite CABI's political achievements it has not

been strong enough to confront the influences exercised by the large cattle ranchers.

Large cattle ranchers in the eastern lowland are well organized both locally and

nationally. During three different presidential governments they have impeded the titling

of TCO-Isoso through different mechanisms. The "carrying capacity" for cattle ranching

is one of the most contradictory technical arguments used by the landlords and cattle

ranchers to impede TCO land titling. On the other hand, cattle ranchers have taken

advantage of the TCO titling process as many private owners received titles before TCO

titles were signed and they did not pay the cost of the titling.

The current president, Evo Morales, during his inaugural speech used the words of

a Guarani leader "tratenme como a una vaca" meaning "treat me as you would treat a

cow" referring to 25 hectares for each cow used by cattle ranchers to justify the land

concentration in the Chaco region (Ortiz 2006). The relationship between CABI and the









current government representation is difficult to predict. After the nationalization of the

Bolivian hydrocarbons, the issue of land began to gain attention at the national level (La

Raz6n 2006). The Bolivia's turbulent political climate (Hylton 2006) is covering the

hope of great advances. The current government does not clearly differentiate between

highland and lowland Indigenous people and it seeks land to distribute among the

highland peasants (La Razon 2006-2, 3). Consequently, the lowland indigenous territories

are threatened and lowland Indigenous peoples are on the alert (La Raz6n 2006-2).

On the other hand, the cattle ranchers and private owners of the eastern lowlands do

not have the national support that they had before, but they are part of the Santa Cruz

departmental social movement at regional level. That gives them the power to have

political and economic influence in the decision making process. Therefore, CABI's

political strategies to relate to external institutions has to be adapted to different contexts.

A the present time CABI is playing in different local and national scenarios. For example

the main Guarani Isosefio leader Bonifacio Barrientos capitan grande actually occupies a

Congressman at national level and Marcelino Apurani is the provincial authority

strengthening CABI's regional relationships. The Guarani Isosefio are making progress in

developing practical negotiation capacities develop negotiation capacities.

Contrasting the Common Property (CPR) and Community-Base Management
(CBM) Framework to the Mbayu

It is possible to find a close similarity between the theoretical CPR and CBM

framework and the Guarani Isoseno strategically planning process based on the M~bayu

(Figure 4-2). Nevertheless the Mba~yu is not a fixed theoretical framework it is the result

of practical experience with a long history. Its creators are their own protagonist. The

Guarani Isosefio' s resolution to survive as indigenous peoples is the 2bayu' s main







71



obj ective. The Ivi lyamnbae or land without owner or the "land without evil" has guided

the Guarani through centuries. They fight to reach self governance in a territory shaped


by different social and ecological systems. The elements of the M~bayu are tied to each

other and they are part of the all spheres of Guarani Isosefio life. The Mba~yu is also a


political decision.


Contrasting the CPR & CBM framework to the CABI planning (?)


Common Property Community Base Mbayu
Management Framework Moafiete-Identity; Arakus -Knowledge;
Mborerekua-Unity; lyambae- Autoramy;
I it a 121; J B1Erk 1989; Ostrom 1990, 1992) Yandeyarigui- Origin
Governance : Social and Ecological Systems Territory: Common Land and
(Ewrkes 2114, -llll Lane and McDonald 2005, Ostrom 1999)NaulReors

Clearly deistil-1 meler up (1anderekO Communal~lfe cooperation. assemble. convite
Past li sflil epleriene Identty, without owner, knowledge
Lea1-r ilip Group
andInerst CharacteriStiCS *Historical defense of territory: ttling of
Loa kn1 I 11 communal lands, Kasr lya NP and TCO
boundaries.
MOS *Management planning based on natral and
Na~ra Resorcessocial characteristics .
rt BoundarieS *Kaa lya NP and TCO ecological zoning:
I 1-l itlarlarlevaluaton of ecolog cal and social systems.
and S*II
MbaapO *Sustainable productive experiences,
te or g-t ll-st rI Educaton, Knowledge and learning
Fu sarin 111: Institutional
Coif~litres Itin1 alran ement & *Insttton-bulldlng and organlzatonal
iol 1 tori strength.
Ent uemnt it ur st, a r normative regime Tekoata .Capacitatng and participation of Guaran,
A liritablip~ Iscseeto rrembers.
*Rules and Internal agreements

In titlons r Reainhpwt CABI and its external relationships:
Et risI up, the external Neemoai *Other indigenous and grassroots
organizatons Government, private sector,
Leve -I Iupp rt & institutions osa




Figure 4-2. Guarani Isosefio Strategically Planning Based on Mba~yu Contrasting to
Common Property and Community Base Management Theories.

CABI is a strong grassroots organization that decided to keep communal land as a


central element in their subsistence as indigenous people. They do not deny improving


the well being of their communities and therefore they have a vision of themselves as the


M~bayu. The M~bayu incorporates the main principles to maintain social unity and allow

live in comoono t the Guarani Isosefio as social unity and live in a common territory.











On the other hand I argue that the M~bayu is a vision that encompasses a political

dimension and decision making mechanisms. The Mba~yu is a conscientious political

decision related to their subsistence as Guarani Isosefio people, it is a life project. The


M~bayu is a practical and historical experience and the communities are the responsible

stakeholders (Figure 4-3).


Common Property Community
Base Management Framework
IArrawal 21:1:1; Berb es 1989; Ostrorn 199:1, 1992)

Governance : Social and
Ecological Systems ieerkes 2004.
200:5, Lane and Mclonald 21:05, O:strorn 1999)


Mbayu and Territory:
Guarani-Isoseno vision and planning based
on the Nande-reko (life in community).

Common property of land and natural
resources
Practical experience. Responsible of
Political decisions


Rande-reko social &ecological system
Identity;
Unity, cooperation group work,
Autonomy, not-owner;
Traditional knowledge;
Common origins

Self Governance local institutions
Ilndividual-household
Communal assemble and M~buruviche
communities are the main stakeholders -
CABI and Great Assemble are the political
decision-maker.

Partnerships and co-responsibility


Concerned with environmental
management

Recognizing the local communities' role L/
for the development and
implementation of environmental policies '

Enabling local participation
more context-sensitive planning


External directive and objectives


Figure 4-3. Contrasting the Garani Isosefio Mlbayu and the Common Property and Community-
Base Management Framework.

The NTandereko is a social and ecological fabric embracing the main social


principles in a specific landscape or territory which includes the land and ecosystems.

The autonomy or self governance is a central element to the Guarani Isosefios and they

are strengthening their traditional institutions in the changing context they seek for

external co-responsible partnerships that support their Mbayu.















CHAPTER 5
CATTLE RANCHING INT ISOSO

Cattle raising is the largest land use in the TCO-Isoso. The regional land use plan

of Santa Cruz Department (PLUS) recommends extensive cattle ranching as the main

productive activity on the Santa Cruz Chaco and farming and protection on the river

banks of Parapeti river (PLUS 1995). According to Combes (1999) and Alb6 (1992),

once livestock were introduced by the karaik~~~~kkkkk~~~~kkkk in the middle of the nineteenth century, this

radically changed the life in Isoso. Since that point, the history of Isoso has been a history

of conflicts between the Isosefios and the cattle ranchers. In spite of this, this one sees a

growing number of cows belonging to Isosefio in the communities.

At present, cattle ranching activities are in the hands of two different social groups:

1) Guarani Isosefio cattle ranching characterized by the customary and legal communal

land ownership; and 2) the private landholders characterized by individual private land

ownership regime.

The Expansion of Cattle Ranching in Isoso

Three phases of cattle ranching expansion can be identified in Isoso:

* The conquest of original peoples' territories ("la conquista de la vaca"). Since the
colonial period with the implementation in the 1950's of Bohan plan

* The "Bolivian agrarian modernization" private livestock production nourished by
the State and international cooperation. From the 1950's to the beginning of the
1990's

* The "big cattle ranching proj ects" characterized by the introduction of communal
livestock projects founded by NGOs and churches in the Isoso.









A brief description of each of them helps to understand the present cattle ranching

situation in Isoso.

The Conquest of Original Peoples' Territories "La Conquista de la Vaca"

In Bolivia, cattle expansion has been associated with the extension of the

conquerors' power and then the Republican (Govemnment) occupation of the original

people's territories. First the missionary, then the military and private interests introduced

cattle as a way to "civilize" and conquer the aboriginal cultures. According to Saravia

Toledo (n/d), cattle livestock were introduced in the Chaco forest after the mid-1700s by

the Franciscan missions. After Bolivian independence (1825) the Chaco region of the

country was designated for livestock production. As an incentive, the government offered

one square legua (5.6 square kilometers or approximately 3.5 square miles) to whomever

occupied the area. The deepest penetration was through the Parapeti and Pilcomayo rivers

to the East. The Isoso is not an exception to this pattern, despite a long resistance which

denied the religious missions access and repelled the colonial and Republican military.

Finally during the 1840s or 1850s cattle were introduced by a Mr. Mercado, a criollo or

"karaik~~~~kkkk~~~~kkkk (Combes 1999). According to testimony collected by Combes (1999), Mr.

Mercado come to Isoso as a young person and lived among the Isosefio. As an adult, he

introduced the first head of cattle and opened the Isoso to other cattle ranchers who came

to Isoso with their cows and laborers. The cattle invaded Indigenous' farming, gathering

and hunting areas. The growth in number and extension of ranches limited the Isosefios'

access to land and natural resources that they previously had access to. And worst of all,

ranchers came with the intention to reproduce the "criollo" hierarchical system within the

Isoso, which the Isosefio had to continually resist. Combs (1999) relates how cattle









ranchers intended to impose themselves as captains in the communities, or tried to

incorporate the Isosefio people as laborers in the hacienda system.

Modernization: Cattle Ranching Subsidized by the Bolivian State

Since 1960s under the banner of "modernization," a gradual expansion toward the

Chacoan plain was officially stimulated by the Bolivian government which granted the

land and infrastructure for livestock production. For example, during this time the

government built water reservoirs and wells to stimulate cattle ranching, particularly

northwest of the actual TCO-Isoso (in the area knowing as M\~edanosd~~~~~ddddd~~~~ Fociles or "Arenales

de los Guanacos) (Saravia -Toledo 1996). During the military governments in the 1970s

and 1980s land and monetary resources were distributed through a web of corruption.

Close friends and family members of the military elite received vast expanses of land and

credit (credit which never had to be repaid, and which led the "Banco Agricola" to

bankruptcy). According to Romero (2005), almost seven million hectares were

distributed during the Banzer military government (1971 to 1978). In the Chacoan

province of Cordillera one individual could receive more than one "mega-parcel" of land,

for example, the well known Gutierrez family received five parcels with a total of 96,874

hectares in the Santa Cruz Chacoan region (Romero 2005).

During my visits to Isoso, I had participated in the relaxed chatter that accompanied

drinking tea at my host families. In Pikirenda several neighbors shared with me their

stories about: "thousands of cows grazing on the neighboring plain" and great "feasts at

Otto Le6n ranch". The men were peons at Mr. Le6n' s ranch a close friend of that time

President Banzer. Surrounding the community of Rancho Viejo, one can see the evidence

of the ranchers' "good times": Otto Le6n' s abandoned infrastructure, machinery, cleared

land, and water channels. The community itself was completely surrounded by ranches









which limited access to natural resources and livelihood sources (Combes 1999; Albo

1990). Therefore, it is possible to understand why Rancho Viejo is the poorest

community today (Beneria-Surkin 2003).

Over time many of the great private ranchers like Otto Le6n have collapsed.

Without subsidies from the BancoB~~~~BBBBB~~~~BBBB Agricola, and after overgrazing the pastures, they

could not survive economically (personal comment of veterinarian Mr Eurlet).The

"golden era" passed, but the peons and "cowboys" settled in the Isoso establishing the

Karai Isoso, sharing their attachment to cattle ranching activities and poverty with the

Isosefio.

More recently, since 1995, some Mennonite colonies have been established. The

first Mennonite arrived in Bolivian territory between 1954 and 1962, together with other

colonizers (colonies of Russians, Eastern Europeans, and Japanese were also set up).

These foreign colonizers were seen as means to ensure the modernization of lowland

agriculture. Therefore, they received several incentives to colonize new areas and clear

the forest. Even though cattle raising is not a main productive activity for the Mennonite,

they have significant herds. The Mennonite land management system is actually

questioned by some because their agricultural practices are highly destructive of soil

properties (Linzer 1998, CABI, FII and WCS 2001).

Big Projects and the Cattle Raising Incentive Among Isosefios

The "Big proj ects" ("Los Grandes Proyectos") phase began in 1995 with the

Kovei proj ect which fenced 6,781 has for communal livestock production. Since 1995

nine big proj ects have been supported by different resources and implemented through

NGOs working with community members. NGOs such as CIPCA and APCOB together

with the Catholic and Evangelical churches are the most influential promoters of cattle









ranching within Isosefio. At present the government of the Autonomous Community of

Valencia is a main sponsor of cattle ranching proj ects in Isoso, supporting proj ects in

Kopere(s), San Silvestre and Yapiroa. The general outputs of those projects have been

more fenced area, water wells, rustic water reservoirs and cowboys' shelters, leading to

the introduction of more herds of cattle. Proj ects have not yet achieved their objectives:

communal production of commercial meat.

The "big projects" introduced cattle by different ways, but often by buying one or

more bulls with proj ect funds, while the community's members contributed heifers.

Barahona (2005) relates how dairy cows were introduced through 25 pregnant Holland

cows. Each person who received one of those cows had in turn to give one pregnant cow

to another community member and so on. As a result there are 45 Holland -cows in Isoso

today (Barahona 2005).

The Isosefios Cattle Ranching

Many Isosefio have begun independently raising livestock as a complementary

subsistence activity. Cattle is introduced by individual initiative among the Guarani-

Isosefio people via different means: buying or receiving them as wages from neighboring

ranchers; or as a pay for taking care of the cattle herd of family or communal neighbors,

who live or work in the city (Barahona 2005). The 2004 cattle census registered the

number of cattle per owner, as well as some management characteristics, which are

summarized in Table 5-1. According to the data among the Isosefio three main cattle

ownership regimes can be differentiated:

* Individual cattle ownership (under free grazing or fenced management systems)
* Communal cattle ownership (under free grazing or fenced management); and
* Family or group cattle ownership under fenced management.








78



Table 5-1. Number of Isosefios Owners and Number of Head of Cattle by Type of

Property Regime by Community in Isoso.
Cattle Cattle Family
No. individual individually conununally owned
Conununity Population owners owned owned cows
Owners
Owners Using
Free Big Free Free
grazing projects Grazing Fenced grazing
cows fences cows cows cows Fenced
1 Isiporenda 300 31 171 67


4
3


48
3 176


Karapari
Kopere Guazu
Kopere Montenegro
Kopere Brecha
Kopere Loma
Kapeatindi
Yapiroa*
Ivasiriri
La Brecha*
Tamachindi

Koropo
Pikirenda*

Aguaraigua
Rancho Viejo*
Rancho Nuevo
Yovi

Yuqui*
Mini
San Silvestre
Paraboca
Kuarirenda

Aguarati
Guandare*
Joseravi
Tetarembei


10
20 20


8 6 31 50
7 96
17 87
30 703a
40 510
51 529,
6 114
8 74 64 300
8 189
18 94
10 121a
16 238
33 230
0 0
2 49
40 635
7 107
18 14 382 60
15 7 296 180
4 490
8 15
9 320"
393 104 5,695 610

Total owners 497 Total head of cattle


13
15
48




47
10
27
7
11
0
0
0
10
10
0
10
10
25
10




283

8,314


277
217
493
435


31
102
90
586
338


158
13
6,363


928 798


TOTAL


Source CABI data base June 2005; Barahona 2005

a. Data of Yapiroa, La Brecha, Rancho Viejo and Tetarembei lvere uncompleted, having the name of owners but not the
number of cattle. I understand that data were introduced latter, and Barahona 2005 includes the general number of cattle
heads for those communities. I used her general data, in bold italics in this table.


The Individual Cattle Ownership Regime


The maj ority (76% of the total) of the Isosefio herd is individually owned.


According to my interviews, cattle are assigned to different members within the










household as a means to secure an effective source of cash for each person. I take into

account a total of 300 owners registered in the CABI databases (Table 5-2) to calculate

the median and the mode of herd of cattle per person. The median is seven head of cattle

per owner, and the mode two head of cattle per owner. The maximum number of cows

belonging to one individual is 263 head (in Guandare).

Table 5-2. Distribution of Individual Cattle Ownership.
Percent of
Number of head of Number of Percent of total cattle
Cattle per owner owners owners Total cattle herd
1-5 127 42% 373 9%
6-10 73 24% 591 14%
11-15 43 14% 573 14%
16-20 17 6% 325 8%
21-50 24 8% 725 17%
51-75 8 3% 561 13%
76-100 3 1% 237 6%
101< 5 2% 798 19%
Total 300 100% 4,183 100%

Source CABI data base June 2005

It is important to notice that 66% of owners have between one and ten head of

cattle. 6% of the owners have more than 50 head of cattle. There is an indicator of

possible wealth accumulation. The social impacts resulting from this situation must be

studied. There are differences among individuals and communities but, in general, herd

management is almost absent. The largest part of those herds (89%) is freely grazing on

the communal land, invading the farming plots, river banks and household areas (field

observation). This situation should be regulated because so many free grazing cows are

overgrazing the communal forest and grasslands. This is a challenge to the Guarani

institutions that should regulate it. On the other hand individually owned herd (11% of


I do not take in account data of Yapiroa, La Brecha and Rancho Viejo because I did not have access to the
detailed data of those communities. I use the data of Barahona 2005 to complete table 5.1










individual ownership cows) is located inside the communal fences (Table 5-1). Free

grazing herds can be grouped only during the dry season when the cows seek water and

then the communal water-reservoirs are the only source for the cattle (Saravia Toledo

personal comment, Barahona 2005 and field observation).

Therefore, cattle are individually or privately owned but their management depends

on communal resources such as communal water-reservoirs, communal fences and

communal grassland and forest.

The Semi Private-family System

Some Isosefio families or groups of families are able to invest in cattle and fences.

With the approval of the community, the herds are located on communal land, and cattle-

owners do not have ownership rights to the land but have usufruct rights to natural

resources: wild fruit, forage, pasture and water. According to the CABI data base (June

2005) and cattle census (2004) there are 18,824 hectares fenced under this management

system. Around 10 % (798 cows) of the total Isosefios' herd belong to seven family

groups (Table 5-1 and Table 5-3). I did not collect information about the technical

management (sanitary, feed, and reproductive). However, according to the calculated

mean of 23 hectares per cattle head as animal this is an exceedingly extensive managed

sy stem.

The Isosefio Cattle Communal Ownership System

The communal property system is directly related to the big proj ects "Los Grandes

Proyectos". Barahona (2005) includes a description and background of each one of the

nine proj ects established in Isoso. Two main trends can be differentiated. On the one

hand, the herd belongs to the whole community and it is placed in the fenced area of the

communal land (Table 5-1 and Table 5-4). A total of 43,851 hectares were fenced by the










Table 5-3. Family System in Isoso.
No head of Fenced area
Name Community Owners cattle (hectares)
Propieda Karapiti...
Kapeatindi Group of families -494.2
Familia Sacarias
San Silvestre Sacarias Montengro 99 3,528.4
Montenegro
D. Garcia, Nolberta
Propiedad Ipapiao Tamachmndi .346 1,708.4
and Maqulades Castro
San Silvestre/.
Campo Grande Family Sanchez -8,162.7
Koropo
Fortaleza
Kuarirenda Francisco Sanchez 172 4,930.5
Chunka
Kuarirenda 181-
Guandare..
Aguarati Group of familhes--
Total 798 18,824.1
Source: CABI data base June 2005

big proj ects; within this area a total of 928 head of cattle are owned and managed

communally. As was mentioned before, these fences, infrastructure and head of cattle

were sponsored by NGOs: CIPCA 16%, APCOB 35% and the government of Valencia

sponsoring the 49% of total fenced areas. The second trend refers to those cows in

communal ownership that are freely grazing (Table 5-1). Those herds belong to 17

different communities and 70% of them were acquired though the PRAC program (CABI

database 2005).

The "Big Proj ects" have generally had the same strategy: to build the infrastructure

- including fences, water wells, and other facilities and to introduce "reproductive bulls."

The life time of proj ect implementation and technical support is two years on average.

After the NGO's support finished few communities find their own way to organize the

cattle ranching production. Frequently the proj ects are almost abandoned.

In Isisporenda the Yaitarenda proj ect left 20 heifers and one bull (stallion) today

they have 67 head of cattle. Yaitarenda proj ect in Isiporenda has an animal charge of

















Table 5-4. Cattle Ranching Proj ects.


Proj ect-name Community Sponsor Situation Cattle Cattle Total Fenced area
Head Head cattle (hectars)
Communal Private


378


Guaripaku


Kovei


Karumbei

oo Comunidad
~3Guaricusari

Aguarati

Yateirenda
Isiporenda
Yapiroa
Propiedad
SanSilvestre

Rancho Nuevo

Rancho
Nuevo2
Total


Kopere (4)

Koropo, Yovi,
Aguaraigua

Kuarirenda


Kopere (4)

Aguarati

Isiporenda

Yapiroa
San Silvestre

Rancho Nuevo

Rancho Nuevo


20 398


300 450


10,596.64


6,781.15


1,186.97

2,830.84

7,486.95

4,279.78
637.5

9,833.73

159.68

28.72

43,821.96


APCOB


APCOB

CIPCA/PDPI

APCOB

CIPCA

GV

GV


610 1538


Source CABI data base 2005










1 11.7 hectares per head of cattle and Guaripaku proj ect in Kopere has an animal charge

of 26.6 hectares per head of cattle. These high numbers are related to poor management.

Land Use by Cattle Ranching Ownership Regime and Management System

Table 5-5 shows that free grazing individual cattle are the most numerous, as well

as using the most extensive area, without control over where the animals forage, when

they give birth, etc. Owners expend the minimum effort, time and resources on their herd.

Among the main problems of big proj ects are (1) the implementation of cattle

ranching technology without observation of the Chaco ecological conditions, (2) the short

term support that do not allow develop local institutions, and (3) absence of

commercialization strategy. Despite that, the Isosefios accept big proj ects because they

bring more heads of cattle and infrastructure such as fences and water well which are

high valued by the communities.

Table 5-5. Number of Head of Cattle and Land Use by Ownership Regime and
Management System in the Guarani-Isoso.
Cattle Individual Cattle Communal Cattle Family Total
Ownership Ownership Ownership Cattle
Regime / Ownership
Management Free Fenced (1) Free Fenced (1) Fenced (2)
system grazing grazing
No. Head of
Cattle 5,695 610 283 928 798 8,314
Land Use
(hectares) 68,340 3,396 43,851 18,824 134,411
Hectares/head
of cattle 12 12 47.3 23.6 16.17
Note (1) the individual cattle fenced is located inside of the communal ownership fenced area. (Source: CABI
data base June 2005).

The individual herds inside communal fences, 610 head of cattle which belong to

104 owners (Barahona 2005 and CABI data base, June 2005) seems to be an interesting

trend. According to Barahona (2005) and Arambiza (interviewed in summer 2005), some









communities are establishing norms to use communal fences. For example, in Kovei the

Isosefio's private cattle use the fenced area and their owners pay monthly per head to the

communal administration.

The Private Landholders in the Isoso

Cattle ranching by private landholders is the most extensive activity overall in

TCO-Isoso. A complete private landholder's register should result from the SAN-TCO

process. The partial information was available through FII technical office and is

summarized in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6. Cattle Ranching Systems Non-Guarani Isosefio in the Isoso.
Polygon/ category Number of Total Area Head of Agriculture
owner (ha) cattle (ha)
POLYGON 1
Agroindustry Cattle ranching 11 64,677 6,333 12, 117
Mennonite Colony 2 23,866 3,700 8,000
Privates 40 106,706 12,542 1,183
Cattle ranching 34 87,625 10,152
Mixed 6 19,081 2,390 1,183
Subtotal 53 195,249 22,575 21,300
POLYGON 3
Mennonite Colonies 4 44,217 13,392 8,000
Privates Cattle ranching 26 115,561 11,804 336
Peasant-Agriculture 4 433
Subtotal 34 160,211 25,196 8,336
POLYGON 4
Military 1 11,918 200 100
Privates Cattle ranching 29 104,185 16,294
Subtotal 30 116,103 16,494 100
POLYGON 5
Private Cattle ranching 44 269,378 36,555
Subtotal 44 269,378 36,555
TOTAL 161 740,941 100,820 29,736

Source preliminary data Saneamiento TCO Isoso
FII-CABI









Data reveal that there are two main types of private cattle ownership systems. On

one hand, there is the individual cattle ranching system that includes the extensive

traditional cattle ranches, the mixed-ranches with agricultural forage as food supplement

and the agro-industry. On the other hand, there is the Mennonite cattle ranching System

differentiated by the collective organization of production and strong social fabric inside

the colonies.

Individual Cattle Ranching System

According to Linzer (1998) as well as the preliminary data of TCO-Isoso titling

process (SAN-TCO-Isoso) the cattle ranches with extensive management are located on

the Southern area of the TCO-Isoso (polygons 3 and 5) while the "mixed ranches" and

agro-industry are generally located on the Northern part (polygons 1 and 4). Different

ecological and socioeconomic factors influence this pattern. Firstly, ecological factors

such as the annual rainfall regime that varies from SE to NW from 475 mm to 1000mm

annual rainfall. Rainfall patterns are associated with different natural forage availability.

Secondly, the distance and access to the main cities influence the commercialization

opportunities. The northern area is closer to Pailon and Santa Cruz which are most

important agro-industrial developed areas in Bolivia. The southern areas are more

isolated and the access is too difficult on the rain season.

Cattle ranches in the Southern areas practice more extensive cattle ranching, an

activity with low yield complementing other livelihood strategies (Linzer 1998). The herd

is frequently free-ranging with poor management, without control over livestock

movements or genetic selection. The criollo race predominates because it resists the

extended dry season (CABI 2001). The cattle is sold year round but principally in the dry









season. The cattle is transported on the hoof by truck to the commercial areas of Santa

Cruz and Chuquisaca (cattle ranchers comments).

Concordant with south-north ecological transition, cattle ranching systems tend to

shift from extensive to mixed cattle ranching. Mixed cattle ranching in this area is

characterized by cultivated grass, fenced areas, application of breeding, health and feed

technologies. This activity is influenced by the agro-industry located in the northern areas

of the TCO-Isoso (Polygons 1 and 4), which is characterized by the high investment in

machinery and infrastructure. The private properties in those areas are generally large,

between 2,000 hectares and 15,000 hectares. The administration and management are

handled by full-time technicians as well as temporary personnel during the harvest

season. The market oriented production is linked with the credit system and main

markets in Santa Cruz and Pailon.

The Mennonite System

Mennonites have been established in two areas of the TCO Isoso (Table 3-4 and

Table 5-6). In the South between the Isosefio communities oflIsiporenda and the town of

Charagua (Polygon 3), four Mennonite colonies were established in 1995: Pinondy,

Pinondy Itaguazurenda, Casa Grande and Durango. Two other colonies, La Milagrosa,

and Santa Clara, were established later in the Northern part of the TCO Isoso (polygonl).

The population of all together is approximately 10,000 peoples. Commercial agriculture

is their main activity and livestock is a complement, however, it is intensively-managed.

Altogether, the Mennonites have 17,092 head of cattle (database CABI May 2006 and

personal comment Castillo).









Table 5-7. Demographic and Productive Characteristics of Mennonite Colonies in the
Isoso.
Colonia Homes Population AreaCattle AreaAgric Cattle (a) AreaTotal
(c) (c) (ha) (b) (ha) (a) (ha) (a)
Poligon 3
Pinondi 300 2,700 9,800 2,800 4,500 15,800
Pinondi
Itaguazurenda 164 1,472 6,500 1,800 2,600 8,000
Durango 374 3,366 11,480 2,400 4, 195 13,980
Casa Grande 109 981 5,437 1,000 2,097 6,437
Sub total 947 8,519 33,217 8,000 13,392 44,217
Poligone 1
La Milagrosa 353 3,278 6,400 8,000 1,200 16,245
Santa Clara 166 1,491 6,035 ;,..? 2,500 7,621
Sub total 519 4,769 12,435 8,000 3,700 23,866
TOTAL 1,466 13,288 45,652 16,000 17,092 68,083
Sources:(a) preliminary data SAN-TCO. (b) CABI-FII Oscar Castillo comments. (c) INE
national census 2002


Mennonites raise dairy cattle for auto consume, butter and cheese industry. Among

Mennonites women are responsible for the herd of cattle. Strong cultural believes limit

men's participation in cattle raising activities. Despite that fact, there is evidence that

some Mennonites are shifting to more cattle ranching activities in the northern part of the

TCO Isoso (field visit 2003). One Mennonite was interviewed and he identified the

subsequent poor harvest and dry season as major motivation to shift from agricultural

production to more cattle ranching production. Many Mennonites have preferred selling

their land before adopting more cattle ranching activities because this shift implies

significant cultural changes. Those Mennonites who are raising more cattle are buying

more land to expand the cattle ranching activity. Consequently, those Mennonite-ranchers

are increasing their plot size and becoming more individual owners.









Ecological and Socioeconomic Effects

There is evidence of overgrazing and soil erosion caused by the herd of cattle in the

Isoso (Leon 2003; Winer 2003; Navarro 1998, 2002; Guerrero 2002). The Isosefio's free

grazing cattle contribute to the overgrazing in more extensive area using 71,736 hectares.

Two main elements contribute to the overgrazing in Isoso, the first is directly related to

the management system and the second is related to the natural condition of the dry

Chaco.

On one hand, the livestock in Isoso has been characterized as "unmanaged"

(Linzer, 1998; Saravia Toledol996, personal comments2002). "Unmanaged" means that

livestock have been generally under-rotated, temporally or locally overstocked, without

sanitary and reproductive control. On the other hand, the rainy season in the Chaco is

concentrated at the end of spring and summer (September to February), and is

characterized by a high variability inter-annually, seasonally, and monthly. That means a

high fluctuation of grass production from year to year. Therefore, variability and

unpredictability are part of the Chaco climate.

The forage-resources in the Chaco are numerous and belong to different strata:

arboreal, shrub and herbaceous (Saravia Toledo 1994; Avila 2002). Saravia-Toledo

(1994) indicates that in "El Salvador" an experimental cattle ranch in the Bolivian

Chaco it was observed that cattle consume foliage, fruits, twigs or entire plants of 11

arboreal species, 20 shrubs, 66 herbaceous non-grasses and 50 grasses. Despite of that

variability and that the Isosefio herds occupy extensive woodlands and grassland areas,

the herds in Isoso tend to congregate in some areas because, as other herbivore-ungulates,

they forage selectively (Saravia Toledo 1994; Gordon 2004) and because they seek water

sources which are scarce in the Chaco dry forest (Adamoli 1972; Saravia Toledo 1994










personal comment 2002; Linzer 1998). In others words, the cattle concentrate in some

areas where the grass is more palatable and where water is available. Consequently those

areas become overgrazed.

According to Saravia Toledo (1996), Navarro and Avila (in Guerrero 2002), Leon

(2002) the maj or effects related to overgrazing are: Soil-compaction, degradation and loss

of forage resources, transformation of the landscape due to the invasion of woody

elements in the grassland, changes in the vegetation composition and habitat degradation

for the wild animals and change in vegetation composition due the alteration of

vegetation regeneration, the limited natural re-growth of palatable species, favoring the

non-palatable.

The riverine forest is one of the ecosystems more pressured by the free Isosefio

cattle. For example, an evaluation of that forest resource shows that the natural re-growth

of mesquite (Prosopis chilensis) is threatened by the cattle grazing, and to find specimens

under 30 years of age in some areas of Isoso is almost impossible today (Leon, 2003).

The new community of Tetarembai was established in the area of the Bu Ii( a dm dellsoso

(wetland). Their cattle ranching development is a threat for this important ecosystem.

In the social terrain, data reveals that few individuals only 3% of the owners are

accumulating individual wealth in form of cattle and they are using considerable area in

the communal land. There is not information about social consequences from this fact

even though it is possible expect differences in power relations. In the other hand cattle is

an important livelihood in general the Isosefio are expecting to raise more cattle they are

seeking for more cattle ranching proj ects.