Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Migration and Forests: People in Motion – Landscapes in Transition

487 views

Published on

Presented by Peter Cronkleton of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) on CIFOR Annual Meeting 2018 (4 Oct 2018)

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

Migration and Forests: People in Motion – Landscapes in Transition

  1. 1. Migration and Forests: People in Motion – Landscapes in Transition CIFOR Annual Meeting 2018 Bogor, Indonesia 10/4/2018
  2. 2. How does our research engage with scholarship on forestry and the Agenda 2030 on sustainable development? Key elements of current transitions on forested landscapes o Enhanced mobility o Population and community change in sending and receiving areas o Varied impacts of remittance incomes and investments Overview
  3. 3. However, forest policy and research tends to assume • Static and spatially bound rural households and communities • Issues of migration, mobility and remittances are outside the attention of natural resource policy makers Migration perceived as • Disruptive (“migrants are a problem”) • Sign of livelihood failure Expected policy solutions attempt to keep people from moving Overview
  4. 4. Agenda 2030 on Sustainable Development Migration and Remittance targets are included, particularly Goal 10 Critiques: • Only focus on international migration • Emphasize management of migration • Reflect growing anxiety in Europe and North America over the ‘migration crisis’ • Tension and tradeoffs between ‘managed migration’, inequality and environmental sustainability Overview 10.7 Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies. 10.C By 2030, reduce to less than 3 % the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 %
  5. 5. CIFOR’s Migration and Forests program Migration and forests: People in motion - landscapes in transition Seeks to address gaps in current scholarship and policies Comparative research to document and understand: • Who is moving • Where are they moving? • How are they moving and what patterns does this produce? • Why are they adopting these strategies? • How do these trends affect land-use decisions, livelihoods, strategies, social dynamics, gender roles and forest management?
  6. 6. Examining Migration in the Peruvian Amazon
  7. 7. ❖ Migration seen as key driver of deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon ❖ Lack of systematic information about migration, the characteristics of migrants or the actual effects of migration on forests ❖ Underlying narrative emphasizes population shift by Andean peoples from highlands to forested lowlands Migration and Peru’s Forest Frontiers
  8. 8. ❑ Neshuya landscape, formerly production forest occupied in the 1980s ❑ Abujao-Shesha landscape, tradition floodplain settlements ❑ Tournavista landscape, older frontier with overlapping property claims ❑ Pisqui landscape, indigenous communitiesTournavista Abujao-Shesha Neshuya Research Sites Pisqui
  9. 9. Focus Group Interviews ▪ 30 Focus groups (28 groups disaggregated by gender and 2 mixed groups) ▪ 200 participants Systematic Survey ▪ 308 household interviews (30% of resident households) ▪ Landholders, landless and care takers Key Informant Interviews Land Use Change Analysis (in collaboration with Temple University) Methodology
  10. 10. Migration Indicators in Peru • Birthplace (whether individual had been born at location when counted during the census) • Recent migrants (whether the individual had lived at a different location 5 years earlier) Where were the migrants in our sample?
  11. 11. Migration Indicators Born in village Distribution in landscapes 6% 94% All Informants Yes No 2% 98% Abujao Yes No 0% 100% Neshuya Yes No 23% 77% Pisqui Yes No 2% 98% Tournavista Yes No
  12. 12. Migration Indicators Origin of Informants Distribution of ‘Amazonians’ varied
  13. 13. Migration Indicators Recent Migrants Distribution in landscapes 20% 80% All Informants Yes No 47% 53% Abujao Yes No 24% 76% Neshuya Yes No 8% 92% Pisqui Yes No 11% 89% Tournavista Yes No
  14. 14. ❖ Diverse migration drivers cited by focus groups  Search for arable land  Forced migration (terrorism and violence, natural disasters)  Search for economic opportunity (wage labor, investment in land)  Search for public services ❖ Access to land cited as main driver of migration ❖ However, many non-indigenous informants had not been landless prior to migration o 47% had owned land at previous home o Of those, 50% owned less than 4 ha o 13 informants owned more than 50 ha Migration Patterns and Settlement
  15. 15. ❖These were long-term, stable settlements • Average time informants lived on site:19yrs • Most villages initially settled in 1970s or 1980s ❖Occupation through spontaneous settlement • Residents demarcated properties on their own in collaboration with neighbors • Forest lands targeted for occupation because seen as unused • Later the state formalized property claims • Tendency to only title deforested areas PHOTO Migration Patterns and Settlement
  16. 16. Most properties were small • The average property size overall-- 34 ha • Variation at landscape sites (averages ranged from 5 to 62) • Largest individual properties -- up to 200 ha Farming was major source of income • Mixed agriculture/wage labor common • Cacao and cattle prevalent sources of income where infrastructure and market access better Estimated average monthly income • Neshuya:US$455, Abujao: US$178, Pisqui: US$123, Tournavista: US$324 PHOTO Migration Patterns and Settlement
  17. 17. Land Use Change
  18. 18. TournavistaLand Use Change 1985 2005 2015 1995
  19. 19. NeshuyaLand Use Change 1985 2005 2015 1995
  20. 20. AbujaoLand Use Change 1985 2005 2015 1995
  21. 21. PisquiLand Use Change 1985 2005 2015 1995
  22. 22. Land Use Change • Dramatic forest loss between 1995 – 2005 in two landscapes • Less forest loss in inaccessible areas NeshuyaTournavista Abujao Pisqui
  23. 23. Change in Mature Forest NeshuyaTournavista Abujao Pisqui
  24. 24. What is the link between migration and deforestation? ❖ Migration and spontaneous occupation of forests does entail land use change ▪ Economic migrants searching of agricultural options ▪ Forest policy discourages small-scale management options ❖ Rather than driver, more a symptom of governance dynamics nationally and regionally Discussion
  25. 25. Strategic policy dialogue needs to move beyond broad generalizations ❖ Forest management options to address migration? ▪ Facilitate local management in forest areas ▪ Viable options for forests/trees for small scale producers ❖ Is all deforestation equal? ❖Where? ❖By whom? ❖For what? Discussion
  26. 26. Conclusions ❖ Spontaneous settlement has produced grassroots agrarian reform ❖ State lands occupied by migrants ❖ Later, state agencies formalize claims ❖ Pattern results in forest conversion ❖ Much forestland owned by state ❖ Forest perceived as unused ❖ Titling focused on cleared land ❖ However, migration patterns not clearly linked to deforestation patterns – infrastructural improvement was key driver
  27. 27. cifor.org blog.cifor.org ForestsTreesAgroforestry.org THANK YOU

×