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

1. Migration and Forests:
People in Motion –
Landscapes in Transition
CIFOR Annual Meeting 2018
Bogor, Indonesia 10/4/2018

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. 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. 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. 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. Examining Migration in
the Peruvian Amazon

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. ❑ 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. 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. 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. 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. Migration Indicators
Origin of Informants
Distribution of ‘Amazonians’ varied

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. ❖ 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. ❖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. 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. Land Use Change

18. TournavistaLand Use Change
1985
2005 2015
1995

19. NeshuyaLand Use Change
1985
2005 2015
1995

20. AbujaoLand Use Change
1985
2005 2015
1995

21. PisquiLand Use Change
1985
2005 2015
1995

22. Land Use
Change
• Dramatic forest loss
between 1995 –
2005 in two
landscapes
• Less forest loss in
inaccessible areas
NeshuyaTournavista
Abujao Pisqui

23. Change in Mature Forest
NeshuyaTournavista
Abujao Pisqui

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. 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. 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. cifor.org
blog.cifor.org
ForestsTreesAgroforestry.org
THANK YOU