1

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS IN HIGH-MIGRATION COMMUNITIES IN THE WESTERN

HIGHLANDS OF GUATEMALA: A QUALITATIVE STUDY

Sandra Saenz de Tejada May 2009

FINAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WORLD BANK

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3

OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................... 5

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 5

BACKGROUND: THE STUDY SETTING............................................................................................. 6

MAIN RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 9

1. Huehuetecos on the move ................................................................................................... 9

A. Seasonal migration in recent history ............................................................................... 9

B. Long term migration: El Norte ....................................................................................... 10

2. Remittances and poverty alleviation .................................................................................. 13

A. The manifold utilization of remittances .......................................................................... 13

B. Perception of costs and benefits of international migration .......................................... 15

C. Perception of success ...................................................................................................... 16

D. Migration and changes in food consumption and production: topics for future research ............................................................................................................................................. 17

3. Local effects of the financial crisis in the U.S. .................................................................... 18

A. Local perceptions ........................................................................................................... 18

B. Effects on food consumption ......................................................................................... 19

C. The crisis and return migration ...................................................................................... 20

D. Reassessing migration .................................................................................................... 21

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 23

Needs for further research ...................................................................................................... 23

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 25

3

INTRODUCTION Economic crises throughout history have seen dramatic and far reaching implications for migrants and their families. During economic downturn migrants are often the earliest and probably the most affected. In the current global financial crisis, some countries are reducing the number of migrants admitted for employment and/or toughening immigration enforcement, while others are encouraging migrants to return home through financial incentives. For many, migrating to work and to support dependents in source countries is becoming an increasingly insurmountable task. Migration has played a significant role in Guatemala ever since colonial times. It has taken diverse shapes: rural seasonal migration from the densely populated highlands into the fertile lowlands, rural- urban migration associated with incipient industrialization, forced resettlement during the Civil War, and more recently, international migration, mostly to the United States. Prior to 2007, the U.S. economy had a steady pattern of growth for several decades, and during this period it attracted record numbers of new immigrants: the U.S. migrant stock quadrupled from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38.1 million in 2007. It has been estimated that more than one million legal immigrants entered the U.S. each year for much of the past decade, in addition to about another half a million that entered illegally (Passel and Cohn 2008). Estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center show that the illegal immigrants account for about one third of the foreign-born labor force, and that most of them come from Latin America. These workers are overrepresented in certain industries such as construction, where they account for 12 percent of employment (Kochhar 2009, Passel and Cohn 2008). The current financial crisis in the U.S. has led to a sharp rise in unemployment. It has been suggested that illegal immigration flows are more responsive to economic changes than legal immigration flows, and the estimates of the unauthorized population stock over time show a strong correlation with the business cycle in recent years (Papademetriou and Terrazas 2009). From 2000 to 2008, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. increased from an estimated 8.4 million to 11.9 million (more than 40 percent; Passel and Cohn 2008). In addition, border apprehensions data show that fluctuations in migrant apprehensions along the Southwest border have closely tracked changes in U.S. labor demand since about the 2001 recession (Papademetriou and Terrazas 2009). In addition to the reduction in demand for workers in the U.S. labor market, there are stricter immigration enforcement policies, notably border enforcement and deportations, state laws targeting unauthorized immigrants and their employers, high-profile worksite raids, and anti-immigrant environment in many parts of the U.S., all of which negatively affect migrants’ livelihoods. In this context of diminished prospects for employment, the "opportunity differential" that led many to migrate tends to be reassessed, with return migration becoming a more attractive option. Guatemala, with a population of about 14 million, has the common ingredients for high rates of emigration: political instability, natural disasters, and restricted economic opportunity. The country's 36-year civil war, which ended in 1996, caused thousands of political refugees to flee to Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, though many in Mexico returned once the war was over. Migration to the U.S. recorded a steep rise after the 1976 earthquake, and rose further during the 1980s, remaining relatively steady throughout the 1990s, and increasing dramatically at the turn of the century (see Graph 1).

4

Graph 1: Migration trends 1990-2006

Source: OIM (2008)

According to the latest report of the International Organization for Migration in Guatemala (OIM 2008), approximately 1.5 million Guatemalans now live in the U.S. (around 11 percent of the total Guatemalan population). The OIM also estimates that between 6,000 and 12,000 new Guatemalan migrants arrive in the U.S. via Mexico each year. Most migrants are young (20-34 years of age), married men; migration by women has shown a gradual increase, and currently comprise 27 percent of all migrants. The majority are undocumented migrants who usually send remittances once a month to support their families. The remittance receipts have increased dramatically in the last five years and are imperative for the survival of many rural households (see Graph 2). Graph 2: Remittance flow

Source: Banco de Guatemala

These flows average US$345 per month per migrant. More than half go to rural areas with high levels of poverty, where they are used mostly for consumption and to support other activities, such as education and home improvement (OIM 2008). Guatemalans who enter both Mexico and the United U.S. illegally are subject to deportation. Each year, the OIM estimates that some 60,000 Guatemalans are deported from Mexico; in addition, repatriation from the US has increased dramatically in the past five years: 7,029 Guatemalan were deported in 2004, deportations more than doubled (18,305) by 2006, and last year (2008) the number of deportations exceeded 25,000 Guatemalans. Those that succeed crossing the border have settled mostly in California (35.2 percent), New York (11.2 percent), Florida (8.5 percent) and Texas (7.0 percent). Migrants tend to have limited

5

education, but their mean years of schooling is still two years above the national average (7.6 vs. 5.1 years; OIM 2008).

OBJECTIVES In the spring of 2008, the World Bank (WB) carried out a household survey on a sample of 1,222 households in four municipalities in Guatemala’s Huehuetenango department (IRMISAN survey). The communities of interest are characterized by high levels of chronic malnutrition as well as large migration flows. The main objective of that study was to assess the impact of international migration on food security and nutritional status of children under six. As a follow up to that effort, the main objective of this study was to conduct a rapid, qualitative assessment of the effects of the financial crisis at the household- and community levels in four communities that were sampled in the 2008 survey. These included changes in migration flows, the volume or frequency of remittances, and effects in consumptions patterns and changes in livelihood patterns.

METHODOLOGY 1. Selection of study sites. Together with the WB team and a local consultant, four

communities were selected in four municipalities: Nueva Catarina, Jacaltenango; El Tabacal, Santa Ana Huista; El Chilcal, Cuilco; and the county seat in San Gaspar Ixil. Early in April of 2009, all communities were visited, and the study team was introduced to the local authorities (Cocode) to obtain their endorsement of and support for the study.

2. Data collection. Three techniques were used: semi-structured individual interviews; focus group discussions; a short survey that was given to the focus group participants. The focus group discussions were held with female members from all households interviewed in each of the four communities as part of the 2008 survey. Except for San Gaspar, participants were divided in two groups in order to have more manageable discussions. In San Gaspar, the discussion was held in the local language (Mam), whereas Spanish was used in the other three communities. Individual semi-structured interviews were held with the community leaders, ex-migrants and recent (past 16 months) returnees. Finally, a brief survey was administered to the focus group participants. The results of this survey are not included in the present report.

Table 1: Data collection

Technique Santa

Catarina El

Tabacal El

Chilcal San

Gaspar Total

Focus group discussions 2 2 2 1 7

Individual interviews 10 5 4 6 25

3. The research team. The team was made up of two anthropologists (Margarita Ramírez

and Sandra Sáenz de Tejada), three local assistants that had worked as enumerators in the 2008 survey (Mariela Monjaraz, Maitee Aguilar, Silvia Pérez), and Manrique Díaz, the former field director of the 2008 survey.

4. Data analysis. All qualitative or text data was coded, sorted and analyzed with the help of WinMax 98, a software package developed for text analysis.

6

BACKGROUND: THE STUDY SETTING Cradled in the Cuchumatanes mountain range, Huehuetenango is located in the Northwestern highlands, bordering the Mexican state of Chiapas (see map). Its topography allowed the presence of several ethnic groups with distinct languages: 65 percent of its population speaks at least one of these Mayan languages: Akateko, Chuj, Popti’, Mam, Tektiteko, Awakateko, K’iche’ or Q’anjob’al. Even before the Spanish conquest, the area was known for its itinerant population: they practiced agriculture in a “vertical archipelago”, farming both in the nearby highlands and traveling to the lowlands, sometimes even to the Pacific piedmont (see Tejada 2002). In addition, extensive trade networks across the Sierra Madre in Chiapas and into the Soconusco have been in place for several centuries (see Navarrete 1980). In more recent times, the people of Huehuetenango have also relied on migration as part of their livelihood. Given their insufficient access to good farming land, for generations they have relied on seasonal migration to coffee plantations in both Guatemala and Chiapas, and to a lesser extent to other plantations along the Pacific piedmont. To exacerbate the chronic land shortage, in the last 40 years the population quadrupled on a land base that is not getting any larger. Most Huehuetecos struggle to meet their every day needs. Indeed, 71 percent of them live below the national poverty line. And of those, 22 percent live in extreme poverty (INE/ENCOVI 2006). Among the Huehueteco indigenous population, the situation is even more appalling: 84 percent of the population is poor, and 25 percent of the poor live in extreme poverty (the national average rates of absolute and extreme poverty are is 51 and 15 percent, respectively; INE/ENCOVI 2006). While these numbers show a modest improvement from 2000, when the national rate of poverty was 56 percent, there might be an actual increase in the absolute number of total poor. In addition, the alleged decrease in the incidence of poverty affected only the Ladino population. The ethnic gap in poverty levels effectively increased between 2000 and 2006. While the rate of poverty among the indigenous population remained unaltered (declined from 76 to 75 percent in the period of 2000-2006), the Ladino population witnessed a more substantial reduction in poverty (declined from 41 to 30 percent in the same period; INE/ENCOVI 2006). Guatemala’s Civil war was particularly brutal in Huehuetenango, exacerbating poverty and turning thousands into refugees and internally displaced. Many Huehuetecos fled to refugee camps in nearby Chiapas and others fled further afield to the U.S. and Canada (for a detailed account of the civil war in Huehuetenango, see Castañeda 1998, Kobrak 2003; for the municipality of Cuilco see Camus 2008). The civil war officially ended in 1996 with the signing of an internationally-brokered peace accord, but the wounds created by the conflict are far from healed. In areas hardest hit by the conflict, residents still fear government officials, distrust neighbors and any form of community organization for fear of reprisals. There has been some improvement in the provision of basic services, but little advancement in the standards of living. Mounting poverty now comes face to face with growing ecological impoverishment and the growing presence of drug cartels. In the face of apparent insurmountable adversity and lack of local alternatives, many Huehuetecos (13 percent of the total population) are now going north, looking for opportunities in the U.S. Several municipalities in Huehuetenango, particularly Jacaltenango and Soloma, began migrating to the US in large numbers since the early 1980s. Huehuetecos have established dense networks of migrants in Florida and in Los Angeles and have managed to send a large volume of remittances (during 2008 they sent US$366 million). They have

7

8

succeeded to escape grinding poverty and their remittances, which are used for a variety of short-term needs and long-term purposes, have yet to decisively reduce poverty levels (for detailed information on Huehueteco migrants see Guzmán 2004, Popkin 2005, Camus 2007, 2008; and Palma et al 2007). Chronic child malnutrition is particularly high in this part of the country. According to the ENSMI 2002(DHS) the prevalence of stunting in the NW region (which comprises Huehuetenango) is 68.3%. More recently, the IRMISAN survey showed stunting rates of 53% among participating households in the four visited municipalities in Huehuetenango, with wide geographical variation (see Graph 3). Santa Ana has the lowest prevalence (around 30%), but those in San Gaspar and Cuilco are twice as high.

Graph 3: Stunting in children under six in the study area

Source: IRMISAN

Despite the high levels of poverty, there is evidence that child malnutrition has improved in the last eight years. When comparing the prevalence of stunting among first graders (children aged 7-8) measured in 2001 and in 2008 by the Ministry of Education, it is clear that in the municipalities visited for this assessment, except for San Gaspar, the rates have gone down (see Graph 3). Malnutrition declined rapidly in Santa Ana Huista and moderately in Jacaltenango and Cuilco. In San Gaspar, on the contrary, the rate even increased (see Graph 4).

Graph 4

Source: Mineduc (Censo de talla 2001, Censo de talla 2008)

9

MAIN RESULTS Findings from the focus group discussions and individual interviews have been sorted under three main topics: 1) Migration patterns in the last twenty years, 2) The changing nature of remittances, and 3) Perceptions of the effect of the financial crisis in the U.S. in the local arena.

1. Huehuetecos on the move

A. Seasonal migration in recent history Most focus group participants could recall when their parents and grandparents used to migrate to the coffee and cotton plantations in the Pacific piedmont and elsewhere in Guatemala. Some of the participants even migrated themselves, as the whole family would harvest these crops. Currently, seasonal migration to the Guatemalan plantations is rather limited. In El Chilcal and El Tabacal only a few are willing to work in coffee plantations in Agua Dulce and Cantinil or elsewhere. Participants explained that they go only for sheer necessity: the purchase of fertilizer is essential and to secure the funds they would spend 4-6 weeks harvesting coffee. In Catarina, participants reported that it was no longer worth the effort to seek employment at these plantations and that they were currently growing cash crops (peanuts and Hibiscus). In San Gaspar, participants were very emphatic about ending migration to the Guatemalan plantations. They said that the working conditions were abysmal, the pay was low (Q301 per load), lodging was miserable, food was not subsidized, and that wages were not paid until the end of the harvest season. In all four communities, people migrate to Mexico (mostly to Chiapas) to harvest coffee, maize and different types of fruit, but in varying intensity. In El Chilcal and El Tabacal, very few cross the border, while in San Gaspar, Mexico seems to have become the locality of choice. In Catarina very few villagers still want to go to Chiapas, especially now, with the “new disease.”2 Participants also mentioned that stricter border controls were in place, and that after the recent devaluation of the Mexican peso, migration to Chiapas was less attractive than it used to be. Villagers constantly evaluate returns, taking into consideration the current exchange rate, physical exertion and on-going wages. A few years ago, many families were migrating to the Mexican plantations from El Chilcal and El Tabacal. Several women are said to have worked as cooks, getting up as early as two in the morning in order to have tortillas ready for breakfast. Now that the terms have changed, the same families are less willing to go. Going to Chiapas is apparently easy and does not involve a big investment: people take one of several trails to the small border crossing in Oaxaqueño or Gracia de Dios, register at the immigration office on the Mexican border, and then go to the plantations that will hire them. In these plantations, migrant workers are placed in large dormitories, often one per community. Sometimes they would be lucky and get a small hut for each family. However, this year, the coffee harvest was said to be very poor, as one of the participants’ husband returned empty handed and a few pesos poorer. In San Gaspar, the poorest of the four municipalities, Chiapas is still an attractive destination: participants reported that people regularly cross the border to work at the coffee plantations. While they admitted that the pay is not good, the biggest attraction is that food (usually only maize and beans) and shelter are included, which enables them to entirely save their earnings. According to them, another advantage is that each family member (with the exception of very young children) would usually receive his/her own ration. In addition, migrants are paid

1 As of May 2009, US$1 = Q8.10 2 Field work coincided with the influenza AH1N1 epidemic.

10

fortnightly at the coffee plantations, unlike in their own country where they receive their earnings only at the end of the harvest season (lasting usually 8-10 weeks). For Gaspareños, the better working conditions in Chiapas have lured them away from migrating to the Guatemalan plantations. A participant noted:

Right now, more choose to migrate to Mexico, because getting into the U.S. is way too difficult. Many villagers deported from the U.S. can no longer stay here, as there are no jobs for them. Given that returning to the U.S. is so expensive, they better migrate to Mexico to harvest coffee.

Mexico, particularly, Cancún, has become an attractive option for longer-term migration given the demand for construction and hotel workers. Men migrate to work in construction, while a few women go to the many hotels in the area. While seasonal migration is often legal and plantation owners dispatch working permits, work in Cancún is illegal. The respondents stated that the work was usually physically demanding, and that a significant proportion of the earnings were utilized to meet living expenses: “It is like working in the US, migrants have to pay for everything, but salaries are not as good as in the U.S.”. In addition, these migrant workers do not have the alternative of sending money home via electronic transfer: they must save all the money themselves, risking theft. It is not clear why transfers are not possible, but it seems related to the illegal condition of these workers. Another possibility is to migrate to Belize, where people from El Chilcal and San Gaspar have been going for the last 15 years. Apparently, this was an attractive option for those that wanted to migrate but lacked the funds needed to travel to the U.S. To travel to Belize, a passport and a working permit are needed. One participant had gone to Belize with her husband for several seasons, and both worked to harvest mango, papaya, and banana. As in Mexico, people are said to be paid fortnightly, without subsidies for food and board. Notwithstanding, travel to Belize is more expensive than to Chiapas, Mexico. In summary, seasonal migration seems to be in constant flux, villagers constantly assessing the work conditions in each destination. In the last two decades seasonal migration to the Guatemalan haciendas has been greatly reduced due to unfavorable working conditions and low pay. Until very recently, villagers preferred to harvest coffee and other crops in nearby Chiapas. After the recent devaluation of the Mexican peso and a diminished coffee harvest, this destination has become less attractive and currently only villagers in San Gaspar remain enthusiastic. Other options have emerged: construction work in Cancún and fruit harvest in Belize.

B. Long term migration: El Norte In all of the four communities, migration to the U.S. began in the early 1980s:

My husband was amongst the first group of migrants from Nueva Catarina. They were a group of five and each of them paid Q300 to the coyote (smuggler). Back then, it was not so difficult to cross the border, but we worried a lot for them, as there was no way to know about their status, and we had to wait for news through the mail. My husband stayed in the U.S. for 13 months since he just wanted to earn enough to buy some land and cattle. Now, crossing the border is much more difficult as it takes at least one and a half years only to pay for travel expenses.

The first to go from El Chilcal to the U.S. were Toribio and Rigo. Back then, people were going away for seven or nine years. Many would just walk north, asking on the way

11

how to reach the border, taking regular buses. Going through Mexico was not difficult, as not too many people were going to the U.S. back then. Remittances were sent via Cargo Express [a private courier] and we would walk all the way to Huehuetenango to pick them up. Many of the early migrants would come back here for three or four years, and then would migrate again. Currently, however, most of the once migrants are now living here and are not going back.

Economic need was the main force behind migration. For some, however, migration was a matter of saving their lives:

The war was at the root of migration, as we began to go north at that time. My father was killed by the guerrillas, and we had to flee to Mexico, like many more. Once there, many decided not to return, and continued migrating north. Both my brother and sister are now in the U.S., working at a golf course in South Carolina. In 1981, my house was burnt down by the guerillas, similar to many others in this village. I took my wife and children to Mexico, first to Chiapas, and then to Tabasco. I worked there in construction for some time. When things became quieter in Guatemala, I decided to return since I had land. However, the cattle were gone. If I had been landless, I would have probably stayed longer in Mexico, and perhaps even gone to the U.S.

By 1990 to 1995, villagers began to migrate en masse and by the year 2000 “everybody wanted to migrate.” They established a network of migrants, whereby those already in the U.S. would send the funds, usually as a loan, to allow others to join them. The newly arrived were able to find work and lodging right at the start. Yet, not all young males left. It is not apparent what kept them from going north, although clearly the poorest could hardly afford the steep traveling cost. The main motivation for most migrants was to alleviate their families’ everyday needs and to save enough funds to build a house.3 Some are motivated to buy land and cattle4, while others mentioned educational expenses of their children as an important factor underlying the migration decision.5 Sometimes motivation is less personal. For example, the uncle of one of the participants was in debt after buying agricultural inputs on credit. Unable to pay back due to low yields, he convinced his 17-year old son to migrate and help him pay his debt. Motivation to migrate might be related to age and marital status. According to the participants, single men were eager for adventure and, for most, crossing the border became a rite of passage. The participants stated that single, young men tend to be irresponsible, and that they send remittances irregularly. Married men are considered more reliable, and they were pushed to leave to better provide for their families. However, as several participants

3 Following a pattern of patrilocal residence, the bride gets to live among her in-laws. Initially, the new couple

shares the groom’s parents’ house, but once they have children they are expected to build their own home, usually on the same premises. With local resources, their options are usually limited to a one-room dwelling, built out of perishable materials, given that the traditional adobe constructions became objectionable after the 1976 earthquake. 4 Only in Catarina was cattle frequently mentioned.

5 Elementary education in Guatemala is mostly run by the State and is free and elementary schools exist in most

villages. Secondary education is, however, generally in private hands. There are no secondary schools in most villages, and students need to travel to the county seat, or another town. The largest expense is not school fees but transportation. The round trip from El Chilcal to Cuilco, for example, is Q30, or 60 percent of the daily minimum wage. Very few families can afford it.

12

indicated, lack of opportunities in the communities, and the sheer necessity was the driving force for all of them: “they left to live or to die” (se van a vivir o a morir). In all communities, participants stated that migrants did not have a specific profile: young and old, with or without education, Catholic or Protestant: everybody was going north. They were, however, mostly male, as few women dared to walk across the desert for several days. Since the beginning, young men (around 15 years old) have migrated, although most migrants were at around ten years older. While personal interest is a major factor, parents play a significant role in deciding which family member was to migrate. While fathers became the willing guarantors of their sons, they were less willing to let their daughters go north. Participants insisted that education made no difference when it came to deciding to migrate: those with only a few years of elementary school as well as those with a high school diploma were all willing to go. Migration was actually a deterrent to education, as many boys were convinced that secondary education would make no difference in the kind of job they could get in the U.S.:

Over there they all go to work in the field, whether they have schooling or not. My son is a teacher and he did not get a less demanding job; he was also sent to the field. I do not think that schooling makes any difference when it comes to job promotion or higher salaries: employers seek those that are smart and responsible; they are not asking who has education. Education makes a difference once they return: those with a degree can find a job, but those without go back to agriculture, they have no other option.

Interviews with former migrants show a different perspective: the few that had post-elementary education (in our small sample only one of them had finished secondary school and three more had some secondary education) were fast learners, not only of their new trade but also of their new language. They were promoted in a relatively short time and some became foremen. While the first immigrants might have found it easy to cross the Mexico-U.S. border, the trip has become not only much more expensive but also more hazardous. There are basically two ways to travel: with a hired coyote (smuggler) or with fake Mexican identity cards. Both are fraught with innumerable dangers: there are several Mexican immigration checking points along the way, theft is not infrequent, and coyotes are known for abandoning their clients. Using the fake Mexican ID card is probably the least expensive option: the card can cost Q4,000. If there are enough funds, it is advisable to fly from Tapachula or Tuxtla (both in Chiapas) all the way to Tijuana, right by the U.S. border. The other option, much riskier due to constant immigration patrol, is to take a bus. Either way, Guatemalan migrants need to look and act Mexican and be ready to answer to Mexican law enforcement authorities (for a detailed account of this strategy of “Mexicanization”, see Davenport et al 2002). Several cases were told concerning villagers picked up by Mexican authorities and sent back because they did not act Mexican enough. Coyotes have different ways of dealing with their clients. For some time they recruited villagers and offered their services, but later clients went looking for them. Coyotes can be hired to guide would be migrants starting from the local village or from nearby Comitán, Chiapas (for a detailed account of coyotes and crossing the border at Gracias a Dios, see Chavarochette 2001). Initially, coyotes were paid the full price before the journey, but after several tricks from their part, villagers began paying half at the start of the journey and the other half once they got close to the U.S. border (relatives would be called and instructed to have the remaining balance wired into a bank account; clients would not be released until the

13

funds were received). Coyotes get paid around Q30,000 (US$3,750) for this part of the journey. A second coyote is usually needed to aid crossing the Mexico-U.S. border. The crossing from Agua Prieta, Sonora to Phoenix, AZ, for example, used to cost US$1,500, but the price has doubled in the last few years. The coyote can be hired to leave the migrant on his own in Phoenix, although most are willing to pay an additional fee and be delivered to their relatives’ doorstep, be that in West Palm Beach, FL or Los Angeles, CA.6 Coyotes do not accept credit, and most villagers go into debt in order to pay the needed Q30,000. One option is to borrow from local money lenders. In several communities, some families run small-scale credit schemes, with a 10 to 15 percent monthly interest rate; they are said to have made small fortunes. More frequently, however, people ask for a loan (with the same interest rate) from relatives of migrants, people from the community known to receive remittances and to have some disposable income. Given the high interest rates, some people decide to sell their only assets (usually farm land and cattle), hoping to rapidly buy it back. Just in Huehuetenango, 354 persons sold their land in 2007 in order to pay their travel expenses (OIM 2008). According to the same source, the traveling costs of 60 percent of all migrants in that year were over US$5,000 (Q40,000). Thus, when migrants reach the U.S and start to work, they often have to pay off two different debts: the one acquired in Guatemala for the first leg of the trip, and the one to cover the disbursement their relatives made to have them cross the border. In summary, migration to the U.S. began slowly and by the turn of the century it had penetrated to social imagination and became the preferred economic option to overcome poverty. Due to enforced immigration regulations in both Mexico and the U.S., the perils of travel increased and so did the price: by 2007 most migrants were spending over US$5000 only for travel expenses. Loans obtained for travel often charge 10 percent monthly rate.

2. Remittances and poverty alleviation Remittances form an important part of household resources. They contribute to raising household incomes, and allow members to increase their consumption of local goods and services. Participants noted that remittances allowed them to eat and dress better, to pay for secondary education, and be able to afford health care. Once the obligations for travel expenses have been met, households might start to accumulate given steady remittance inflows. Most migrants associated with the respondents in the focus groups from the four study communities were living in Florida, California or South Carolina. They were involved in a variety of occupations: gardening and landscaping, construction work, unskilled laborers in different kinds of factories. Some were also in the service sector. Their ties with their families varied from very strong to very feeble, probably related to their intention to return. While some families were receiving remittances on a monthly basis, others only three of four times a year and some were not receiving any at all.

A. The manifold utilization of remittances According to the focus group participants, the first installment of remittances is generally used to pay the traveling expenses, withholding the minimum amount necessary to cover their living expenses. While this debt used to be paid in a few months, it has usually taken migrants

6 It has been estimated that human-trafficking is the most lucrative illegal activity in Mexico, following narco-

trafficking, and commerce in stolen automobiles.

14

at least 18 months to complete all payments for the last three to four years. The following is the account of a recent returnee:

My first attempt to go north was in 1992. Back then, I paid Q3,000 from personal savings, and by selling all of my cattle. I was caught by the Mexican police in Oaxaca and sent back. In 1994, I tried once more, again selling all cattle to scrape together the Q4,000 that coyotes were asking. I was caught further north, in Coahuila. My third attempt was in 1999. I had to ask some acquaintances in Jacaltenango for a loan of Q7,500 to pay the coyote. The money lender knew my family and knew we have some land. He did not ask for any collateral, and just took my word. Now, the lenders are asking for land titles, as some people have just disappeared without paying back their loans. I was lucky that once in the U.S. my cousin introduced me to a factory foreman, and I was making good money in no time, around US$1,200 fortnightly. I was sending home as much as I could in order to pay off the debt, but my wife and kids also needed to eat. It took me around 11 months to pay off my debt. I ended up paying Q18,000 for the original Q7,500 loan.

While a common goal is to invest earnings in land and in house improvement, some families are not able – or willing – to save. The saving potential is related to the volume of remittances but also to migrants’ expressed wishes. Participants noted that often wives or parents of migrants receive instructions on how their earnings are to be spent. Returnees stated that lengthy discussions were held over the telephone as to which piece of land to buy and what kind of housing would be built. Apparently, only a few contravene these expressed wishes. For those able to invest, the single largest expenditure is house construction, followed by farm land purchases. Savings are often transferred into Guatemalan bank accounts, as migrants fear theft in the U.S. In addition, several participants noted that illegal migrants are facing increasing difficulties accessing American banks. Savings in the U.S. are also discouraged, participants noted, by the risk of deportation, as illegal migrants are sent back empty-handed. Notwithstanding, returnees often bring cash savings with them and many come back with pick-up trucks or other motor vehicles that they wish to put to work at their communities. Migrant remittances produce a limited trickle-down effect in their communities: migrant households support local shops and they also employ a small number of construction workers, agricultural laborers, and domestic workers. As remittances decrease, so do these limited venues of local employment:

My daughter and I used to do the laundry for several families, but now that they are no longer receiving as much (remittances), they prefer to do the laundry themselves. It is getting very tough for us: I go down and peddle tamales, corn-on-the cob, but nobody is buying. The prices of maize, meat and lard have gone up a lot, but if I increase prices, I would sell even less. So I reduce the size of my tamales and increase the price just a little, just to lure some costumers, but my profit is now very little.

In addition, most migrants allocate specific funds to support subsistence agriculture. Remittances are used towards agricultural input purchases and wages for agricultural workers. While the demand for agricultural labor is not considerable, non-migrant households used to count on these wages, particularly at this time of the year, when the land needs to be prepared for the planting season. Several participants acknowledged that they were hiring less wage workers, and that family members were doing the farm work themselves. Another option, favored particularly in Nueva Catarina, is share-cropping: women avoid hiring wage-workers and spread out risks and expenditures.

15

Migrants sometimes transfer resources to support local community development projects. This collective effort undertaken by groups of migrants, usually organized in civic associations (hometown associations) is motivated not only by personal familial obligations, but also by a combination of sociocultural and political factors, including migrants' identity, a sense of solidarity, and often an eagerness to gain status and recognition in the place of origin (see Guarnizo 2003). Hometown associations from California and Florida have supported community development projects (such as road improvement, potable water projects, education, or sewage systems) in Soloma and Santa Eulalia (both municipalities in northern Huehuetenango; see Popkin 2003, Davis 2007, and Camus 2008). This, however, was not the case in the visited communities, where remittances have benefited only individual households. The notable exception was the remittances sent occasionally in all four communities to rebuild the local church. In addition, a group of migrants from Nueva Catarina sent funds to subsidize specific activities during the annual fiesta. While some returnees claimed they had helped local development groups, actually all they did was provide the funds to cover their household labor or in-kind contribution.

B. Perception of costs and benefits of international migration At the end of focus group discussions and individual interviews, participants were asked to assess the main benefits and costs of international migration. The benefits were easy to enumerate: building a new house, buying farm land, achieving better standards of living, perhaps starting a small business, being able to buy agricultural inputs, particularly fertilizer, as well as electrical appliances, including stereos and DVD players, and motor vehicles. The costs of international migration were much more difficult to come up with, and most individuals and groups remained silent for a while before answering. Still, a few former migrants could not name any negative effects: in their view, they had done well, and there was no collateral damage. The costs that were mentioned can be summarized as follows: 1. Family disintegration. Families are said to fall apart for different reasons:

a) the migrant worker finds a new partner and begins a new family; b) the family back home gets no financial or emotional support; c) the immigrant simply disappears, leaving his family wondering if he is living or dead; d) wives back home find another partner. There were not many cases of family abandonment, but in all groups, participants could tell of several examples. In a few of these cases families had to face migrant’s debt obligations and were forced to mortgage or sell their scarce holdings.

2. Disrupted family relations. The main complain was about migrants’ children becoming disobedient and rather unmanageable. When the only authority figure in the family is gone, adolescents (especially male) tend to defy their mothers, and a male authority figure from the extended family often tries to exert some control. The situation is exacerbated when both parents migrate, as grandparents have even weaker control. Another situation, although not always seen as a problem by the participants in this study, is that of young wives. Husbands frequently leave them under the tutelage of their own parents, and wives are subjected to their in-laws surveillance, to make sure that they do not take up a new partner. The young wives or viudas blancas (literally, white widows) need to ask permission even to go out of the house, and they are often not allowed to go alone, even to the shop down the street.

16

3. Alcoholism. Participants regretted most “los vicios” (vice, refers mostly to alcoholism but may also include philandering husbands) that men acquired in the U.S. They would note that “if they did not drink in Guatemala, they began drinking over there”. Drinking was often seen as the reason for men losing their jobs or not sending home adequate remittances. While many participants could empathize with migrants’ arduous jobs and feelings of loneliness, alcoholism was seen as the main reason for economic failure. In addition, there were accounts of car accidents and incarceration.

4. Sickness and economic mishap. Migrants generally utilize all of their savings and even sell

their only assets in order to afford the increasingly expensive trip to the U.S. They frequently go into debt, and a considerable proportion of migrant earnings are later used throughout a prolonged period for reimbursing local money lenders and/or relatives in the U.S. If the migrant has a steady job and is able to send remittances on a monthly basis, families are generally able to start saving within two years. However, sickness in the family frequently wipes down any form of asset accumulation. In all groups, participants mentioned several cases within their families when sudden sickness of children, parents, or even the migrant himself obliterated earlier dreams of family advancement.

5. Accidents. Participants mentioned three broad categories of accidents that may been suffered by migrants: a) industrial or labor-related injuries, b) mugging and other forms of street crime, and c) hazards associated with walking across the desert in order to reach the U.S. In El Tabacal, eight villagers had been killed in different accidents in the U.S., two more were shot, and another one was stabbed to death.

6. Other negative consequences. A few cases were told of migrants acquiring AIDS. There

was also a veiled connection to unwanted pregnancies as products of “white widows’” extra-marital affairs.

C. Perception of success In all four communities the definition of success is often understood as the ability to accumulate wealth. There are, however, several nuances to this definition.7 For some, it meant not encountering setbacks: an uneventful trip, a steady job. It was at times understood as being able to speak English, climb the job ladder, get away from the more strenuous physical work, or obtain a green card. However, for many participants, being successful had to do with personal qualities, such as being responsible and having no vicios (the common euphemism for alcoholism). The most important personal attribute was “having a good head” and “thinking well”; that is, not squandering hard-earned dollars. The participants insisted that these qualities made the difference: salaries could be high or low, but if the migrant (or his family back home) did not know how to administer his money, his hard work became a futile effort. The successful migrant can readily display his newly-found wealth. According to some key-respondents, the display of material goods is quite common, and migrants and their families often feel the need to appear more affluent than what they actually are. They explained that “it is possible to see many huge houses all over town, but once you get inside you see that they are empty, as no funds were available to furnish them”. They also claimed that there was

7 Asking for a definition of success (éxito in Spanish) was not very fruitful. Participants were asked instead to

describe the characteristics of those migrants that were “doing well” (les va bien).

17

some form of conspicuous consumption among migrant families: brand-name clothing, expensive sneakers, hiring of maids, and costly jewelry worn by young children. The same logic is used to define a successful returnee: he comes back with significant savings, lives comfortably, and does not need to toil the land. He is sensible and knows how to invest his money once home. He will raise some cattle, farm enough land, put his pick-up truck to work, and perhaps he is even able to set up a business. Setting up businesses in the villages, however, remain elusive, and the participants stated that the local conditions are currently depressed, and that the businesses cannot thrive. Apparently, migrants who invest in a business in their village often do so either in order to return and have a steady, non-wage income, or to provide a steady income for their dependents in lieu of remittances Some migrants are able to save a sufficient amount of money in five years, while others needed more time. The participants had a hard time defining how much savings were enough. Some claimed Q7,000, others mentioned Q100,000. They generally though that the ability to save had to with personal qualities as well as sheer luck. If there is a sickness in the family, it would become almost impossible to save. Likewise, if the family is too large, most of the money is utilized for living expenses, and migrants need to stay longer to save enough. The participants had no trouble identifying their relatives that were able to invest their money wisely, as well as those that wasted it away. They mentioned quite frequently that the squandering type would stay home for two or three years, and then would need to return to U.S. to start another cycle of incipient accumulation.

D. Migration and changes in food consumption and production: topics for future research Two issues with relevance to household food security were mentioned several times in the discussion sessions, but there was no time to pursue them. One of them pertains to agricultural production. The participants stated that remittances often lead to investment in agriculture, as they allow households to overcome capital and labor constraints. Apparently, much of the newly acquired land is used to produce milpa.8 The cultural logic and nuances behind the subsidies to subsistence agriculture (remittances clearly earmarked to buy fertilizer and to hire wage workers) are not clear. Although milpa contributes to food security and is rooted deeply in the traditions of Maya farmers, the returns are insufficient to sustain most families. Moreover, producing milpa can be more expensive than purchasing maize in the market, and returns from basically any other activity may simply be higher than milpa agriculture. Why then is milpa agriculture such a pervasive economic strategy even though it may be among the least lucrative? To what extent do these cultural notions bolster household food security? Is there a wealth-based threshold beyond which households no longer sow maize? Among more “traditional” or non-migrant communities, peasants are well known to be attached to the land and to confer special meaning to maize, the mythical basis of human life. How do migrants, some of which are willing to sell their land in order to pursue better economic opportunities in the US, relate to land, particularly milpa agriculture? Do ancestral meanings erode with migration, or are they transformed? What is the role of women in the continuity of milpa production? Do the associations between a good milpero and a good husband still hold? How does migration transform the cultural and reproductive connotations of maize? Are women still feeling more comfortable in consuming maize produced by their husbands and associate self-produced seed to sperm?

8 Milpa refers to inter-cropping maize with beans, squash and a variety of wild herbs.

18

The other issue relates to the pervasiveness of a monotonous diet. While the participants readily acknowledged that remittances were used to improve food consumption, in most discussion groups the participants noted that their diets did not really change. There was the constant mention, for example, that in the U.S. migrants became fat because they were able to eat “everything.” There were also tales about migrants finding Anglo wives, and avoiding to return to the village because “all we eat here are maize and beans, and gringas cannot get used to this”. In another case, z key informant also told how her returnee son would either despair or rage if the only food being served were the two staples. The diet seems to have become a contested locus of identity and wealth. How do migrants deal with eating mostly staples after being used to eating “everything” in the U.S.? What constitutes a varied and healthy diet for rural households? What are the preferred foods once households are able to escape poverty? How frequently do they consume non-staples? How do migrants adapt to the American diet? How do they re-adapt to the monotonous rural fare? If migrants are said to have been so happy in the U.S. eating to their hearts content, once home, how do husbands and wives negotiate the everyday diet? In summary, remittances are used for a variety of needs, but mostly are earmarked for every day consumption. Early on, a significant part of remittances are used to pay the debt acquired to finance traveling expenses, a process that can take from one to two years. After this, if remittances are stable and there are no shocks, families may start savings for long-term needs, such as house improvement and farmland purchases. The definition of a successful migrant is very much tied to the purchasing power of his remittances, but also to certain qualities or personality traits, particularly being sensible and having no vices.

3. Local effects of the financial crisis in the U.S.

A. Local perceptions Participants were all well aware that things in the U.S. have gotten more difficult9 in the last year. Their migrant relatives have told them that many factories were closing down, and in all group discussions, cases were told of villagers going unemployed or underemployed. In San Gaspar and El Chilcal, the word of mouth was that the new American president was closing down plants and other industrial units in his aim to get rid of migrant workers. In El Tabacal and Catarina participants said that they initially shared their migrant relatives’ enthusiasm for the new president, but that no changes in employment or migratory policies were apparent just yet. Participants did not know what had caused the unemployment problem in the U.S., and did not have any insights about when the financial crisis may come to an end. A few thought that unemployment was caused by a saturation of migrant workers: “they are too many now”, they would explain, “and there are no more jobs left”. Participants noted that they were receiving less money in their remittances, as most migrants were observing a reduction in their working hours: “They are making just enough to pay for their living expenses, and cannot send money home”.

For about a year, we have been receiving fewer remittances. Women are now going out to work. When school is over in October, some take their children and migrate to the coffee plantations in Mexico. They return in January so that the children would not

9 Participants used several terms to refer to recent difficulties: la situación está difícil, está fregado, está jodido. Not

a single person ever used the term crisis.

19

miss school. There are not too many employment options nearby, and wages are low. Men earn Q30 a day, while women only make Q25.10 My niece has four children, and for the last six months or so, she has been receiving close to nothing from her husband abroad. She is now working as a cook in Huehue [provincial capital], and had to leave her children behind with her mother.

Most families have had to readjust their spending patterns. For some, this implied an end to perceived luxury purchases (lujos), such as clothing, shoes, powdered milk as well as beef (see below). In a few cases, households have not undertaken any adjustments yet, as they just lost their ability to save. The situation does not seem to be affecting investments in education yet and no cases were told of students withdrawing from school. But diminished remittances have translated into limited construction projects (with its concomitant reduction in labor demand) and reductions in fertilizer purchases. There are some exceptions to the decrease in remittances: some migrants have become legal residents and hold steady jobs, as do some illegal workers. The majority of villagers, however, are facing a reduced income. In addition to the difficulties faced by migrants in the U.S., participants have had to deal with their own local problems. Fertilizers became significantly more expensive and most farmers reduced their utilization and obtained meager returns, which meant increased reliance on purchased staples. In addition, local employment opportunities became even more limited and wages sometimes went down. Participants stated that construction jobs were hit hard and that daily wages had gone down from Q100 to Q80 and even Q75. To exacerbate the situation, food prices went up (see below).

B. Effects on food consumption When asked about the specific changes in their diets in response to the decline in the flow of remittances, most said that they were buying less meat and other animal protein, and relying more on green leaves (usually the least expensive vegetable) and black beans. Participants noted that they were eating smaller portions of meat (poultry more often than beef), eating animal protein less frequently, and purchasing less preferred meat cuts. They had reduced the variety of the diet, consuming vegetables and fruits less frequently11.

Now we buy only one type of food at time: either a vegetable, or meat or beans. Before we could buy a bit of each, but now we can’t. We buy one at a time and are able to stretch our budget a bit. We no longer can have luxuries on our tables: meat, eggs, cheese, milk, cereals for atoles [thin gruel], like oatmeal. If we had them twice a month, now we buy them only once a month. We can buy two pounds of beef with bone, but only when our husbands have earned some money. But if he can only make Q50 a day we simply cannot buy any meat: it is impossible.

Participants were divided as to who is more affected by these changes. Some thought that children were more acutely affected. Others claimed that their husbands were more affected,

10

The current minimum wage is Q50. 11

Migrants, however, are highly heterogeneous: a small minority has stable jobs, probably associated to higher

skills and legal residence. The focus group discussions were not a likely arena for the fortunate few to boast or even mention their relative affluence but it is apparent that their families, for the time being, have been spared from diminished remittances.

20

as they saw their role as competent bread-winners being put into question. Some added that women reduced their caloric intake in order to mitigate the negative effects on the intake of their children and husbands. The consumption of staples seems to have remained unchanged. The participants explained that each household has a certain fixed amount of maize and beans that they need to cook each time12. Likewise, each family member knows how many tortillas need to be consumed at each meal in order to feel full and productive. Participants stated repeatedly that this amount has not, as yet, been reduced. In San Gabriel participants reported changes in the way staples are consumed: they said they are relying more on second-class black beans as they cost half as much (from Q6 to Q3 per pound). They also stated that several families are purchasing Maseca (maize flour) instead of grain, in order to reduce the use of fire-wood. In addition to diminished remittances, villagers have had to deal with a sharp increase in domestic food prices. The price of the “minimum food basket” (la canasta básica) has steadily increased in as shown in Graph 6. According to official data, the prices of rice, black beans, maize and oil increased by 36, 50, 17, and 20 percent, respectively. The participants, however, claimed that local prices of oil, soap, sugar and rice had almost doubled since last year.

Graph 6: Price variation of the “minimum food basket” (Q)

Source: INE web site

C. The crisis and return migration A telling sign of how difficult the situation has become for migrants is the high rates of return migration. Some migrants may decide to return because they had achieved enough funds for the moment, because they missed the family, or because they needed a break from their hard labor. However, the cases mentioned in the discussion groups and individual interviews tell a different story. Most migrants are coming back because they simply cannot find jobs, while others have been deported.

I went up north in 2005. I didn’t have any contacts in the U.S., for which I had to pay a lot of money to get through the border. I sold my farm and all my cattle and managed to put together Q18,000. I also got a loan for Q20,000, with a 10 percent monthly interest rate. I managed to stay for two years until I was deported. I used to work in construction, and was very happy with my job. I was making good money, but I missed

12

In some households maize is cooked every day, in others every other day. Black beans tend to be cooked every other day.

21

my wife a lot. In 2007, I sent her Q30,000 for her travel expenses to come to the U.S., and thus depleted all my savings. She left our two children with my parents, and then we had a third child in Florida. Then, la migra captured me and I was deported. My wife is currently working at a restaurant, but gets to work only two or three days per week, at the most. That barely covers her living and baby-sitter expenses. She is clinging on to her part-time job, hoping that the situation will improve, as we need to buy some land again. I am currently working as an agricultural wage worker. I lost everything: my farm, my job in Florida and any possibility of ever making any money. I first went to the U.S. in 2005, where I stayed for about three years until I was deported last year. I have many relatives living there, including my father, my father-in-law as well as several uncles and cousins. I worked in construction, building roofs. I was earning roughly US$1,000 per week. While I continue to work in construction here, I am lucky if I earn over Q500 (US$62) weekly. But the local construction business is going down and only a few people are able to hire me. I suppose people are sending home around 30 or 40 percent of what they used to. While in the U.S., instead of keeping my savings at a bank, I sent my earnings home periodically and instructed my wife to invest them in cement and iron, since I thought that these products would get even more expensive. We were not able to save much money, and now, I do not have enough materials or funds to finish my house. I was grabbed by la migra and imprisoned for a month. Coming back to Guatemala, I had to leave behind everything I had: two cars, several electrical appliances, clothes and personal belongings, as well as construction tools. My dad is still there, but since he is also illegal, he cannot claim my assets. I don’t think that I want to go back. It is getting too difficult to find a job, but of course I would really like to be able to finish my house, and buy more land. But I wouldn’t go back, unless there were substantial changes in the immigration laws. At the beginning, migrants would stay in the U.S. for five, six years, and then return home for a while. Then, they would go north again, since there is nothing here for them to do. However, now there is nothing over there as well, so they are not going back to the U.S., electing to stay home. Most feel uneasy here, somewhat out of place. Over there life is different, they eat well, and when they come back, they are fat. All we eat here is maize and beans. Many dream to go back, but they cannot.

D. Reassessing migration Throughout the group discussions and interviews, participants would spontaneously comment on the new conditions surrounding international migration. Without exception, all stated that the ever-increasing cost of travel, increased risks associated with going through Mexico, hostile U.S. immigration enforcement, and the economic downturn were altering the cost-benefit structure. Indeed, a frequent comment was the following:

Wages may be better in the U.S., but you still need to pay for rent and food, and if you do not work, you cannot survive. Here, we have our little maize and beans and a roof over our heads. The poor ones over there do not. And now, they do not even have jobs.

A former migrant worker noted:

Working over there is true torture, absolute torment. You would work for 10 or 12 hours every day, doing demanding physical tasks. Then you would go home with your roommates and you still need to cook dinner, do the laundry, and shop for groceries.

22

You never get to fully rest. It is much more relaxing to be here, and even if we have no money, we can survive as long as we have our little maize.

According to the narratives of the participants, those that left ten years ago were able to find stable jobs and better working conditions. As a result, they were able to pay their debt rapidly. The ability to find jobs with decent pay and working conditions was much harder for those that left five or six years ago. Those that left in the last three years or so were generally perceived to have migrated to the U.S. too late, as they had to deal with greater levels of debt and more uncertain employment situation. If they were lucky enough to keep their jobs, they were able to pay their debt, but were generally not able to accumulate much savings. In addition to the usual perils of travel, we were told that Mexican coyotes sometimes steal from or even kidnap their clients. A participant mentioned that her husband had been kidnapped in Agua Prieta for 18 days. They asked for a Q70,000 ransom (US$10,000, at the time). She had to borrow money from several sources and wire the money to a bank. Once the money was received, her husband was released and made his way into the U.S. According to her, while he is lucky to have a job in the U.S., his efforts mostly go into paying the loan, and he is able to send very little for home expenditures. Under these circumstances, only a handful is currently willing to migrate. Most are aware that the venture has become too expensive and that their relatives in the U.S. can scarcely afford to subsidize someone else’s trip. However, the U.S. and what it offers have been embedded in the collective consciousness of many Guatemalans. Some still dream about working in the U.S. and having access to wages in dollars, since for them Guatemala does not offer opportunities for defining and carrying out plans for the future. As the cost-benefit structure of migration is being altered, villagers claim that a small but increasing number of migrants’ children (or younger siblings) are choosing a college education over international migration, even if the labor opportunities in the U.S. were to improve. Youngsters that used to dream about going north are now considering the pursuit of higher education. While these students provide a formidable role model for other villagers, it is not clear under which circumstances migrants’ relatives can actually access college education. Secondary education is a steep investment for most rural households and remittances are often used to further post-primary education. The situation is certainly intricate: without remittances, only a few could complete secondary education, and sending a child to Huehuetenango to pursue a college education is unattainable for most families. The way out, as some participants explained, is for parents to delay their return home in order to secure enough resources for their children’s education, and to have their children steer clear of migration. At the same time, a high school diploma is no longer an open gate to attractive off-farm employment. A few lucky ones might be hired as rural teachers (also a low-paying position), but most high school graduates do not appear to fare much better than non-graduates. Under these circumstances some households might opt against secondary education, taking it for a useless expense, while others might envision it as a required step for professional and economic advancement. The dreams and expectations of secondary students with and without access to remittances might well be changing. This would be an interesting line to further research, as in the past it has been observed that migrants’ children were uninterested in completing secondary education, their minds set up in international migration.

23

CONCLUSIONS In all four visited villages migration is an inescapable part of life. For many years, neither the trail of deaths nor the hardships of separation and stepped up border security by the U.S. were able to deter these Huehuetecos from heading north. What la migra and coyotes could not do, unemployment is currently doing. In the four communities of interest, very few villagers still want to go north in the view of the existing circumstances. Many are tying their return to improved working conditions for migrant workers, as the need to overcome the lack of opportunities in Guatemala has not abated. In the past ten years remittances have become an important part of household resources, and increasing numbers of Huehuetecos began to rely on international migration for poverty alleviation. The positive impacts of remittances, such as mitigating risks, improving housing, education and health, and financing investments tend to be celebrated by all. However, people worry that remittances are becoming history. Some envision going back to a past ruled by “rags and mended clothes,” and to an increased reliance on their “little maize and little beans”. The decline of remittances, in tandem with the upsurge in domestic food prices and the decrease in local and regional employment opportunities, has affected food consumption patterns. The main coping strategy seems to be the reduction of animal protein (mostly beef, poultry and milk), which is now consumed in smaller rations and/or less frequently. There seems to be an increased reliance on vegetables, particularly green leaves (Swiss chard, Amaranthus [bledo], etc.). Other coping strategies involving dietary change, such as skipping meals or decreasing the consumption of staples, are not yet practiced. A coping strategy that has evolved is seeking additional wage labor, both locally and across the border, in Chiapas. This strategy, however, is not specific to the current situation, and is part of the economic portfolios of most rural Huehuetecos. With the current level of information, it is not possible to ascertain the magnitude of this quest or to compare it with the usual seasonal trends. Labor demand, however, seems to be currently depressed in both sides of the border. Return migration seems to be increasing due to voluntary returns as well as to deportations. Returnees coming back after a brief period abroad will probably go back to “living from hand to mouth”, as the amount of capital they bring is not sufficient to improve their standards of living. Deported migrants probably fare even worse: not only are their savings unlikely to be adequate, they were also forced to leave behind what little wealth they were able to accumulate. Both returnees and deported migrants also risk coming back to face debt and landlessness. Their situation is bleak indeed: in addition to the pervasive lack of local opportunities, without the remittances to help improve agricultural productivity they probably face even meager yields.

Needs for further research Since field-work, newspapers report on the constant flow of deported migrants and the diminished reception of remittances. With the current dry spell, decreased labor demand and expected rise in food prices, the situation of poor and even middle income households could certainly become aggravated. In addition to the persistence of the observed trends, several issues could be further pursued in the next survey round: 1. Dietary diversity.

a) Do migration and the experience of living abroad actually change consumption patterns? How does maize consumption vary by migration status?

24

b) How homogenous are the changes in consumption patterns observed in this study [e.i., reduced dietary diversity]? Which remittance-receiving households are protected from this trend? Do household with recent returnees consume a less monotonous diet than other households? c) With the upcoming rain, are the wild greens substituting or complementing purchased food? How does this vary by migratory status?

2. Childhood growth and development. While abroad, migrants surely observed the growth and development patterns of Guatemalan children living in the U.S. Where they able to discern differences? How are these differences explained? Are returnees more aware of their children’s stunted growth? Is awareness translated into better child feeding?

3. Seasonal migration. Has migration to nearby Chiapas, Mexico been re-assessed and become a last resource in the dearth of other options? Under which circumstances (household composition, domestic cycle, availability of assets, etc.) do households consider migrating to Guatemalan plantations?

4. Education. a) Respondents stated that remittances are earmarked for education, but the cost and opportunities of schooling varies widely according to school grade. When these flows are reduced, what are the specific effects in the different school levels (e.i., primary, middle and high school)? What is the gender difference?

b) If remittance recipients are actually looking away from international migration and focusing on their education, to what extent, and under which circumstances, can they successfully access trade school13 and the university?

5. Effect of conditional cash transfers. Some villagers are receiving monthly cash transfers (Q300 per child) as part of the state-run Mi Familia Progresa program. To what extent are remittance-receiving households included in this program? Are households with deported migrants given a preferential status? Has this recent income stimulated local (village) trade? Are migrant remittances used to set up small businesses that aim to capture some of these funds?

6. Agriculture. How has agricultural production been affected by reduced purchases of fertilizers and other inputs? Has there been an effect on the extension of land under cultivation? In times of duress, what kind of farmers can produce cash-crops?

13

A variety of trades can be pursued during the last two years of secondary school. Most are private and tend to be located in large towns. The majority of state-run secondary school offer only training in elementary school teaching.

25

REFERENCES Camus, M. (2007) Introducción. In Comunidades en movimiento. La migración internacional en el norte de Huehuetenango. Manuela Camus editora, Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Sociales y Desarrollo, INCEDES – Centro de Estudios y Documentación de la Frontera Occidental de Guatemala, CEDFOG, Guatemala. Camus, M (2008). La sorpresita del norte. Migración internacional y comunidad en Huehuetenango. Instituto Centroamericano de Desarrollo y Estudios Sociales. Guatemala: Editorial Junajpú. Castañeda, C. (1998) Lucha por la tierra, retornados y medio ambiente en Huehuetenango. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, FLACSO-Guatemala, Guatemala. Chavarochette, C (2001). Nenton, ou le rêve américain. Les Cahiers ALHIM. Amerique Latine Histoire et Memoire vol 2. http://alhim.revues.org/index592.html#tocto2n1 Davenport A, X Castañeda and B Manz (2002). Mexicanization: a survival strategy for Guatemalan Mayans in the San Francisco Bay Area. Migraciones internacionales 1(3): 102-123. Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana, Mexico. Davis S (2007). Migration, remittances and ethnic identity: The experience of Guatemalan Maya in the United States. Moving Out of Poverty, Volume 1: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Mobility, edited by Deepa Narayan , Patti PeteschIn. Pp 333- 354. World Bank Guarnizo, LE (2003). The Economics of Transnational Living. Migration Review, vol 37(3) Guzmán Mérida, PA (2004). Olas en la Sierra: eventos, casos y observaciones del desarrollo de Huehuetenango. Centro de Estudios de la Frontera Occidental, CEDFOG, Guatemala. INE/ENCOVI 2006. Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Vida 2006: resultados preliminares. www.ine.gob.gt ENSMI (2002). Encuesta Nacional de Salud Materno Infantil 2002. Ministerio de Salud Pública y Asistencia Social, INE, UVG y otros. Guatemala: octubre 2003. Kobrak, P (2003). Huehuetenango: historia de una guerra. Centro de Estudios de la Frontera Occidental, CEDFOG, Guatemala. Kochhar, R (2009). Unemployment Rose Sharply Among Latino Immigrants in 2008. Pew Hispanic Center http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=102 Ministerio de Educación (2001). Segundo censo nacional de talla de escolares de primer grado de la República de Guatemala. Informe final. Ministerio de Educación (2009). Tercer censo nacional de talla de escolares de primer grado de la República de Guatemala. Resultados preliminares. www.mineduc.gob.gt Navarrete, C. (1980). Las rutas de comunicación prehispánica en los Altos Cuchumatanes, un proyecto arqueológico y etnohistórico. Antropología e Historia de Guatemala, II (2), Ministerio de Educación, Guatemala.

26

Organización Internacional para las Migraciones (OIM). Encuesta sobre remeses 2008. Cuadernos sobre Migración 28. OIM Guatemala. Palma, I, C Girón and T Steigenga (2007). De Jacaltenango a Júpiter: negociando el concepto de familia en el espacio transnacional y en el tiempo, en Comunidades en Movimiento, la migración internacional en el norte de Huehuetenango, Manuela Camus editora, INCEDES-CEDFOG, Guatemala. Papademetriou, G and A Terrazas (2009). Immigrants in the United States and the Current Economic Crisis. Migration Information Data Source, Migration Policy Institute. April 1, 2009 Passel, JS and D Cohn (2008). Trends in Unauthorized Immigration: Undocumented Inflow Now Trails Legal Inflow. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Piedrasanta, R (2007). Apuntes sobre transmigración y remesas del Norte entre los chuj de Huehuetenango, en Comunidades en Movimiento, la migración internacional en el norte de Huehuetenango, Manuela Camus editora, INCEDES-CEDFOG, Guatemala.

Popkin, E (2003)."Transnational Migration and Development in Postwar Peripheral States: An Examination of Guatemalan and Salvadoran State Linkages with their Migrant Populations in Los Angeles," Current Sociology 51-3/4,May/July: 347-374 (2003).

Popkin, E (2005). The Emergence of Pan Mayan Ehtnicity in the Guatemalan Transnational Community Linking Santa Eulalia and Los Angeles. Current Sociology, V. 53, nª 4, July 2005. Taylor, M, M J. Moran Taylor and DR Ruiz (2006). Land, ethnic and gender change. Trans-national migration and its effects on Guatemalan lives and landscapes. Geoforum 37: 41-61.

Tejada, M (2002). Historia social del norte de Huehuetenango. Centro de Estudios y Documentación de la Frontera Occidental de Guatemala, CEDFOG. Guatemala.