zimmerer_soil erosion and social (dis)courses

8/6/2019 Zimmerer_Soil Erosion and Social (Dis)Courses

1/17

Clark University

Clark Universityhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/143453

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clark.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Clark University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toEconomic Geography.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clarkhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/143453?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clarkhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clarkhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/143453?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=clark


2/17

Soil Erosion and Social (Dis)courses in Cochabamba,Bolivia: Perceiving the Nature ofEnvironmental Degradation*Karl S. Zimmerer

Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706-1491Abstract: Soil erosion in Cochabamba,Bolivia, has not been perceived uniformlyby development institutions, peasants in their personal perspectives, and ruraltrade unions. Development institutions that attributed soil erosion to peasantfarmers voiced the most well-known perceptions about the erosion dilemmauntil the mid-1980s. The personal perspectives of many peasants reinforced thisview by placing blame on their own behavior. Since the 1980s, these dominantdiscourses have been implicitly contested by the viewpoints of numerouspeasants (especially young adults) who stress links between government policiesand worsening erosion. Young peasant viewpoints have been accommodated byrural trade unions. Different perceptions of soil erosion among and within thethree groups were shaped by contrastinglivelihood experiences and by differingefforts at shapingconservationprogramsand related development measures. Thisstudy demonstrates the importance to conservation-oriented development ofunderstandingthe perceptions of local inhabitants and institutions with respect tobiophysical resources in general and environmental degradationin particular.Key words: soil erosion, development, environmental perceptions, environmen-tal degradation, soil conservation, Bolivia, peasant economy, discourse.

The land users have not developed anyawareness about the problems of soilerosion. Overgrazing and trampling bylivestock, together with the removal ofshrub cover for fuel in the Altiplano and theMesothermic Valleys, are the most impor-tant causes of soil erosion. (EnvironmentalProfile of Bolivia, International Institute forDevelopment and Environment and United

* I am grateful to Cochabamba peasants andto rural trade unions and many developmentinstitutions that cooperated with my fieldresearch. Gratitude is also due the fivenongovernment organizations with whom Iwas affiliated. A Post-Doctoral Fellowshipfrom the Social Science Research Council anda research grant from the National ScienceFoundation provided financial support forresearch planning, field work, and libraryresearch. The Graduate School at the Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Madison funded data analy-sis. Richard Peet offered many helpful editorialsuggestions, as did three anonymous review-ers.

States Agency for International Develop-ment 1986)It was not like this before, the hillsweren't barren nor were there many erosiongullies. Look, I'm only 27 years old but I'veseen it deteriorate bit by bit . .. the soil haslost its productive force, each year it nolonger produces as before. Soil from theslopes is being swept downward-leavingbare rock, subsoil, and gullies-due to the

heavy rains . . . the development institu-tions claim that they know the solutions, butwhen we look at it, we recognize that weknow as a result of our experience, we knowhow to take care of the earth. (Interview,Ubaldina Mejia, Aiquile, Cochabamba, 14October 1991)1

The peasants will no longer tolerate . . .the exploitation of our natural resources bythe oligarchy and the imperialists. (Resolu-tions of the Third Congress, ["The SoleTrade Union Federation of the PeasantWorkers of Cochabamba"], Cochabamba,1986)1 Names have been changed in order to

protect anonymity.312


3/17

SOIL EROSION IN BOLIVIA 313Views of Environmental Hazardsand Development

A consequence of deteriorating environ-ments, hazards present a threat to peopleworldwide and to their prospects for de-velopment (Mathews 1989; World Com-mission on Environment and Develop-ment 1987). Alarming accounts of hazardsfrequently evoke the commonness of hu-man concern about deterioration. Yet agrowing body of studies suggests differ-ences in people's views of the nature ofenvironmental deterioration and its rela-tion to development (Denevan 1973; Hechtand Cockburn 1990; Schmink and Wood1992; White 1966). From water pollutionin Boulder, Colorado, to deforestation inthe Brazilian Amazon, the causes of envi-ronmental deterioration tend to be per-ceived differently. In many cases, distinctgroups of people and institutions havedrawn on contrasting perceptions of causeas they attempt to shape policies and pro-grams dealing with the environmental im-pacts of development. Yet the importanceofperceptual (emic-type)differencesamongsocial groups and development institu-tions has not been addressed in the grow-ing corpus of work concerned with envi-ronment-development issues.2The present study examines diverse per-ceptions of the causes of soil erosion amonginhabitants and institutions in Cocha-bamba, Bolivia. According to recent ac-counts, soil erosion in the Cochabamba"heartland"and several other highland re-gions of Bolivia constitutes a destructiveenvironmental hazard that degrades farmand grazing lands and increases flooding,desertification, and dust storms (Eckholm1976; LeBaron et al. 1979; Terrazas 1974;Presencia 1990).Estimates indicate that 64percent, or 790 square kilometers, of the

land surface n Cochabamba s at least mod-erately eroded, and approximations of an-nual soil erosion vary between 50 and 150tons per hectare, well above rates of soilformation (CORDECO 1980; Zimmerer1991). These figures signal an erosion di-lemma that exceeds even the severe na-tional situation: a recent report releasedby the Bolivian Ministry of Peasant Agri-culture and Ranching (MACA), and pub-lished in two majornewspapers, estimatesthatbetween 35 and 41 percent of the coun-try currently displays moderate or ex-treme soil erosion (LosTiempos 1991;Pres-encia 1990). For many inhabitants andinstitutionsin Cochabamba,soil erosionhasbecome an issue of substantial alarm.Articulated perceptions (discourses) ofthe causes of soil erosion assessed hereinclude three groups of inhabitants andinstitutions in Cochabamba: governmentinstitutions and nongovernmental organi-zations (NGOs), peasants in their personalperspectives, and rural trade unions. Eachgroup has expressed concern about therecent erosion dilemma, its impacts andpossible solutions. The articulatedpercep-tions typical of each group are repre-sented in conversational accounts made in1991 and in published and unpublisheddocuments. These were assembled infield research undertaken in July 1990 andbetween February and December 1991.The present study, except where indi-cated, is based on personal notes andobservations, including conversations.3The research topic addressed in thisstudy resembles the "perception of natu-ral hazards" radition in human geography(Burton, Kates, and White 1978; Katesand Burton 1986; White 1974), butintegrates major reformulations by build-ing on three criticisms posed in previouscritiques of the "perception of naturalhazards" tradition and by advancing twoadditional perspectives. In terms of previ-ous reformulations: (1) As distinct fromthe "naturalness of hazards,"the creation,2 This oversight is frequently associated withthe furnishing of cohesive explanations ofcause and effect in environmental degradation.

I examine cause-and-effect relations in Cocha-bamba soil erosion in a separate study(Zimmerer 1993). 3The present tense is used to refer toconditions existing during 1991.


4/17


5/17

International Development in 1974. Withrespect to hearing "little voices," it is notablethat the widely read and differing accounts ofHugh Bennet (1947), James Malin (1936), PaulSears (1935), and Donald Worster (1979)concur in the paucity or absence of attention toviews expressed by either local inhabitants orgroups such as Farmers' Clubs.

SOIL EROSION IN BOLIVIA 315present study, in contrast, sought percep-tions on erosion causes articulated in con-versation and during open-ended inter-views in the local language (Quechua)withthe "little voices" of 34 inhabitants.Tapedand transcribedwith their consent, our 30to 90 minute dialogues furnished a basisfor understanding personal perspectives.The second conceptual basis proposedin this study concerns the relation be-tween articulated perceptions of soilerosion and social power steering devel-opment in Cochabamba. It, too, departsfrom the traditional approach toward"perceptions of natural hazards." Dis-courses on the causes of erosion are seenhere not as mere reflections of experi-ence, culture, and development history inthe region, but instead are recognized asconstitutive of past and present powerrelations. Articulated perceptions of soilerosion, elucidated through the theoreti-cal perspective of Giddens (1979), figureinto even broader concerns. Contention,resistance, and accommodation evident inthese viewpoints have been situated bythe three groups within wide-rangingbeliefs about development, moderniza-tion, and conservation and, no less impor-tantly, about the related roles of thepeasantry, the state, and developmentagencies (including nongovernmental or-ganizations). As well as contrasting view-points between the three groups, view-points on erosion within each group haverarely coalesced in unvarying or harmoni-ous accord.The main focus of this study lies insimilarities and differences among andwithin the major explanations of soilerosion expressed in Cochabamba since1970. During this period, similar view-points expounded by distinct groups have

been crucial in justifying conservationpoliciesrelated o developmentprograms.The first noteworthy similaritymatchedthe majorityof developmentinstitutionsand many peasants in their personalperspectives,withbothgroupsattributingthe causes of soil erosion exclusivelytopeasant behavior. A similar emphasis,although mplicit,probably aybehindtheabsence of the erosion dilemmaamongissues addressed by rural trade unionsprior o the mid-1980s.Thiswidely sharedexplanationwasatfirstuncontested.Yet iteventuallyconfronted second,andquitedistinct,groupofviewpointson the causesof soil erosionemerging amongyoungerpeasants.Forming personalperspectivesunder distinctenvironmental, ocial,andpoliticalcircumstances,manyyoung peas-ants sought to identify the political andeconomic conditions of worsened soilerosion and rural underdevelopment.Youngpeasants extended their personaldiscourses on the causes of soil erosioninto the broad-basedsocial movementrepresented by revitalized rural tradeunions. Unlike earlier positions, recenttrade-unionexplanationsof the erosiondilemma have considered the extra-regionalpoliticaleconomy togetherwithconcernsbased on localconceptsof spaceandtime.Explanations for Erosionin Cochabamba

The long-termhistoryof soil erosion nCochabambaesembles hatof otherhigh-landregions n present-dayBolivia.7CoV-

7 CochabambaDepartment consists primar-ily of uplifted Paleozoic sedimentary rock,which forms a highly dissected upland withelevations between 250 and 4,200 metersabove sea level and which is characterized bysteep slopes and entrenched valleys. Mostagriculture and livestock raising in Cocha-bamba takes place at elevations between 2,500and 3,800 meters above sea level, whereannual precipitation varies between 450 and800 millimeters. Vegetation consists primarily


6/17

of shrub-steppe savannas and thorn-scrubwoodlands (Montes de Oca 1989).

316 ECONOMIc EOGRAPHYering 38 percent of the national territory,highland landscapes were centers of polit-ical power and population prior to invasionand conquest in the fourteenth century bythe Altiplano-based Aymara.SubsequentlyCochabambabecame an agriculturalheart-land for the Cuzco-based Inca, who orga-nized more than 14,000 agricultural work-ers on state farms producing economicsurpluses (Wachtel 1982). Although thenumber of agriculturalistsin Cochabambadecreased with the onset of Spanish rule,colonial policy of the Spaniards nonethe-less pressured inhabitants to provision ag-riculturalgoods and laborersin general andfor crown mining centers such as Potosi inparticular.The same economic orientationpersisted following political independenceof Bolivia in 1825. While peasant agricul-turalists in Cochabamba were able to gainland at the expense of large landlords inthe late nineteenth and twentieth centu-ries, intensified production caused envi-ronmental deterioration (Larson 1988). Asearly as the 1920s, observers noted the un-welcome spread of deforested and erodedexpanses where once there had been pro-ductive range and agricultural land.Yet aggravated soil erosion in Cocha-bamba did not draw the attention ofgovernment officialsresponsible for policyon rural land use until the mid-twentiethcentury because of several factors. Forone, Bolivia and other Latin Americanstates differed from Asia and Africa insofaras the colonial government had notestablished agencies for soil conservation(Blaikie 1985). Moreover, once indepen-dent in 1825, the Bolivian state was weakand chronically unstable. Beginning in themid-twentieth century, governments inBolivia permitted international assistancein agricultural planning and development,provided particularly by the UnitedStates, which sought to influence Bolivianpolitical and economic policy. Involveddirectly with Bolivian agriculture at leastas early as 1943, the United States

Department of Agriculture chose Cocha-bamba sites for several projects aimed atmodernization (USDA 1962). The agricul-tural projects implemented by the USDAand other United States agencies throughthe mid-1960s addressed neither soilerosion nor conservation.The development institutions of the Bo-livian government also paid little attentionto worsening soil erosion. Although the na-tional AgrarianReform Law of 1953 listednatural resource conservation among sixfundamental objectives, this legal statutedid not guarantee action. In fact, a reviewof the reform law 15 years later concludedthat the government devoted little atten-tion to environmental conservation and al-located even less fiscal support (Heath1969). The apparent failure of the decreeon environmentalconservationaccordswiththe emphasis of reform policies that over-all favored commercial agriculture on therelatively flat, fertile, and well-watered al-luvial soils of the lowlands (Gill 1987; Uri-oste 1984). Nearly 300,000 inhabitants ofthe highlands received land titles throughthe 1953 agrarianreform statute, but theygained few other benefits. Most develop-ment incentives benefited large-scale ag-riculture in Santa Cruz, where large farm-ers and ranchers,granted60 percent of thelandadjudicated n the agrarianreform,ex-panded crop and livestock production sev-eralfold under the added impetus of un-precedented credit and price policies.8Highland agriculture, on the other hand,received little stimulus, and even policiesand projectsdesignated for agriculturalde-velopment in the highlands tended mostlyto benefit large land holders cultivating ir-rigated bottomland tracts (UMSS 1963).

8 Farmer and rancher groups in Santa Cruz,such as the Federations of Cattlemen (Federa-ciones de Ganaderos) and the Agriculture andLivestock Bureaus (Camaras Agropecuarias),effectively pressed the Bolivian governmentfor benefits; as the center of economic andpolitical power in the country shifted increas-ingly toward Santa Cruz these groups gainedmore influence in government policy.


7/17

SOIL EROSION IN BOLIVIA 317Beginning in the 1960s, a number ofacademic researchers and scholarly ob-servers have given considerable attentionto soil erosion in Bolivia. GeographerDavid Preston, carrying out field work

during 1966 and 1967 on a multiagencyproject, found invigorated gully incisionsdue to accelerating soil loss (Preston1969). Subsequent research organizedthrough the U. S. Agency for Interna-tional Development (U.S. AID) decrieddamaging erosion throughout much of thenext decade (Grover 1974; LeBaron et al.1979). Many Bolivians learned of theerosion dilemma through a popular andinsightful book entitled Bolivia: The De-spoiled Country (Terrazas 1974). Similarwarnings were sounded with the publica-tion of The Wasted Country: The Ecolog-ical Crisis in Bolivia (Baptista1977),whilea large international audience was intro-duced to the Bolivian soil erosion crisis inLosing Ground (Eckholm 1976). By themid-1970s, soil erosion in Bolivia hadindeed been widely publicized at homeand abroad.As awareness grew in the region duringthe 1970s and 1980s, three prominentperspectives on the erosion situationcould be identified: those of governmentaland nongovernmental institutions; thoseof peasants in their personal perspectives;and those of rural trade unions.Development Institutions:Blaming the Peasants

The development institutions of theBolivian government did little to supportsoil conservation despite the accumulatingaccounts of catastrophicerosion in Cocha-bamba and other highland regions. Noneof several governments ruling during the1970s and 1980s established a nationalpolicy or program on soil conservation, asource of consternation for various con-sultants contracted by the United States(IIDE and U.S. AID 1986). When agen-cies in the national government did assesssoil erosion, they blamed the perceivedbackwardness of peasant farmers andherders. A report on "Renewable Natural

Resources" by the Ministry of PeasantAgriculture and Ranching, for instance,claimed that the primary cause of soilerosion could be found in a failure of landusers to employ modern techniques(MACA 1977). Such reports asserted thatthe transfer of proper tools and tech-niques to ill-equipped and erosion-inducing peasants would stem erosion.Market signals and articulation of thepeasant economy with agricultural busi-nesses, it was thought, would induce thenecessary innovations and transfer mod-ern technologies (Adams 1980).But capacity of the peasant sector inCochabamba to generate market demandfor modern technologies declined steadilyduring the 1980s, and agribusiness inte-gration remained restricted to small areaswithin the overall peasant economy (Weil1983). National economic restructuringimplemented since August 1985, in ac-cord with a neoliberal model recom-mended by the International MonetaryFund and the World Bank, dashedremaining hopes that market-inducedtechnological change would aid in thereduction of soil erosion. With sectoral,social, and spatial inequalities engenderedby new economic policies, highland pro-duction exerted little demand on inputmarkets.9Countering the prior paucity ofgovernment interest in erosion, somestate agencies called for assistance pro-grams to aid in the transfer of modernagricultural tools and techniques for con-servation purposes. In a 1987 "NationalMeeting on Natural Renewable Re-sources," governmental institutions, to-

9 Neoliberal restructuring favored expandedcommercial agriculture, oriented toward ex-port markets in the SantaCruz lowlands, at theexpense of combined production for subsis-tence and markets by highland peasants.Faced with increasingly disadvantageous con-ditions, highland peasants were forced to"squeeze" production yet further throughintensifying land use on their mountainousfields and rangeland,environments consideredat least moderately susceptible to watererosion (Cochrane 1973; de Morales 1990).


8/17

318 ECONOMicGEOGRAPHYgether with representatives of majorinternational aid agencies, recommendedestablishment of a national soil conserva-tion program (MACA 1987). Yet even asthese national agencies expressed urgentneed for conservation measures, suchprograms lay beyond government fi-nances, and arguably outside its overallwill, in the restructured economy.10As the financial and administrative ca-pacity of the Bolivian state weakened, soilconservation devolved almost entirely oninternational aid agencies and nongovern-mental organizations. Beginning in the1970s, these institutions advocated the pro-vision of technicalassistance to peasantpro-ducers. U.S. AID, for instance, sponsoredvarious studies of soil erosion and conser-vationin peasantcommunities within largerprojects aimed at "modernizing"Bolivianagriculture (LeBaron et al. 1979; Wenner-gren and Whittaker 1975).11 The SwissTechnical Corporation supported a rangeof soil conservation programs, most nota-bly in the form of small-scale forestryprojects. By the late 1980s, over 300NGOs had initiated assistance programsinBolivia and more than 80 clustered inCochabamba,where many sponsored stud-ies and small projects designed to abateerosion.Causes of soil erosion identified byother development institutions-primar-ily international aid agencies and mostNGOs-coincided, for the most part, withrecent assessments by Bolivian govern-ment institutions described above. Peas-

ant ignorance was assumed in numerousreports by international aid agencies andNGOs, such as the "Environmental Pro-file of Bolivia," where the authors allegethat "land users were not at all aware ofthe soil erosion problem" (IIDE and U.S.AID 1986, 99). Other reports supportedby U.S AID averred that worsenederosion originated in the "cultural back-wardness" of rural inhabitants (LeBaronet al. 1979; Wennergren and Whittaker1975). In a similar indictment of peasantignorance, the director of the Center forForestry Development (CDF) in Cocha-bamba held that "men cause soil erosionwhere they do not know better" (Estrada1991). Arising from this cultural unaware-ness, erosion-inducing techniques andtechnologies employed in land use wereseen as the major problems (de Morales1990, 52; Estrada 1991; IIDE and U.S.AID 1986; MACA 1977).12Designs of numerous soil conservationprojects in Cochabamba have been basedon assumptions of the inappropriate tech-niques and underlying ignorance of peas-ant farmers (e.g., IIDE and U.S. AID1986).13Educational pamphlets and semi-nars intended for peasant farmers are

10Following Decree 21060, the Bolivianstate abdicated most responsibility for ruraldevelopment in the highlands. For example,technical assistance for an estimated 500,000highland peasants was assigned to a staff of 100extension agents during the late 1980s (PerezCrespo 1991).11In Cochabamba, U.S. AID funded aparastatal bureaucracy, the Programfor Alter-native Regional Development (PDAR, laterchanged to PDR), which by the mid-1980s hadbecome the major U.S.-funded institutioninvolved in study of soil erosion and imple-mentation of conservation measures.

12 Although specific techniques mentionedin their lists differed, these reports concur bynot considering inappropriate land use tech-niques in relation to conditions other thanpresumed peasant ignorance and, in someaccounts, population growth. Peasant igno-rance and overpopulation formed foundationsfor an international perspective on LatinAmerican soil erosion, influenced by thewidely disseminated work of William Vogt,chief of the Conservation Section of the PanAmerican Union, who wrote books on Venezu-ela, El Salvador, and Costa Rica during the1940s and the 1950s (e.g., Vogt 1946).13 It is notable that while most governmentinstitutions and international aid agenciescontinue to consider ill-suited practices theresult of backwardness and lack of moderncustoms, a contrasting claim is increasinglyheard: environmentally damaging land usepractices are the result of cultural degradation,in effect too much modernity rather than toolittle (Eckholm 1976; van den Berg 1991).


9/17

SOIL EROSION IN BOLIVIA 319common in these projects. Because theignorance of farmers is assumed, theconservation projects frequently prescribehighly publicized solutions without assess-ing present practices or their rationales.Life circumstances that shape land usepractices and alterations in them arelargely ignored.The Peasants: Diverging Perspectives

Cochabamba peasants also put theblame for soil erosion on themselves. Buttheir viewpoints are distinct from those ofdevelopment institutions in two ways: (1)many Cochabamba peasants reveal apartial understanding of soil erosion,utilizing a complex lexicon from the locallanguage (Quechua) to discuss diverseerosional landforms, and relating erosionto soil types and agricultural and grazingpractices; and (2) they invoke the super-natural world of religious beliefs andcustoms in the causation of soil erosion. Inboth regards, a distinguishing characteris-tic of peasant perceptions of soil erosion isthe vivid sense of prolonged historicaltime and local space.Historical illustration of these charac-teristics is found in judicial depositionsdealing with peasant efforts to defendrights to land, water, and forest resources.Numerous records filed during the nine-teenth century, currently housed in theMunicipal Archive of Cochabamba, indi-cate that the distinct temporal and spatialaspects of contemporary perspectives onerosion were frequently expressed. Forexample, in 1832 Isidoro Ayllita, a localauthority in the Cochabamba countryside(the Cacique of Colcapirgua), defendedhis rights to irrigate with waters of theriver Collpa (AMC 1832). Ayllita justifiedhis right on the basis of traditional use:"we have possessed these waters of theCollpa since time immemorial ... and wehave used them continuously . . . sincethe creation of the world" (AMC 1832, 2).Similar to concepts expressed by manypresent-day environmentalists, Ayllita ar-gued that sustained use over time evi-denced his propriety. By referring to

various local places, he rendered a highlypersonal and familiar knowledge of theresource.A personalized and long-term view ofresources continues to infuse conversa-tional accounts offered by Cochabambapeasants. In our discussions, most attrib-uted erosion to the increased frequencyand intensity of torrential downpours, re-ferred to as "crazy rains" (loco paras).'4This may seem to blame nature, but theultimate responsibilityfor"crazyrains"wasin fact seen as personal. Neglect of ritualobligations toward the main non-Christiandeity-the climate-controlling "EarthMother" brought on recent worsening of"crazyrains."As 35-year-oldLeocardiasaid:

When I was a child my parents madeofferingsto the "Earth Mother"[Pacha-mama].Theycookedspecial oodsthattheyburied in the soil along with maize beer[aqha].Theydid all this so thattheywouldbe looked on favorablyby her. But todaythese practicesaren'tcommonalthoughwestillmakeofferings n Carnival nd on SaintJohn'sDay andwhenwe start o plant.Butit's less thanbefore;perhaps orthisreasonshe's angrywith us and maybe that'swhythere are so many "crazy rains" [locoparas]. (Leocardia Gonzalez, Tiraque,Cochabamba, March1991)Personalized reciprocity is envisionedas the basis for obligations to the "EarthMother." This customary reciprocity ap-pears to form the basis of a peasantconservation ethic, according to indigenistanthropologists in Cochabamba (Rocha1990;van den Berg 1991).15Yet, while soil

14 In attributinganthropogenic oil erosionfirst o nature,Cochabambaeasants esembleother farmers.Great Plainsfarmersthoughtthe extremeness of natural drought wasresponsible for the "Dust Bowl" (Worster1979).BecauseWorsterdid not examine theperceptions f local nhabitants, is studydoesnot elucidate how Great Plains farmersex-plainedthe onset of extremedrought.In theEcuadorianAndes, soil erosion is viewed bypeasantsas the "willof God" Staedel1989).15 The anthropologist-priestan den Berg,forinstance,writesthat,in the peasants' yes,


10/17

"The earth produces according to how onehandles her. If she is treated well, there'sproduction. If she's treated poorly, there won'tbe production due to natural disasters" (vanden Berg 1991, 74).

320 ECONOMic GEOGRAPHYerosion is often attributed to ritual ne-glect, this transgression is not the soleorigin of divine wrath and subsequenterosion. Transgressions in the realm ofsocial reciprocity are considered by someCochabamba peasants as provoking thewrath of the earth deity, the heightenedonset of "crazy rains," and ensuing soilerosion. According to this causal se-quence, erosion originates in the break-down of customary social rights andobligations. When discussing the per-ceived origins of worsened erosion, nu-merous persons conveyed the image of asocial universe undermined by disrespect,animosity, inequality, and violence:

Relations re no longergood amongpeople.(Victor Flores, Tiraque, Cochabamba,10July 1991)There's no respect among us anymore.(CasimiroVargas,Tarata,Cochabamba, 5June 1991)There are many fights and massacres.(Eliodora Marcos, Tiraque, 2 November1991)Not all people are the sametoday, there

is a greatdealofbad feeling. (NinfaSalazar,Tarata,October1991)Despite acknowledged asymmetry andregular violations, the ideology of reci-procity infuses social life in the Cocha-bamba countryside. Reciprocal-type socialrelations were once thought by ethno-graphic observers in Andean regions toensure social equality among families andcommunities (Mishkin 1946). In recentdecades observers have recognized thatreciprocity ideals often veil social domina-tion. Orlove (1974), for instance, demon-strated how social reciprocity maskedgrowing differentiation of groups definedby wealth and gender; many studies havefollowed suit in noting how reciprocitycovers widening rifts along these two

social axes (Mallon 1983; Weismantel1988).Age is a third distinction dividing manyAndean peoples with increased salience.In Cochabamba, the elderly and youngadults tend to differ in amount of school-ing and character of work experience,with discourses on soil erosion followingthis rift in a subtle but crucial shift.16Elderly peasants are most likely to voicethe explanations of soil erosion outlinedabove. Many elderly peasants say thatyoung people in their communities haveincited divine wrath: "some people rebelagainst their parents," "parents are beingkilled," "children do not respect us."Seventy-two-year-old Manuel describedthe generational rift in this way:

It's all "crazyrains"now, there weren'tmanybefore.All I can say with regardtothis is that the world must be exhausted.Moreover,God is madbecausewe peoplearenotequalswhereasbefore,asI toldyou,it wasn't that way. We respected oneanotherbut todaychildren do not respectus as they should.I onlythinkthese thingswhenI amalone,andI do not tell even mychildrenaboutthem, it's only in my heartthat I think aboutthem. (ManuelFernain-dez, Tarata,Cochabamba,10 December1991)Numerous young peasants in Cocha-bamba, on the other hand, explain soilerosion less in terms of the wrath of theearth deity and more in terms of directhuman causes. They commonly blame

16 The present assessment of age-baseddifferences n explanations f erosioncausesdoes not imply that these are the onlydifferencesheard among Cochabambapeas-ants.A notableviewpointnot examined n thestudy links soil erosion to the millenarianvisionof an impendingapocalypse see Stem1987on the historicalmportance f millenari-anism among Andeanpeoples). One Cocha-bamba peasant expressed this apocalypticinterpretation s follows:"It alsoappears hatwe are at the time of the end of the worldandthe judgementday andfor this reasonGod isangry with humans and hence the 'crazyrains.'


11/17

SOIL EROSION IN BOLIVIA 321their elders, those from whom the youngpeasants have inherited degraded fieldsand pasture. More schooled, more likelyto speak Spanish as well as Quechua, andmore experienced in off-farmwork, youngpeasants express skepticism about theearth deity, although few deny herexistence outright. Conversational ac-counts of two 23-year-olds, a man and awoman, illustrate this generational shift:

It's true that "crazy ains"have increased,the thunder oois greater hanbefore.Theyhave increased he problemof erosion,butthe problemof erosion s duealsoto thefactthat the ground s "naked."t no longerhasgrassor trees.Thesewere depleted by ourparentsand the others [elders].(CasimiroVargas,Tarata,Cochabamba,5June 1991)

Due to erosionthe fields that we [youngadults] nheritareinfertile; eeingthis statesomeofus migrate o the Chapare.Further-more,there'snotmuch and eft,and all of itis pure rock or at least rocky.There aren'tgood agriculturalandsavailable or inheri-tance or partitioning.Look up there, forexample, it's bedrock, along with someother rock-filled ields. It looks as thoughthe rain or perhaps he wind has removedthe soil. (Ninfa Salazar,Tarata, Cocha-bamba,11 October1991)During the 1980s, the discontent ofyoung Cochabamba peasants about eco-nomic, political, and environmental di-lemmas brought increased involvement inrural trade unions (sindicatos).17An in-creasingly common perspective on soilerosion formed as several rural tradeunions initiated critiques combining local

perspectives with consideration of relatednational and international issues. By thedecade's end, young peasant voices min-gled with and eventually added to prior

explanations on environment and devel-opment in the trade union tradition.Rural Trade Unions

Rural trade unions first emerged inBolivia following national defeat in theChaco War (1932-35), as the governingpower of the republic's elite weakened.Throughout the mid-1980s, trade unions,which belonged initially to the Confeder-ation of Bolivian Workers (COB), did notformulate positions on soil erosion-or onother rural environmental dilemmas, forthat matter.'8 Even as leadership in theCOB shifted in 1977 from mining centersto the city-countryside under the growingrural social movement known as katar-ismo, which in 1979 founded the firstnational trade union for peasants ("TheSole Trade Union Confederation for thePeasant Workers of Bolivia"), there wasno immediate expression of concern aboutthe erosion dilemma (Albo 1987).19

17 The unions, sometimes referred to aspeasant unions, fit into a nationwide hierarchy.A number of individual unions (each typicallyequivalent to one peasant community) in thepolitical-administrativeterritory of the cantoncomprise a "subcenter." Subcenters within apolitical province join to form a "center,"which in turn combine to make up a depart-ment-level federation (Healy 1989).

18 The trade unions did, nonetheless, formu-late incisive criticisms and social analyses ofwater pollution in mining centers.' Rural trade unions were initially alliedwith the major urban-based workers' union,the miner-led COB. They later transferredsupport to the populist National RevolutionaryMovement (MNR) party, which implementedthe nationalagrarianreformof 1953. The MNRand subsequent governments during the 1950sand 1960s manipulated rural trade unionsthrough unconcealed clientelism. The MNRcreated a special Ministry of Peasant Affairswhen it came to power in 1952 so that thegovernment could control the rural trade

unions (Albo 1987, 383). Ties between thepeasant unions and the ruling party were mosttight-knit under the so-called Military-PeasantAlliance (Pacto Militar-Campesino),forged bymilitary governments in the 1960s. Alliancebetween the rural trade unions and the COBwas reestablished in the 1970s. The katarismomovement-named for the indigenous peasantinsurgent Tomas Katari, who led Altiplanopeasants in the 1781 siege of La Paz-revitalized historical and ideological traditionsin the effort to achieve revindicationsbased onboth ethnicity and class. Although katarismocentered geographically on La Paz and thenorthern Altiplano, ruraltrade unions in muchof Bolivia surged with mass-based political


12/17

participation (also known as "popular" or..ra9roo s 'V

322 ECONOMIc GEOGRAPHYThe absence of soil erosion in the voicesof rural trade unions was conspicuousfollowing katarismo's rise to power in1979. That absence, I contend, did notresult from mere coincidence nor simple

oversight, for the trade union movementhad considerably advanced its critique ofother environmental problems and identi-fied the causes of these problems (e.g.,water pollution and lowland deforesta-tion). Several deteriorating environmentalresources, for instance, were detailed inresolutions at national and regional meet-ings of rural trade unions and other uniongroups throughout the 1980s (COB 1985;Calla, Pinelo, and Urioste 1989; CSUTCB1989; FSUTCC 1986). The notable ab-sence of erosion concurred with theepistemology implicit in the trade unionanalysis of environmental problems.20Economic and political domination bytransnational corporations and imperialistpowers caused problems such as waterpollution in the mining centers andlarge-scale deforestation. The causes ofsoil erosion, on the other hand, were notobviously extralocal. Instead, for mosttrade union members, the causes of thisproblem originated in local settings andamong local inhabitantsThe two common explanations of soilerosion-personal perspectives that fin-gered ritual neglect and the expert-typediscourse of government and nongovern-mental institutions that blamed peas-ants-reinforced omission from sindicalistdiscourse. This dilemma nonetheless slid

into the articulatedconcerns of ruraltradeunions as many young adult peasants notonly assumed leadership posts during thelate 1970s and the 1980s but also stressedland use practices as the cause of wors-ened erosion. Even so, many 20- and30-year-olds did not pin responsibilitysolely on the previous generation. Rather,they saw that elderly land users facedunfavorable circumstances resulting fromeconomic policies affecting the peasantagricultural sector. Such explanationsbroadened as many young peasants ex-panded their leadership role in local tradeunions. In certain Cochabamba areas-most notably Campero Province-theybecame union leaders during rejuvenationof the movement in the late 1970s. Later,the Campero unions were distinguishedas forging new and distinct explanationsabout the soil erosion situation.Campero leaders have begun to mergelocal interpretations of soil erosion withconsideration of related national andinternational issues. Several speak aboutthe contradictionbetween concern for therural environment proclaimed by devel-opment institutions of the Bolivian gov-ernment and international agencies on theone hand, and government policies onagricultural prices and credit that pres-sure peasants to intensify land use on theother.21One leader in Campero gave thefollowing assessment: "the national gov-ernment maintains a contradictory posi-tion ['thinks two times']; on one hand,they want we [peasants] to conserve theenvironment but on the other hand theypressure us to exploit the environmentbecause we keep having to produce more

20 Official ssessmentsof environmental e-terioration y Bolivian radeunionsduring he1980semphasizeda critiqueof global capital-ism, economicdependency, and imperialismthat coincided with the nationalistand fre-quently populist position advanced by bothmilitaryand civiliangovernments ince 1952.The 1984 Confederation f BolivianWorkersmeeting, for instance,discussed he "Defenseof Natural Resources" under the rubric"Against mperialistOppressionand Depen-dency" COB 1985).

21The concerns of peasant trade unionsabout government policy on agriculturalpricesand credit were formulated extensively at thenational and regional levels under katarismoimpetus beginning in the late 1970s (Albo1987; CSUTCB 1984; Flores 1984). Explana-tions of how these national policies relate toenvironmental deterioration, however, havebeen expressed primarilyby grassrootsleadersin such settings as the Campero trade unions.


13/17

SOIL EROSION IN BOLIVIA 323to earn a livelihood." The success of soilconservation projects, he continued, de-pends on favorable policies for peasantfarm production.Extended frameworks of time andpersonalized views of space have distin-guished the personal character of explana-tions about soil erosion expressed byCampero trade union leaders.22 Suchvantage points on the temporal and spatialqualities of resources descended indi-rectly from judicial discourses used forgenerations in order to defend peasantresource rights. Their recent reappear-ance did not, however, represent simplereassertion of long-standing tradition.Rather, extended time periods and per-sonalized spaces merged with cultural andclass concerns highlighted by katarismoduring the late 1970s and the early 1980s.Reflecting these concerns, one leader inCampero linked local environmental dete-rioration to the quincentennial of theSpanish invasion:

Throughouthe last 500 yearswe peasantshave been steppedon by the wealthy,themestizos,and the Spaniards;he trees andanimals imilarlyhavebeen abusedand arebeing extinguished, and thus we sharemuchsuffering longwiththe environment.(Victor Flores, Aiquile, Cochabamba,30March1991)The qualities of extended time and per-sonalized space, expressed in accounts ofsoil erosion, have been used by Camperounion leaders when advocating local-scaleassessments of conservation and develop-ment projects.Campero peasantshave usedthese criteria in discussions with a localnongovernmental organizationto argue forthe design and implementation of inter-mediate-scaletechnologies (e.g., smalldamsforirrigation),which would permit the con-tinuation of existing use patterns.They alsohave used the criteria of extended timeand personalized space to support the im-

portance of local knowledge in conserva-tion planning. The applicabilityof local ter-race techniques for soil conservation, forinstance, has been incorporated into con-servation-development projects in Camp-ero funded by the governments of Italyand the Netherlands.23Explanations of soil erosion in Camperounions have drawn strands from previ-ously separate perspectives. As youngpeasants became active members andleaders of reinvigorated ruralunions, theywere influenced by historical struggles forresource rights and the katarismo move-ment, two perspectives imbued with longtime frames and personalized concepts ofspace, outlooks previously overlooked orat least underemphasized in the tradeunion tradition. At the same time, percep-tions of the causes of soil erosion amongyoung peasants occurred within the con-text of worsening erosion, which offeredsharpand daily reminders of the dilemma.It is noteworthy also that trade unionviewpoints on soil erosion and conserva-tion continue to undergo discussion andreformulation.Discussion: Soil Erosion andthe Shifting Terrain ofEnvironmental Hazardsand Development

Distinct explanations of soil erosion inCochabambahave supporteddifferingplansfor conservation. Social, technical, politi-cal, and economic features thatworsen ero-sion have become targets for transforma-tion. Government and international aidagencies, together with many nongovern-

22 In this respect, together with their broadbase of popular support and participation,Campero unions resemble other social move-ments in Latin America (Slater 1985).

23 The validity of local knowledge employedby peasant land users in Aiquile has beenaffirmedby local experience with a number ofunsuccessful development projects. Accordingto Campero resident Ubaldina Mejia, "thedevelopment institutions claim that they knowthe solutions, but when we look at it, werecognize that we known as a result of ourexperience, we know how to take care of theearth."


14/17

324 ECONOMIc GEOGRAPHYmental organizations representing soil ero-sion as due to the inadequacies of peasantagriculture and livestock-raising, have jus-tified soil conservation programs limitedto technical assistance. In contrast, the re-cent explanationsof soil erosion expressedby rural trade unions and their mainlyyoung leaders have combined assessmentof local and extralocal conditions. Theseexplanations have led them to address theeffects on soil conservation of governmenteconomic policies. This crucial use of ex-planations about soil erosion has receivedlittle attention, however, in either Boliviaor other Andean countries.Differing explanations of soil erosionalso reflect past development. In Cocha-bamba, two major features of this past("sedimented") development were: (1)extremely uneven economic growth, inwhich numerous peasants "cornered" byeconomic stagnation inhabited degradingrural environments, providing unsettlingevidence of human impacts to youngpeasants; and (2) government policies thatreinforced this uneven development andenvironmental degradation, including dis-interest in peasants and other marginalsocial sectors that led to the prominentroles of international aid agencies, non-governmental institutions, and popularsocial movements (such as the rural tradeunions in Cochabamba during the 1980s).Rather than comprising a unique histori-cal-geographic conjuncture, the aboveenvironmental and social circumstancesare at least moderately common in devel-oping countries (de Janvry, Sadoulet, andYoung 1989; Slater 1985; Storper 1991).Their commonness makes it likely thatpeasants, nongovernmental organizations,and social movements will frequentlyform majorvoices on problems of environ-mental hazards and their solutions.A useful comparison exists between thesoil erosion situation in Cochabamba andthe Brazilian Amazon, where varioussocial groups differ in their perceptions ofdeforestation causes (Hecht and Cockburn1990; Schmink and Wood 1992). That theCochabamba groups most concernedabout erosion have concurred since at

least 1980 that deteriorating soil resourcesundermine rural development contrastsclear-cut distinctions between "conserva-tionists" and "exploiters" (such as live-stock ranchers) in the Amazonian forest.The less-striking difference of attitudescharacteristic of the Cochabamba erosionproblem will likely distinguish otherenvironmental hazards as their deleteri-ous effects on development potential areacknowledged by a widening range ofsocial, economic, and political groups.24Rather than clear-cut binary opposition,differing interpretations of environmentalhazards, which may appear nonconflictual,are likely to characterize the views of suchgroups.Explanations of soil erosion in Cocha-bamba have not mirrored regional politi-cal and economic interests in a simplefashion. Various viewpoints have dis-played resemblances or differed in com-plex ways-both within and among thethree most concerned groups-as groupsand subgroups borrowed ideas and ac-commodated differences, while othersrelied on explicit contestation. Interna-tional aid agencies and, perhaps espe-cially, nongovernmental organizationshave evidenced an unmistakable pluralityof perspectives within the dominant view.Certain NGOs, for instance, have voicedpro-peasant views on soil erosion thatinclude regional political-economic issues,thus extending beyond the counsel of

24Another feature evidenced in Cocha-bamba that warrants comparative study con-cerns links between environmental deteriora-tion in the countryside, rural development ingeneral, and urban-based industrialization.Because rural trade unions in Cochabambahave continued to ally with their urban-basedcounterparts, development and environmentissues in the city and countryside remainlinked in the perspectives of each group.Development specialists have underscoredsimilar links, indicating various economic tiesbetween rural development-a focus of plan-ning during the 1980s-with the urban-baseddevelopment of industry (Perez Crespo 1991;Storper 1991).


15/17

25 In general, the working agreements be-tween NGOs and trade unions have beenbased on shared end objectives, such asresource conservation, rather than broad con-cerns about local democracy, social justice, andequality. In Campero, the lack of localdemocracy in design and implementation ofprojects by a variety of NGOs has been aregular source of discontent among inhabi-tants.

SOIL EROSION IN BOLIVIA 325technical assistance (e.g., AGRUCO; seeRist and San Martin 1991).25"Little voices" articulated by Cocha-bamba peasants demonstrate that localknowledge of soil erosion is extensive andthat it complements peasant expertiseabout such biophysical features as climate,crops, and plants and animals in general(Hatch 1984; Zimmerer n.d.). The localknowledge of soil erosion (an aspect ofIndigenous Technical Knowledge) hasbecome a common referent in the em-powerment efforts of ruraltrade unions asthey seek to democratize the process ofdevelopment and, more specifically, theimplementation of development projects.Evoking the validity and importance oftheir technical knowledge, unions such asthose in Cochabamba's Campero provincehave sought to tailor conservation-relateddevelopment projects to local settings.This extensive knowledge of soil erosiondid not, however, prefigure a uniform orimmutable view of its causes and signifi-cance by peasant inhabitants. Differingperceptions between generational cohortshighlight variation among the peasant"little voices," with this variation guidingnoteworthy contrasts in the commonplaceexplanations of soil erosion and in theefforts of conservation-with-developmentprojects.ReferencesAdams, K. 1980. Agribusiness integration as analternative small farm strategy. Report tothe Consortium for International Develop-

ment (CID), Cochabamba.Albo, X. 1987. From MNRistas to Kataristas oKatari. In Resistance, rebellion, and con-

sciousness in the Andean peasant world,18th to 20th centuries, ed. S. J. Stern,379-420. Madison: University of WisconsinPress.Archivo Municipal de Cochabamba (AMC).1832. Ysidoro Ayllita, por mi y mis com-partes. Legajo 5, Provincias. Cochabamba.Baptista Gumucio, M. 1977. El pats erial: Lacrisis ecologica boliviana. La Paz: LosAmigos del Libro.Bennet, H. H. 1947. Elements of soil conser-vation. New York:McGraw Hill.Blaikie, P. 1985. The political economy of soilerosion in developing countries. Essex:Longman.Burton, I.; Kates, R. W.; and White, G. 1978.The environment as hazard. New York:OxfordUniversity Press.Calla O., R.; Pinelo N., J. E.; and Urioste F. deC., M. 1989. CSUTCB: Debate sobredocumentos politicos y asamblea de naciona-lidades. Talleres CEDLA No. 8. La Paz:EDOBOL.Central Obrera Boliviana (COB). 1985. VICongreso de la COB: Protocolos y te'sisde ladiscusi6n politica. La Paz: HISBOL.Cochrane, T. T. 1973. El potencial agricola deluso de la tierra en Bolivia: Un mapa desistemas de tierras. La Paz: Don Bosco.

Confederacion Sindical Unica de TrabajadoresCampesinos de Bolivia (CSUTCB). 1984.Ley Agraria Fundamental. Cochabamba:CSUTCB.. 1989. IV Congreso Nacional Ordi-nario: Comision de Recursos Naturales yTenencia de Tierras. Tarija: CSUTCB.Corporacion de Desarrollo de Cochabamba(CORDECO). 1980. Andlasis de problemasy potenciales en el desarrollo regional deCochabamba. Cochabamba:CORDECO.de Janvry, A.; Sadoulet, E.; and Young, L. W.1989. Land and labour in Latin Americanagriculture from the 1950s to the 1980s.Journal of Peasant Studies 16 (3):396-424.de Morales, C. B. 1990. Bolivia: Medioambiente y ecologtzd aplicada. La Paz:Universidad Nacional Mayorde San Andres.Denevan, W. M. 1973. Development and theimminent demise of the Amazon rain forest.The Professional Geographer 25 (2):130-35.Eckholm, Erik. 1976. Losingground: Environ-mental stress and world food prospects.New York:Norton.Emel, J., and Peet, R. 1989. Resource manage-ment and naturalhazards. In New models ingeography, ed. R. Peet and N. Thrift,49-76.London: Unwin Hyman.


16/17

326 ECONOMIcGEOGRAPHYEstradaV., J. G. 1991. El fenomeno erosivo enBolivia. Pro Campo (Cochabamba)22:29-30.Federacion Sindical Unica de TrabajadoresCampesinos de Cochabamba (FSUTCC).1986. Resoluciones del III Congreso

Campesino, 17-19 de julio 1986. Cocha-bamba: FSUTCC.Flores, G. 1984. Estado, politicas agrarias yluchas campesinas: Revision de una decadaen Bolivia. In Bolivia: La fuerza hist6ricadel campesinado, ed. F. Calderon and J.Dandler, 445-545. Cochabamba: CERES.Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in socialtheory: Action, structure, and contradictionin social analysis. Berkeley: University ofCaliforniaPress.Gill, L. 1987. Peasants, entrepreneurs, andsocial change: Frontier development inlowland Bolivia. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.Grover, B. 1974. Erosion and Bolivia's future.Utah State University Series 31/74, U.S.AID Contract 511-56T. La Paz: U.S. AID.Gugelberger, G., and Kearney, M. 1991.Voices for the voiceless: Testimonial litera-ture in Latin America. Latin AmericanPerspectives 70 (18/3):3-14.Hatch, J. K. 1984. Our knowledge: Traditionalfarming practices in rural Bolivia. Vol. 2,Temperate valleys region. New York: RuralDevelopment Services.Healy, K. 1989. Sindicatos campesinos ydesarrollo rural, 1978-1985. La Paz: HIS-BOL.Heath, D. B. 1969. Conclusions and implica-tions for action. In Land reform and socialrevolution in Bolivia, ed. D. B. Heath, C. J.Erasmus, and H. C. Buechler. London:Frederick Praeger.Hecht, S., and Cockburn, A. 1990. Thefate ofthe forest: Developers, destroyers, anddefenders of the Amazon. New York:Harp-erCollins.Hewitt, D. 1983. On the poverty of theory:Natural hazards research in context. InInterpretations of calamity, ed. K. Hewitt,231-62. Boston: Allen and Unwin.International Institute for Development andthe Environment (IIDE) and United StatesAgency for InternationalDevelopment (U.S.AID). 1986. Perfil ambiental de Bolivia. LaPaz: U.S. AID.Kates, R. W., and Burton, I. 1986. Geography,resources, and environment: Selected writ-ings of Gilbert F. White, vols. 1-2. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Larson, B. 198' Colonialism and agrariantransformation in Bolivia: Cochabamba,

1550-1900. Princeton, N.J: Princeton Uni-versity Press.LeBaron, A.; Bond, L. K.; Aitken P. S.; andMichaelsen, L. 1979. Explanation of theBolivian highlands grazing-erosion syn-drome. Journal of Range Management 32(3):201-08.Los Tiempos (Cochabamba). 1991. May's el35%del territorionacionalesta'sufriendo unproceso de erosion. 12 May 1991.Malin, J. C. 1936. Adaptation of the agricul-tural system to subhumid environment:Illustrated by the activities of the WayneTownship Farmers' Club of EdwardsCounty, Kansas, 1886-1893. AgriculturalHistory 10:118-41.Mallon, F. E. 1983. The defense of communityin Peru's Central Highlands: Peasant strug-gle and capitalist transition, 1860-1940.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Mathews, J. T. 1989. Redefining security.Foreign Affairs 68 (2):162-77.Ministerio de Asuntos Campesinos y Agropec-uarios (MACA). 1977. Recursos naturalesrenovables. In El pais erial: La crisisecologica boliviana, ed. M. Baptista Gamu-cio, 43-56. La Paz: Los Amigos del Libro.. 1987. National Meeting on NaturalRenewable Resources. Tarija:MACA.

Mishkin, B. 1946. The contemporary Quechua.In Handbook of South American Indians.Vol. 2: The Andean civilizations, ed. J. H.Steward, 411-70. Bulletin 143. Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology.Montes de Oca, I. 1989. Geografia y recursosnaturales de Bolivia. La Paz: EditorialEducacional.Orlove, B. S. 1974. Reciprocidad, desigualdad,y dominacion. In Reciprocidad e intercam-bio en los Andes peruanos, ed. G. Albertiand E. Mayer, 290-321. Lima: Instituto deEstudios Peruanos.Perez Crespo, C. 1991. Why do peoplemigrate? Internal migrationand the patternof capital accumulation in Bolivia. IDAWorking Paper No. 74. Binghamton, N.Y.:IDA.Presencia (La Paz). 1990. El problema de laerosion de suelos. 16 May 1990.Preston, D. A. 1969. The revolutionary land-scape of highland Bolivia. The GeographicalJournal 135 (1):1-16.Rist, S., and San Martin, J. 1991. Agroecologiay saber campesino en la conservaci6n desuelos. Cochabamba: Runa.Rocha,J.A. 1990. Sociedad Agraria y Religion:


17/17

SOIL EROSION IN BOLIVIA 327Cambio social e identidad en los values deCochabamba. La Paz: HISBOL.Schmink, M., and Wood, C. H. 1992. Con-tested frontiers in Amazonia. New York:Columbia University Press.

Sears, P. B. 1935. Deserts on the march.Norton: University of Oklahoma Press.Slater, D. 1985. Social movements and arecasting of the political. In New socialmovements and the state in Latin America,ed. D. Slater, 1-26. Dordrecht: CEDLA.Staedel, C. 1989. The perception of stress bycampesinoz: A profile from the Ecuadoriansierra. Mountain Research and Development6(1):35-49.Stern, S. J. 1987. New approachesto the studyof peasant rebellion and consciousness:Implications of the Andean experience. InResistance, rebellion, and consciousness inthe Andean peasant world, ed. S. J. Stern,3-25. Madison: University of WisconsinPress.Storper, M. 1991. Industrialization, economicdevelopment, and the regional question inthe Third World: From import substitutionto flexible production. London: Pion.Terrazas Urquidi, W. 1974. Bolivia: Patssaqueado. La Paz: Ediciones Camarlinghi.Universidad Mayor de San Simon (UMSS).1963. Mesa redonda sobre desarrollo agro-economico del valle de Cochabamba, 19-211963. Cochabamba: Imprenta Universitaria.Urioste Fernandez de Cordova, M. 1984. Elestado anticampesino. Cochabamba: ElBuitre.USDA Mission to Bolivia (USDA). 1962.Bolivian agriculture: Its problems, pro-grams, priorities, and possibilities. Washing-ton, D. C.: USDA.van den Berg, H. 1991. Conviven con la tierra.- Cuarto Intermedio (Cochabamba)18:64-83.Vogt, W. 1946. The population of Venezuelaand its natural resources. Washington,D.C: Pan American Union.Wachtel, N. 1982. The mitimas of the Cocha-bamba Valley: The colonization policy ofHuayna Capac. In The Inca and Aztecstates, 1400-1800, ed. G. A. Collier, R. I.Rosaldo, and J. D. Wirth, 199-235. NewYork:Academic Press.Waddell, E. 1977. The hazardsof scientism: Areview article. Human Ecology 5 (1):69-76.Watts, M. 1983. On the poverty of theory:Natural hazards research in context. InInterpretations of calamity: From the view-

point of human ecology, ed. K. Hewitt,231-62. Boston: Allen and Unwin.. 1985. Social theory and environmentaldegradation. In Desert development: Manand technology in sparse lands, ed. Y.Gradis, 14-32. Dordrecht: Reidel.Weil, C. 1983. Migration among landholdingsby Bolivian campesinos. Geographical Re-view 73:182-97.Weismantel, M. J. 1988. Food, gender, andpoverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Philadel-phia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Wennergren, E. B., and Whittaker, M. D.1975. The status of Bolivian agriculture.New York:Praeger.White, G. F. 1966. Formation and role ofpublic attitudes. In Environmental qualityin a growing economy:Essays from the SixthRFF Forum, ed. G. F. White, 105-27.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press., ed. 1974. Natural hazards: Local,national, global. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Whyte, A. V. T. 1986. From hazardperceptionto human ecology. In Geography, resources,and environment, vol. 2, ed. R. W. Katesand I. Burton, 240-71. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.Wolf, E. R. 1982. Europe and the peoplewithout history. Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press.World Commission on Environment and De-velopment. 1987. Our common future.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Worster, D. 1979. Dust Bowl: The SouthernPlains in the 1930s. Oxford:Oxford Univer-sity Press.Yudice, G. 1991. Testimonio and postmodern-ism. Latin American Perspectives 70 (18/3):15-31.Zimmerer, K. S. 1991. Informe diagnostic:Uso de la tierra y la erosion de suelos en lacuenca del Rio Calicanto. Report. Cocha-bamba: Centro para la Investigacion deDesarrollo Rural (CIDRE).. 1993. Soil erosion and labor shortagesin the Andes with special reference toBolivia, 1953-1991: Implications for conser-vation-with-development. World Develop-ment 21 (8), forthcoming, October.. n.d. Local soil knowledge: Someanswers to basic questions from highlandBolivia. Journal of Soil and Water Conser-vation, forthcoming.

zimmerer_soil erosion and social (dis)courses

Documents