Fragile Lands of Latin America Strategies for ... - PART - USAID

198 Janis B. Alcorn
replace lost soil is inappropriate, because the (uncertain) repair process
would not be so simple. Te'loms also protect watersheds. This function,
likewise, is difficult to include in a cost-benefit framework.
Huastec farmers are providing a valuable service to the State by
retaining forest patches, but they receive no compensation from the
State for maintaining genetic resources, for protecting watersheds, or
for protecting soil resources for future use.
Conclusion
The benefits of low-input sustained yield land use systems that do
not degrade fragile environments compared to short-term, high yield
systems cannot be overlooked (Southgate and Disinger, 1987). It is
important to mention the divergence in land use valuation criteria
applied by different sectors of the population (de la Peila cited in
Grindle, 1981). Commercial producers use profit to determine the best
use of land; while small farmers value a land use by its ability to meet
their own needs (both directly and indirectly through cash generated
by farm products). In Mexico, land is also valued as leverage in conflicts
between the rich and the poor. Unable to win wage improvements,
rural workers have been able to win land though land reform; the high
value given land by small farmers has been validated in the political
arena (De Rouffignac, 1985). Few farmers in the world today, however,
are truly producing only at subsistence levels; for example, in Mexico
only 15% of smallholders are judged to be subsistence farmers (Yates,
1981). As consumers of purchased goods, peasants have become par-
ticipants in the capitalist exchange economy. Smallholder land use
reflects these two divergent sets of values (self sufficiency and cash
profit).
The Huastec case demonstrates that real farmers will dedicate part
of their lands to low labor intensive, resource conservative structures
that provide them with free access to subsistence goods and variable
income, if reliable, profitable, labor intensive crops are part of a farm.
The major advantages of including a forest grove component in a
farmstead lie not in predictably high financial and potentially high
economic returns, but in the conservation and subsistence benefits that
are appreciated by small farmers.
Systems mixing commercial and subsistence concerns should form
the essential basis for rural development programs. Programs could be
designed to build on farmers' existing efforts to mix these two concerns.
Development planners who recognize the need for subsistence produc-
tion to complement cash crops have overlooked te'lom-like groves and
instead have promoted the home garden, probably because it is tradi-