Changes in livestock production 2007-2013

The analysis of the community capitals in the localities chosen set a standard about how to influence the decisions/actions of the livestock production groups at the local level. This, in turn, defines the possibilities of interacting with them in agreement with their interests and needs, at the same time that the changes they perceive as possible in livestock activity are understood (^{Flora and Flora, 2008}). This study connected the perception of livestock production that was developed in the communities in 2007, the current one (2013) and the vision they have for 2019.

Table 2 shows the baseline of each community, highlighting the importance that institutional priorities have had in the direction and development of the livestock activity.

In the community of Salto de Agua, livestock production was beginning to take on strength, shaping up to develop as the main economic activity of the ejido, while in Paraíso the culture of production for self-consumption was developing more. In Tierra y Libertad, the main activities carried out were coffee growing, maize sowing, and to a lesser extent, livestock production, although the latter was kept with scarce livestock that they sold when there was economic emergency. Due to the decrease in soil fertility (from mudslides and erosion), some producers argued that maize production “was no longer profitable” and its replacement with livestock production began (^{Valdivieso, 2011}).

In agreement with what was written by ^{Carabias-Lillo et al. (1999a}; ^1999b), the community of Tierra y Libertad distributed its pasturelands in flat (less of them), undulated and mountainous zones. This community is located in an important region for water capture, which supplies the vital liquid to the neighboring communities; this characteristic benefits livestock producers, since in most of the pasturelands there are rivers, springs or small tributaries. Paraíso has its pasturelands on flat and undulated lands, while its pasturelands are closer to their households, easing the water supply in channels (water troughs) or they shepherd animals to nearby rivers. Salto de Agua was characterized by the flatness of its territory and for supplying water to their livestock in channels, nearby rivers or jagüeyes. In the three communities the livestock system was managed extensively and in most cases new areas were opened for grazing. The decisions made by livestock producers led to a different territorial configuration in each community, as well as their social, economic and cultural development; this backs the observations by ^{Flora and Arnold (2012}), who maintain that territorial construction is based on the decisions made by its population regarding the use and management of their resources.

The three localities have specific risks that cause damages annually on their territories. Because of its orography, Tierra y Libertad tends to suffer mudslides, road landslides, river overflows and fires. Due to its proximity to mangroves, Salto de Agua suffers annual floods in a portion of its territory and fires during dry season. In this sense, Paraíso is the most prone to having fires, and occasionally these communities are affected by hurricanes or tropical storms. However, they are in constant adaptation to endure the strains of these events. According to records by Ruiz-^{Meza (2010)}, ^{Balancán et al. (2014)} and ^{CONAFOR (2016)}, this region is highly sensitive to fires originated from the accumulation of dry biomass or from the inadequate management of fire in agriculture and livestock systems, as well as to mass sliding, erosion, and natural disasters like hurricanes, torrential rains, prolonged droughts and floods.

These characteristics were not limiting for the implementation of public policies (year 2007) directed at the farming subsidy in the region, despite it being located in buffering zone, and in the case of Tierra y Libertad inside the natural reserve. These institutional actions accompanied by the initiative to regulate land ownership through the entrusting of private property titles to ejidatarios, which allowed individual decision making and even gave the possibility of selling their property. Livestock production gradually had more impact in the areas where it was performed; the policies of agricultural and livestock promotion of that time were linked to the expansion of livestock production and related to deforestation and degradation of the territory (^{Guevara-Hernández et al., 2011}). In their analysis of government intervention in the agriculture and livestock sector, ^{Márquez et al. (2008)} highlight the highly paternalistic approach of rural development programs and subsidies that were directed at implementing concrete actions for the increase of production without a clear environmental criterion, programmed in a standardized way at the federal level. Through time, federalized policies decreased abruptly the amounts destined to those subsidies, which reduced the existence of programs that drove the agriculture and livestock sector in Mexico; likewise, the openness to the international market created a negative scenario in the farmland evidenced by the abandonment of lands, due to the lack of ability to invest in production and the change in management of agricultural and livestock production systems that had high dependency on external inputs and extensive practices.

By 2013 the situation of the local livestock production changed notably. Figure 1 is presented to understand more clearly how this change influenced the community capitals.

Figure 1 Influence of local livestock production in the community capitals in 2013. 

Human capital. The three communities are strengthened because they receive training from governmental, non-governmental and academic institutions, which are focused on promoting technologies for sustainable development for the livestock production activity, the conservation of natural resources, health, nutrition, etc. In Salto de Agua several producers became associated and founded a rural company of dairy products called “Quesería Pichichi”. This locality has advantage over the other groups since it has had greater access to institutional supports. ^{Lisson et al. (2010)} considers that one of the limiting factors for the development of technologies, innovations, access to different markets, as well as the improvement of agricultural and livestock practices is the lack of knowledge or training about these themes. ^{CONAFOR (2016)} documented how the concentration of institutional projects (governmental and non-governmental) drove strategies of environmental recovery, promoted the strengthening of capacities in areas such as local organization, commercialization and informal education through the exchange of experiences with peasants and professionals from other regions and even from other states of the Republic, which is considered a strategic advance of producers towards a profile of sustainable production.

Social capital. Tierra y Libertad has a local organization with more than six years of work as a livestock producing group. Paraíso recently established a working group with the objective of environmental monitoring and management of livestock activity. Salto de Agua has a legally constituted group (Quesería Pichichi) that has direct influence on the daily activities of members of the families involved. These groups are found in very different stages in relation to the strengthening of social capital, all directed at obtaining real changes in the community. It is expected that this is a result of endogenous participative dialogues, which strengthens the construction of collective identity, aspirations, and management strategies to reach their goals and improve living strategies, as suggested by ^{Imbach et al. (2009)} and ^{Barranquero (2012)} in their studies of social development.

Cultural capital. It is the capital that shows the lowest valuation in the graph because none of the communities attributed to the cultural aspect any influence on the livestock system. However, Tierra y Libertad emphasized that decision making is carried out in assembly, based on their experiences, considering the uses and customs as ejidatarios. Paraíso is a group that attempts to connect the interests of partners in the development of a more sustainable livestock activity. Salto de Agua makes decisions in consensus with the partners of the dairy factory, prioritizing the interests of the company. Despite the scarce importance that these results give to cultural capital, ^{Barranquero (2012)} emphasizes that the relevance of culture in the social life of human beings and the construction of their history is based on articulating old and new visions, directing life strategies, and forming a collective identity and sustainability of social cohesion.

Political capital. The institutions linked to livestock production in the communities are considered. Paraíso y Salto de Agua are supported by governmental and non-governmental offices. Tierra y Libertad feels isolated from governmental support, but it is backed by NGOs and academia. The three communities are receptive to institutional announcements. Livestock producers from Tierra y Libertad collaborate with the organizations Ambio and Ecosur and, even if not mentioned, the CONANP has had intermittent supports in the community in relation to livestock activity; Paraíso and Salto de Agua (the latter in a process of transition to organic production) with Pronatura Sur and CONANP. For the formation of the rural company, the community of Salto de Agua received support from The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the World Bank, State Committee and CONANP. All groups have people who are registered in PROGAN. The institutional programs and/or projects in the three communities are developed with similar emphases; however, it is common to find that, as ^{Pfaff and Robalino (2012)} highlight, the institutional programs of incentives are focused on avoiding damage or harm, usually environmental (deforestation, degradation, loss of ecosystem services) or social, without taking into consideration that values and social responsibility should be strengthened to obtain a higher impact according to the objectives of the initiative and that it should be accepted that “there are and will be processes of limited and temporary environmental degradation that are necessary to generate the goods and services required for the wellbeing of human beings, although these processes should be kept within limits that ensure that it is possible to revert the degradation” according to what ^{Imbach (2012)} suggests.

Physical capital. It refers to infrastructure that communities may have to carry out their productive activity. Paraíso and Salto de Agua have disperse multifunctional trees in the livestock production units (LPUs). Tierra y Libertad has some (individual) fodder silos, protein banks and cutting grasses (established less than two years ago), two grass mincers for the group, and there are also live and dead fences in the production units. Paraíso has diversified livestock production (they breed sheep and cattle), and live and dead fences; Salto de Agua has electrical fences, and live and dead fences; some LPUs have water troughs, troughs, and paths of easy access to their LPUs compared to some terrains in Paraíso and Tierra y Libertad, actions that help revert the processes of degradation caused by human activities (^{Imbach, 2012}). ^{CONAFOR (2016)} confers to the intervention of institutional projects that livestock systems have infrastructure such as electrical fences, water capture tanks, sunlight systems in the LPUs, as well as the introduction of improved grasses.

Financial capital. The three communities are interested in incorporating sustainable agro-forest-shepherding practices in their livestock production to improve the productivity, management and maintenance of the livestock, minimizing the production costs and minimizing the environmental impact (^{Alemán et al., 2007}; ^{Nahed et al., 2009}; ^{Sepúlveda and Ibrahim, 2009}; ^{Trujillo, 2010}; ^{Ferguson et al., 2013}). Tierra y Libertad has reduced maintenance costs for the implementation of forest shepherding systems; some of the members of the group are devoted to growing coffee, parlour palm, breeding fish and selling wood. Paraíso sells milk, annual crops, and sheep meat and beef. Bartra (cited by Trujillo, 2010) suggests that the efficient productive diversification and of low dependency on inputs fosters an increase in the agriculture and livestock offer and the satisfaction of human needs. These two communities sell their products locally or with intermediaries. Salto de Agua sells cheeses at the local and national level, and has diversified its cheese production; it has pasteurization, which would allow it to enter international markets if it was interested and had sufficient production volume. ^{Martínez (1999}) and ^{De Los Ríos-Carmenado et al. (2011)} state that the development of rural communities depends on the relationships with actors at different territorial scales, with multidisciplinary groups or complementing institutional intervention with regional, national or international markets, showing economically successful results.

In the community Tierra y Libertad, social incentives are received such as the Programa Oportunidades (incentive given to mothers to support their children’s education), Setenta y más, Amanecer (these two directed at the elderly population); they also receive incentives for the protection of water sources, payment for environmental services (PSA, for initials in Spanish), and the livestock production incentive PROGAN (not all people who participated in this study receive this support). ^{Nahed et al. (2013}a) mention that these economic supports widen or maintain the socioeconomic gap of the communities.

Natural capital. Contrary to what Palma (cited by ^{Guevara-Hernández et al., 2011}) says, who points out that the social importance of livestock production counters the good use and conservation of natural resources, the communities in this study are in constant communication with the CONANP, which is focused on planning strategies for conservation and management of forest and productive areas. Tierra y Libertad designated a conservation area. Salto de Agua only mentions the importance of conserving trees in the livestock production zones.

Paraíso and Salto de Agua are working with Pronatura Sur in different research projects (such as monitoring the erosion in the territory) and the incorporation of protein banks for livestock feeding with the objective of limiting the extensive management of livestock. ^{Trujillo (2010}) assumes that peasant society is developed with high marginality and poverty where rural areas have strong limitations for the development of large-scale agriculture and livestock activities. A large part of their territories are rich in flora and fauna, although ecologically fragile where overuse may cause a collapse in natural resources. However, at some moment these groups developed functional practices in the local sphere that had low environmental and economic impact. Nevertheless, in a study performed at the state level directed at identifying management strategies that foster the conservation of natural protected areas, ^{CONANP (2011)} found that productive activities with extensive management, high use of agrichemicals and lack of training of producers, are the main stressors of the natural landscape.

Proposal for the development of local livestock production

Livestock production in Chiapas is managed with low use of chemical inputs and technology (^{Nahed et al., 2013b}), which represents an opportunity to promote the environmental recovery in livestock zones without losing the profitability of productivity in the activity (^{Murgueito et al., 2011}; ^{Ferguson et al., 2013}), through a multidisciplinary process based on the strengthening of community capitals (^{Guevara-Hernández et al., 2011}; ^{Nahed et al., 2013a}) and participative to allow the potentiation and development of individuals. Implicating the communities offers the opportunity of understanding the local opinions and interests, in addition to reinforcing the links of interinstitutional trust, creating integral community development, and based on the negotiation of interests between external entities and local participants (^{Dávalos, 2005}; ^{Sanchez, 2005}; ^{Jakesová S.f.}) (Annex 1).

Stemming from the previous analysis, during the workshops the groups suggested a common view of how they want to develop livestock production in their corresponding territories (by the year 2019), taking into account that this activity is considered by them to be in development and that they consider themselves to be constant apprentices.

In Chiapas, extensive livestock production is a generalized practice; it brings with it grave economic and environmental implications. This is perceived as a decrease in the productivity of soils, increase of gas emissions that favor global warming, decrease in the availability of water, and loss of biodiversity (^{Guevara-Hernández et al., 2011}). This type of management is considered to be a promoter of deforestation and soil degradation, associated to scarce action by institutions and policies of the sector unrelated to sustainable management (^{Gerber et al., 2013}). The coastal region of the state is the biggest producer of cattle (78 %) and represents 47 % of the state income (^{SIAP, 2015}).

There is recognition that an option to fundamentally change the livestock activity is “re-culturalization” of the system, understanding this term as a proposal for change in the management habits of the productive system, the appropriation by the producer of an identity of conservationist livestock producer and with the commitment of making decisions in favor of sustainability.

This suggests counteracting the process of the “livestock revolution” with participative strategies that incorporate local knowledge, scientific advances and institutional support (^{Jiménez, 2010}). To comply with this, technical cooperation is necessary, as well as adequate levels of political participation and sustainable legislation. Recognizing that the communities that inhabit the forest regions have the potential of making a sustainable management of the forest -commercial or not- (^{Bray et al., 2003}), and considering the agriculture and livestock sector through practices such as organic agriculture, agroecology, agroforestry systems; likewise, tools like redesigning the structure and function of the agro-ecosystem, promoting the diversification to optimize their key ecosystem processes. Similarly, re-valuating indigenous technology and traditional knowledge as a source to create adaptive strategies. Success depends to a large extent on the improvement in the human capacity to make decisions, increase its level of expertise in the management of resources, acquiring information and evaluating results (^{Nicholls and Altieri 2011}). At the level of landscape it is necessary to maintain the range and distribution of the structure of the forest, species that compose it and biological diversity (^{Lindenmayer et al., 2000}).

The proposal to fulfill this vision is that livestock production should bet on the local organization to carry out collective actions with the various actors of the region (external and local) for the perfection and strengthening of local abilities and capacities (social and human capital) that facilitate the implementation of farming productive technology adequate to the in situ reality, infrastructure and equipment for the agroecological development of livestock production (physical capital). For this purpose, it is necessary to formulate a participative management plan of the territory with the aim of integrating harmoniously the productive activities with the conservation and increase of wild flora and fauna (natural capital), through multidisciplinary and interinstitutional intervention for productive specialization and an efficient and effective value chain; adjusting public policies for conservation and agriculture and livestock promotion to agree with the actions of diverse actors, complement and avoid duplicating efforts (political-financial capital). With this, the intention is to foster the enrichment and evolution of the cultural capital in relation to the management of livestock production and its environmental impact, expecting for this conceptualization to become natural within society in order to drive a process of strategic-integral management of the territory and livestock production resilience (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Proposal for development of local livestock production. Authors’ elaboration based on analysis methodology by ^{Gutiérrez-Montes (2012)}.