Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 1


Development in Rural Mexico: A Case Study of Tamaula, Mexico

Senior Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for graduation in Integrated Studies Emphasis in Biology and Environmental Studies

By

Connie M. Richardson

Utah Valley University Orem, Utah 84058 March 9, 2009




Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 2
 Approval Page Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for graduation in Bachelor of Science Degree in Integrated Studies with emphasis in Biology and Environmental Studies. We herby accept this Senior Thesis written Connie M. Richardson.

Dated: March 31, 2009

____________________________________ Professor Scott H. Abbott

____________________________________ Professor James Callison

____________________________________ Professor David R. Keller

____________________________________ Professor Joel Bradford


 


Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 3
 Abstract Many villages in the world are struggling to provide sustainable futures for their residents. The village of Tamaula, Guanajuato, Mexico is one such village. The villagers would like to grow the goat dairy and cheese processing operation. They hope this will allow the men of the village to stay rather than migrating to the United States. Currently about 60% of the men are gone at any one time. This thesis contends, that in order to provide a sustainable future for the village, there are several crucial factors that the villagers of Tamaula need to address. First, they need a reliable source of clean water and second they need to develop and implement better range management. The establishment of a cooperative, that would allow more villagers to participate in the goat dairy and cheese processing, would also be valuable. The thesis further argues that to accomplish these goals, a variety of social and political issues will need to be addressed as well.




Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 4
 Development in Rural Mexico: A Case Study of Tamaula, Mexico

I.

Introduction Tamaula is a small remote village in the mountains of the municipality of Irapuato in the

central Mexican state of Guanajuato. Tamaula is a village of about 300 people from approximately 50 families. I
became
interested
in
Tamaula
when
my
professor,
Joel
 Bradford,
used
some
of
the
research
he
has
done
while
working
on
development
projects
in
 the
village
as
examples
during
class.

In
May
2008
I
joined
Joel
and
others
from
UVU
on
a
 humanitarian
trip
to
Tamaula.

The village needs clean water; we hoped to provide it to them using a rapid sand filter. When the group I was with arrived in Tamaula we found the villagers didn’t want what we were offering. This is when the village became more than just a short visit to provide clean water, but a case study of how political clean water and sustainable economic development can be. I will use what was learned on this trip, as well as some historical information provided by personal interviews, for much of my paper. I will also research books, papers and other sources for information on rural economic development, range and watershed management, the issues surrounding migration, and technologies that may be appropriate for the village in helping them reach their goals. There are two external forces that have had a significant impact on rural Mexican village like Tamaula. The first is migration, particularly to the United States, and the family remittances that come from this migration. The second is the trade liberalization that came with the General Agreement for Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and more recently the North American Free Trade




Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 5
 Agreement (NAFTA). Along with these there were social and political events happening internal to Mexico that increased the impacts of these external forces. This
thesis
starts
with
discussion
of
economic
development
and
liberalization
of
 trade,
especially
how
these
have
impacted
Mexican
agriculture.

The
next
chapter
will
look
 at
impacts
of
migration
on
rural
development
in
Mexico.

In
chapter
3,
the
discussion
will
 turn
to
the
issues
of
range
and
watershed
management
in
arid
climates.

Chapter
4
goes
 into
the
history
of
the
village,
and
discussion
of
the
political
and
social
structure
of
the
 village,
including
the
development
of
the
dairy
and
creamery.

I
also
discuss
some
of
the
 range
issues,
especially
those
issues
regarding
the
common
grazing
lands
of
the
village.


 This
chapter
also
examines
the
current
water
situation
including
what
we
know
of
the
 current
negotiations
for
a
deep
well.

The
conclusion
of
the
thesis
is
recommendations
for
 growing
the
goat
operations
and
improving
the
watershed
and
communal
range
to
increase
 output.



 Much
of
the
recent
literature
on
poverty
and
development
has
focused
on
small‐ scale,
sustainable
agriculture
as
a
pathway
out
of
poverty
in
rural
areas
of
developing
 countries.

They
also
recommend
rural
farmers
add
value
to
the
farm
goods
they
harvest.


 II.

Development, Agriculture and Free Trade Economic
growth
and
development
should
raise
standards
of
living
and
quality
of


life
for
the
stakeholders,
and
not
at
the
expense
of
the
environment
they
live
in
(Tietenberg
 2007).


While
working
with
communities
to
provide
economic
growth
we
must
also
work
 with
them
to
ease
the
environmental
impacts
of
growth
and
development.


The
long‐term
 benefit
will
only
come
from
providing
sustainable
alternatives
and
attaining
sustainable
 goals
(Hollander
2004).









Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 6
 Successful
development
projects
must
be
approached
through
multiple
disciplines.

 We
need
to
look
at
the
social,
cultural,
economic,
political
and
environmental
issues
 surrounding
any
development
plan,
be
it
in
a
developed
country
or
underdeveloped
 country.

All
stakeholders
need
to
be
considered,
and
represented
in
the
planning
process,
 especially
those
that
are
marginalized
in
any
way.

Experience
has
shown
that
the
top‐ down,
colonial
type
of
development
projects
do
nothing
to
actually
aid
development,
they
 only
create
dependence
and
exploitation
of
both
the
people
and
the
environment.
 Some
would
say
that
economic
growth
and
community
development
are
 synonymous.

However
it
is
becoming
apparent,
as
the
inequity
of
incomes
and
standards
 of
living
between
segments
of
societies
grow,
that
these
terms
are
not
synonymous
in
all
 contexts.

According
to
Herman
Daly
growth
and
development
are
related
to
one
another
in
 terms
of
throughput.

Daly
defined
throughput
as
“the
flow
of
raw
materials
from
global
 ecosystem,
through
the
economy,
and
back
to
the
global
ecosystem
as
waster”,
growth
as
“
 the
quantitative
increase
in
size,
or
and
increase
in
throughput”,
and
development
as
“the
 increase
in
quality
of
goods
and
services,
as
defined
by
their
ability
to
increase
human
well‐ being,
provided
by
a
given
throughput.”
(2004).

Using
these
definitions,
economic
 development
would
not
only
help
eradicate
poverty,
but
also
help
stop
environmental
 overexploitation.
 One
area
where
the
developed
nations
and
underdeveloped
nations
differ
is
in
 capital‐intensive
versus
labor‐intensive
production
(McMichael
2004).

As
industrialized
 nations
have
grown,
we
have
used
many
environmentally
detrimental
mechanisms
for
 production
and
growth.

Tietenberg
questions
the
use
of
traditional
economic
growth
in
 underdeveloped
countries
and
whether
it
is
the
way
out
of
poverty
for
them.

While





Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 7
 economic
growth
can
lead
to
development
that
can
be
beneficial
to
poor
and
rich
alike,
the
 relationship
between
economic
growth
and
poverty
is
not
inevitable
or
always
effective,
it
 can
be
one
path
for
dealing
with
poverty
(Tietenberg
2007).



 U.S.
agriculture
has
become
dependent
on
mechanization
and
genetically
modified
 crop
plants.

These
practices
require
significantly
higher
inputs
of
capital,
water
and
 chemicals
to
produce
the
levels
of
output
needed
to
be
economically
successful.

They
also
 lead
to
significantly
more
environmental
degradation,
from
pollution
to
soil
erosion.

As
 nations
increase
mechanization
of
agriculture
the
tools
they
use
increase
productivity,
but
 these
tools
are
also
generally
environmentally
harmful.

The
farms
are
larger
and
they
tend
 to
specialize
in
one
or
two
crops
or
animals.

With
this
increase
in
scale
and
the
 specialization
comes
an
increase
in
biotechnical
and
chemical
inputs
(McMichael
2004).


 With
the
implementation
of
the
GATT
and
NAFTA
treaties
these
capital‐intensive
 agricultural
practices
have
been
exported
to
Mexico
(Tietenberg
2007).


 As
the
Mexican
government
pursued
more
liberal
trade
agreements
with
the
U.S.
 and
others,
they
started
pushing
capitalist
ideas
of
private
property
on
the
rural
areas,
 where
communal,
subsistence
farming
was
the
norm.


Once
the
peasants
had
clear
title
to
 their
property
many
sold
their
land
to
large
agribusiness
companies,
many
with
ties
to
the
 U.S.

Once
these
people
no
longer
had
the
land
for
growing
their
food,
they
migrated,
either
 to
the
urban
areas,
becoming
part
of
the
urban
poor,
or
to
foreign
countries,
most
to
the
 U.S.


Those
that
didn’t
sell,
instead
choosing
to
try
to
join
the
world
economy,
were
left
to
 compete
without
the
technology,
distribution
channels
or
capital
of
these
large
companies.

 

Since
corn
is
the
key
staple
food
in
Mexico,
it
is
important
to
look
at
the
impact
of
 these
large
agribusiness
farms
on
this
food
crop.

Corn
was
developed
in
Mexico
five





Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 8
 thousand
years
ago
in
“Indian
Mexico”
(Nadal
2004).

There
are
forty‐one
racial
complexes
 and
thousands
of
varieties
of
corn
recognized
in
Mexico,
providing
a
rich
gene
pool
for
 “coping
with
drought
and
other
adverse
environmental
conditions”
(Nadal
2004).


The
 large
farms
often
use
genetically
engineered
seeds
for
crops
that
have
reduced
the
 biodiversity
of
corn.

This
gene
pool
is
potentially
being
lost
as
genetically
engineered
 varieties
become
more
widely
used
and
gene
flow
happens
between
populations
(Stolz
 2008,
Nadal
2004).


 Agriculture in the small rural Mexican villages tends to be more laborintensive, but does not provide for the levels of productivity needed to compete with the large agribusinesses. These small-scale farms are seen as inefficient and under productive, merely drains on the economy (Holthaus 2006). However, these small-scale farms are where many feel we need to focus assistance efforts to provide food security to poor rural communities (Nadal 2004, Perez et al 2008). Sustainable agriculture can be locally adapted to use seeds that are tolerant of the climate, soils, and terrain, as well as being more compatible with the high labor, low capital economies of rural areas. The World Bank’s report, Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development, moves from advocating export-oriented policies to asserting agriculture’s importance in the economic development in less-developed, agriculture-based economies as well as the “urbanizing “economies such as those in Latin America (Perez et al 2008). That report stresses the importance of small-scale agriculture in poverty reduction, citing findings that aggregate growth originating in agriculture was 2.7 times more effective in reducing poverty than growth outside agriculture (Perez et al 2008). “Improving the productivity, profitability, and sustainability of smallholder farming is the main pathway out of poverty in using agriculture for development” (World Bank 2007). It is nearly impossible for these small-scale farms to compete in the global




Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 9
 economy, but they can be key to food security at the local and regional level. Mexico’s
trade
volume
has
nearly
tripled
since
the
signing
of
NAFTA
in
1994
and
 their
economy
is
now
the
ninth
largest
in
the
world,
however
there
is
significant
inequity
in
 the
distribution
of
wealth
in
the
country.

Mexico’s
poverty
rate
has
not
changed
since
the
 early
1980’s,
with
50
percent
of
Mexico’s
real
estate
and
financial
assets
controlled
by
the
 richest
10
percent
of
the
population
(McMichael
2004).


Liberalization
of
Mexico’s
agrarian
 sector
has
not
had
the
results
expected
by
the
government.

The
free
trade
agreements,
 GATT,
and
later
NAFTA,
promised
to
open
the
borders
to
goods
flowing
both
ways,
but
 small
Mexican
farmers
are
not
able
to
compete
with
the
large
transnational
farms
in
 Mexico,
or
with
the
subsidized
farms
in
the
US.

With
nearly
50
percent
of
rural
Mexico
 living
in
poverty,
it
is
vital
that
economic
development
be
directed
at
the
local
and
regional
 markets,
not
at
export
markets
(Perez
et
al
2008).


 III. 


Land Reform in Mexico 


The ejido system came about in Mexico as a result of the Mexican Revolution of

1910. This revolution had an essentially agrarian in nature and much of the land reforms implemented in the 1917 Constitution served the political purpose of calming peasant rebellion. In 1917, the land reform started and land was taken from the large landholders and redistributed to the peasants. Though the government retained title to the land, the land was communally farmed by the ejidatarios, who had usufruct rights of the land, but did not have title to the land or resources. The land had to be cultivated by an ejido member and could not be sold or rented. While many of the villages in Mexico are still structured as communal ejidos, there are varying levels of ownership of the land. Ejidos combine communal ownership with individual use and consist of cultivated land, pastureland, other uncultivated lands and the actual town site.




Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 10
 Starting in the early 1990’s, much of the land reforms in Mexico are the result of trade liberalization. Although the Mexican Revolution of 1910 in theory returned the land to peasants, it wasn’t until the Uruguay Round of GATT that Mexico significant efforts were started to privatize ejidal lands. By 2005, almost all of the ejidos in the municipality of Irapuato had been certified under the Program for Certification of Rights to Ejido Lands, called PROCEDE (Programa de Certificación de Derechos Ejidales y Titulación de Solares) (México
Indígena 2008). This program was developed during the Salinas administration and was a key instrument in Mexico’s neoliberal land reforms. The intent was to provide the land user with title to the land so it would be used as collateral for credit (Johnson 2001, México
Indígena
2008).

The
program
fits
the
 model
of
“market‐based
agrarian
reform”
the
World
Bank
was
backing
(Ita
2005).


 IV.

Impacts of Migration It is difficult to discuss rural development in Mexico without discussing, at least briefly,

migration. At any given time 50-60% of the men in Tamaula are out of the village, most in the United States. Migration was started There is a misconception on the part of many here in the United States that much of the migration across the US-Mexican border is because the immigrants want the “good life” provided here in the United States. However, this is generally not the case. Traditionally the immigrants wanted to make short, temporary trips to earn money for a particular capital need, such as a car or an addition to their home. They also use the migration as a sort of insurance against the risks their families faces to their material well-being. Family members will work in different labor markets to spread the risk of economic down turns in one or another market (Massey 2005).




Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 11
 While
the
U.S.
entered
into
the
trade
agreements
with
Mexico
to
open
trade
they
 simultaneously
passed
more
stringent
immigration
laws.

These changes in U.S. border policies and the tightening of border crossings has changed this by making it more difficult for migrants to return, therefore causing them to stay longer, often finding permanent jobs and starting a new life (Massey 2005). In some cases this has lead to families in Mexico being abandoned and children growing up not knowing their fathers. V.

Range Management All areas of the world that are not barren deserts, farmed, or covered by bare soil, rock, ice, or concert can be classified as rangelands. … However, all these sources are consistent in considering rangelands to be uncultivated and capable of providing habitat for domestic and wild animals (Holechek 2004). Range Management is the professional field that deals with the plant and animal

interface, not one or the other in isolation (Holecheck 2004). This discipline is deals with the use of the range and its resources using ecological principles to manage multiple uses of these resources. The range manager is concerned with watersheds, wildlife habitat, grazing by livestock, recreation, and aesthetics, as well as other associated uses. They work to ensure sustainable yields of products, while maintaining the ecosystem at a healthy level. One of the goals of the range manager is to manage the grazing activities of livestock and wildlife so both plant and animal production can be optimized and the habitat protected. This is the area of range management this paper addresses, in the scope of development in rural Mexico. Livestock grazing is one of the areas where the individual range user will have the most input and control. We can use lessons on grazing that have been learned in the southwestern United States can be applied to range management in central Mexico (Holechek et al 1999). 








Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 12
 VI. 


History of Tamaula’s Development The village was founded in the 1970’s. A group of families had been farming land that

they rented from Rancho Nuevo de la Cruz, the ejido down the hill and to the south of Tamaula. The group felt that they were being taken advantage of by Rancho Nuevo which charged them rent for every animal grazed, field cultivated and house built (Bradford 2008). The leaders of the group had searched state land records and found the land did not belong to Rancho Nuevo. The land actually belonged to a pre-revolutionary Hacenderos family. The group was able to buy the land from that family for payment of back taxes and a jar of honey (Bradford 2008). The village sits at the top of an extinct Pleistocene shield volcano. There is one very rough road into the village that often washes out during the rainy season. Municipal electricity was brought to the village about three years ago; they do not have running water or sewer systems in the village. A few of the houses have primitive septic systems. Culinary water is trucked up to the village from the municipal of Irapuato about once per week. If the villagers run out between deliveries, they must do without or truck the water to the village 
Joel
Bradford
in
truck
bringing
culinary
water


themselves. The political structure of Tamaula is the

to
the
village.


ejidal land tenure system with a junta (city council) made up of all the men in the village. Currently many of the men of the village migrate to the United States to work and send money back to their families in Tamaula. This creates problems for the women and children left behind. The villagers have started working with NGOs and the municipal government to get help with economic and social development, in hope of providing a reliable source of income for




Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 13
 the families. They are also working on improving the overall well-being of the villagers, making the village a place to stay and grow, rather than a place of limited opportunities. Over the course of the past 10-15 years, with the help of the Center for Humanitarian Outreach and Inter-Cultural Exchange (CHOICE), Hispanic in Philanthropy (HIP), the Fundación Comunitario del Bajío (FCB), the municipal government and many friends, Tamaula has worked hard trying to come into the 21st century. They have improved the road up the mountain from a burro trail to a dirt road. They have an elementary school and secondary school, which seems to be about the level of our middle school/junior high. They have also, with the assistance of the FCB and Monterrey Institute of Technology in Irapuato, brought distance learning to the village via a program called prep@net. This program hopes to provide additional educational opportunities, including high school, to the young men and women of the village to encourage them to stay in Mexico. A group of five families from the village, with the aid of some NGOs, started a goat dairy and cheese processing operation in 2007. With the help of CHOICE Humanitarian the villagers of Tamaula submitted a grant application to Hispanics in Philanthropy for capital. CHOICE then provided technical assistance to the group, including training on raising the goats and producing the cheese. Ten additional families have now been provided with dairy goats with assistance from HIP and Purina Mexico. CHOICE is a Utah based organization that has worked for the past twenty-five years to help end poverty around the world. According to their website and conversations with the field staff in Mexico, CHOICE Humanitarian tries to help those who live in poverty, and ask for help, rise out of poverty, by helping connect motivated people with the resources and tools they need to create a sustainable living.




Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 14
 CHOICE has a defined method for selecting and supporting development projects. The beneficiaries of any support must ask for help, providing a plan for development. This creates ownership in the project so the project is more likely to succeed. The following chart, from the CHOICE website, provides that flow of a project from beginning to end.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Village approaches CHOICE In-Country directors test for community initiative CHOICE starts the assessment process with community to identify priorities and create consensus

! Example: Javier has them rewrite proposal, organize and complete a project that requires no outside funding, i.e. improving mountain pathways

Project identified, resources committed: Village commits all they can first Village owns and manages the process Other NGOs, Government agencies, companies commit resources

! Example: We don’t do anything for them that they can’t provide themselves. So – they use locally available resources, commit all labor, etc.

In-Country Staff facilitates community development process Project is used as a tool to teach leadership, capacities and community mobilization Community learns how to connect to all available resources

! Example: Badagaun school 100K rupees CHOICE 100K rupees Gov’t 100K rupees Village 100K rupees NIDS Total: 400K rupees

Project completed Next project identified that propels the village along its determined path Assessment done periodically to determine where village is in process Process continues…

! Example: Development committee is established to oversee projects, repairs and ongoing changes to water system, school, health post, etc.

With each iteration, CHOICE contribution is scaled back and community’s role is increased Sustainability reached once village is connected to outside resources and has the capabilities and leadership developed to continue progress on their own.

! Example: San Lucas, Mexico – from lessons learned through CHOICE, they connected to the electric company who after they widened the road has brought power in.

HIP was established in 1983 with the primary goal of strengthening communities in Latin America. This group works with organizations such as CHOICE to find funding for sustainable development projects in Latin America. One source of money HIP helps community tap into in Mexico is called the Tres-por-Uno (Three-for-One program), in which the Mexico federal, state and local governments each provide one dollar for every dollar remitted from migrants organizations outside Mexico. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) estimates $24 billion dollars are remitted from migrants home to Mexico. This program, if used,




Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 15
 quadruples the monies available to communities to put into community projects and development. FCB was formed in 1997 to address health and social welfare issues within the city of Irapuato, Guanajuato. They help local NGOs obtain funding and coordinate efforts with partners around the world. Emigration from the state of Guanajuato was a highly visible problem that affected a majority its families. The Bajío region experiences the highest rates of emigration in the nation. FCB has created a statewide network called FODICOM (Strengthening the Development of Migrant Communities) to deal with migration related issues (FCB website). Our
trip
to
Tamaula
was
sponsored
in
part
by
CHOICE
and
was
the
latest
in
a
long
 series
of
trips
to
determine
if
there
is
a
 way
to
provide
the
village
with
 sufficient
clean
water.


Past
trips
to
 Tamaula
have
included
work
on
 catchment
systems
and
cisterns,
 fencing
off
the
watershed
that
fills
the


Roof
Water
Catchment
Courtesy
of
Joel
Bradford


reservoirs
and
a
slow
sand
filter.


There
 have
also
been
a
few
drip
irrigation
systems
installed
to
provide
gardens
for
the
villagers.

 This
provides
a
few
fresh
vegetables
for
family
consumption.



 The
slow
sand
filter
is
technology
that
should
have
worked
very
nicely
to
clean
the
 water
for
the
village.
However
there
were
a
couple
of
social
or
cultural
issues
that
were
not
 taken
into
account
when
it
was
built.

The
first
was
the
maintenance
of
the
filter.

The
 villagers
spend
their
days
just
trying
to
scrap
out
subsistence.

They
really
didn’t
have
time
 to
take
care
of
something
that
was
not
going
to
provide
a
personal
benefit.

The
second





Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 16
 issue
was
where
the
cistern
for
storing
the
water
was
built.

It
was
built
on
the
elementary
 school
property
since
the
school
was
in
the
center
of
town,
and
downhill
from
the
reservoir
 and
filter.

The
villagers
believed
since
it
was
stored
on
the
school
property,
the
water
 belonged
to
the
school
and
they
had
neither
right
to
the
water
nor
responsibility
to
 maintain
the
slow
sand
filter
(Bradford
2008).

This
is
a
cultural
and
political
aspect
of
the
 community
that
is
hard
to
grasp
as
rational
by
those
of
us
from
the
United
States.


 VII. 


Range and Water The village water supply is whatever

water Mother Nature provides. There are some springs on the mountain, two reservoirs that catch the rain runoff and a few roof catchment systems that have been installed in the village. The villagers are in negotiations with the municipal government to get a deep well drilled at the edge of the village, though it looks like such a well would be cost prohibitive for the village. The
plan
when
we
went
to
Tamaula
in
2008
was
to
build
a
rapid
sand
filter.

This
 filter
would
require
less
maintenance
than
the
slow
sand
filter.

The
reason
it
wasn’t
 chosen
earlier
is
it
requires
electricity
and
the
village
didn’t
have
power
at
the
time
the
 slow
sand
filter
was
built.

We
needed
to
prove
the
feasibility
of
the
rapid
sand
filter,
which
 required
running
tests
to
determine
if
we
could
get
the
turbidity
of
the
water
low
enough
 to
be
safe
to
go
through
the
filter
without
clogging
it.

Turbidity
is
the
measure
of
 transparency,
or
the
clarity,
of
water.

The
greater
the
amount
of
total
suspended
solids
 (TSS)
in
the
water,
the
less
transparent
it
is
and
the
higher
the
turbidity.

The
World
Health





Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 17
 Organization
guidelines
set
the
turbidity
of
drinking
water
at
5
NTU
or
less,
with
1
NTU
or
 less
being
the
ideal.


 


We
ran
several
rounds
of
jar
tests
to
determine
which
of
two
chemicals
lowered
the


turbidity
the
most,
with
the
least
amount
of
chemical.





 We
were
able
to
lower
the
turbidity
of
the
reservoir
water
to
about
10
NTU,
which
is
low
 enough
for
the
rapid
sand
filter
without
clogging.


Though
we
were
able
to
determine
that
 the
rapid
sand
filter
would
provide
sufficient
potable
water
to
the
village,
approximately
 1500
gallons/day,

there
is
some
skepticism
if
the
mountain
could
provide
sufficient
water
 for
the
needs
of
the
village.

They
not
only
needed
culinary
water,
but
also
water
for
the
 animals,
washing
and
septic
systems.

There
is
still
more
research
needed
in
Tamaula
to
 determine
if
the
mountain
can
supply
sufficient
water
for
the
needs
of
the
village.

Water
 supply
for
the
village
will
be
an
ongoing
issue
for
quite
some
time.


 Most families have animals on the communal range so there is a classic case of Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons”; proper range management is essential for the village. There is evidence that better range management would help. A few years ago a group of students and professors from Utah Valley State College went to Tamaula on CHOICE sponsored trip. One of their projects was fencing off the watershed above the reservoirs. We saw during




Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 18
 our 2008 trip that this area has started to come back, providing some evidence that the range could be improved. However, totally excluding grazing from this area is also not the best solution. VIII. Recommendations 


Recommendations
for
continued
development
of
Tamaula,
as
well
as
limiting


detrimental
effects
on
the
environment
are
somewhat
limited.

First,
I
would
suggest
a
 catchment
system
with
a
series
of
ditches
and
cisterns
around
the
mountain.

Ditches
 would
be
built
to
direct
the
runoff
water
to
the
reservoirs
to
make
certain
they
fill
as
much
 as
possible.

Once
that
is
accomplished,
cisterns
could
be
added
to
capture
additional
 runoff.


 


Another
thing
the
village
needs
is
some
type
of
septic
system.

Sanitation
is
critical


in
maintaining
the
health
of
the
villagers.

While
some
houses
have
primitive
septic
system
 and
manual
flush
toilets,
not
all
do.

Flush
toilets
are
water
intensive
and
with
water
in
 short
supply
this
is
probably
not
a
viable
solution
for
this
village,
unless
they
are
successful
 in
getting
a
greater,
more
reliable
water
supply.
 
 
 
 
 Continue to grow the cooperative started with the goat dairy and cheese processing plant Cultivating nopales (cactus) as food for the cows and goats. Setup a system of controls on the common rangeland; limiting the number of goats and other animals a family can put on the range at any given time. Light to moderate grazing should also be allowed on the watershed area that has been fenced off.




Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 19





Development
in
Rural
Mexico
 20
 Preliminary Works Cited or Bibliography Anonymous. 2005. Bringing conservation agriculture home to Mexico. Appropriate Technology. Hemel Hempstead: Mar 2005. Vol. 32 (1): 49, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=846350881&sid=2&Fmt=4&clientId=1673&RQT=3 09&VName=PQD (accessed October 8, 2008) Bradford, Joel. 2004. “Humanitarian Service and Learning Expeditions”. Paper presented ???, DATE at Utah Valley State College, Orem, UT. Cova, Tom, Joel Bradford, Lynn Nuckolls and Katie. Smith. 2005. “Locating Potential Well Sites: Tamaula, Mexico”. Paper presented ?? May 3, 2005 at University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. Daly, Herman and Joshua Farley. 2004. Ecological Economics: Principles And Applications. Washington, DC:Island Press. Gow, David G. 2002. Anthropology and development: Evil twin or moral narrative. Human Organization 61, Iss.4, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=275475471&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=1673&RQT=3 09&VName=PQD. (accessed October 8, 2008) Holechek, Terry, Rex D. Pieper and Carlton H. Herbel. 2004. Range Management : Principles and Practices. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall Hollander, Jack M. 2003. The Real Environmental Crisis. Berkley, CA:University of California Press Johnson, Nancy L. "Tierra y libertad: Will Tenure Reform Improve Productivity in Mexico's ejido Agriculture?”. Economic Development and Cultural Change 49. 2 (2001), 291-309, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1154900. (accessed November 19, 2008). Massey, Douglas, Jorge Durand and Nolan J. Malone. 2005. Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration. New York:Russell Sage Foundation Nadal, Alejandro. 2000. “The Environmental & Social Impacts of Economic Liberalization on Corn Production in Mexico”. WWF – World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund). US Department of Agriculture. 2002. Agricultural Cooperatives in the 21st Century. Cooperative Information Report 60.