Bulmer-Thomas V., Coatsworth J., Cortes-Conde R. The Cambridge Economic History of Latin America: Volume 2, The Long Twentieth Century

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

P1: GDZ

0521812909c09 CB929-Bulmer 0 521 81290 9 September 30, 2005 14:53

362 Otto T. Solbrig

Table 9.2. Total agricultural area 1965–2000 (in hectares)

Country 1965 2000 Percent of change

Argentina 1,681,210 1,692,000 0.6

Bolivia 296,150 360,370 21.7

Brazil 1,672,000 2,508,200 50.0

Chile 140,690 152,320 8.3

Colombia 390,980 454,650 16.3

Costa Rica 15,550 28,450 83.0

Cuba 45,480 66,650 46.5

Dominican Republic 31,420 36,960 17.6

Ecuador 47,300 81,080 71.4

El Salvador 12,750 16,040 25.8

Guatemala 26,940 45,070 67.3

Haiti 13,400 14,000 4.5

Honduras 35,950 29,350 −18.4

Mexico 979,790 1,073,000 9.5

Nicaragua 52,880 75,610 43.0

Panama 16,580 21,320 28.6

Paraguay 148,950 240,780 61.7

Peru 298,200 313,100 5.0

Puerto Rico 5,850 2,910 −50.25

Uruguay 151,000 148,830 −1.4

Venezuela 195,140 216,450 10.9

Latin America 6,258,210 7,577,140 21.1

Sources: CIAT (Environmental Indicators) and FAO (FAOSTAT Database).

advanced in the United States but is also noticeable in the most productive

lands of Latin America, from Chile and Argentina to central Mexico. One

important factor in the rural–urban migration has been the growth of

agribusiness.

This change has profound environmental implications. The intensiﬁca-

tion of production can increase soil erosion, reduce biodiversity, and lead

to the local extinction of most wildlife. An added problem is chemical pol-

lution of air and water, with serious concomitant health problems for farm

workers.

The expansion of production in Latin America in the last forty years,

the result of more cultivated surface and higher yields, is remarkable. This

varied with the product, with the traditional crops not faring nearly as well

as cereals, fruits, and especially oil crops. The production of ﬁber crops

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

P1: GDZ

0521812909c09 CB929-Bulmer 0 521 81290 9 September 30, 2005 14:53

Economic Growth and Environmental Change 363

(mainly cotton) fell in the last forty years by 12 percent whereas the surface

harvested decreased by 50 percent, in spite of yield increases of almost 80

percent. Coffee-harvested area also was reduced by 17 percent, but pro-

duction increased by 19 percent because of an increase of 45 percent in

yields. Roots and tubers (yucca, potatoes, and sweet potatoes), a staple

of the Latin American diet, saw a modest 12 percent increase in surface

and 60 percent in production because of an increase in yields of 30 per-

cent. Considering that the population doubled in this period, a 60 percent

increase indicates a change in the local diet. Another traditional crop in

Latin America, sugar cane, saw a greater participation. Its harvested surface

increased by 92 percent and its production by almost 150 percent because

of an increase in yields of 32 percent. This reﬂects mainly the increase in

sugar production in Brazil to produce alcohol for use as fuel in automobiles.

Cereals (principally maize, wheat, and rice) saw a minor increase in culti-

vated surface (34%) but an increase in production of 214 percent because

yields more than doubled (134%), attributable to better seeds and more

fertilizer use.

Yetitwas the new export crops – fruits and vegetables and oil crops –

that had truly spectacular increases. The surface dedicated to growing fruits

has increased in Latin America and the Caribbean from 2,257,714 hectares

to 6,966,115 hectares, a 209 percent increase, whereas production went from

5,503,911 metric tons to 37,370,237 metric tons, a 239 percent increase. Citrus

contributed signiﬁcantly. The surface harvested with citrus (primarily in

Brazil and Argentina) increased by 484 percent and production increased by

579 percent! But the most spectacular increase was in oil crops, the harvested

surface of which went from 8,643,005 hectares to 32,488,029 hectares, an

increase of 275 percent and production of which increased by 715 percent.

Soybeans, a new crop in Latin America, introduced in the 1970s, was the

principal oil crop. Argentina and Brazil were the two principal producers

and exporters of soybeans. In Argentina, production went from 59,000 tons

in 1970 to 25,700,000 tons in 2000, and in Brazil it went from 271,488 in

1970 to 36,814,676 tons in 2000.

Low air-transport costs and new methods of cultivation and harvest-

ing allowed the growth of fruits and especially perishable vegetables for

exports. Four Latin American countries were the major players in this

market: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. Argentina has exported

fruits, especially apples and pears, since the 1930s, primarily to Europe.

Itsproduction went from 234,263 metric tons in 1960 to 1,657,637 metric

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

P1: GDZ

0521812909c09 CB929-Bulmer 0 521 81290 9 September 30, 2005 14:53

364 Otto T. Solbrig

tons in 2000,a700 percent increase. The value of its fruit and vegetable

exports went from 27 million dollars to 1,072 million dollars, an almost

4,000 percent increase. Yet, its performance is not as spectacular as that of

Mexico and especially Chile. Chile’s export production went from 109,364

metric tons in 1960 to 1,840,673 in 2000,a1,600 percent increase, and

the value of its exports went from 16 million to 1,787 million dollars in

that same period. The performances of Brazil and Mexico were in between

those of Argentina and Chile, although the quantities they exported were

higher.

Such intensiﬁcation of agriculture increases the risks of environmental

degradation. Soil erosion and loss of soil organic matter are two of the

problems. Others are increased production of carbon dioxide, nitric oxide,

and methane, three powerful greenhouse gases associated with poor soil

management and increased livestock herds. Intensiﬁcation led to increased

use of industrial inputs, especially machinery and tractors, as well as fer-

tilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Chemical inputs are now in common

use in Latin America and their employment is increasing. If not applied

carefully, they can be dangerous to human health and that of wildlife, and

they can seep into drinking water and lakes and streams.

Chemical fertilizer use increased massively in Latin America between

1960 and 2000 (from 1,787,423 to 10,448,089 metric tons), especially in

South America, where there was 1,400 percent increase. Fertilizers are used

principally in areas where agriculture has intensiﬁed, and particularly for

high-value products such as fruits and vegetables, ﬂowers, and greenhouse-

grown crops. In itself, the use of fertilizer is highly recommended in order

not to exhaust the soil. However, when used in high doses, and especially

in areas of high rainfall, it can lead to serious problems of contamination.

Agricultural intensiﬁcation does not necessarily mean environmental

degradation because measures can be taken to mitigate or eliminate some

of the harmful effects. One such technical development with beneﬁcial

effects that is spreading in Argentina and Brazil, but also in Paraguay,

Bolivia, and Chile, is No-Till agriculture. This technology, which forgoes

plowing in favor of sowing directly into the stubble, has turned out to be

not only proﬁtable but has also had enormous beneﬁcial effects on the soil,

reducing erosion by an order of magnitude or more, and increasing wildlife.

Likewise, the trend among agrochemicals is for the use of less powerful

toxic compounds, easily destroyed by soil microorganisms and with no

residual effects. Nevertheless, the inevitable trend toward intensiﬁcation is

worrisome.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

P1: GDZ

0521812909c09 CB929-Bulmer 0 521 81290 9 September 30, 2005 14:53

Economic Growth and Environmental Change 365

peasant farming and illegal crops

One effect of the spread of agribusiness has been to reduce peasant farming

and to push it into increasingly more marginal areas. By peasant farming

we refer to farming that is done primarily to feed the household, with no or

little surplus. One consequence, already mentioned, is deforestation in the

Amazon basin. Another effect has been the turning to the growing of illegal

drugs by marginal farmers, especially in the Andean mountains of Bolivia,

Peru, and Colombia and, increasingly, also in Mexico. Coca (Erythroxylon

coca), a plant native to South America and of ancient cultivation and use,

is the principal drug grown in the Andean countries, whereas marijuana

(Cannabis sativa)isgrown principally in Mexico.

Illegal crops present a double environmental threat. The need to avoid

detection of these crops means that they are grown as itinerant crops,

leading to much more deforestation and environmental change than would

otherwise be necessary. The interest in eradication leads the authorities to

use defoliants and powerful herbicides that affect many more species and

surface than that occupied by the illegal crop. Coca has traditionally been

grown on mountain slopes at intermediate altitudes on terraces. When it

is grown illegally and as an itinerant crop, farmers do not build terraces,

which increases erosion by producing landslides.

FORESTRY

Four economic activities have had an inordinate environmental impact:

forestry, energy production, use of water resources, and mining and oil

exploration.

The demand for wood in general and for tropical woods in particular has

increased very signiﬁcantly in the world. As the forests of the Far East have

become logged to extinction, the attention of the market has increasingly

shifted to Africa and Latin America (Table 9.3).

Close to 50 percent of the land surface of South America is covered

with forests, mostly natural but increasingly planted with an average wood

density of 20 metric tons per hectare – which is twice the world’s average.

We already have mentioned how these forests are being transformed for

agro-pastoral uses. The extraction of wood is also increasing at a fast pace

(Table 9.4). Roundwood extraction in South America increased from

13 million cubic meters in 1961 to 30 million cubic meters in 1998,a

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

P1: GDZ

0521812909c09 CB929-Bulmer 0 521 81290 9 September 30, 2005 14:53

366 Otto T. Solbrig

Table 9.3. Surface area in forest and woodlands (in order of rate

of change)

Country 1980 (Km

) 1990 (Km

)Percent change

Argentina 600,500 592,000 1.4

Bolivia 556,592 493,170 11.4

Brazil 5,978,159 5,611,066 6.1

Chile 86,800 88,000 −1.4

Colombia 577,338 540,637 6.4

Costa Rica 19,233 14,276 25.8

Cuba 18,877 17,147 9.2

Dominican Republic 14,279 10,773 24.6

Ecuador 143,422 119,622 16.6

El Salvador 1,546 1,233 20.3

Guatemala 50,379 42,251 16.2

Haiti 380 233 38.7

Honduras 57,204 46,046 19.5

Mexico 553,657 485,856 12.3

Nicaragua 72,535 60,133 17.1

Panama 37,623 31,157 17.2

Paraguay 168,840 128,585 23.8

Peru 706,182 679,057 3.8

Puerto Rico 2,995 2,995 0.00

Uruguay 6,270 6,690 −6.7

Venezuela 516,810 456,910 11.6

Latin America 10,169,621 9,427,837 7.9

Source: CIAT (Cali).

126 percent increase. The situation was worse in Central America, where

extraction volumes were higher and went from 28.8 million to 70.2 million,

almost a 150 percent increase. The countries that have been most affected in

Central America are Guatemala (253%), Costa Rica (216%), and Honduras

(152%). In South America, roundwood extraction was highest in Paraguay

(370%), Ecuador (344%), Venezuela (226%), and Bolivia (198%). Brazil

had an increased roundwood extraction of 114 percent in the last forty

years, slightly below the average in South America. Yet, at 105,733,000 cubic

meters, it was the largest producer of roundwood in Latin America. Two

interesting cases are represented by Uruguay and Chile. Uruguay showed

an increase of 389 percent in roundwood production (from a very small

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

P1: GDZ

0521812909c09 CB929-Bulmer 0 521 81290 9 September 30, 2005 14:53

Table 9.4.

Total roundwood production (thousand cubic meters)

Country

1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986

1991 1996 2001

Argentina

11,343 5,617 6,743 7,598 7,191 9,524

9,924 11,428 9,970

Bolivia

666 788 969 1,130 1,253 1,358

1,608 2,185 2,722

Brazil

92,083 105,081 123,308 144,895 185,660 207,696

205,556 198,653 236,422

Chile

6,785 8,342 9,284 10,046 13,304 16,978

24,013 29,831 37,790

Colombia

9,856 10,797 11,843 12,953 14,049

15,983 18,232 18,487 12,501

Costa Rica

1,677 1,984 2,568 3,329 3,384

3,490 3,907 5,119 5,161

Cuba

1,875 1,284 1,997 2,075 2,968 2,994

2,756 2,756 1,696

Dominican Rep.

685 517 411 462 516 562

562 562 562

Ecuador

2,550 2,915 3,734 4,081 5,636 5,588

6,258 10,562 10,920

El Salvador

3,103 3,595 4,257 4,812 5,300 5,401

4,683 4,330 5,200

Guatemala

3,687 4,357 5,051 5,545 9,134

10,195 11,263 13,087 15,337

Haiti

3,230 3,505 3,800 4,113 4,456

4,867 5,703 6,193 6,397

Honduras

2,845 3,356 3,700 4,322 4,894

5,294 5,928 6,684 9,552

Mexico

8,932 11,159 13,546 16,993 17,758

19,836 21,300 21,962 45,156

Nicaragua

1,697 1,791 2,424 2,936 3,251

3,005 3,547 4,026 5,884

Panama

539 595 662 824 920 936

974 1,059 1,337

Paraguay

1,720 2,865 3,416 4,129 5,814

7,112 7,640 8,097 9,690

Peru

4,532 2,823 6,011 7,581 7,773

8,328 7,657 7,914 8,370

Uruguay

1,260 1,880 1,891 2,174 2,321

3,165 3,320 4,041 5,812

Venezuela

624 891 949 1,144 1,118

1,395 1,637 2,119 4,620

Latin America

159,689 174,142 206,564 241,142 296,700

333,707 346,468 359,095 435,099

Source:

FAO, FAOSTAT Database.

367

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

P1: GDZ

0521812909c09 CB929-Bulmer 0 521 81290 9 September 30, 2005 14:53

368 Otto T. Solbrig

base), all of it from plantations, and Chile showed a 366 percent increase,

in great part (but not all) from plantations.

Logging is not necessarily negative. It is an important source of income

for a country and, if done sustainably, it can actually be a source of employ-

ment and of recreation, as is the case in the United States and Europe.

Unfortunately, logging in Latin America is very predatory with little atten-

tion paid to the long term. Although many laws and regulations have been

enacted, they usually are not enforced. Both temperate and tropical forests

have been affected.

Tr opical forests are notorious for their great diversity and the low density

of component species. Only a few species – usually not more than three to

ﬁve, and at most ten – are of commercial value, and logging is therefore

very selective. However, in order to get to the trees, logging concerns open

roads that are avenues of entry for landless peasants that squat on forest

lands and destroy the remaining trees in preparing their agricultural plots.

Furthermore, heavy tractors and other equipment required for the extrac-

tion of the logs destroy seedlings and saplings, compact the soil, and are

a source of disturbance. Loggers also hunt wild fauna, including rare and

endangered species, which is another source of concern.

ENERGY USE

Energy use is an indicator of economic activity and is considered also as a

good indicator of human intervention in the environment.

Energy use,

especially fossil fuels, also has a direct effect on the environment, affecting

atmosphere and water as well as human health.

Total energy consumption in Latin America doubled between 1971 and

1997 (106%), which correlates with the changes in land use, the rates of

deforestation, and increases in agricultural area and intensiﬁcation observed

(Table 9.5). There were, as expected, great differences among countries,

from a huge increase in Ecuador (1,598%) to a decrease in Haiti (−6%). A

more meaningful statistic is consumption per person. The average per per-

son consumption in Central America and the Caribbean was 1.2 thousand

metric tons of oil or equivalent, and in South America, 1.1 thousand. This

M. Winograd, Environmental Indicators for Latin American and the Caribbean: Toward Land-Use

Sustainability (Cali, 1995); M. Winograd, A. Farrow, and J. Eade, Atlas de indicadores para Am

erica

Latina y el Caribe (Cali, 1998).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Table 9.5.

Total energy consumption from all energy sources (in thousand metric tons of oil equivalent)

Country

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991 1996 1997

Argentina

33,651.837

,187.540

,872.143

,141.945

,464.558

,920.561

,709.6

Bolivia

989.31

,620.52

,487.42

,755.43

,073.53

,633.14

,254.4

Brazil

70,420.994

,478.8104

,694.6

127,477.8

137,972.4163

,334.1

172,030.2

Chile

8,237.98

,083.59

,701.810

,086.414

,214.820

,456.223

,011.7

Colombia

14,095.416

,641.819

,914.523

,002.126

,889.331

,392.530

,480.6

Costa Rica

1,134.11

,315.21

,446.31

,700.82

,097.22

,601.42

,662.7

Cuba

10,623.113

,443.115

,146.314

,343.514

,096.313

,251.114

,272.7

Dominican Rep.

2,372.73

,190.23

,593.83

,858.84

,042.15

,183.15

,453.4

Ecuador

2,346.63

,712.55

,409.95

,876.86

,705.38

,565.68

,513.4

El Salvador

1,762.82

,630.32

,739.02

,480.03

,124.84

,055.54

,094.6

Guatemala

2,798.53

,613.03

,569.23

,640.64

,523.25

,402.45

,632.5

Haiti

1,510.81

,827.11

,747.91

,484.31

,579.81

,965.81

,778.5

Honduras

1,394.81

,611.61

,871.32

,024.32

,455.72

,946.03

,181.9

Mexico

45,586.666

,193.210

,5678.1108

,731.3129

,334.8136

,813.0

141,520.3

Nicaragua

1,288.61

,670.31

,615.42

,044.42

,204.52

,421.02

,572.8

Panama

1,729.71

,809.81

,363.31

,551.81

,643.12

,192.12

,327.7

Paraguay

1,382.61

,625.52

,095.42

,441.93

,183.33

,988.94

,191.4

Peru

9,490.010

,989.411

,780.112

,092.711

,626.414

,009.215

,127.1

Uruguay

2,414.82

,475.22

,530.62

,088.92

,414.42

,830.62

,883.5

Venezuela

23,383.526

,434.237

,152.338

,774.349

,659.154

,961.757

,530.3

Latin America

236,614.5300

,552.7375

,409.3409

,598 466,304.5

538,923.8563

,229.3

Notes:

Total energy consumption is the amount of energy from all sources used

by each country in the year speciﬁed. It is important to note that,

unlike IEA, WRI includes losses through transportation, friction,

heat loss, and other inefﬁciencies as energy consumption; consumption

equals

indigenous production plus imports minus exports plus stock

changes minus international marine bunkers.

Sources:

International Energy Agency (IEA),

Energy Balances of Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD) Countries,

1960–1997

(Paris, 1999), and

Energy Balances on OECD Countries,

1960–1996

on diskette (Paris,

1998).

369

P1: GDZ

0521812909c09BCB929-Bulmer 0 521 81290 9 October 6, 2005 13:45

370 Otto T. Solbrig

represents an increase of 41 and 36 percent, respectively, since 1971. The

countries in Latin America with the highest per person consumption

of commercial energy were Venezuela (2.5), Argentina (1.7), Chile (1.6),

Mexico (1.5), Cuba (1.3), and Brazil (1.1). Chile and Mexico had the great-

est individual increases (84% and 72%), whereas Haiti (−30%), Panama

(−23%), Peru (−11%), and Nicaragua (−6%) saw the individual consump-

tion of commercial energy go down in this period.

The energy consumption picture indicates that it increased at a rate very

similar to population growth but that there were signiﬁcant shifts in energy

consumption between countries. The ﬁgures are somewhat distorted given

that in some oil-producing countries such as Venezuela, domestic energy

prices are below world market valuations, whereas in others, such as Chile

and Brazil, which have to import most of their energy, prices tend to be

higher.

Latin America has a great hydroelectric potential, as yet mostly untapped

(Table 9.6). Nevertheless, there was a great increase in the use of this source

of energy. Overall, hydroelectric energy production in the continent rose

by more than 500 percent (700%inSouth America, 250%inCentral

America and the Caribbean) – that is, ﬁve times higher than overall use of

energy. Brazil – an oil-poor country – leads the continent in hydroelectric

production, followed by Venezuela, Paraguay, Colombia, Argentina, and

Mexico. The laggards are Nicaragua, Haiti, and Cuba, with minuscule

hydroelectric production.

Dam construction presents serious problems for local populations,

wildlife, and vegetation. Improper planning and inattention to deforesta-

tion in the watershed serving a dam can result in serious silting of reservoirs

that reduce the life of the dam. The efﬁciency of a dam as a source of elec-

tricity is measured by the kilowatts (Kw) of electricity produced per hectares

of land (Ha) that are inundated. Dams situated in mountainous areas with

steep falls are much more efﬁcient than those in relatively ﬂat land. The

three most efﬁcient dams in Latin America are the Paulo Alfonso in Brazil

(2,490 Kw/Ha), the Pehuenche (1,250 Kw/Ha) in Chile, and the Guavio

(1,067 Kw/Ha) in Colombia. Itaip

u, the largest dam in Latin America,

situated on the Paran

a River at the Brazil–Paraguay border, has an efﬁ-

ciency of only 93 Kw/Ha. Even less efﬁcient are the huge dams of Tucururi

in northern Brazil, with an efﬁciency of 30 Kw/Ha; the Salto Grande on

the Uruguay River at the Argentine–Uruguay border, with an efﬁciency of

24 Kw/Ha; and the Choc

on on the Limay River in Argentina, with only

a 15 Kw/Ha efﬁciency. These last three projects have ﬂooded large areas,

P1: GDZ

0521812909c09BCB929-Bulmer 0 521 81290 9 October 6, 2005 13:45

Economic Growth and Environmental Change 371

Table 9.6. Hydro-electricity production (thousand metric tons oil equivalent)

Country 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1997

Argentina 132.8431.11,262.91,807.31,375.52,421.5

Bolivia 77.296.899.495.8108.0 198.3

Brazil 3,715.17,130.511,245.715,688.018,729.223,999.5

Chile 378.1 536.2 652.6969.51,129.01,629.2

Colombia 573.0 875.81,239.11,858.32,373.12,820.7

Costa Rica 88.4124.6 196.5248.6 314.4413.5

Cuba 9.54.65.25.19.08.0

Dominican

Republic

50.773.9129.3 131.248.0 115.1

Ecuador 37.852.067.0345.0440.1582.7

El Salvador 44.916.947.088.472.7102.7

Guatemala 22.426.324.8148.1196.8323.4

Haiti 2.314.621.427.428.617.2

Honduras 20.837.271.6 123.7 199.3279.2

Mexico 1,236.81,479.12,115.41,721.41,879.42,273.1

Nicaragua 17.537.845.034.929.035.0

Panama 7.111.9 114.7180.3163.9237.9

Paraguay 13.242.155.51,018.42,520.24,338.9

Peru 368.3498.6687.7865.0965.91,136.5

Uruguay 126.3105.1 331.7627.3525.7 557.8

Venezuela 463.5909.71,297.62,163.73,829.84,915.1

Latin America 7,396.812,514.519,720.828,160.034,947.846,415.4

Sources: IEA, Energy Balances of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD) Countries, 1960–1997, and Energy Balances of Non-OECDCountries, 1971–1997 (Paris,

1999). International Energy Agency (IEA) 1971–1997 in ﬁve-year intervals (WRI).

which, in the case of Tucururi, involved rich tropical forests, their wildlife,

and ancestral Indian lands. Furthermore, hunting by the high numbers of

construction workers in these projects usually depletes the local wildlife.

WATER AND COASTAL RESOURCES

Coastal resources are a signiﬁcant economic asset, but a very fragile one.

For some Latin American countries – primarily Caribbean island states –

tourism attracted by magniﬁcent beaches is the principal source of income.

Yet the construction of hotel infrastructure is threatening the resource on