4.2 Demographic, social and economic factors

4.2.1 The present population
4.2.2 Population growth
4.2.3 Macro-economic aspects
4.2.4 Land ownership and income distribution

The utilization, current status and management prospects for Latin American wildlife depend greatly on the attitudes and characteristics of the population. Realistic wildlife policies must be developed with reference to the specific population and the specific socio-economic and cultural context of each area or region, particularly in rural areas (191, 525). This approach pays close attention to the human factor, and helps to develop management plans that have local support and participation and are geared to the prevalent socio-economic patterns (116, 525, 577). Due consideration of the socio-economic realities should also avoid the introduction of foreign management models unworkable in the Latin American context.

4.2.1 The present population

The current (1985) population of Latin America is 406 million (481), some 8.4 percent of the world population. Overall population density in Latin America is now 19.75/km², quite a bit less than the world average of 35.70/km². Relatively speaking, the region is still a demographic vacuum. Population density varies greatly from one country to the next, however: under 10/km² in the Guianas, Belize, Bolivia and Paraguay to over 100/km² in El Salvador and some Caribbean countries (Table 32). Internal population distribution within a given country is usually uneven too. Population density in the Brazilian Amazon, for example, is 2.3/km² (106), while some Brazilian states in the southern and northeastern part of the country have over 100 inhabitants per square kilometre. The Amazon Territory in Venezuela also has only 0.4/km², barely 2 percent of the national average.

Skewed population distribution between rural and urban areas is another important parameter (Table 32). Two-thirds of the total population of Latin America now live in cities. The urban sector grows steadily as rural people migrate to the cities, with urban dwellers projected to comprise 75 percent of the population by the year 2000 (373). The rural population is proportionately higher in Central America, some Caribbean countries and in Guyana, Bolivia and Paraguay, and lower in the Southern Cone countries (Table 32). Rural population densities are of particular interest, as they may be considered a rough yardstick of the demand for wildlife by rural users. Rural population density is higher in the Central American and Caribbean countries and in Ecuador, peaking in Trinidad and Tobago, Haiti and El Salvador. The lowest densities are found in the Guianas, southern South America and Bolivia. In most tropical South American countries, rural population density is about 3.1 to 8.5/km² (Table 32).

4.2.2 Population growth

An explosive annual population growth rate of some 2.3 percent is the demographic characteristic of Latin America, exceeded only by Africa with 2.9 percent. The fastest growth rates are in Central America with 3.4-3.5 percent in Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua (Table 32). In southern South America, Cuba and some other islands of the Caribbean growth rates are much lower at 0.9-1.8 percent, but still higher than in North America at 0.7 percent and Europe at 0.3 percent.

The meaning of this population scenario (should present trends continue) is that the human population and its resource requirements will double every 30 years on the average (every 20 years in Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, every 27 years in Mexico, every 29 years in the tropical parts of South America and every 44 years in southern South America). Latin America will have a projected population of somewhere between 554 million (481) and 637 million (37) by the year 2000. Most of this increase will be absorbed by the big cities, for nearly half the product of the vegetative growth in rural areas emigrates to the cities (37, 46, 227, 373). The population dynamics of Latin America are producing a very broad-based age pyramid with a high percentage (38 percent) of young people under the age of 15 (481). The economically active portion of the population is thus smaller and education costs higher.

4.2.3 Macro-economic aspects

Per caput gross domestic product (GDP) is the most widely used macro-economic comparator for countries and regions. Latin America's per caput GDP was US$1 890 in 1983. This is low compared to the industrialized country average of US$9 380, particularly the United States GDP of US$ 14 000, but higher than the average for the least developed countries, which is US$700. The estimated annual GDP growth rate in Latin America was 5.6 percent from 1975-1985, projected at 4.5 percent from 1985-2000 (37). More recent sources (373), however, showed an average 1975-1985 growth rate of 2.9 percent, barely ahead of the population growth rate for the same period.

The lowest GDP are those of Haiti, Bolivia, Honduras and El Salvador. The highest-income countries (GDP$2 000) are Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Suriname, Uruguay, Mexico, Panama and Argentina (Table 32). There may also be major internal differences, such as the GDP for the state of Oaxaca, which is barely one-tenth that of the Federal District of Mexico (615).

Table 31. Affirmative responses to survey question No. 38: "Is wildlife protection and supervision effective a) nowhere, b) in parks, refuges and reserves, c) on roads, d) in the countryside in general, e) in trade, restaurants, customs, f) others?"

Area and number of responses	Parks etc.	Roads	Countryside in general	Commercial establishments etc.	Customs	Nowhere
Mexico and Central America (12)	6	3	3	4	4	5
Tropical South America (21)	11	5	2	4	6	9
Southern South America (12)	8	1	0	2	2	2
Total No. (45)	25	9	5	10	12	15
%*	56	20	11	22	27	33

^* Calculated on the basis of the number of responses.

Table 32. Demographic review of the main countries in the area: 1) estimated 1985 population in millions, 2) annual rate of growth in %, 3) national territory in thousands of km², 4) average population density, 5) percentage of rural population, 6) estimated density of the rural population, and, 7) per caput gross domestic product (1983). Main source: World Population Data Sheet (481).

Country	Population (millions)	Annual growth(%)	Area 1 000 km2	Population density/km2	Rural pop. %	Rural pop. dens./km2	Per caput GDP $ y
Belize	0.2	2.5	23	8.7	50	4.4	1 140
Costa Rica	2.6	2.7	51	50.9	52	26.5	1 020
Cuba	10.1	1.1	114	88.6	30	26.6
El Salvador	5.1	2.1	21	242.8	61	148.1	710
Guatemala	8.0	3.5	109	73.4	61	44.7	1 120
Haiti	5.8	2.3	28	207.1	72	149.1	320
Honduras	4.4	3.4	112	39.3	63	24.8	670
Mexico	79.7	2.6	1 973	40.4	30	12.2	2240
Nicaragua	3.0	3.4	148	20.3	47	9.5	900
Panama	2.0	2.0	77	25.9	51	13.3	2070
Dominican Republic	6.2	2.5	48	129.2	48	62.0	1 380
Trinidad and Tobago	1.2	1.9	5.1	235.3	77	181.2	6 900
Bolivia	6.2	2.7	1 099	5.6	54	3.1	510
Brazil	138.4	2.3	8 512	16.3	32	5.2	1 890
Colombia	29.4	2.1	1 139	25.8	33	8.5	1 410
Ecuador	8.9	2.7	264	33.7	55	18.5	1 430
French Guiana	0.06		91	0.66
Guyana	0.8	2.2	215	3.7	68	2.5	520
Paraguay	3.6	2.8	407	8.9	61	5.4	1 410
Peru	19.5	2.5	1 285	15.2	35	5.3	1 040
Suriname	0.4	2.0	143	2.8	34	0.95	3 520
Venezuela	17.3	2.7	916	18.9	24	4.6	4 100
Argentina	30.6	1.6	2776	11.0	17	1.9	2030
Chile	12.0	1.8	757	15.8	17	2.7	1 870
Uruguay	3.0	0.9	177	16.9	16	2.7	2490

4.2.4 Land ownership and income distribution

The negative impact of low GDP on the welfare of Latin Americans is aggravated by the highly skewed national incomes. The most affluent easily average incomes 50 times greater than those of the poorest in the same country. Nearly half the population of many countries in tropical America live in absolute poverty with no means of meeting their nutritional requirements and other basic necessities (227, 373). Rural poverty is even more acute, primarily because official and private development and investment plans tend to concentrate in urban areas and because of the traditional land ownership patterns.

The usable farmland is divided among a few large estates or "latifundios", which occupy most of the land, and a large number of very small production units, or minifundia. The big farms and ranches are usually 270-1 500 times bigger than the average smallholding (Source: Land Tenure and Agrarian Reform in Latin America: Unesco/CIDA; 1971). There are differences between countries and regions, and communal lands or "ejidos" may occupy considerable areas, as in Mexico and Peru (46, 227, 615). Typically, however, over half of the farms are 5 ha or less, constituting barely 5 percent of all arable lands (227). There are about 13.5 million small subsistence farms in Latin America, FAO reports. The ranks of small farmers are also swelled by the rural landless and permanent or temporary farm workers.

This unequal division of land, a legacy of the colonial era, seems to persist despite agrarian reform programmes in a number of countries, strongly conditioning socio-economic and political patterns in the rural sector. Land ownership also has repercussions on the prospects for wildlife management.

Big holdings lend themselves rather well to wildlife management in that: 1) they cover large areas; 2) land use is usually extensive, preserving the habitat of the native wildlife; 3) wildlife legislation allows landowners to decide whether or not to allow hunters access to their land (any restrictions the landowner may decide to impose generally being more effective than the government's); 4) large landowners have no need to resort to wildlife for food, and this, at least theoretically, allows them to maintain productive and abundant wildlife on their lands. This actually occurs on many holdings, where landowners protect their wildlife very carefully for conservationist or utilitarian reasons. Rural landowners are therefore a key element in Latin American wildlife management. The controlled capybara (440, 446, 448) and Caiman crocodilus (468, 530, 603) harvesting programmes in Venezuela are run by llanos latifundistas primarily engaged in extensive cattle-ranching.

On the other hand, the concentration of land, the basis of all agricultural and forest production, in the hands of a few landowners does mean poverty for the remainder. Most campesinos do not have enough land or enough good land to generate a proper income. They live in a state of underemployment and undernourishment and frequently turn to wildlife to round out the diet or earn more money. Their small and generally intensively farmed holdings reduce both wildlife habitat and game. The campesino therefore hunts in the surrounding areas, competing with his neighbours for the favoured game species, thus gradually depleting them.

This is a very simplified and rough sketch of the inherent contradictions of land tenure and other socio-economic factors in rural Latin America. It may help, however, to visualize why studies on the links between rural sociology and wildlife are essential, for such studies are needed to design wildlife management plans of sustained benefit to the great mass of rural people.