One of the flagship programs of the AMLO government faces serious criticism for its poor effectiveness and allegations of corruption. Experts and activists question the use of resources.
During the six-year term of ofice of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Chiapas was one of the states that benefited the most from the “Sembrando Vida” program; however, researchers and civil organizations agree that the program requires more controls to effectively have an impact on the lands of Chiapas and thousands of families in poverty.
The Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas Human Rights Center (Frayba), in its 2023 report “Chiapas, a disaster, between criminal violence and the complicity of the State,” points out that “Sembrando Vida” is part of a long-term policy that began in the 1990s, with programs such as the Certification of Communal Rights (PROCECOM) or the Regularization and Registration of Agrarian Legal Acts (RRAJA).
The report highlights problems in the implementation of “Sembrando Vida.” An example is Palenque, one of the municipalities with the largest number of beneficiaries (more than 17,500); However, from 2015 to 2020, the poverty rate in this municipality went from 86.5% to 92.5%.
In addition, community members reported that technicians, when measuring the land, took advantage of their position to obtain personal benefits, affecting those who wanted to join the program. In the Chiapas jungle, the planting of trees unsuitable for that region was reported, which calls into question the effectiveness of the program.
Additionally, the organization points out that organized and autonomous communities, which maintain communal ownership of the land, are at constant risk of threats.
How is the Sembrando Vida program evaluated in Chiapas?
Frayba suggests that the real objective of “Sembrando Vida” could be to impose a new model of territorial control, restructuring communities by supervising lands and individuals through technicians, and energizing activities that do not necessarily fit the reality of the communities.
According to the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL), Chiapas registered more than 81,000 beneficiaries of the program in the last year of the six-year term, the largest number among the 26 states that receive support. Each producer is given 6,250 pesos per month for 2.5 hectares worked.
Although the Ministry of Welfare is “singing its praises” about the effectiveness of “Sembrando Vida”, that is, that more than 260 million trees were planted on an area of more than 200 thousand hectares, the reality is apparently still uncertain.
In 2023, “Sembrando Vida” served 451,665 people in 23 states, with Chiapas, Veracruz, Tabasco, Guerrero, Oaxaca and Campeche standing out as those with the greatest coverage.
Antonino García García, research professor at the Autonomous University of Chapingo, documented the reality of the program in the Las Cañadas region, in Ocosingo. According to García, many beneficiaries used the resources to buy motorcycles, alcoholic beverages or pay “coyotes” to migrate to the United States, instead of investing in land. Similar results were also observed in the Tehuantepec Isthmus, Oaxaca.
García argues that Chiapas and Oaxaca received large amounts of resources as a strategy to contain social discontent.
“López Obrador knew that, without that money, people could support Zapatismo and oppose projects such as the Mayan Train,” he explains.
The researcher argues that the government allocated 5,000 million pesos to avoid an insurgency, while any attempt at rebellion would be controlled by the Army.
García recalls that in an ejido in Ocosingo, only ten out of every 100 trees planted survived. He argues that, being far from urban areas, the technicians did not come to carry out inspections, allowing the beneficiaries to fail to meet the reforestation objective.
An imperfect program, but with potential
León Enrique Ávila, a research professor at the Intercultural University of Chiapas, believes that “Sembrando Vida” has positive and negative aspects.
“There has been an attempt to revive the countryside, which was abandoned in previous six-year terms,” he says. However, he points out that, in some regions, the program was in the hands of people without environmental knowledge, which led to cutting down hectares of forest to plant trees.
Ávila also criticizes that, during the López Obrador administration, Alfonso Romo, with possible conflicts of interest, was in charge of the cabinet and linked to tree planting. In addition, he questioned that Banco Azteca was in charge of monthly payments to producers, which, in his opinion, enriched Ricardo Salinas Pliego, since 500 pesos of each payment was retained as forced savings.
Today, Ávila highlights that communities can access savings cooperatives to meet their needs.
Although the program was implemented correctly in some areas, in others there were evident problems of corruption and lack of results. Ávila emphasizes that, five years after its implementation, more than one million hectares in Chiapas have been deforested; however, the trees are not officially registered with SEMARNAT which prevents their eventual legal exploitation.
For specialists, during Claudia Sheinbaum’s government, it would be ideal to expand the program to other regions, especially in the north of the country, promote cooperatives for the commercialization of wood and fruit products, and audit the resources assigned.
“People must get more involved in their communities to improve the program,” concludes Ávila. An example of the lack of commitment, he adds, is the case of El Porvenir, where the ejidatarios admit to signing documents without doing the necessary plantings due to the lack of supervision by technicians.
Original article by Christian González, La Silla Rota, November 1, 2024.
Translated by Schools for Chiapas.