ALLEGED GOVERNMENT LAND GRAB AFFECTS U.S. RANCHER

C O N F I D E N T I A L LA PAZ 000232 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/16/2024 TAGS: ECON EAGR PGOV PHUM EINV CACS BL SUBJECT: ALLEGED GOVERNMENT LAND GRAB AFFECTS U.S. RANCHER Classified By: Acting ECOPOL Chief Brian Quigley for reason 1.4 (b). ¶1. (SBU) Summary: Recently, the Bolivian Government and landowners in the Cordillera province of Santa Cruz have clashed violently concerning land rights. The government acuses the landowners, including a high-profile AmCit rancher, of labor abuses and serfdom against the resident Guarani population. The ranchers assert there is no forced labor in the region and say the government wants to confiscate the land to exploit gas and oil reserves without having to pay the owners any compensation. In other cases, supporters of the MAS government have squatted on municipal parklands, attempted to take over public land belonging to the national hydrocarbons distribution company, and invaded privately-owned property. These cases may portend things to come as the government implements the new constitution, including a limit of 5,000 hectares of land for any individual owner. End summary. ¶2. (SBU) For over a year, the central government had been trying to gain access to a group of ranches in the Cordillera province of Santa Cruz Department in an attempt to prove that the landowners are employing indigenous Guarani through forced labor or slavery. One of the landowners is an American citizen named Ronald Larsen, who has lived in Bolivia for over 40 years, gradually acquiring land and building a successful cattle ranch/popcorn farm/ecotourist destination. Larsen has transferred most of his Santa Cruz properties into the names of his three dual-national (U.S. and Bolivian) sons. The Larsen case serves as a microcosm of the government-vs-landowner conflict, and has been used in the media as an example of the Morales government's anti-American policies. However, the Larsen ranch is only one of 46 affected farms. ¶3. (SBU) The main player on the government side is Vice Minister of Land Alejandro Almaraz. In April 2008, Almaraz traveled to Cordillera province with members of the National Institute for Agrarian Reform (INRA) and forcibly tried to enter several properties to carry out a process known as "saneamiento," a review of land ownership, usage and complaince with all applicable laws. Almaraz told the press that he was in the region to "free the slaves." He and the other government representatives were prevented from entering the properties by the landowners and their employees. The �0A;sometimes-violent stand-off lasted a week. There were accusations and counter-accusations, including a statement by the Minister of Government that "Larsen is an instigator of the violence, intending to turn Bolivia into the Wild West." Prominent Santa Cruz figures also weighed in. Cardinal Julio Terrazas declared there was no slavery in the region, drawing the wrath of President Morales. Two independent commissions of Santa Cruz leaders traveled to the region and also declared that there was no slavery. The government did not give in on that point, but to end the confrontations, it ordered Almaraz to return to La Paz and declared a "pause" in the saneamiento process. ¶4. (C) The night of November 21, at 3:00 in the morning, INRA officers returned to the area with police and forcibly entered the ranches. Landowners report that a great deal of force was used, including shooting off locks, breaking doors and fences, and generally destroying anything in the way. Almaraz showed up the next morning. Ronald Larsen was not at the ranch at the time, and shortly after the incident he returned to the U.S. in order to avoid the appearance of resistance that could have provoked additional charges against him or his family members. The Larsens' lawyer told us that, worse than the property damage to the residence, was the damage to the ranch's infrastructure. For example, the police destroyed fences enclosing cattle, and the animals wandered off into the hills and forests. INRA then told the foreman he had to produce all the cattle that he had on the books within five days, knowing it would take weeks or months to round up all the animals that escaped into the wilderness. According to Guido Nayar, President of the Bolivian Ranchers' Association, the government told several landowners that they would be left in peace if they agreed to give declarations "against the gringo." The Larsens' lawyer, who also represents many of the other landowners in the dispute, said that many of them had agreed to surrender some land to the government under threats that they would lose it all. After the political negotiations took place, all under police occupation of the ranches, INRA settled down to the process of collecting the legal documents required in the saneamiento process. The lawyer said there were many irregularities. For example, the saneamiento was directed by a public prosecutor from La Paz, rather than one from Santa Cruz as required by law. ¶5. (C) Nayar said the farms were occupied from November 21 through December 19. At each farm, INRA compiled folders of production records and land titles, but also collected declarations from local Guarani claiming to have been mistreated on the various farms. The lawyer told us most of these declarations were completely false, given by people who are no longer employed at the ranches, or given under duress. Nayar claims that several Guarani received money or other government benefits in return for their statements. We have heard from numerous people, including some current government officials, that the Larsens are exemplary employers. They pay laborers well above the admittedly-meager minimum wage, comply with labor laws such as providing contracts, built a church and elementary school on the property, and provide subsidized food. Ronald Larsen is said to be well-liked by the people in the region, and the employees are fiercely loyal to him. On December 19, INRA officials sent the folders they had compiled back to La Paz, another irregularity as the decision-making would normally be done at the Santa Cruz INRA office. ¶6. (SBU) The week of February 2, the government announced that of the 88,000 hectares that INRA investigated in November and December 2008, they had decided to confiscate 36,000 hectares. The decision affects many landowners, some of whom will lose only part of their property. The Larsens, however, would lose everything. The lawyer points out that, although they are not being singled out as Americans per se, because many other landowners are affected, he believes the Larsens are being treated extra-harshly and being stigmatized by INRA as U.S. citizens. The landowners are appealing the decision at the National Agricultural Tribunal (a branch of the Supreme Court in Sucre). Nayar's organization called for "civil disobedience" to resist the unjust decision, but several of the affected landowners (not the Larsens) have vowed to resist with force and say they won't leave their farms alive. But Why? -------------- ¶7. (C) The big question is why the government is going through all this trouble in the out-of-the-way Cordillera province. The land is not particularly fertile in the Bolivian Chaco, and it requires much more acreage to support a head of cattle than in other areas of the country. Larsen told us in April 2008 that Almaraz had received a grant from a European human rights NGO to "eliminate slavery in the Chaco," and thus he needed to produce some slaves or else he would have to return that money. We were not able to verify that story, and we have never heard it repeated by anyone else. The prevailing theory is that the ground under those ranches is rich in hydrocarbon resources, which the government wants to exploit without having to pay any compensation for surface rights for the necessary roads and wells. According to this theory, the government intends to confiscate the land from the ranchers and give it to pro-MAS indigenous as communal property. Private landowners cannot profit from sub-soil resources that by law belong only to the state. However, under the new constitution, communal property holders are entitled to receive access fees for exploitation of minerals or hydrocarbons. Nayar mentioned that INRA was offering the local employees land from the ranches in return for their "cooperation," however the land would be "communal property." None of the ranch employees are interested in communal property that they cannot profit from individually. Nayar theorized that the government could even go so far as to "import" cooperative Aymara or Quechua groups to carry out the plan. ¶8. (C) Comment: The facts in Cordillera are elusive, and it remains to be seen what will become of the 46 ranches. We expect a lengthy appeal process. The Embassy has not engaged with the government on this issue because, despite the special press coverage (some of which he himself sought), Larsen has not requested specific assistance. Despite the lawyer's opinion, it is not clear he is being singled out by the government for treatment worse than that received by many of his Bolivian neighbors. Furthermore, he has registered the land in the names of his three dual-national sons in an effort to protect it. "Without a Roof" Movement -------------- ¶9. (C) Land disputes are not limited to rural, agricultural areas of Santa Cruz. Within the capital city, a group that calls itself "Movimiento Sin Techo" ("Without a Roof Movement") has taken over eight municipally-zoned parklands and demanded property rights. Mayor Percy Fernandez and his chief legal advisor told American Presence Post Officer (APPO) that the law is firmly on the side of the municipal government, since protected areas within the city are inviolable. The movement has existed since 1990, but gained momentum in 2000 in both urban and rural areas with the support of the MAS. The leader of the movement in Santa Cruz is Valerio Queso, the Evo Morales look-alike who played the president in a biographical film. Although the squatters claim to be homeless families, most of the land they are occupying is in the city's center and, if it were not protected property, it would be valuable real estate. In addition, numerous neighborhoods in and around Santa Cruz are growing daily, absorbing immigrants from other Departments, and therefore the argument that there is no land for these families rings hollow. It is clear that economic interests, and not humanitarian ones, are behind the incidents. The municipality is seeking court action against the movement to remove the squatters from public land. If the court orders the squatters to move, the municipality will ask the Bolivian National Police to enforce the decision. The police have a good track record in this respect. In fact, one policeman died in Oruro in 2008, and police have been injured in Tarija, enforcing court-ordered squatter evacuations. Targets of Opportunity -------------- ¶10. (C) Immediately after the January 25 constitutional referendum, several well-organized and armed groups attempted land-grabs in Santa Cruz. Generally, each family that participates must pay the organizer(s) 200 to 300 dollars (several months salary) in advance, as a payment for any potential land won through the squatting action. This is why the participants can be very aggressive, because it is not a spontaneous action, but one in which they have a big investment. One group attempted to take over land controlled by YPFB, the national hydrocarbons distribution company. The leaders claimed that the new constitution promised them land, and they were demanding that the state pass out state lands immediately. However, the central government distanced itself from this group, and it quickly dispersed. In another case, residents of the San Juan municipality, who are largely pro-MAS internal immigrants, seized three private properties in nearby Guarayos province. Interestingly, the groups didn't target the obvious Santa Cruz "Oligarchs," i.e. the famous ten families that own huge tracts of land in the department. Rather, the landowners were targets of opportunity based on geographical proximity: a Brazilian, a Mennonite, and a run-of-the-mill Bolivian farmer. As the General Director of the Agicultural Chamber of the East (CAO) Edilberto Osinaga explained, "Carnivores target the weakest of the herd." Again in this case, the land-invaders were well-organized, aggressive, and armed with farm implements and machetes. A local court has already ruled in favor of at least one landowner, who is going through the process of requesting the police remove the trespassers. However, the three farmers have reportedly gotten threatening calls from alleged MAS leaders, implying that if they want to keep part of their land, they should give up 50%, or else they risk losing it all. In the meantime, their farms continue to be occupied by the squatters in a form of continuous pressure. ¶11. (C) Osinaga told APPO that when these incidents first occurred, Santa Cruz farmers were worried the land-grabs would be epidemic. However, there have not been additional cases. Now the theory is that the cases were MAS trial balloons. Perhaps, he speculated, the central government expected to garner support among the general Santa Cruz population using the land promise. And perhaps, he added, if the land grabs had targetted the traditional "oligarchical" families, they would have had more popular resonance. But these cases served only to alarm the majority of people about the government's intentions. The truth is, the large farms owned by foreigners and well-established Bolivians are the ones that generally obey the land-usage and labor laws. Small and medium farmers are most susceptible to losing their land due to legal violations, and if that happens there will be a strong anti-government backlash in Santa Cruz and throughout the rest of the country. Communal Land -- A Big Mistake -------------- ¶12. (C) Universally, farmers in Santa Cruz agree that the biggest miscalculation of the government's land reform plan is the idea of indigenous communal property. Banks in Bolivia do not finance agriculture; agroindustry does. And agroindustry is very unlikely to finance communal land, as no one is ultimately responsible. Therefore, agriculture for export under communally-owned property is almost impossible. Farmers worry that the agriculture-based economy that Crucenos are so proud of could be destoyed by the land-reform policies of the Morales administration, and this hits the Cruceno psyche much deeper than any one example of property loss. Prefect: Legal Defense and Peaceful Resistance -------------- -- ¶13. (C) So far, it seems that Santa Cruz farmers are committed to exhausting every legal means possible to defend their lands, and in many cases the courts and police are doing their jobs. Prefect Ruben Costas, a farmer himself, is personally organizing a Department-wide Committee in Defense of Property. He is urging all farmers to get their paperwork in order and make sure that they are in compliance with all laws. Producers are hopeful Costas will be able to persuade the MAS to back down from the land grabs. The Crucenos have learned that they get more sympathy nationally and internationally when they are the victims, not the aggressors. However, as the MAS constitution is implemented, especially the section prohibiting property ownership in excess of 5,000 hectares, things could get dicey. (Note: The constitution grandfathers farms in excess of 5,000 hectares already in existence prior to February 1, 2009; only new farms are prohibited from exceeding 5,000 hectares. However, there are other legal means for taking land, such as confiscating land that does not serve a "social purpose," which greatly worry Cruceno farmers.) When it comes to taking people's land and livelihood away, there is a strong potential for violence. URS