Small scale migration along the interoceanic highway in Madre de Dios, Peru: an exploration of community perceptions and dynamics due to migration

We explored food security using three questions from the survey, which assess quantity of food and actions taken to secure food. These were not part of a larger validated scale. The majority of respondents stated that they ate sufficiently (86.8%), but not always (57.5%), although 13.2% reported sometimes or frequently not having enough to eat, with no significant difference between migrants and non-migrants (Table 2). The most common reason for poor food security was insufficient money to purchase food. A higher wealth index was significantly associated with increased food security (p = 0.001), whereas migrant status was not. Although not statistically significant, almost 10% more migrants than non-migrants reported that their food supply would run out before they could acquire more. Of the 69 respondents who reported feeling food insecure, the most commonly reported coping strategies were to purchase food from the store on loan or to ration their food. While KIs never discussed food insecurity directly, they did highlight the importance of agriculture as a family’s food source. In Florida Baja, agriculture was described as “… for consumption by families.” The importance of agriculture as subsistence farming was also brought up in the FGs and described as an additional source of income when necessary.

A majority (84.1%) of all respondents had piped directly into their home for general and drinking use. Significantly more non-migrants had access to piped water directly in their homes than migrants (p = 0.046) (Table 3). Most respondents reported treating the water to make it safe to drink (69.0%), and significantly more migrants treated their water than non-migrants (p = 0.045). The primary method to treat water was boiling, with no major difference between groups, followed by a minority who treated with chlorine or bleach. Most KIs reported that their community had a water tank for the population and in some cases for individual households. Whether or not water was treated varied between KIs. A KI from Alegria described the availability of water: “Water … it is not potable water...it’s from a gorge, they fill a big tank for your house.” When asked where people who do not have access to this source collected water, the KI responded, “there are ravines. People go and collect their water from the ravine, but it is not potable water.” A KI from Mavila described the water service in the community saying that sometimes there is no water and when there is, the water is yellow. The KI went on to describe that the community has a tank for everyone and the health center (or municipality) treats the water with chlorine.

A vast majority of respondents (86.1%) did seek treatment or advice from the nearest health facility when they had illnesses, with no differences between migrants and non-migrants (Table 4). Of those who sought treatment, most went to public health facilities (public hospital or health center/post). Only two people reported self-medicating, both of whom were non-migrants. Additionally non-migrants were significantly more likely to pay for their treatment than migrants (p = 0.004). Notably, migrants lived significantly closer to their medical treatment site than non-migrants; the majority (54.4%) of migrants reported living less than 30 min away (p = 0.008). Less than 10% of all respondents reported going to herbalists or traditional ‘curanderos’, with no significant difference between groups. However, the topic of traditional medicine came up in FGs, during which participants reported that coconut water was used as a treatment for both malaria and dengue.

Respondents were asked about the greatest threat to the well-being of each individual member of their household by age group. The greatest reported threat was illness (Table 5). When asked about the greatest threats to well-being, 67.6% of respondents thought illness was the greatest threat to themselves and their families followed by injury. There was a significant difference between migrants and non-migrants (p = 0.040) with more non-migrants reporting drugs and alcohol as threats to wellbeing.

The theme of delinquency and use of alcohol and drugs arose during a few interviews, with several KIs attributing increasing delinquency to migrants (not supported in surveys) and to the IOH construction in general. A KI from Alegria stated “Something that isn't a benefit [to the community] is the presence of migrants. Suddenly there was delinquency... Cantinas [bars] have increased, and there are people not from here that have money and drink frequently. There is prostitution [and] alcoholism.” Another KI from Santa Rosa complained, “I'm in the middle of it now; drugs and alcohol every day... [the IOH has brought us] negative things like theft, the problem of alcoholism, drugs, and prostitution.”

As might be expected, migrants were more likely to own less land than non-migrants, with 75.4% of migrants owning less than one hectare, while nearly a third (28.4%) of non-migrants owned more than 20 ha (Table 6). On average, migrants owned significantly fewer hectares than non-migrants (p < 0.001).

One theme that came up during KI interviews, which was not explored in the survey, was the lack of land security. A KI from Florida Baja commented, "We don't feel safe because this land was sold [without guarantee] to me, so we don't feel safe in it." This was also reflected in FGs during which several community members reported that their community would be better if their property rights were recognized by the government.

Overall, 63.0% of survey respondents reported feeling safe in their community, with no significant differences reported between migrants and non-migrants (Table 7). Interestingly, when asked about feeling more exposed to insecurity in their community in the last 5 years, a majority (58.0%) of both migrants and non-migrants reported increased insecurity, the timing of which coincides with when migration into the region began. However significantly more non-migrants than migrants reported feeling more exposed to insecurity within the past 5 years (p < 0.001). When asked if they had taken any additional security measures there was an almost significant difference between migrants and non-migrants (p = 0.051) however only 26.1% of the entire sample answered that they had employed additional security measures.

In addition to the population of self-identified migrants, any people who were not born in the communities were also asked about their reasons for migration prior to construction of the IOH. The most commonly reported reasons for migrating to Madre de Dios were improved work opportunities and access to land for themselves or their family, followed by improved life conditions (Table 8). Work was also the most commonly reported reason for wanting to stay in the area (Table 9). Related to how well migrants feel integrated into their new home, significantly fewer migrants had their document of national identification (known locally as DNI; an identification that allows them to access state public services more easily within the documented region) assigned to their current location than non-migrants (p < 0.001). This was also reflected in the KI interviews, with one KI from Florida Baja stating that migrants “do not have their DNI here. They are migrants from the mountains/sierra.”

FGs, KI interviews, and survey data collectively revealed a mix of positive and negative perceptions towards migrants. The majority of non-migrant survey respondents felt that the presence of migrants had made their community worse (58.7% said migrants made it worse, 19.4% same, 21.9% better). In KI interviews and FGs, perceptions about the impact of migrants on the community were more varied. Migrants were described as having positive impacts on the community, including increased work opportunities and food availability. One KI from Alegria described the positive contributions of migrants as bringing “their culture, [and] new technology for work” to the community. However, some KI and FG participants reported increased problems with drugs and alcohol in their communities, associated with the arrival of migrants. Additionally, a third of KIs felt that migrants were not as invested in their community as local residents and therefore did not take enough care of the land or participate in the community. Another KI from Alegria summarized the mixed perceptions of migrants as, “On one hand they bring work for the population, and on the other hand, they take advantage of the population... They are businessmen that come with their money and take advantage of the humble people to buy their wood and Brazil nuts.”

In the survey, we asked participants which level of leadership made decisions that affected their lives. The vast majority of survey respondents thought that local and regional authorities made decisions in the community, with no differences between non-migrants and migrants (Table 10). A notable minority of respondents felt that everyone was able to make decisions through the popular vote (11.9%). Overall, there was a significant difference between what migrants and non-migrants reported regarding which level of leadership made decisions affecting their lives (p = 0.012); however this was because more migrants than non-migrants reported not knowing who made the decisions. Comparing local, regional and national levels of government, respondents perceived higher levels of corruption in national leaders. The majority of respondents (72.0%) believed national leaders were corrupt compared to only 42.0% of respondents who believed local leaders were corrupt. Similar trends were seen for non-migrants and migrants although significantly more non-migrants believed local leaders and regional leaders were corrupt (p < 0.001 and p = 0.012 respectively). Almost a third of respondents felt their opinions did not matter, while another third felt that authorities cared about their opinion. There were significant differences between migrants and non-migrants, with migrants more often feeling their opinions did not matter (p < 0.001). One KI from Santa Rosa described the negative aspects of her community saying, “…we are forgotten by the [national] government and we are trapped in terms of management.”