Conservation in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Peten Guatemala
11/1/97
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Headline: Conservation in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Peten Guatemala
Source and Author: Juanita Sundberg
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Geography
University of Texas, Austin
Austin TX 78712
Email: jsundberg@foundation.cnchost.com
Date: 11/1/97
COPYRIGHT 1996 Juanita Sundberg
NGO Landscapes:
Conservation in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Peten Guatemala
Biosphere reserves have been promoted as ideal solutions for environmental
degradation and poverty in Third World countries. This paper examines the
prevailing biosphere reserve model and analyzes its implementation in the
Maya Biosphere Reserve, in the Pet,n, Guatemala. I suggest that the
biosphere reserve model encourages the creation of 'NGO landscapes,' in
which local cultural and political structures are replaced by NGO
structures.1
THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE MODEL
Environmentalists and development planners have advocated a variety of
conservation models in Latin American countries, to protect remaining
wilderness areas from degradation and depletion. In an endeavor to address
economic as well as environmental needs, UNESCO's Man in the Biosphere
Program developed the biosphere reserve model as an alternative to
prevailing conservation models (Batisse 1986). In the 1970s, the creators
of the biosphere reserve model saw conservation as a technical issue; they
believed that scientific research and resource management would solve
existing environmental problems (Vernhes 1987). The initial model was based
upon the assumptions of island biogeography, to ensure the viable
reproduction of species within the reserve (Diamond 1975). Thus, the 1974
biosphere reserve model was designed to encompass a large circular area
divided into a series of concentric zones--nuclear zone, multiple use zone,
buffer zone--each having different ecological functions, uses, and
management structures (Goodier and Jeffers 1981).
A review of biosphere reserves created between 1974 and 1983 revealed that
the research conducted at reserves was of an academic nature and did not
address the source of environmental problems. Therefore, the First
International Biosphere Reserve Congress adopted the "Action Plan for
Biosphere Reserves" in 1984, which states that biosphere reserves should be
"models of the harmonious marriage of conservation and development" (UNESCO
1984). As such, the management plans are to include non- governmental
organizations (NGOs), with projects designed to balance community needs
with the conservation of natural resources. Today, biosphere reserves are
commonly perceived as a viable strategy to promote sustainable development
at the local level (Annis et al. 1992; Batisse 1986; Vernhes 1987).
Although the biosphere reserve model is very seductive, it poses many
challenges to those involved in its implementation. First, the process of
spatial abstraction imposes random boundaries upon a complex landscape.
Secondly, the model attempts to de-politicize the relationship between
three complex and dynamic phenomena, the state, NGOs, and local
communities, and their relationship with the environment--which is
"strategically relevant" to all three human institutions (Knapp 1991). Due
to this process of abstraction and de-politization, the biosphere reserve
model does not provide a framework for dealing with the many layers of
complications which arise throughout the implementation process.
THE CREATION OF THE RESERVE
To examine the model's implementation, I conducted fieldwork in the Maya
Biosphere Reserve, in the Pet,n, the northern most department of Guatemala.
In the 1970s, the department experienced dramatic changes in population and
land use practices due to the government's policy of colonization, drawing
thousands of migrants. The population jumped from 25,207 in 1964 to an
estimated 311,314 in 1990 (Schwartz 1990:11; SEGEPLAN 1993a:1). Widespread
and rapid deforestation led to national and international concern for the
Pet,n's ecology. With the encouragement of environmentalists and
international lending institutions, President Vinicio Cerezo signed
legislation in 1990, creating the Maya Biosphere Reserve, which encompasses
approximately 1.6 million hectares of Guatemala's tropical lowland forest
and wetland ecosystems. The Reserve is administered by the Guatemalan
National Council of Protected Areas (CONAP), in coordination with the
United States Agency for International Development, The Nature Conservancy,
Conservation International, and CARE International.
The primary goal of the Maya Biosphere Reserve's Master Plan is the
following: "...to yield a harmonious and sustainable development in the
region, guaranteeing the stability of the present natural and cultural
resources" (CONAP 1996:11). The estimated cost of the seven year
implementation process is $22,410,000 (CONAP 1993). The three NGOs are
charged with providing institutional and financial support, as well as
promoting sustainable resource management and environmental education
through participatory projects at the community level. The Reserve has
attracted a plethora of other NGOs to the Pet,n.
NGO PROJECTS
Myriad complications have arisen throughout the implementation process. For
example, each NGO claims jurisdiction over a portion of the Reserve,
leading to a 'balkanization' of the landscape.2 Secondly, individual NGO
projects are too localized, creating economic and resource disparities
between communities. Thirdly, the Reserve's spatial boundaries create a
resource division between the northern and southern Pet,n, undermining the
goals of the Reserve by attracting migrants to the Buffer Zone. Finally, I
suggest that NGO projects are leading to the homogenization of two critical
social realms: local cultural landscapes and the political actors within
them. Today I would like to discuss the creation of NGO landscapes by
analyzing the effects of development projects on local cultural and
political landscapes.
Cultural landscapes embody the identity of the people that inhabit a given
geographical area--they are both the arena of cultural practices and are
constituted by beliefs and practices that are constantly reproduced and
contested (Cosgrove 1993). A cultural landscape retains personal memories
of a place; yet, its significance moves beyond the individual to affirm
group identity (Butzer 1994; Knapp 1994). Particular places are given
significance, as are everyday practices. Local resources and farming
practices, planting and harvesting calendars, as well as the overall
understanding of how the ecosystem functions, all form an integral part of
the culture and the cultural landscape. Changes tend to occur
incrementally, and may not result from formal planning processes (Doolittle
1984; Williams 1990); these changes are gradually incorporated into the
cultural landscape.
NGO projects are often designed to alter various aspects of a given
cultural landscape. Through participatory projects, NGO personnel attempt
to impart their vision of natural resource management, environmental
education, and community structure, and replace existing patterns with
improved and more efficient practices. The implementation of these projects
leads to cultural landscapes which reflect NGO conservation and development
goals, and risks undermining existing local resource management strategies
and community structures. Just as Escobar suggests that the "'development
encounter' produces forms of consciousness that are more the property of
organizations and ruling groups..." (Escobar 1991), I propose that the
conservation encounter produces NGO landscapes.
The people living within the Maya Biosphere Reserve practice shifting
cultivation; many collect the three non-timber resources--chicle,
all-spice, xate palm--which are sold on the international market. Most
supplement their diet with local flora and fauna. These communities are
approximately ten to twenty years old, dating from the initial colonization
period. A recent study found that the migrants are experimenting with
strategies to meet their changing needs, including agroforestry techniques
(CARE 1993b). The NGO literature, however, portrays these individuals as
recent arrivals, whose unfamiliarity with the tropical forest environment
has led to inappropriate land-use patterns. These communities are the
'targets' of NGO projects in the Maya Biosphere Reserve.
Each NGO employs slightly different management techniques and prioritizes
selected species. For example, Conservation International promotes natural
forestry management which features the sustainable collecting of non-timber
products, and encourages the harvesting of a wider variety of tree species
for timber needs (CI 1994). The Swedish and Norwegian Conservation Project
for Sustainable Development in Central America has developed a complex
thirty year model for the harvesting of valuable timber species such as
cedar and mahogany (CATIE 1992). These NGO landscapes are visibly different
from the surrounding landscapes. Several years from now, it may be possible
to map the Reserve by examining the type of forestry management associated
with each NGO.
CARE'S DEMONSTRATION AREA
In the Reserve, CARE International's agroforestry project is generally
regarded as the most effective because it makes use of local knowledge and
strategies. CARE collected information on both ancient and current
practices throughout the Pet,n; this information was used to develop an
ideal and supposedly appropriate agroforestry system which is combined with
subsistence agriculture and livestock (CARE 1993a, 1993b). Local strategies
are reformulated according to Western notions of resource management, and
returned to communities with introduced innovations. Extensionists present
farmers with a static subsistence package. The Buffer Zone of the Maya
Biosphere Reserve is dotted with replicants of CARE's idealized landscape.
Although it includes local strategies, the project's methodology excludes
individual innovation and incremental change, which may be essential
features of traditional resource management. Finally, the project attempts
to impose a homogeneous landscape in an area thriving with highly
individualistic and ethnically diverse people.
NGO AUTHORITY IN THE MAYA BIOSPHERE RESERVE
After the creation of the Maya Biosphere Reserve, officials from the
Guatemalan National Council of Protected Areas (CONAP) and international
development personnel arrived in the northern Pet,n to introduce the new
hierarchy of power. This process has reshaped space and society. Although
cultural landscapes embody "relationships of power and authority" (Hugill
and Foote 1994), the biosphere reserve model tends to de-politicize local
political landscapes. As such, NGO personnel also tend to gloss over
community power structures and inter-personal power struggles (Brower 1992;
Glesne 1984).
During the first phase of a community project in the Maya Biosphere
Reserve, NGO personnel visit the village to assess the leadership structure
and identify potential leaders (CARE 1994; IUCN 1994). Enthusiastic strong
men and women who fit Western ideals of leadership are targeted,
encouraged, and supported (Van Orman 1989). The existing social and
political fabric is disrupted by the changes in power structures; community
leaders and specialists are often replaced by new leaders who conform to
NGO standards. This process may engender intense conflict at the local
level. Furthermore, the community is reorganized according to people who
agree or refuse to participate in NGO programs. NGOs then establish
separate projects for men, women, and children, thereby altering
inter-personal relationships. Finally, once the community becomes
identified as an NGO community, signs are often set up to publicly proclaim
the community's allegiance and NGO authority in the area.
An example of local political conflict comes from San Jos,, a lake-side
village composed of Maya-Itzaj and immigrants. In 1992, six Itzaj leaders
established the BioItza, a forest reserve on thirty-six km2 of municipal
land, and then sought outside assistance to protect the reserve and create
park facilities. A botanist with support from the Austrian government
promised one million dollars to the BioItza over a three year period.
During this time, San Jos, was undergoing a cultural revitalization
movement, which included the Itzaj Maya Language Rescue Project - an
attempt to teach the dying Itzaj language (Hofling 1996).
Local enthusiasm about language and cultural revitalization prevailed in
San Jos, until the situation came to a head in 1993, when the mayor was
removed from office for selling timber from the Reserve and selling
municipal land along the lakeshore to foreigners. Furthermore, the Austrian
funding had been lowered to $500,000 and had not yet arrived (Hofling
1996). The BioItza guards were working without pay. The motives of the
various project personnel became suspect; there was a political split
between two Itzaj leaders involved in the language project and the BioItza.
One man withdrew from the language project but remained active in the
BioItza. The other took over the language project and withdrew from the
BioItza. The locals were disillusioned with the leaders, as well as the
outsiders. In the end, a much lower sum arrived in 1994. A year later, the
Austrian was accused of embezzling funds from the BioItza. Today, San Jos,
continues to be embroiled in political conflict over this issue.
Another example from San Jos, involves Ixchel, a local women's
organization, involved in the cultural revitalization of Maya-Itzaj
cosmology and agrotechnologies. Ixchel has a 30 year contract to rent 50
acres of municipal land on which to carry out their activities. In 1994, a
Guatemalan NGO--claiming to have millions of dollars--approached San Jos,'s
municipal leader (alcalde), promising to build a university specializing in
tropical forest ecology and management. The NGO selected Ixchel's land
parcel as their ideal starting point.
Tempted by the NGO's promises of grandeur and financial reward, the alcalde
began to pressure Ixchel to leave the property, assuming that the women
would capitulate under threats of violence. The alcalde, and several
important community leaders began to claim that Ixchel was standing in the
way of the Pet,n's development and progress. This case engendered fear
throughout San Jos,; the community divided over the issues of local self-
determination, progress, and financial rewards. Although Ixchel took this
case to court, the alcalde prevailed. In the end, the conflict led to
personal problems within the organization, the women stopped participating
in the fall of 1995, and the group dissolved.
DISCUSSION
In conclusion, I suggest that the biosphere reserve model for conservation
and development has several built-in contradictions. The model's framework
has enabled NGOs to alter the dynamics of local politics, and transform the
face of the landscape. In their attempts to conserve the northern Pet,n's
forest, NGOs have set out to change local people's environmental
consciousness and land management practices. These changes undermine many
local structures and strategies that have emerged to deal with social and
environmental changes. Some of the introduced techniques have no historical
or cultural relevance; they become anomalies in local cultural landscapes.
Due to their neglect of power structures, individual innovation, and
cultural landscapes, NGO landscapes may not provide long-term solutions to
environmental degradation.
The majority of people involved in the implementation of the Maya Biosphere
Reserve regard the process as an experiment; it is a learning process
within the international field of sustainable development. Projects are
eliminated or adjusted as problems rise to the surface. The impact of
experimentation, meanwhile, is deeply felt in local communities, wherein
individuals have been asked to restructure their lives around NGO projects.
My research has suggested that people have suffered from time lost in
projects subsequently abandoned; raised expectations and unkept promises;
indifference to local knowledge and practices; local dissent, and in
several cases, increased violence. This leads me to question the ethics of
experimentation within the field of conservation and development.
Although the success of the biosphere reserve model is problematic, the
Maya Biosphere Reserve will not determine the fate of the Pet,n. In the
end, solutions to resource depletion hinge upon changes in global social
and economic structures, the commitment of the Guatemalan government, and
the experience and creative energies of local people. Those of us
interested in these issues must begin to question Western models of
conservation, and challenge NGOs to support local people without
undermining their knowledge and self-determination.3
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, W. M. 1990. Green Development, environment and sustainability in the
third world. London: Routledge.
Aguilar, Jos, Maria, and Marco Antonio Aguilar. 1992. Arboles de la
Biosfera Maya, Pet,n. Guatemala, Guatemala: Centro de Estudios
Conservacionistas.
Annis, Sheldon, et al. 1992. Poverty, Natural Resources, and Public Policy
in Central America. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
-----, and Peter Hakim. 1988. Direct to the Poor. Grassroots Development in
Latin America. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
Bebbington, Anthony, and Graham Thiele. 1993. Non-Governmental
Organizations and the State in Latin America. Rethinking roles in
sustainable agricultural development. London: Routledge.
Batisse, Michel. 1986. Developing and focusing the biosphere concept.
Nature and Resources 2(4):2-11.
Brower, Barbara. 1992. Co-Management vs. Co-Option: Reconciling scientific
management with local needs, values, and expertise. In Conservation for
Development: A Himalayan Perspective, eds. Sally Loomis and Maia Enzer, pp.
34-52. New York: USDA Forest Service.
CARE. 1993a. Diagnostico y estrat,gia agroforestal para la zona de
amortiguamiento de la Reserva de la Biosfera Maya. Flores, Guatemala.
-----. 1993b. Diagnostico y estrat,gia agroforestal para la zona de
amortiguamiento de la Reserva de la Biosfera Maya. Flores, Guatemala.
-----. 1992. CARE-Guatemala Project Description.
CATIE/OLAFO. 1992. Pautas para un plan de desarrollo sostenible en un Orea
de uso multiple de la Reserva de la Biosfera Maya. Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Centro Maya. n.d. Promotional Brochure.
CONAP. 1996. Plan Maestro Reserva de la Biosfera Maya. Turrialba, Costa
Rica.
-----. 1993. Resumen Ejecutivo: Proyecto de la Reserve de la Biosfera Maya
entre los gobiernos de Guatemala y los Estados Unidos. Flores, Guatemala.
-----. 1992. Plan Maestro de la Reserva de la Biosfera Maya. Flores,
Guatemala.
-----. 1990. Reserva de la Biosfera Maya. Guatemala.
Conservation International. 1994. ProPet,n project description. Flores,
Guatemala.
Cosgrove, Denis. 1994. Worlds of Meaning: Cultural Geography and the
Imagination. In Re-Reading Cultural Geography, ed. Kenneth Foote and
others, pp. 387-395. Austin: University of Texas Press.
-----. 1993. The Palladian Landscape. University Park PA: The Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Diamond, Jared. 1975. The Island Dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic
studies for the design of natural reserves. Biological Conservation
7:129-146.
~~ di Castri, Francesco, and Lloyed Loope. 1977. Biosphere reserves:
theory and practice. Nature and Resources 12(1):2-5.
EPOCA. 1990. Guatemala: A Political Ecology. Earth Island Institute,
October.
Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development, The Making and Unmaking of
the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
-----. 1991. Anthropology and the development encounter: the making and
marketing of development anthropology. American Ethnologist 18:658-682.
Goodier, R. and J.N. Jeffers. 1981. Biosphere Reserves. Applied Biology
6:279- 317.
Handy, Jim. 1984. Gift of the Devil: A History of Guatemala. South End
Press: Boston, MA.
Harroy, Jean-Paul. 1974. A century in the growth of the 'national park'
concept throughout the world. In Second World Conference on National Parks,
pp. 24-32. IUCN.
Hofling, Charles Andrew. 1996. Indigenous Linguistic Revitalization and
Outsider Interaction: the Itzaj Maya Case. Human Organization
55(1):108-116.
IUCN. 1993. El Programa Agroforestal del PPF. El Reportero 43:14.
IUCN, WWF, UNESCO, WHO, UNEP. 1980. World Conservation Strategy. IUCN.
Jones, Jeffrey. 1990. Colonization and Environment. Land Settlement
Projects in Central America. Shibuya-ku, Japan: United Nations University
Press.
Leonard, H. Jeffrey. 1987. Natural Resources and Economic Development in
Central America. A Regional Environmental Profile. Oxford: Transaction
Books.
Livernash, Robert. 1992. The Growing Influence of NGOs in the Developing
World. Environment June:12-20.
Millet, Artimus. 1974. The Agricultural colonization of the west central
Pet,n, Guatemala: A case study of frontier settlement by cooperatives.
Ph.D. Dissertation Department of Geography, University of Oregon.
Nations, James, and others. 1988. Biodiversity in Guatemala. Center for
International Development and the Environment. Washington, D.C.: World
Resources Institute.
Nelson, Michael. 1973. The Development of Tropical Lowlands: Policy Issues
in Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Peckenham, Nancy. 1980. Land Settlement in the Pet,n. Latin American
Perspectives 7(2/3):169-177.
Price, Marie. 1994. Ecopolitics and environmental nongovernmental
organizations in Latin America. Geographical Review 84(1):42-59.
~Schwartz, Norman. 1990. Forest Society. A Social History of Pet,n,
Guatemala. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
-----. 1987. Colonization of Northern Guatemala: The Pet,n. Journal of
Anthropological Research 43:163-83.
SEGEPLAN. 1993a. Plan de Desarrollo Integrado de Pet,n: Diagnostico General
de Pet,n. Flores, Pet,n, Guatemala.
-----. 1993b. Plan de Desarrollo Integrado de Pet,n: Estudio de
Prefactibilidad, Proyecto Fomento de la Agricultura y Agroforesteria en
Pet,n. Flores, Pet,n, Guatemala.
-----. 1992. Resumen Ejecutivo. Plan de Desarrollo Integrado de Pet,n.
Flores, Pet,n, Guatemala.
-----. 1991. Plan de Desarrollo Integrado de Pet,n: Informe de Orientacion,
Analisis demogrOfico y sociologico. Flores, Pet,n, Guatemala.
Soza, Carlos Antonio Manzanero. 1996. Factores que inciden en la conciencia
ecologica de los habitantes de la Reserva de la Biosfera Maya en el
departamento de El Pet,n. Guatemala: Universidad de San Carlos de
Guatemala.
Soza, Jos, Maria. 1957. Pequea monografia de Pet,n. Guatemala: Editorial
del Ministro de Educacion Publica.
Sundberg, Juanita. 1994. NGO Landscapes: Conservation and Communities in
the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Pet,n, Guatemala. Unpublished Master's Thesis.
UNESCO. 1984. Action Plan for biosphere reserves. Nature & Resources
2(4):11-22.
Utting, Peter. 1994. Social and Political Dimensions of Environmental
Protection in Central America. In Development and Environment: Sustaining
People and Nature, ed. Dharam Ghai, pp. 231-259. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.
Vernhes, Jane. 1987. Biosphere Reserves: the beginnings, the present, and
the future challenges. In Symposium on Biosphere Reserves, eds. William
Gregg Jr. and others, pp. 7-20. Altanta, GA: National Park Service.
Von Orman. 1989. Grassroots Development.
Weeks, John. 1985. The Economies of Central America. New York: Holmes &
Meier.
Western, David, and Wesley Henry. 1979. Economics and Conservation in Third
World National Parks. BioScience 29(7):414-418.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future.
New York: Oxford University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) COPYRIGHT c1996 Juanita Sundberg
This essay is drawn from my master's thesis, completed in May 1994 at the
Institute of Latin America Studies, University of Texas, Austin. Additional
research was conducted in June and July 1994, funded by the Tinker
Foundation. A version of this essay was presented at the annual meeting of
the Association of American Geographers, March 1995, Chicago, Il. A more
thorough exploration of the topic is currently under submission for
publication in a geographical journal. I wish to thank my advisor Gregory
Knapp, Karl Offen and Sonia Arbona of the Department of Geography,
University of Texas, Austin, and Barbara Brower of Portland State
University for comments and suggestions. In addition, there are many people
in the Pet,n who shared their time and opinions with me; I admire their
dedication and perseverance in the face of difficult conditions. Although I
draw from the many interviews and conversations with people, the opinions
asserted in this essay are my own.
2) Thanks to Dr. Gregory Knapp for suggesting this term to describe the
process occurring in the Pet,n.
3) I am currently writing my dissertation based upon ethnographic fieldwork
conducted February 1996 to March 1997, funded by the Fulbright Commission.
The work is tentatively entitled Conservation Encounters: NGOs, Local
People and Strategies for Authenticity, Space, and Place in the Maya
Biosphere Reserve, Pet,n, Guatemala. For more information, please feel free
to contact me through snail-mail or email.
Juanita Sundberg
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Geography
University of Texas, Austin
Austin TX 78712
Email: jsundberg@foundation.cnchost.com