Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006) 285–295

Local perspectives in conservation politics: the case of the

Rı́a Lagartos Biosphere Reserve, Yucatán, México夽
Julia Fraga∗
Department of Human Ecology, CINVESTAV-IPN, Mérida, Yucatán 97310, México

Available online 10 November 2004

Abstract

Local perspectives are presented on the conflicts and contradictions in the Rı́a Lagartos Biosphere Reserve, one of 10 priority
reserve areas in México that receive financing from the World Bank and other development and conservation institutions.
There are four villages into the reserve, whose total population ranges from 800 to 2500 inhabitants. At this reserve, decision-
makers and administrators have focused on biological conservation, failing to understand the social and political relations of the
local people, which are strongly affected by globalization and modern conservation policy. Modern conservation is a western
discourse on nature, is a kind of “licence to conserve”, analogous to an automobile driver’s licence. Conservation in Rı́a Lagartos
means prohibition to the local population hence conflicts frequently arise between them and both local and federal authorities.
However, there is an urgent need to move forward and recognise the diversity of discourses on nature that give rise to different
kinds of knowledge and practices of conservation variously called popular, traditional, indigenous, and folk. This paper discusses
the institutionalization of conservation in a natural protected area (biosphere reserve) in the northwest of Yucatán Peninsula.
The researcher initially established rapport with the communities of this region more than 10 years ago, working on various
ethnographic research projects from then to the present. This long-term relationship has (1) deepened the level of trust, (2)
contributed substantially to the background knowledge critical for identifying local factors of importance, and (3) provided
information necessary for the proper wording of questions in the local parlance. The research reported here continued to use
the same ethnographic approach used in the former research projects, an ethnographic method including participant observation
and informal interviews in homes, work places, local stores, and other places normally frequented by the local consultants. The
research reported in this article was done from August 1996 to July 1997 in the three communities of the Biosphere Reserve of
Rı́a Lagartos: Rı́o Lagartos, San Felipe and Las Coloradas.
© 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Modern conservation; Conflicts and contradictions; Biosphere reserve; Rı́a Lagartos

Resumen

Las perspectivas locales sobre la conservación son presentadas en este trabajo sobre la base de los conflictos y las contradic-
ciones en la Reserva de la Biosfera Rı́a Lagartos, una de las 10 áreas de reservas naturales protegidas en México que recibe
夽 This paper was presented in the Symposium “Conflict and Accord in the Postglobal Age” of The Society for Applied Anthropology, 61st
Annual Meeting, Mérida, Yucatán, 28 March 2001.
∗ Tel.: +52 999 981 4670; fax: +52 999 981 4670.

E-mail address: jfraga@mda.cinvestav.mx.

0169-2046/$20.00 © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.008
286 J. Fraga / Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006) 285–295

financiamiento del Banco Mundial y otras instituciones del desarrollo y la conservación. Existen cuatro comunidades hu-
manas dentro del área protegida con un promedio de habitantes por comunidad entre 800 y 2500 personas. En esta Reserva
de la Biosfera los administradores y tomadores de decisión han concentrado su interés sobre la biologı́a de la conservación,
fracasando en comprender las relaciones sociales y polı́ticas de la gente local, quienes están fuertemente afectados por la
globalización económica y la polı́tica de conservación moderna. Esta última entendida como el discurso occidental sobre la
naturaleza, como una clase de “licencia para conservar” semejante al pasaporte de autorización que utilizan los taxistas para
conducir un vehı́culo. La conservación en Rı́a Lagartos significa “prohibición” lo que trae frecuentemente conflictos entre las
autoridades y la gente local. Existe una urgente necesidad de reconocer la diversidad de discursos sobre la naturaleza tomando
en cuenta las diferentes maneras de producción del conocimiento ecológico local y sus respectivas prácticas de conservación
tradicional, popular, indı́gena, y folk. Este artı́culo discute la institucionalización de la conservación en un área natural protegida
en la Penı́nsula de Yucatán. La autora tiene una larga trayectoria de investigación en las comunidades, de más de diez años,
trabajando en varios proyectos de investigación etnográfica. Esta larga trayectoria ha contribuido a (1) un profundo nivel de
confianza entre los pobladores, (2) contribuido substancialmente al conocimiento crı́tico para identificar factores de importancia
y (3) proveer información necesaria en el lenguaje local de los interlocutores. Los resultados de investigación utilizados aquı́
se basan en el método etnográfico incluyendo la observación participante, las entrevistas informales en los hogares, lugares
de trabajo, tiendas y otros lugares comunes frecuentados por los pobladores. Los resultados de esta investigación son pro-
ducto de esta larga estancia en las comunidades de San Felipe, Rı́o Lagartos y Las Coloradas entre agosto de 1996 a julio de
1997.
© 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Palabras claves: Conservación moderna; Conflictos y contradicciones; Reserva de la Biosfera; Rı́a Lagartos

1. Introduction resources. Therefore which conservation practice pat-

The concept of conservation has multiple meanings,
depending largely on who is using it. It implicitly in-
cludes a heterogeneity of focuses ranging from the
ethical-philosophical to the scientific-academic, and
encompassing economic, sociocultural, political and
esthetic dimensions. Conservation itself is defined as
“the study and management of representative samples
of natural communities and/or ecosystems so as to pre-
serve them as a function of development and in bene-
fit of present and future human populations (DUMAC,
1997)”. Implicit in this definition is the need for knowl-
edge and understanding of the mechanisms and pro-
cesses underlying community and ecosystem dynamics
(DUMAC, 1997).
In conservation practices, concepts such as en-
demism, extinction and rarity are used. How can we ap-
ply these in the daily practices of local resource users?
That is to what people do, to what they say they do
and to what they think they will do in their daily ac-
tions. Distribution patterns exist in the thoughts, atti-
tudes and perceptions about conservation depending on
class, ethnicity, religion, and labor position, as well as
a symbolic perception of local users towards natural
terns would occur between human communities, in this
case in the Rı́a Lagartos Biosphere Reserve?
Modern conservation practices have basically be-
come nothing more than extra-local activism, in which
we motivate “campesinos” and fishermen to conserve;
participation in which we do something for the com-
munity, fishermen, “campesinos” and/or women; and
promotion and compensation, with people receiving
subsidies and compensation for lands. Furthermore,
these practices have become a global necessity for our
planet, our children and our common future. How much
activism, participation, promotion and necessity exist
at Rı́a Lagartos?
The concept and practice of modern conservation is
predominantly a political activity and a social move-
ment born of the urban, academic elite, and is often
extra-local. It has created more confusion than con-
solidation in the protection of nature as it obscures
the “traditional” practices that “campesinos” and fish-
ing groups employ in their “harmonious” relationships
with nature.
In my point of view “modern” conservation has be-
come a kind of “license to conserve”, analogous to
an automobile driver’s license. Its practice has been
 J. Fraga / Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006) 285–295
strengthened during the past ten years in México in the
face of the global necessity for biodiversity conserva-
tion recognized by extra-local entities — be they the
government, academia, or other groups; preservation-
ist or conservationist, anthropocentric or biocentric.
An active debate exists about these concepts and “tra-
ditional” conservation practices with varying accep-
tance of local ecological, indigenous, folk and popular
knowledge (Ruddle in Dyer and McGoodwin, 1994).
Various debates between the modernist and postmod-
ernist positions are useful in understanding the case of
Rı́a Lagartos.
Within this framework of ideas and reflection we
present how conservation practices or rather the con-
servation politics in México, centered on creation, ex-
pansion and strengthening of natural protected areas,
brings with it the exacerbation of conflicts and contra-
dictions between local users and “external managers”
(decision-makers, administrators, or conservationists).
The case we discuss is that of the Rı́a Lagartos Bio-
sphere Reserve in Yucatán, México. We first describe
the location of the study area and the conditions leading
to its protected status; second we present the process
of institutionalization of the reserve that expands over
a 20-year period. Then, we describe the principal con-
tradictions and conflicts in the reserve area that have
resulted from the application of the modern conser-
vation model. We finalize with a discussion about the
possibility of a community-based collaborative man-
agement scheme or co-management in Rı́a Lagartos.
The limitations of this case study are those implicit
in a holistic perspective concerning the social impact
on local communities of the establishment of a natu-
ral protected area. The article presents the results at a
level of analysis that focuses on major issues of gen-
eral concern, rather than those which at a smaller scale
differentiates communities and groups within commu-
nities. The focus is on the global difference between
the perspective of local peoples and that of the pro-
fessionals who come to work with them on biological
conservation. It is recognized that on both sides of this
major divide there exist variations, some due to so-
cioeconomic differences and others due to differences
in gender, occupation, education, place of residence,
place of origin, etc. I have examined such variations in
detail in earlier work (Fraga, 1999).
In the present article, I summarize the commonali-
ties in perceptions and attitudes of all local users (in-
287
cluding fishermen, housekeepers, cattle ranchers, salt
factory employees), contrasting it with the general view
of those outsiders charged with managing the reserve
(biologists, administrators, and policy-makers) during
the fieldwork period. Subsequent visits have been re-
alized during the summers of 2000 and 2001, as part
of another project that has enabled the author to update
information concerning some factors.
There are few studies in México with an anthro-
pological perspective of the linkages between local in-
habitants and creation of protected areas. Studies of the
social impact of another protected area in México are
documented by Nigh (2001), specifically in the Montes
Azules Biosphere Reserve in México (Chiapas state).
Faust and Sinton (1991) documented a social conflict
in Rı́a Lagartos Biosphere Reserve after a summer stay
in 1990 in Las Coloradas. They wonder to what extent,
if any, tourism development would increase or mitigate
the inherent conflicts and help preserve habitat and sus-
tainable use.
The methods used in this case study are basically
ethnographic, allowing the researcher to enter into the
dynamic and negotiated world of the local people. The
basic technique is participant observation, which re-
quires living with local people and participating in their
daily lives. Informal interviews take place as individ-
uals chose to discuss issues of importance to them or
when the researcher finds an appropriate time to ask
about something observed. A survey of semi-closed
questions was also conducted; the questions are in
Appendix A. This type of research is qualitative in
perspective although it contains some quantitative in-
formation. As qualitative research it assumes “a dy-
namic and bargaining reality” (Minichiello in Furze
et al., 1996, p. 50). Interviewees are considered as per-
sons who make decisions concerning what informa-
tion to share, what image to present to outsiders, and
what factors they consider relevant to the problems they
face. In this sense, I recognize that the local inhabi-
tants are continually interpreting their own reality, and
doing so within a social, economic and political con-
text. This contrasts with quantitative research methods
that seek to discover “facts” related to a specific prob-
lem that was defined prior to knowing the local situa-
tion and in which it is assumed that interviewees share
the perceptions of the researchers concerning the value
of research, the desirability of the methods used, and
the guarantee of confidentiality of the information pro-
288 J. Fraga / Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006) 285–295
vided. Effects of their answers on possible future fund-
ing, and on outsiders’ estimates of their social status
are of understandable concern to them.
The informal interviews were applied through a
conversational process where we learned about the
informants’ views concerning the local reality of con-
servation efforts, particularly the prohibitions that were
being applied to them. Since local people are accus-
tomed to talking to each other, they often do not think
to explain fully. To outsiders their comments often
seem enigmatic, abbreviated to the point of not being
understandable since outsiders do not know the local
context. Thus, interpretation of statements in local dis-
course becomes an integral part of the research project,
involving the use of information gained by observation
of daily activities and the trust built in personal rela-
tionships that enable the decoding of local discourse.
The familiarity of the author with the local inhab-
itants since 1987 when she participates in another re-
search project (Fraga, 1994) was a major advantage,
allowing good relations with the informants. Indeed
the methodology included techniques for doing institu-
tional ethnography (Escobar en Labrecque, 1997) that
helped clarify the local and global relations affecting
the Rı́a Lagartos Biosphere Reserve.
The local informants were chosen by occupation
(80 fishermen, 10 salt employers, 5 cattle ranchers, 5
small farmers), 90 students (both sexes, between 12 and
16 years old), representatives of the salt industry (2)
and managers and scientists (19 including “ecologic”
guards, the head of the reserve, and biologists employed
by the reserve).
2. Rı́a Lagartos Biosphere Reserve
The Rı́a Lagartos Biosphere Reserve is located on
the north coast of the Yucatán Peninsula, in the north-
eastern extreme of the State of Yucatán, México, and
includes 74 km of the 370 km of coastline in this state
(see Fig. 1).
The reserve is delimited by 90 polygonal vertices,
with a total surface of 60347.82 ha (PMRBRL, 1999,
p. 18). Total human population within the reserve is
7000. There are four villages whose total population
ranges from 800 to 2000 inhabitants. The primary so-
cioeconomic activities include fishing, salt production,
tourism, agriculture and cattle ranching with cultural
Fig. 1. Location of Biosphere Reserve Rı́a Lagartos.
groups including Maya immigrants, traditional fisher-
men and campesino fishermen.
The principal criteria for selection of Rı́a Lagar-
tos as a Biosphere Reserve were the flora and fauna
it contains. The only nesting population of rose flamin-
gos in México is located there, and it contains an
immense biodiversity: 300 resident or migratory bird
species from 19 (70%) of the 27 recorded orders in
the world; 41 mammal species; 56 reptiles; 10 amphib-
ians; 16 fish; 50 species among crustaceans, gastropods
and bivalves; and 98 plant species (SEMARNAP,
1997).
3. The institutionalization of modern
conservation: from Faune Reserve to Biosphere
Reserve (1979–1999)
Rı́a Lagartos was declared as a Fauna Refuge
through a presidential decree in 26 June 1979. It was
established due to “. . . the increasing environmental
deterioration of wild areas due to human actions, and
the necessity of having faunal refuges where species
experience a minimum of disturbance, in order to at-
tain conservation and propagation” (SEDESOL, 1993,
p. 2). Specifically, Rı́a Lagartos was declared a fauna
refuge because of the presence of the rose flamingo and
other migratory birds that use the zone as a wintering
habitat. The new reserve was placed under adminis-
tration of the Forestry Sub-Secretariat of Hunting and
Fishing of the Secretariat of Agriculture and Ranching
(Subsecretarı́a Forestal de Caza y Pesca, Secretarı́a de
Agricultura y Ganaderı́a).
 J. Fraga / Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006) 285–295
In 1982, the Mexican government formed the Secre-
tariat of Urban Development and Ecology (Secretarı́a
de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologı́a, SEDUE), and Rı́a
Lagartos was placed under administration of the Sub-
Secretariat of Ecology. In 1986, the reserve was placed
on the International List of Important Wetlands of the
International Waterfowl and Wetland Research Bureau
(IWWRB) and the World Conservation Union (WCU)
(Murguia and Correa, 1989).
In response to the passing of the General Law of
Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection
(Ley General del Equilibrı́o Ecológico y Protección al
Ambiente—LGEEPA, 1997) in 1988, the SEDUE re-
organized the natural protected areas in México. As a
result, the Fauna Refuge was redesignated as Rı́a La-
gartos Special Biosphere Reserve on 28 August 1988
(SEDESOL, 1993). According to its creation decree,
the Reserve comprised an area of 47,820 ha, though the
corrected geographic coordinates of the reserve poly-
gon produce an area of 55,350 ha (SEDESOL, 1993,
p. 1).
The acknowledgement of the effect of human ac-
tivities on the area is what led to the search for other
management categories for Rı́a Lagartos, such as the
Biosphere Reserve category. Of the two management
categories, that of fauna refuge presents obstacles to
ecosystem use and access, whereas biosphere reserve
acknowledges that human activity exists in an area, and
thus integrates resource use and conservation via area
zoning (Aranda, 1991).
In 1992, the reserve came under administration of
the Secretariat of Social Development (Secretarı́a de
Desarrollo Social, SEDESOL), and in December 1995
passed to the Secretariat of the Environment, Natural
Resources and Fisheries (Secretarı́a del Medio Ambi-
ente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca, SEMARNAP). The
13th of December 1996 a decree reforming and an-
nulling many of the resolutions in the LGEEPA was
published in the Official Record of the Federation (Di-
ario Oficial de la Federación, DOF). Among those an-
nulled was the Special Biosphere Reserve category.
This lead to the eventual publishing in the DOF on
21 May 1999 of the declaration of Rı́a Lagartos as a
Biosphere Reserve, eliminating the “Special” qualifier.
In November of the same year, and 20 years af-
ter designation of the area as a natural protected area,
the SEMARNAP published the Rı́a Lagartos Biosphere
Reserve Management Plan. The role of this Manage-
289
ment Plan in the institutionalization of modern con-
servation in Rı́a Lagartos deserves to be reviewed and
analyzed to better understand the social dimensions of
conservation policy, especially in the case of natural
protected areas. In Rı́a Lagartos, the first efforts at es-
tablishing a work program for the area, which should
have begun at the moment of its founding, did not be-
gin until the late 1980s and early 1990s when conflict
arose between the fishing community and the salt in-
dustry. It was during this same period when academics
and scientists were asked to carry out environmental
impact studies (Aguilar, 1997; Murguia et al., 1989).
It had been stressed since 1989 that an integrated
management of the refuge had not been attained due
“. . . basically to the lack of a guiding document and
an absence of equipment and money for operation”
(Murguia and Correa, 1989, p. 3). Though it was “. . .
hoped that a preliminary version [of this document] is
done by early 1990 . . .” (Murguia and Correa, 1989).
Not having a Management Plan for the area, the ad-
ministrating institution (the SEDUE) used a document
called the Operating Program, which was based on pre-
vious experience and research done in the area. Of this
document Murguia and Correa (1989) highlight that:
“In said document, actions are prioritized in areas re-
lated principally to guard work, organization of the
users committee, organization of boat-owner cooper-
atives to provide ecotourism services, elimination of
structures that impede free waterflow in the inlet, relo-
cation of solid and liquid waste dump sites, and mini-
mal preparation for ecotourism promotion.” (Murguia
and Correa, 1989)
A decade after the decree creating the Fauna Refuge,
the need for advances in the Management Plan were
under discussion, and the following objectives were
proposed:
“Reaffirm control of the management unit through the
presence of the refuge director and guards in the area,
as well as contact with inhabitants through their organi-
zation so they may participate in decision making and
in this way be kept informed.” (Murguia and Correa,
1989, p. 4) (emphasis added)
In the proposal for the natural resources evaluation
project in Rı́a Lagartos a number of basic requirements
290 J. Fraga / Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006) 285–295
and strategies were enumerated within the framework
of conservation of the natural protected area. These
include the presence of external administrators in the
area; infrastructure conditions for research; patrol du-
ties; creating an image for public support; species mon-
itoring; and forming a users committee (Murguia and
Correa, 1989) These requirements, strategies and ac-
tions “will allow a widening of the only two established
protection programs in the zone, which in one form or
another justified the institutional presence in the zone:
the flamingo and marine turtle studies” (Murguia and
Correa, 1989).
The “official” version of the Management Plan,
approved in March 1994 (SEMARNAP, 1997), was
completed by the Technological Institute of Monterrey
(Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey). Originally
solicited by the SEDUE in 1990 (Reserve Director,
fieldwork, April 1997), the plan generated by the
institute lacked a base in public opinion and involved
only sporadic visits to the area.
The Management Plan objectives are based on the
General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environ-
mental Protection of 1988 (LGEEPA), which include:
“To protect and conserve the natural heritage of the
Reserve in support of the socioeconomic development
of the country; promote environmental education pro-
grams among inhabitants of communities within the
Reserve to sensitize them to the importance of rescu-
ing, conserving and developing natural resources, with
special attention to the cultural and social importance
of the Reserve; promote coordination and accord be-
tween the different federal, state and municipal entities
interested in becoming involved in the conservation and
natural resource management of the Reserve and in de-
veloping public involvement strategies that secure par-
ticipation of inhabitants in the planning process, giving
priority to their interests.” (SEDESOL, 1993, p. 3)
Between 1995 and 1998, public forums were held
among local users, social organizations, and academic
institutions to revise and reformulate the first Reserve
Management Plan. Originally the Rı́a Lagartos Special
Biosphere Reserve Management Plan was conceived
as:
“A planning instrument that, through understanding of
the situation in the area, its natural resources, and a
rational and sustained utilization, proposes the orga-
nization, hierarchization and coordination of actions
that will allow attainment of the goals of creating the
natural protected area. Thus, the management program
should be conceived as a dynamic and flexible tool
that is self-informing and adaptable based on manage-
ment policies and regulations decreed for the area . . .”
(SEMARNAP, 1997, p. 1)
Under these premises, the Rı́a Lagartos Biosphere
Reserve Management Plan was revised into its final
version in November 1999. The Program is said to be
the result of an interdisciplinary and inter-institutional
effort in which utilization and conservation criteria for
the resources in this zone are proposed . . . strategies
are proposed for the conservation of natural resources
biodiversity, as well as to stop the deterioration pro-
cess by establishing policies and strategies for conser-
vation, social development, scientific research, and a
legal framework for regulation of activities within the
Reserve . . .” (Reserve Director, personal communica-
tion).
4. Recipes for conflict: application of the
Management Plan, zonification and centralized
and authoritarian management
Twenty years passed between the creation of Rı́a La-
gartos as a Fauna Refuge and the publication of the Rı́a
Lagartos Biosphere Reserve Management Plan. What
relevant social events have occurred between the local
population and the natural protected area? Which of
these can be called open, latent or potential conflicts?
Using the years 1979, 1988, 1993 and 1999 as a
reference (these years correspond to declaration of the
Fauna Reserve; creation of the Special Biosphere Re-
serve; application of the Management Plan; and its re-
vision and final publication, respectively), we should
ask, are there memories of discontent or conflict among
the inhabitants of Rı́a Lagartos associated with a par-
ticular management category?
During these 20 years, the human dimension, or hu-
man presence, in the protected area was not taken into
account. Interest in this dimension has only begun dur-
ing the last 5 years. Academic groups and NGOs began
to address it given the “necessity” to recognize this di-
mension as a “national” priority due to “global” con-
 J. Fraga / Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006) 285–295
ditions and local needs (e.g. open or potential conflict
between local populations and area administrators).
In Rı́a Lagartos, the local population realized they
live in a protected area when contradictory situations
arose that were revealed as impositions and restrictions
from outside, that is, from the government. However,
this local population or community cannot be dis-
cussed as a complete homogeneity, and even less so in
the context of social relations, which include gender
relations.
As we reconstruct the relationship between the pro-
tected area and the local population we find that at the
town of Rı́o Lagartos everyone did not know they lived
in a protected area. Those that said they did know found
out via the sign at the entrance to the town declaring that
the visitor is entering a Fauna Refuge or Special Bio-
sphere Reserve, or when they were told of the restric-
tion against cutting wood. As a 29-year-old fisherman
said, “I knew I lived in a biosphere reserve when they
prohibited me from cutting wood”. Still others found
out from their primary or secondary school teacher, or
from talks given by “. . . people who arrived to visit
and talk to us about the birds that live in our sur-
roundings” (18-year-old informant). This knowledge
was also provided to a group of fishermen through
workshops on the management of protected areas held
within the framework of the Small Subsidies Program
of the United Nations Development Program in the
Peninsula.
The principal conflicts and contradictions between
the local population and the natural protected area oc-
curred in the late 1980s and the 1990s when norms
were established for use of and access to natural coastal
resources. These arose mainly when area zoning and
restriction to expansion of the salt industry within the
reserve came into effect, especially in 1987, 1989, 1990
and 1991. It was also during this period that World Bank
financed different projects (beginning in 1993–1994),
and financing was approved from conservation NGOs
such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and from
other development organizations, including the Inter-
American Foundation (IAF).
The 1990s maybe viewed as the stage of modern
conservation in Rı́a Lagartos in the sense that the con-
tradictory interests of the salt industry, state, academia,
NGOs came to be linked and there were trials for inte-
gration of the community or local users of the protected
area aimed at converting them from mere spectators to
291
active participants. As a former reserve director ex-
pressed:
“I think it is time to consider conservation as one of
the most viable productive activities, with a capacity to
provide a better life for people in the countryside . . .
[T]o date, the inhabitants that find themselves inside
reserves have only received restrictions and prohibi-
tions of certain traditional resource exploitation activi-
ties, and though it is certain that resource conservation
depends to a great degree on their participation, they
need to be offered real alternatives that guarantee them
a better way of life and not to build up their hopes by
building castles in the air with strangely named groups
like SONAPROL or something similar (referring to the
local name given the office in charge of the protected
area: the SEDESOL) . . . [I]n reality the majority of
the protected areas in the country are forgotten, that
is, they do not have sufficient personnel, they do not
have the basics to operate within the reserves, and least
of all do they have a regular budget that would ensure
adequate planning and follow-through for the different
management and conservation programs.” (Vazquez,
1991, p. 35)
The eternal problems linked to conservation prac-
tices mentioned by Vázquez have also been recog-
nized by researchers in natural protected areas, and
include: lack of financing; integration of local commu-
nities into conservation activities; and programs that
take into account the traditional activities found in an
area (McNeely et al., 1994; Gómez-Pompa and Dirzo,
1995; Barzetti, 1993).
Currently, this local dimension, or community
integration, has not been free of contradictions and
conflicts. Even though advances have been made in
acquiring basic infrastructure and financing for pro-
ductive projects in the zone, the true integration of local
users into the making of decisions about management
proposals and actions has been largely forgotten.
5. From conflicts and contradictions to
collaborative management of Rı́a Lagartos
What is the current situation of Rı́a Lagartos as far as
local perspectives in modern conservation policy con-
cern and before economic globalization processes and
globalization of the environment?
292 J. Fraga / Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006) 285–295
After 20 years of modern conservation policy
and 10 years of “trial and error” efforts to inte-
grate the local dimension, and local knowledge, local
users/communities into the natural resources manage-
ment objectives and categories, what is the “ethos” dis-
position (or community disposition) and “ecological”
disposition (or conservation disposition) in Rı́a Lagar-
tos?
The ethos disposition is that there is a lack of knowl-
edge among local populations about the work, objec-
tives and projects of the reserve administration work
group. The population sector with the most knowledge
of reserve administration activities is the fisheries sec-
tor, even more so when the Reserve Technical Advisory
Committee came on to the scene in 1993 (restructured
in 1996). During the past 4 years other productive sec-
tors, such as ranching and ecotourism, have also been
included. As a result, among the different economically
productive categories, the representatives of organized
productive groups have had access to knowledge of
management, administration and project execution in
the reserve.
Among social categories, the majority of women
confirm that they do not know the reserve director and
know only one or two people from their communities
that work as guards. Among men, especially fishermen
and boatmen who work as tourist guides, information
on this area of management and administration flows
more freely. We can also confirm that in the town of
Rı́o Lagartos there is a general discontent towards the
“guard house”. Local inhabitants feel antipathy and
revulsion towards administrators in this area because
they are the “ones that take wood away, prohibit wood
cutting, enter ranchos, cut wires and take away every-
thing”. “The reserve director only gets along with the
boatmen, does not participate with other people, never
stops here” (community informants).
Local perspectives in natural resource conservation
in Rı́a Lagartos moves between verticality, centrality
and territoriality in the actions of local authorities, are
they municipal, cooperatives, the Cooperative Feder-
ation or the reserve administration. Each administra-
tive and productive body is centralized, and closed to
any communication or promotion thus unable to gain
the community that does not gain support for its roots
in the community, in the broadest sense of this word.
This communication flows and is dispersed, but there is
no “community body for action” that could confront,
negotiate, and conciliate management interests. Each
body uses its own theories and methodologies of ac-
tion, but no community action exists, that is, one that
includes individuals, users, men, women, groups and
institutions. In other words, if the often-invoked “social
aspect” is to function, a truly sociological organism is
required that is not separated from the biological and
ecological organism that modern conservation is in-
terested in maintaining, conserving, exploiting, restor-
ing, managing, using. A multidisciplinary approach is
needed that is integrated with community actions, not
an approach in which each discipline individually re-
searches plants, birds, humans, reptiles, etc.
Given this panorama, is collaborative management
possible at Rı́a Lagartos? Are there effective mediating
figures that promote collaborative management? Is it
possible to eliminate excluding, orthodox models?
The effective mediating figures are already present
on the reserve. That is the case of the Reserve Tech-
nical Advisory Council, although it functions well for
some people, only partially for others, and badly for
yet others. These effective mediating figures need to
follow circular behaviors within the organizational dy-
namic. That is, try to create integration and communi-
cation channels between the diverse sectors and users,
not just confront each other across a round table and ap-
prove partial decisions. Above all, community actions
need to be widened so as not to include only the heads
of production or union organizations that are only in
office for a few years and are then replaced by others
with the same doubts, misgivings, concerns, hopes, and
despairs.
How much is the excluding, orthodox model chang-
ing or being reinforced in Rı́a Lagartos? The model,
“to fix boundaries, and guard and patrol mechanisms,
reduce free access by area inhabitants, and not ac-
knowledge demands for compensation or alternative
measures” (Buckles, 1999, p. 174), still reigns at Rı́a
Lagartos, and will continue to do so, in both positive
and negative ways. On the one hand, this model has
managed to lower the illicit use of natural resources.
On the other hand, however, it has not advanced to-
wards open dialogues using decentralized information,
communication, integration and motivation among the
community, which should be treated as a heterogeneity
of individuals of varying class, gender, ethnicity, area
of origin, and religion who differentially use natural
resources. The diverse local users should also be en-
 J. Fraga / Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006) 285–295
couraged to learn how to negotiate their actions and
break from exclusionary models. This requires an atti-
tude change ranging from local users to area adminis-
trators, politicians, businessmen, and academics.
How much is the impartial “consulting and facilita-
tion” process or interactive problem solving workshop
method being used in Rı́a Lagartos? The use of this
method was concentrated in a series of projects car-
ried out with subsidies from the United Nations De-
velopment Program (from September 1994 to 1999).
Training in protected area management and especially
in shrimp, blue crab and pargo aquaculture were the
principal objectives of these workshops. Participants
were largely members of the fishing cooperatives in
Rı́o Lagartos, San Felipe and Las Coloradas. The pro-
cess did advance, but eventually stagnated. Local par-
ticipants said that lots were invested with little result.
They acknowledge having learned things but there is
no feedback for the actions carried out or learning ac-
quired.
Because of this, local people perceive there having
been more failures than successes. Their principal con-
clusions point to an acknowledgement that there was
an ignorance of the natural conditions in which the
projects were developed. Much of the cause of this was
the lack of dialogue between holders of local knowl-
edge and those with scientific knowledge, which re-
sulted in the prevailing of the latter over the former.
For the external administrators, the failures resulted
from difficulties of local users in administrative work,
their ignorance of aquaculture management, the staff
restrictions placed on the projects by the reserve, and
lack of internal organization among the users. A com-
mon problem was the difficulty of reconciling daily
fishing activities with management activities, as fish-
ing was seen by the participants as their sustenance base
whereas the management projects were seen as uncer-
tain trials that guaranteed no daily economic sustenance
(based on various internal SSP-UNDP documents).
How much has the use of collaborative processes,
the negotiation of collaboration agreements and the
management of conflict advanced in Rı́a Lagartos? Es-
pecially during the last 3 years, considerable progress
has been made if we realize that structures for negotia-
tion, discussion and approval now exist in the form of
the Reserve Technical Advisory Committee. However,
though discourse now exists and objectives within the
administrative and organizational subcomponents are
293
well planned, the methodologies for carrying them out
are still stagnant. This is particularly the case for effec-
tive integration with local communities that takes into
account the diverse class, ethnic and religious back-
ground of the local users as well as their origin and
labor category.
These communities, and particularly Rı́o Lagartos,
reluctantly acknowledge the good works of the reserve
administration, and continue thinking that there is no
involvement and motivation on the part of both the
community and the administration to work together.
As local informants have expressed, “the same ones are
always with them”, “they always consult with the same
ones, don’t take everybody else into account, rather
demand to know what infractions we’ve committed”.
6. Conclusion
Twenty-two years have passed since the present Rı́a
Lagartos Biosphere Reserve was first declared a con-
servation area and therefore subjected to the Mexican
conservation policies. However, only in the last 6 years
efforts have been made to integrate local communities
in conservation activities. Many countries have faced
similar problems in their quest for integrating conserva-
tion policies and human dimensions and Rı́a Lagartos
is no exception.
Despite a growing recognition of local or traditional
knowledge, there still appears to be an opposition
between “modern conservation” and “traditional
conservation”. To a large extent, this is the result
of ignoring that modern conservation is a social
construct tied to the western discourse on nature. It
is as scientists, decision-makers and politicians, all
urban dwellers that most of the time has tried to stop
environmental degradation and advanced conservation
without considering the local populations settled in
the very areas we want to conserve. In so doing, local
knowledge, practices, and needs have been largely
ignored. This is why, I view modern conservation
as a kind of “license to conserve”, analogous to an
automobile driver’s licence. Modern conservation
activities refer to practices and discourses recognized
only by those sectors that are external to local users.
However, there are many more voices claiming to
be heard. These are the voices of the local experts, in-
cluding all fishermen, whether or not grouped in coop-
294 J. Fraga / Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006) 285–295
eratives, fisherwomen, “campesinos”, the elderly and
the young generations. Among the voices very little
heard are those of the fishermen of San Felipe in the
Rı́a Lagartos Biosphere Reserve.
Their most remarkable effort, was the establishment
of a marine reserve, originally referred to as an “area
for the bad times”, an attempt to deal with the prob-
lem of decline in fisheries. This creation of a marine
reserve is notable because it was initiated in 1988 and
managed by the fishers in the community, without re-
ceiving official recognition from the state or the federal
government.
Fortunately, the establishment of this small marine
reserve was fully supported by the town government
and community members. In April 1995, the directors
of the cooperative and the municipal government offi-
cials signed a document establishing the management
rules for the reserve; and on 3 December of the same
year, the reserve was given the official name “Actam
Chuleb”, a Mayan word meaning the ‘water area where
the birds drink’. Actam Chuleb marine reserve, located
about 5 km west of the town center, covers a small
area of about 30 km2 , from the edge of the mangrove
forests along the coast to the sandy ridge about 2 km
from shore. The rules in the reserve, while imposed by
the fishing cooperative, are mainly self-enforced by its
members who acknowledge the importance of the re-
serve and, with their own high ethical standards, tend
to comply with the cooperative rules. It should be noted
that these enforcement activities are not considered le-
gal, even though supported by the local government,
as the municipality actually has no authority to declare
marine reserves (Fraga et al., 2001; Chuenpagdee et
al., 2002, 2004). This type of local conservation ef-
fort has been found to be effective in many areas of the
world, with participants at times having to battle federal
decisions to allow access to outsiders or to introduce
destructively “efficient” technologies (e.g., edited vol-
umes by McCay and Acheson, 1987; Dyer and Mc-
Goodwin, 1994).
There is an urgent need to move forward and rec-
ognize the diversity of discourses on nature that give
rise to different kinds of knowledge and practices of
conservation, variously called popular, traditional, in-
digenous, and folk. We need to take into account both
the symbolic and material dimensions of local practices
if we are to understand the dynamics of the interactions
between local populations and their environment.
Appendix A
(1) Do you know that you live in a natural protected
area?
(2) Do you know why this biosphere reserve was cre-
ated?
(3) Do you know what a “natural protected area” is?
(4) Do you know if the harbour, or your community,
is outside the biosphere reserve?
(5) In your opinion, who should manage the reserve?
(6) Do you know who created the reserve?
(7) Do you know if there are “guards” in the reserve?
(8) Do you know if the reserve collects money from
visitors?
(9) In your opinion, does your family benefit from
living in a biosphere reserve?
(10) Are you in agreement with this area being made
a reserve?
(11) Do you know if penalties exist in the reserve?
(12) Do you know who is in charge of the reserve?
(13) Do you know the director of the reserve?
(14) In your opinion, should women participate in con-
servation activities?
(15) How many times have you attended meetings con-
cerning the reserve?
References
Aguilar, W., 1997. Disputas y reclamos en un Area Natural Protegidå:
Pescadores cooperativados vs. Industria salinera. en Krotz, E.
(Ed.), Aspectos de la cultura jurı́dica en Yucatán. Maldonado
Editores, Mérida, Yucatán, México, pp. 141–157.
Aranda, M., 1991. La normatividad en el Refugio Faunı́stico de Rı́o
Lagartos. Diario de Yucatán no. 9 de Junio, Mérida, Yucatán,
México.
Barzetti, V., 1993. Parques y progreso. UICN, Washington.
Buckles, D. (Ed.), 1999. Cultivar la Paz. Conflictos y Colaboración
en el Manejo de los Recursos Naturales. IDRC, Ottawa.
Chuenpagdee, R., Fraga, J., Euan, J., 2002. Community perspectives
toward a marine reserve: a case study of San Felipe, Yucatán,
México. Coastal Manage. 30, 183–191.
Chuenpagdee, R., Fraga, J., Euan, J., 2004. Progressing toward co-
management through participatory research. Soc. Nat. Resour.
17, 147–161.
DUMAC (Ducks Unlimited A.C.), 1997. XVI Diplomado Reserva.
Documento de circulación interna, Mérida, Yucatán, México.
Dyer, C., McGoodwin, J., 1994. Folk Management in the World’s
Fisheries: Lessons for Modern Fisheries Management. Univer-
sity Press, Niwot, Colorado.
 J. Fraga / Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006) 285–295
Faust, B., Sinton, J., 1991. Let’s dynamite the salt factory: communi-
cation, coalitions and sustainable use among users of a biosphere
reserve. In: Kusler, J. (Comp.), Ecotourism and Resource Con-
servation. Omnipress, Wisconsin.
Fraga, J., 1994. La Costa de Yucatán y su vulnerabilidad ambiental.
IIS-UNAM, México.
Fraga, J., 1999. Polı́tica ambiental y relaciones de género en una
área natural protegida: La relación global/local en Rı́o La-
gartos, México. Tesis de doctorado en Antropologı́a. Faculté
des Sciences Sociales, Université Laval, Canadá, No publi-
cado.
Fraga, J., Euan, J., Chuenpadee, R., Torres, R., 2001. Informe final
del proyecto manejo Comunitario de una reserva marina pro-
tegida en San Felipe, México. Report for IDRC (International
Development Research Center of Canada).
Furze, B., de Lacy, T., Birckhead, J., 1996. Culture, Conservation
and Biodiversity. The Social Dimension of Linking Local Level
Development and Conservation Through Protected Areas. Wiley,
New York.
Gomez-Pompa, A., Dirzo, R., 1995. Proyecto sobre Areas Naturales
protegidas de México. UNAM, México.
Labrecque, M.F., 1997. Sortir du labyrinthe. Femmes,
développement et vie quotidienne en Colombie andine.
Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, Ottawa.
LGEEPA (Ley General del Equilibrı́o Ecológico y Protección al Am-
biente), 1997. Ediciones Delma, México.
295
McCay, B., Acheson, B. (Eds.), 1987. The Culture and Ecology of
Communal Resources. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
McNeely, J., Harrison, J., Dingwall, P., 1994. Protecting Nature. Re-
gional Reviews of Protecting Areas. UICN, London.
Murguia, R., Correa, J., 1989. Proyecto evaluación de los recursos
naturales de Rı́a Lagartos y el impacto causado por el huracán
Gilberto. Document for internal circulation. Centro de Investi-
gación y de Estudios Avanzados, Mérida, Yucatán, México.
Murguia, R., Correa, J., Batllori, E., de la Cruz, G., 1989. Estudio
interdisciplinario de la Rı́a de Lagartos. Avance y Perspectiva 39
(8), 13–24.
Nigh, R., 2001. Maya pasts, Maya futures: the reflexive consump-
tion of nature and culture in Laguna Miramar, Chiapas. In: Paper
Presented at Marketing Culture and Nature: Tourism in the Maya
World and Beyond. Proceedings of the Symposium at 61st An-
nual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Mérida,
Yucatán, March.
Programa de Manejo de la Reserva de la Biosfera Rı́a Lagartos (PM-
RBRL), 1999. Secretarı́a del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Natu-
rales y Pesca. INE, México City.
SEDESOL (Secretarı́a de Desarrollo Social), 1993. Las Areas Nat-
urales Protegidas en Yucatán. Mérida. Doc. De circ. Interna.
SEMARNAP (Secretarı́a de Recursos Naturales, Medio Ambiente y
Pesca), 1997. Plan de Manejo de la Reserva Rı́a Lagartos Mexico.
Doc. Circulación interna.
Vazquez, R., 1991. Polı́tica y conservación. Vital 2 (6), 35–36.