NGO Landscapes in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala Juanita Sundberg Geographical Review, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Iul., 1998), 388-412. Stable URL: fttp links jstor.orgsici?sici=0016-7428°%28 19980792088%3A3%3C 388% 3ANLITMB%3E2.0.CO%SB2-H Geographical Review is curcently published by American Geographical Society Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at flip: feworwjtor org/aboutterms.htmal. ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in par, that unless you fave obtained pcior permission, you may not dowaload an cnt isus of @ journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial uss. Please contact the publisher cegarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at bupsforw.jstor.org/joumals/ags tel. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transtnission. ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact support @jstor.org- hup:thrwwjstor.orgy Sat Jul 9 20:34:55 2005,NGO LANDSCAPES IN THE MAYA BIOSPHERE RESERVE, GUATEMALA* JUANITA SUNDBERG -ApstRact. Political dimensions of conservation abound. The biosphere-reserve model, however, depolitiize the landscape by neglecting politics asa shaper of ecalogies. To lus trate this process of depolitcization, examine discourses about envionrnental degradation, power structuresengaged in implementing conservation measures, and emerginglandscapes ln the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Conservationist discourses hold migrant farmers responsible for deforestation and land degradation in che Petén, ta the neglect of wider socioeconomic conditions that perpetuate poverty in Guatemala. Sociaspatal consequences inclide misdi- rected projects and landscapes that reflect the goals of nongovernmental organizations, not local people's needs and aspirations. Keywords biosphere reserves, canzervario, Guateraa, ao landscapes Environmental degradation is a primary obstacle to long-term development in Latin America, Since the 1970s, development planners have advocated a variety of conservation models in Latin American countries to protect remaining wilderness areas from degradation and depletion. National parks were once favored to protect wildlife habitat, encourage national and international tourism, and provide govern- ‘ments with revenue (Harroy 1974; Western and Fenty 1979). That model was disillu- sioning, for ie neglected the concerns of resident populations and often worsened existing socioeconomic problems (West and Brechin 1991). To address economic and environmental needs together, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (uwesco) developed the biosphere-reserve modelasan alter native ta the national park (Batisse 1986). The model is celebrated asan ideal solution to environmental degradation and poverty in developing countries (tesco 1984; ‘Vernhes 1987; Annis and others 1992). In Guatemala, the biosphere-reserve model was applied to balance environ- mental protection with the needs ofa growing population that increasingly relieson natural resources for subsistence. Anxious about rapid rates of deforestation in Gua. temala’s northernmost department (state), Petén, environmentalists and aid or- ganizations encouraged President Marco Vinicio Cerezo Arévalato create the Maya Biosphere Reserve in 1990 (Figure). The reserve encompasses a vast forest with rich cultural and ecological histories, Oncehome to sophisticated lowland Maya civiliza- tions, the region currently is prized for its scientific and aesthetic qualities. In sup- porting the reserve, the Guatemalan government demonstrates its willingness to * My esate hasbeen funded by the Tinker Foundation and the Fulbright Commision, Thana are due to my Aisertation adviser, Gregry Kaapp, and Karl Offen of re Deparment of Geography, Univers of Tena, Aus fi, and Barbara Drawer of Porta Sate Unversty The asnstance f the editors tthe Geaprehice! Reve sd af ee eviewespariclaly George Lovel—eack of whom made nsightfl emments (much appt’ ‘ed. em alo grateful ta the maby people in he Petén who shared he ine and opivons with me *4 Ds. Sunonene received her doctorate in geography from the Univesity of Texas, Austin, Texas 78p+-1098, The Gegaphic Revie 63) 2840 Joly CCoptighe © as te crs Seog ape eer NewYorkNGO CANDSCAPES IN THE MATA SIOSPHERE RESERVE ay follow a global environmental agenda increasingly enforced by multilateral institu- tions. Political dimensions of conservation are pervasive in the Maya Biosphere Re- serve, The biosphere-reserve model, however, compels a depoliticization of local and regional landscapes. This in turn encourages an institutional discourse that can hold migrant farmers responsible for deforestation and land degradation in the Petén and excuse the neglect of wider socioeconomic conditions that perpetuate poverty in Guatemala. Furthermore, this ptocess of depoliticization leads to Jand- scapes that reflect the goals of nongovernmental organizations (NGos) rather than local needs and aspirations. In this study I examine how deforestation is being defined inst ally in the Maya Biosphere Reserve.' Who or whatisheld respon sible for the damage? How does this discourse shape the practice of conservation? ‘And how are these manifest in the reserve's political and physical landscapes?390 ‘THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW ‘Trrorericat PeRsPECTIVES Politics and power dynamics shape environments. [tis critical to apply this perspec- tive to conservation agendas, for, as David Harvey contends, “all ecological projects (and arguments) are simultaneously political-economic projects (and arguments) and vice versa. Ecological arguments are never socially neutral any more than socio- political arguments are ecologically neutral” (1996, 185). Bqually important isan as- sumption, shared by political ecologists, hat environmental degradation cannot be analyzed in isolation (Bryant 1993; Peet and Watts 1596; Bryant and Bailey 1997), Rather, it mustbe situated within its regional socioeconomicand historical contexts, and its national and global relationships must be considered. Neglect of these broader issues often sparks a “single-hypothesis" approach to land degradation (Blaikie and Brookfield 987,27), one that depoliticizes the landscape and, ultimately, undermines conservation efforts. Depoliticization of the landscape is evident when conservation institutions in- volved with protected areas present themselves as detached from existing power re- lationships—between Nos and local populations, and between the host nationand the donor country. Detachment is achieved when aid and assistance are couched as scientificand technical expertise tobe “shared” with “target” populations. Expertise is focused through technical studies that identify “problems” and recommend solu- tions. Because they ate abstracted from social, histatical, and political contexts, however, the problems are “partly constructed by the discourse that describes them” (Mitchell 1991, 19; Ferguson 1994, xiv). For the Maya Biosphere Reserve, conserva- tion discourse isinformed by technical studies of deforestation. But neglecting talo- cate deforestation within a wider context posits a migrant population as the main agent of environmental degradation. In his article [enlist poststructuralist critiques of sustainable development that tend to concentrate, as Arturo Escobar has put it, on how a dominant discourse “produces permissible modes of being and thinking while disqualifying and even making others impossible” (1995, 5; also Shiva 1989; Visvanathan 1991; Sachs 1992). Inthe Maya Biosphere Reserve, one perspective is vaunted as truth, and institutions present their version of environmental problems.s true. A more critical analysis of this elusive discourse is essential, ‘Tre Brosprrenr-Reseave Mover, ano NGOs ‘The biosphere-reserve model, formulated through uwesco’s Man in the Biosphere Programme, was designed initially to encourage the scientific study of environ- ‘mental problemsand to createa global network of nature preserves within which en- vironmental change could be monitored. Today the model bonds canservation and developmentby dividing reservesinto zoneswith distinct ecological functions, uses, and management structures (Goodier and Jeffers 1981, 235). Each biosphere reserve includes a nuclear zone, a multiple-use zone, anda butter zone; in the latter two, hu- man populations are permitted to engage in appropriate land-use practices. The nt ‘lear zone is to remain free of human inhabitation and use.NGO LANDSCAPES IN THE MAYA BIOSPHERE RESERVE, 30 ‘To ensure that biosphere reserves become models of “sustainable development in action,” their management plans are to include a system of “integrated rural de- velopment projects" (uwEsco 1984, 12, 19). Governments are not always capable of financing the typeof projects needed to meet the model's conservation and develop- ment goals. In Latin America, countries have adopted structural adjustment pro- grams outlined by international lending institutions (Weeks 1985, 200). With economies stecred by outside entities, the amountof funding for publicassistanceis, limited, A number of ncos have flocked in under the guise of providing the social services that local governments cannot deliver (Livernash 1992), and they are now commonly cegarded by international donors and governments “asa means of filing gaps in public programmes opened up as the state withdraws from different devel- ‘opment activities” (Bebbington and Thiele 1993, 2). They have earned a reputation for being efficient because they operate on smaller budgets and tend to make the best, use of available resources (Annis and Hakim 1988). Furthermore, the sGos have been “denominated vehicles of development, democracy and empowerment at the grassroots” due to their participatory approach atthe community evel (Bebington and Thiele 1993, 2; Price 1994). Sustainable developmentin biosphere reserves involves balancing four complex and dynamic phenomena: the state, NGos, local communities, and the environment (Sundberg 1994). The state is responsible for their creation and protection: NGos implement conservation and development projects. Resident communities and the environment are toreceive a great deal of attention in implementation and manage- ment and are to be individual “actors” in these processes IMPLEMENTING THE Mava Brosrrtere RESERVE In992 the National Geographic Magazine published a satellite image of the Mexico— Guatemala border that remains imprinted in the mindsof many Latin Americanists {Stuart 1992, 98-99). The image highlights the dramatic difference between the two nations in terms of remaining forest cover. On the Mexican side, tiny red patches in- dicating forest decorate a quilt dominated by blue and white patches representing pastures, towns, roads, and bare fields. The same blue and white seems to be en- croachingon northern Guatemala’s verdant landscape, symbolized by an almost un- broken mass of red. The message is clear: Without immediate action, Guatemala’s forest is threatened with the same fate as Mexico's. Indeed, the Petén has lost approximately 0 percent of its forest cover over the past thirty years. Commercial logging, cattle ranching, oil exploration, illegal drug plantings, roads, and agriculture have brought deforestation, Currently, the highest Clearing rates are along the western road to the Mexican border (more than 90 per- cent of deforestation occurs within 2 kilometers of roads} (Sader and others 1994, 2325). In the early 19905, as Guatemalan and international conservationists became aware of the rapid pace of deforestation, they pressed for solutions. The biosphere- reserve model was chosen because the needs of the northern Petén were thought to be compatible with the uwesco model. This perception was expressed by Conserva~a2 ‘THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW tion International (ct) personnel: “A biosphere reserve is a natural solution to the varied economic production and preservation challenges of the northern Petén” (Reining and Heinzman 1992, 63}. Stretching over the southern reaches of the Yucatén’s Karst plateau, the Maya Biosphere Reserve encompasses approximately 1.6 million hectares of Guatemala’s tropical lovland forest (cone 1996). It includes subtropical moist forests, sub- tropical rain forests, wetlands, and savannas (Holdridge and others 1950, 1743 ConAP 1996, 12). In tall forests, trees may reach heights of 35 meters; in low forests, 15 (Agui- Jar and Aguilar 1992, 24). The forest landscape is characterized by wide leafed guano palms (Sabal meorrisiana} of varying heights that break up the canopy of common species, including mahogany (Swietenia macrophilla}, cedar (Cedrella mexicana}, corozo {Orbygnia cohune), Santa Marta (Calophyllum brasiliense), and canxas (Ter- ‘minalia amazonia). Species found in concentrated stands around ancient Maya ct- tlements indude ramén (Brosimum alicastrum), chico zapote (Manitkara 2apota), allspice (Pimenta dioica), and copal (Protfunt copal} (Reining and Heinzman 1992, 45). ‘The forest vegetation also includes a wide variety of vines, bromeliads, and or- chids. The Petén is ich in animal species and seasonally is home to alarge number of migrating birds. In thishotand humid climatic zone, rainfall averages between 1,200 and 1,700 millimeters annually (conaP 1996, 12). The mean temperature ranges be- tween 22° and 29°C, though the hottest, driest months of April and May experience highs of 40°C. Soil, fertility, and drainage conditions vary considerably. Following wwesco's regulations, the Maya Biosphere Reserve is divided into zones that are designated for various uses,each with a distinct protective status: sev- eral nuclear zones,a multiple-usezone,anda largebufferzone (Figure 2). Thepopu- lation that resides within the reserve numbers about 87106 and comprises both migrants and native Peteneros. About 23 percent reside in the nuclear zane, 22 per- centin the multiple-use zone, and the rest in the buffer zane (Grunberg and Ramos 1998). The inhabitants practice subsistence agriculture and harvest forest products (timber, chicle,xate palm, and allspice} thatare highly valued on the local and inter- national market. Under 2 1989 Guatemalan law, the Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas (cowar; National Council of Protected Areas) administers the Maya Biosphere Re- serve, The primary goal of its master plan is “to yield a harmoniousand sustainable development in the region, guaranteeing the stability of the present natural and cul- tural resources” (CONAP 1996, 11).” Priorities include conservation of biodiversity protection of national andinternational watersheds, problem-solvingrresearch, pro- motion of appropriate systems of agriculture and ranching, training of extension agents charged with conservation of natural resources, environmental education, investigation of traditional resource-management techniques, protection of ar~ chaeological sites, and promotion of ecotourism (SEGEPLAN 1992, 4175 CONAP 1996, 32-33).NGO LANDSCAPES IN THE MAYA SIOSPHERE RESERVE 383 Muttipie-Use Zone Fic, 2~Zanes within the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Source: Modified feom ct 1994. (Cartography by Kevin Bray) ‘To assist in the implementation of the Maya Biosphere Reserve, the U.S. Agency for International Development (tisa1o) and the Guatemalan government signed an agreement in 1990 creating the Maya Biosphere Project. The project's goal isto “im- prove the long-term economic well-being of Guatemala’s population through the rational management of the natural resources" (Wsa1D 19908, 1). It was designed around three components and accompanying ~cos: strengthening the reserve's management via The Nature Conservancy; environmental education via the Coop- erative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (cane) International;and creatingeco- namic alternatives via ct. Among the Naos that are involved in other capacities is the ‘Centro Maya/Rodale Institute, in forest management." The Maya Biosphere Project ‘was initiated with v,5,¢10.5 million from usatD and w.s.$1.6 million in counterpart funding from wcos and the Guatemalan government; in 1997, funding reached ap- proximately v.s.845 million, The projectbegan in 1990 witha project-life of six years, which has been extended to the year 2000 (ust 1995).384 ‘THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW DeForestartion ano MiGRaTion Governmental and nongovernmental institutions most frequently link the Petén's dramaticlandscape change to the influx of migrant farmers: Between 1964 and3990, the Petén’s population jumped from 25,207 to an estimated 31134 (Schwartz 1990, 11; USAID 19908, 5; SEGEPLAN 1991, 1). Today the number may be closer to 400,000. Initially, migrants were drawn by the colonization activities of the Empresa Na~ cional de Fomento y Desarrollo de Petén (rye; National Agency for the Develop- ment of the Petén),a military-led, government institution given “extensive and in practice exclusive authority” in the Petén, ostensibly to promote economic develop- ‘ment in the region (Schwartz 1990, 253). Theagency sold land parcels, established in- frastructure to pramate sacial and economic development, regulated the harvesting of forest resources, and attempted to exclude agricultural development (Schwartz 1990, 252; Soza 1996, 22). Its administrators granted large landholdings to their sup- porters and for years have been charged with corruption in the management of the Petén's resources (Handy 1984, 6; Perera 19934240), favoring especially cattle ranch- ers (Schwartz 1990, 2535 SEGEPLAN 1992). In.1986 FYDEP Was abolished, and its ad- ‘ministrative responsibilities were taken over by the corresponding government institutions (Schwartz 1990, 248-253). Immigrants to the Petén are primarily landless or land-poor peasants who have been uprooted by economic and political violence. Three decades of support from foreign governments, multilateral institutions, and corporations have enabled Gua- temala’s economic elite to pursue rapid modernization and diversification of ex- ports (Weeks 1985; Williams 1986}. The resulting changes in socioeconomic structure spawned landlessness, extreme poverty, and no shortage of open political unrest (Smith 1990; Colchester 1991; Annis and others 1992). Concurrently, Guate- ‘male's prolonged civil war, which ended in December 1996, displaced some 2 million people, thousands of whom fled to Mexica (Manz 1988, 1) In their attempts to es- cape the violence, a number of communities made the lowland forests their hiding place—though many did not escape the military's insistent and bloody campaigns (Falla 1994). The cooperatives established along the Usumacinta and Pasién Rivers were visited with often-extreme violence; most of the inhabitants fled to Mexico or the central Petén (Schwart? 1990, 278). Today repatriated refugees are being resettled in the Petén through government programs that enable organized groups to pur- chase property. About half of the migrant population are ladinos, people of mixed indigenous and European descent, from the Oriente region of southern Guatemala (SEGEPLAN 1992, 76) (Figure). Immigrants from the Oriente have had a substantial impact on the southern Petén’s landscapes, as well as on the buffer zone of the reserve (Fig- ture 3), The Oriente isan arid region in which cattle area dominant feature; trees are regarded as a nuisance, and shrubs and grasslands are considered the ideal. In their attempts to re-create a landscape consistent with theit cultural wants and needs, many migrants have carved an Oriente-style landscape out of the tropical forest. ‘The second major ethnic group that has migrated to the Petén are Q'eqchi spurredNGO LANDSCAPES INTHE MAYA MIOSPHERE RESERVE 4395 Fro. s~A ¢ypical migrant landscape in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. (Puatograph by Kevin Bray, July 1996 by large-scale development and changes in land values in the Alta and Baja Verapaz and Izabal Departments, immediately south of the Petén (Schwartz 1990, 256).The Qleqchi’ make up about 20 percent of the migrant population. Immigrants from ‘western Guatemala, which includes the indigenous highlands, amount to only 15 percent of migrants (seGePLAN 1991, 39). “The immigrants are primarily subsistence farmers and small-scale ranchers, al- though most families rely on a variety of livelihood strategies. Family members gather forest products and work as wage laborers for farms, ranches, merchants, or transportation companies, Many find employment in towns as civil servants, teach- ers, or support staff for Naas, businesses, stores, and restaurants, With the exception of the Flotes-Santa Elena—San Benito urban area, most settlements in the northern, Petén sutfer from limited employment and a lack of basic infrastructure, including health services, schools, and access to markets (Schwartz 1990; SEGEPLAN 1991). Derorestation Discourse Government and nao personnel contend that each week hundreds of migrants stream into the Petén:"[E]ach day, the protected areas ace increasingly threatened by the invasion of landless peasants” (CATs/OLAFO 1992, 1). CONAP suggests that “the greatest threat {to the forest] comes rom the uncontrolled migrant frontier” (coNAP 1992, 50). The usatn’s Maya Biosphere Project paper estimated in. 1990 that “250 colonists, mostly landless poor, arrive each day” (Usarp i990a,)."The project paper396 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW also warns that slash-and-burn agriculture is “currently deforesting approximately 40,000 hectares pet year. Asa result of these factors, primary forests ate projected to disappear within thirty years” (p. 2). “Two yeats after the establishment of the Maya Biosphere Reserve, con? pub: lished a report that warned: “The slash-and-burn agricultural practices are defor- sting 40,000 hectares per year... [femergency actions are not taken ia this area to promote the management of natural resources and appropriate development, the deterioration of the environment and natural resources will continue extending ‘out, catising major and icreversible damage” (conAP 1993, 5). A primary goal of the master plan is the cessation of migrant movement northward into the reserve. Migrant farmers ate said to be “searching for a solution to their problems, at the cost of destroying the most important basis for development [the forest}” (sEoE- PLAW 3992, 13}. Moreover, immigrants are said to practice slash-and-burn cultiva- tion because “they know of no other techniques” (secEPtan 19932, 3)- A project brochure portrays migrantfarmersas desperate, backward individuals:“They arrive daily to find a piece of land, cut the forest, burn the brush, and plant their corn. Un- fortunately, this practice is not well adapted to the thin lowland soil After less than three years, depleted fields give way to weeds. Resulting crop failures leave farmers no other choice but to repeat the slash-and-burn, fatm-and-abandon cycle” (Centro Maya n.d.). The suggestion is that migrants practice inappropriate agricultural techniques because they are unfamiliar with the lowland environments. One study further vouches for this perspective with a claim that “the lush vegetation leads peo- ple to believe, mistakenly, that the landis extremely productive” (caRE-aID1996,5) Slash-and-burn cultivation is termed inappropriate because the forest's soils are said to be poor and to lose their fertility within two to four years of initial planting (Reining and Heinaman 1992; seGEPLAN 1992} CaRE~AtD 1993), 1996; CONAP 1993) ‘The Maya Biosphere Project paper makes strong claims about soils: “Most of the land in the Biosphere has low-nutrient, karstic soils with litde or no top soil, poor drainage and fragile structure. The large majority of these soils can only be used for forestry or extractive reserve activities. Agricultural production on soils of thistype is not only economically unsustainable, but causes severe environmental degrada- tion in very shart periods of time” (usatp 19908, 5) Ilight of these findings, Carlos Soza, director of ProPetén/ci, the local ct entity, initiated a study based on the hypothesis that: “The anthropogenic impact on the Maya Biosphere Reserve's landscape is negative due to the feeble ecological con- science ofits inbabitants as consequence of the fact that the majority of them have ‘migrated to the area and have a tendency to reproduce their original customs where the conditions in the landscape are different” (Soza 1996, 93). Soza's study is based ‘on surveys and the findings of other documents, many of them cited in this article, ‘The data ate used in support of his argument that migrants lack an ecological con- science, In sum, the sources [ discuss have buill a narrative that secks to establish three claims: that migrants are responsible for the high rates of deforestation that they doNGO LANDSCAPES IN THE MAYA BIOSPRERE RESERVE, 397 notunderstand their newfound environment;and that the northern Petén's soils are not suitable for swidden cultivation, The assertions are daily fodder for conversation among conservationists who are active in the Petén, For instance, a ProPetén/cr staff member told me that “the immigrants are not familiar with the ecosystems here in the Petén, the soils are poor, and people just don’t knowhow to manage their parcels.” ‘The Guatemalan government and Naos rely exclusively on a cause-and-effect scenario that links migrant shifting cultivation with rapid and widespread defores- tation. A recent questionnaire found that 86.6 percent of the fifteen néos surveyed believe that immigrants are responsible for the deterioration of the reserve, Almost half of the Nao respondents believe that migrants perpetuate resource-manage- ment techniques used in their place of origin and that this isthe leading cause of en. vironmental degradation (Soza 1996, 153). Government personnel apparently share these views: 72 percent of the eighteen government institutions surveyed blame the migrants for deforestation, and 44 percent believe that it is due to inappropriate resoutce-management techniques (p. 167). Furthermore, the institutions—especially the Ncos—have the political clout and financial backing to broadcast their interpretation of the Petén’s problems at re- gional, national, and international levels. The discourse created isso comprehensive that alternative perspectives are unimaginable. The migrant-as-culprit legend has, achieved the “status of truth” (Escobar 1995, 45)—truths by which local people are compelled to restructure their lives, land use, and landscapes. AcTERNATIVE DISCOURSES Debates about soil fertility and the suitability of swidden cultivation in the Petén have simmered in development circles for several decades, The discussion is also en- trenched within academic ciccles, as researchers attempt to determine the land-use practices of the ancient Maya (Turner 1993). Yet research on migrants, sol fertility, and slash-and-burn cultivation does on occasion depart sharply from this received wisdom. Studies with genuine ethnographic depth, however, are seldom seen. Anearly survey by cane gathered basic data on resource-management practices in the buffer zone of the Maya Biosphere Reserve. Its investigation of nineteen com- munities revealed that the majority of immigrant families in question arrived in the Petén between 1972 and 1975. The individuals, therefore, had about twenty years of ‘experience working in lowland forest ecosystems. The study also shows that, al- though the idea that “where there are cultigens, there should not be trees” is deeply rooted in some communities, the migrants had developed a variety of so-called ap- propriate resource-management strategies (cARE-AID 1993b, 29). The most com- mon strategies included living fences, orchard gardens, permanent cultivation. beneath forest cover (zate palm, coffee, cardamom, cacao, allspice), trees in man- aged pastures, traditional Petenero silvopastoral systems, and multiple uses of the ramdn tree (CARE-A1D 19938, 15) (Figute 4). ‘The study asserts that the “concept of agroforestry is not common in any of the communities, but agroforestry systems are practiced in all communities” (CARE-AID398 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW Fic. 4Living fences are 2 local resource-management strategy in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. (Photograph by Kevin Bry. Iuly i996) 19932, m1). In other words, care found that migrants were knowledgeable about problems in their environment and had also developed strategies to meet changing environmental conditions. Yet this statement implies that problems are not concep twalized in an appropriate way—as if to suggest, 3 James Ferguson so aptly put it, that “impoverished villagers could escape their condition by a simple change of atti- tude or intellectual conversion” (1994, 58). An ongoing study led by Scott Atran contrasts Maya and immigrants’ resource- ‘management systems in the central Petén and the Yucatan. Initial, researchers set out to show, among other things, that immigrants were “destroying the forest not deliberately but rather through a form of ignorance” (Atran and Medin 1997, 181) Although differences existed between Maya and immigrant practices, the research team could not substantiate the initial claim, Data instead led the authors to con- clude that “atleast certain first-order aspects of ecological understanding seem tobe common toall the native and immigrant groups in our study and not dependenton long-standing tradition ar cultural life of the forest” (p. 187). In other words, this study suggests that immigrant practices stem not at ali from ignorance of the low- land ecology. Information on soils remains elusive, though extensive research is curvently un- dex way. One mapping tearm, however, suggests that itis impossible to generalize about soils duc to the high degree of “micro-regional diversity of ecologies" (szce- PLAN 1993b, 60). This warning echoes that of an earlier team of Mayanists: The re-NGO LANDSCAPES IN THE MATA BIOSPHERE RESERVE, 399 searchers argued that a “complex pattemn of extteme soil variation resulting from down-wasting of limestone uplands and colluviation of bajos makes it difficult to judge either the pre-Maya or the present-day agricultural potential of the region asa whole” (Deevey and others 1979, 299). Moreover, anthropological research in the Petén has found that locals have a system for determining the quality of soils and lo- cations best suited for farming (Reina 1967, 1; Schwattz 1990). Long-term migrants learn from local farmers or have developed other equally effective ways of selecting. sites for planting (Reyes Rodas 1995; Atran and Medin 1997). Whether people have access to preferred sites is another issue altogether. Slash-and-burn cultivation is considered an appropriate farming strategy in, tropical environments. This practice “represents the easiest solutions to two eco- logical problems inherent in agricultural production: the problem of plant competi- tion (weeds) and the problem of nutrient cycling” (Vandermeer and Perfecto 1995, 46). Burning the organic material gathered on the ground releases nutrients into the soil, creating. fertile growing environment. [also liminatesplant competitors and pests. Ifthe cleared plotis abandoned after three or four planting seasons, the forest regenerates through processes of ecological succession. Although laborious, slash- and-burn cultivation enables farmersto put food on the table in a challenging grow- ing environment. Current knowledge is insufficient ta permit sweeping statements about defores- tation and the agricultural frontier. In presenting alternative accounts, [ am not denying deforestation rates. But present debates about fragility and appropriateland use do reflect changing cultural perceptions and priorities more than any qualities inherent to the northern Petén’s biophysical environment. Explaining deforestation in terms of one or two elements leads to inaccurate cause-and-effect scenarios and neglects 2 host of other issues, including the perceptual nature of environmental degradation {Blaikie and Brookfield 1987). As William Denevan asserts, “attitudes towards fragile lands and how and whether they are used depend on perceptions ‘which vary culturally and individually and change over time” (1989, 2). Ultimately fragility is not inherent to a region but is related to “(s) specific types of use systems, and (2) specific intensity and frequency tevels of usage” (p. 11). For all that, perceptions drive action. The migrant-as-culprit discourse informs practice and serves as the backdrop for conservation and development projects. ‘These may be founded on inaccurate cause-and-effect correlations, Projects which assume that migrants are destructive because they do not understand the local ecal- ogy overlook an important fact: A majority of individuals have been in the Petén for ten to fifteen years, and they have a highly develaped understanding of the ecalogy and processes of environmental degradation. Environmental-education projects would be wise to recognize a fount of existing knowledge before dismissing it as nonexistent. Policies that base their projects on the premise that the Petén’s soils are inher- cently infertile and unfarmable miss the point: People believe that many soil typesare fertile and can be subjected to various management techniques to improve their fer-400 ‘THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW tility. Claims that the Petén’s soils are inappropriate for farming willhavelitte effect. And proclaiming the forest to have more value than farming will notaccount for lo- cal experience and cost-benefit analyses, which show that farming brings in the higher income. ‘Tue Discovase of DetacHMent In the Petén, conservationist discourse detaches deforestation and its alleged perpe- trators from their social and economic realities, a problem hardly limited to Guate- mala (Jarosz 1993). Treated as a technical problem, deforestation is suppased to be solved with technical fixes, such as the dissemination of appropriate resource- ‘management techniques. Indeed, a recent evaluation af the Maya Biosphere Project contends that the project design treated “the institutions and economic, social and political forces operating in the Petén as externalities” (MacFarland and others 1994, ii) Temporal and spatial scales, social and environmental histories, political econ- omy.and government policy arcignored (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987). The migeant- as-culprit discourse effectively depoliticizes the conservation process. For instance, the discourse ignores the important fact that colonizing the Petén was formal government policy for twenty-eight years, from 1958 until 1986, when Y- ee was dismantled. The Guatemalan military sanctioned what is now regarded as environmental degradation in the Petén. Land was distributed to both large and small landowners, and roads were built to encourage commercial activities. Cattle ranching was stimulated through financial incentives provided by international aid agencies. Logging of mahogany and cedar escalated to unforeseen levels during this time. In addition, the Guatemalan military reportedly used napalm on forests in guerrilla-controlled areas and glyphosphate on marijuana plantations, allegedly with support from the US. Drug Enforcement Agency (Perera 1993, 240). Moreover, the migrant-as-culprit discourse masks the host of competing inter- ests that are currently striving to control the reserve's resources, among which are the logging industry, Guatemalan, Mexican and Belizian timber poachers (includ- ing members of the military and the government}, petroleum companies, large- scale ranchers, land speculators, illegal drug growers, nontimber-product collec. tors, tourism agencies, and commercial investors. Placing responsibility for deforestation on the poorest, most vulnerable sector of society—the landless—exempts conservation institutions from addressing the conflicting forces within Guatemala that discourage so-called sustainable land-use practices. For example, the state has been unwilling to address issues of land tenure south of and within the reserve's buffer zone, leaving migrants to face continued un- cectainty! State officials commonly undermine cowaP’s authority by granting ille- gal logging concessions andior failing to protect conae personnel and judges who have reported and prosecuted loggers for illegal activities. Flites with vested interests timber and ranching continue (o manipulate the political system to their advan- ‘age. Corruption associated with illegal logging is widely acknowledged in the Peténs however, the accusations rarely, if ever. reach a judicial level due to fear of cepercus-NGO LANDSCAPES IN THE MAYA BIOSFHERE RESERVE, 401 sions. interviews find no shortage of state and ao personnel with inside informa- tion on these issues. Furthermore, large-scale cattle ranchers have been left out of the reserve's conservation plans, despite the fact that they occupy great expanses of land? Structural adjustment and neoliberal economic policies, coupled with interna- tionally financed development and modernization schemes, worsen socioeconomic inequalities and perpetuate highly unequal systems of land distribution (Faber19925, Uteing 1994; Escobar 1995). There are many examples of this problem in Guatemala, and, historically, the Guatemalan government has shown itself unwilling to make the structural changes that may be required to ease pressure on the nation’s natural resources (ePOCA 19905 Annisand others 1992). Sustainable or “green” development had best address political economy and the distribution of power, not focus exdu- sively on environmental quality (Adams 1990, 10) ‘THe GeocrapHy oF ConstavaTion Creation of the Maya Biosphere Reserve involved depoliticizing an existing social and political landscape, an act of renaming the region to yield a presumably clean slate, Established was a new hierarchy of power that reshaped space and society. For instance, the reserve was created without any substantive participation of local officials and communities, and their authority was eclipsed by cowaP, international Noos,and other new institutions (MacFarland and othersi994, 11). Although cosa, is the principal authority in the reserve's administration, its institutional strength is, sapped by tepid support from the National Palace and by chronic political instability within the organization, At times usato and nGos have taken over, or a least facili- tated, conar’s work (p. 37}. A recent evaluation of the Maya Biosphere Project, identifies the reserve's administrative power as centralized in two places: usatpand cowar in Guatemala City, and the Ncos in the Petén {p. 15}. Other government institutions and municipal authorities are frequently left t9 play a token role in the reserve's planning and management process (MacFarland andothers1994,10). The on-site ncos assuineauthority comparable to that of agov- ernment branch in their efforts to manage projects in the reserve. Several govern- ment officials whom {interviewed regard this as a major impediment to the Petén's development process and lament conar's inability to rein in the Neos, For instance, a regional director for the Instituto Guatemalteco de Turismo (1w-= ‘auats National Institute for Tourism) contends that Gos carry aut conservation, and development projects within the reserve withaut fully considering the state’s planning priorities and goals, which are laid aut in the development plan for the Petén, According to her, Néos initiate ecotourism projects in communities they deem appropriate; often these areas do not coincide with those to which the state aves high priority. “Problems arise,” she explained to me, “when the nco is unable to provide follow-up assistance due toa lack of financing ora shift in priorities. The infrastructure for an ecotourism camp may be in place, but the individuals need. mote training” Community members are then directed to mGuat, she said, o seek402 ‘THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW additional assistance ta bring the project to completion. Asa consequence, “the state attempts to rescue the project in an area in which it had not planned to invest be- cause it was not considered a viable tourist destination.” Community members, she says, directly experience the impact of these shifts, which often lead to political infighting, loss of motivation, and cynicism. Inthe carly 19908 conaP set out to assert its authority over the geographical area newly designated as the Maya Biosphere Reserve, The first executive secretary of cova? would remark, “Our firstjob in Petén will be to make our presence felt, Once ‘we have laid down precedents for a strict protection of the nuclear zones, then we can negotiate with interested parties for a limited exploitation of the secondary ar- ‘eas” (quoted in Perera 1993, 246). The region with locally created geographical dis- tinctions, in which people had access to natural resources, was replaced by a landscape in which the state has the power to regulate resource use and to define ac- cessible areas. Residents had to be informed that they lived within the reserve and boundaries sketched on paper needed to be established on the ground, Initially, coxa? personnel went so faras to arrest local people for activities that ‘were made illegal after the reserve was declared. Officials, [learned in the field, even threatened to seize pets. Certain daily activities became infractions or crimes under the new laws (sEGEPLAW 1992, 13) Hunting and logging for domestic purposes were regulated; in certain zones logging, gathering forest products, and slash-and-burn cultivation were forbidden (conar 1996). For the purpases of public relations, ‘conar has had to refrain from making such arrests—especially because itis widely known that their personnel have been paid to ignore illegal activities by the logging industry (Perera 1993, 265). Several NGo personnel told me that they have encoun- tered conflictand resistance in various communities because of the negative impact of conar's initial approach. Although conaP and Noo personnel have attempted to disseminate information about the reserve, many people know nothing of its existence. A recent survey in Cruce a Dos Aguadas, an agricultural community within the reserve, found that ap- proximately 69 percent of the population does not know of the Maya Biosphere Re- serve (Saza 1996, 137). My informants told me that this is regarded as a major problem among conservation institutions: Their perception had been thatinformed communities would change their lifeways upon learning that the region had been redefined by the central government. Demarcation has assumed great importance in the reserve's management, To- gether, conar and The Nature Conservancy set out to designate the boundariesand put up signs to inform people when they have entered the reserve. The primary sites of conar’s expression of authority are the gates or checkpoints that mark entry into the reserve. These barricades symbolize not only the state's authority over the tetri- tory butalso its power to dictate resouce use within the reserve. Ostensibly, CONAP has the power to grant or prohibit access to the park. All vehicles that enter and exit are subject to searches for contraband, ranging from aften-hunted animals to the xate palm. The importance of the checkpoints as symbols of conar’s authority wasNGO LANDSCAPES IN) THE MATA BIOSPHERE RESERVE 03 made evident by expressions of local dissent. Angered by the lack of adequate infor- mation about new regulations dictating use of natural resources, local people burned several checkpoints in 1991 and 1993 (Cabrera i991; Schwartz 1994). Asa re- sult, coxa? abandoned its post in Crucea Dos Aguadas (a military encampment has replaced it), At the Local level, social and political landscapes are also affected by the imple- mentation of conservation efforts, Indeed, during the first phase of any community project in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Nao personnel visita village to inform resi- dents of their intended actions and to assess the leadership structure and identify potential leaders. Strong, enthusiastic men and women who fit Western ideals of leadership are singled out, encouraged, and supported (Van Orman 1989). Existing leaders and committees have often been neglected as Nos organize peaple into new groups. The social and political fabric is disrupted by the changes in power steuc- tures as individuals who conform to xo standards replace community leaders and specialists. This process engenders intense conflictat the local level. Finally, once the community becomes identified asthe site of an xo project, signs areoften posted to proclaim publicly the community's allegiance and woo authority in the area. ‘An example of local political conflict comes from San José, a lakeside village composed of indigenous Maya-Itzaj and immigrants. A Guatemalan environmental NGo attempted to abrogate the land-tenure rights of a local women’s organization, Ixchel. [xchel was involved in the revitalization af Maya cosmology and agrotech- nologies; the organization was small and had relied on donations from individuals and international women's groups until it received a grant from The Nature Conser- vancy in 1995. The group had a thirty-year contract to rent 50 hectares of municipal land, where its members could carry out their activities In 1994 the Guatemalan wco—claiming to have millions of dollars in support approached San José’s municipal council and promised to build a university spe- cializing in tropical-forest ecology and management. The wGo selected Ixchel’s par- cel as an ideal starting point because the property lay close to the only roads, the buildings had renning water, and electricity could be installed without much difficulty. Furthermore, the women had already planted several hundred trees on the property and had permitted the resurgence of secondary growth throughout, ‘Tempted by the nco’s promises of grandeur and financial reward, the municipal council began to pressure Ixchel to vacate the property, assuming that the women would capitulate under threats of violence. The council and several important com- munity leaders—some of whom were related to Ixche!'s members—began to claim that Ixchel was standing in the way of the Petén's development and progress. During a dramaticmeetingof the municipal council, the noo directors,and members of be- hel, the men attempted to court and cajole the women to relinguish their rights to the land. In fact, the Nco promised to find jobs for the women in their organiza- tion—which the women took to mean as cooks ot cleaning ladies. When the women asserted their land-tenure rights, the Guatemalan Noo accused Ixchel of being inef- fective in the fight to halt deforestation. This case engendered fear throughout San404 ‘THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW José, dividing its residents over issues of local self-determination, progress, and financial reward. [xchel’s director spent several years fighting the case in court. In the end, with internal support from Ixchel slipping, participants began to distance themselves from Ixchel, and the director was unable to support her claims in court. The Guatemalan noo is cucrently moving ahead with its plans, transforming San José’s political and social geography. NGO Lanpscaves Although their overall goals may coincide, the various Nos that are associated with the Maya Biosphere Project have unique agendas and at times conflicting interests. Competition among Naos has led to a balkanization of the landscape: Each organi- zation implements its particular set of programs within a specified area,” This terri- torialism molds space and society according to distinct development philosophies, ‘management techniques, and priorities. Government personnel and xcos alike recognize the lack of coordination as an obstacle to long-term success, although few have been able to break the mold. Of the fifteen Naas surveyed recently, 100 percent of respondents agreed that there is a lack of interorganizational coordination, and 53 percent said that this stems from diver- ‘gentagendas and philosophies (Soza 1996, 159). Of the eighteen governmentinstitu- tions surveyed, 77 percent responded that xGos were not accomplishing theit goals, and 44 percent felt that this was due to the lack of coordination among them and to their lack of communication with the public (p. 173). An even more recent evalua- tion found that lack of collaboration among Néos continued to pose problems for the long-term effectiveness of the Maya Biosphere Project (Shonder and Melnyk 1997). Projects aredriven by the desires of each no's constituency, which comprises do- nors and members, not local people. As a result, projects are designed before they reach local communities, satisfying donor requirements and/or membership tastes. Although wos claim to engage the most current theories on community participa~ tion in their relationships with people, most projects are announced to, not negoti- ated with, “target” populations (CARE~Guatemala 1992; text 1993; C1 1994). Rarely have community priorities coincided with Noo agendas. Thencoshave had difficulty working with women because the projects they are said to desite—clean water, sewage treatment, sewing, poultry management, baking—are not considered appropriate contributions to conservation objectives. Allof these issues are made manifest in the biophysical landscape. For example, each go tends to privilege, or favor,a particular species complex. ProPetén/ci pro- motes “natural forestry management,” featuring more efficient propagation and callection of three nontimber forest products: xate,chicle,and allspice (ct 1994). Al- though termed “natural,” the practices eventually change the forest landscape in ac- cordance with the management plan. In addition, ProPetén/et emphasizes the power of the market economy pratect the forest cover, s0 the project creates small businesses that harvest nontimber products and finds marketing niches for theNGO LANDSCAPES IN THE MAYA BIOSPHERE RESERVE: 405 finished products. The most prominent example is project to produce potpourri ‘with organic debris gathered from the forest floor. Project personnel debate how this project will affect the forest landscape. ‘The Centro Agronémico Tropical de Investigacién y Ensefanza (carte; Center for the Investigation and Teaching of Tropical Agronomy}, on the other hand, spe- Cializes in the sustainable harvesting of cedar, mahogany, and valuable secondary species (catte/ot.aro 1994). Through a complex, thirty-year model, project per- sonnel are calling on residents to replace their understanding of forest processes, with a vision of the forest as a square grid, composed of thirty segments to be har- vested in successive years. Also, the project applies a series of techniques to change the very composition of the forest to reflect Catte’s management goals. ‘On the other hand, cans operates in the buffer zone of the reserve, and its goal is to stabilize the migrant frontier and prevent further incutsions into the reserve (CARE-Guatemala 1992). Its agroforestry project claims to makes use of local knowledge and strategies: Before designing the project, cARr personnel collected information on land-use practices throughout the Petén, including ancient ageo- technologies. All of the information was used to develop an idealized and suppos- edly appropriate type of agroforestry system that combines subsistence agriculture and livestock raising (Cane~atp 1993a, 1993b). These strategies are reformulated ac- cording to scientific principles of resource management, combined with intro- duced innovations, and then returned to communities under the guise of sustainable-development project. The primary aim of cars is to diffuse an “agro- forestry package” throughout the buffer zone, in hopes of eliminating shifting cult vation and encouraging the resurgence of secondary growth on fallow plots, thereby restoring the forest cover. The agroforestry project involves extension work in com- munitiesand the establishment of demonstration areas that are intended to encour- age other farmers to change their farming practices. The butfer zone of the Maya Biosphere Reserve is dotted with replicas of care's idealized landscape, and the project is attempting to create a homogeneous landscape in an area thriving with highly individualistic and ethnically diverse people. My research suggests that the implementation of these efforts may undermine existing strategies and community structures and lead tolandscapes thatreflect Nao conservation and development goals rather than the aspirations of local people." Just as Escobar suggests that the * ‘development encounter’ produces forrns of con- sciousness that are more the property of organizations and ruling groups than a reflection of the concrete coming together of individuals” (Escobar 1991, 668), pro- pose that the conservation encounter produces “nao landscapes.” Several years from now it may be possible to map the reserve by examining the type of manage- ‘ment systems and the resulting landscapes associated with each wco (Figure 5) Expertmenys 1N CONSERVATION Inthe Maya Biosphere Reserve, the problem of deforestation hias been treated in iso- lation, and blame has been placed on immigrant farmers, Cause-and-effect expla-406 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW Fic. 5A typical woo landscape in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, (Photograph by Kevin Bray Fely 1996) nations are inaccurate, and, ultimately, projects are misdirected. Also absent are considerations of local political geography. Political conflict and 2 lack of support result as conservation projects in the reserve shape local landscapes to reflect the goals of North American Noos. ‘The majority of people involved in the implementation of the Maya Biosphere Reserve regard the process as an experiment. Projects are eliminated or adjusted as problems rise to the surface. As indicated, the majority of these projects are directed at the migrant population, because each Noo draws from an established body of kenoveledge that holds migrant farmers responsible for deforestation in the Petén. Problems in the wider social, political, and historical context are ignored or, more likely than not, perpetuated in the name of development. The impact of experimentation, trial, and error, meanwhile, isdeeply felt in local communities, where individuals have been asked to restructure their lives around Go projects. My research illustrates that people have suffered from a variety of de- velopment ills, such as time and energy lostin projects subsequently abandoned. In- dividuals whom 1 interviewed also reported institutional indifference to their knowledge and practices, Residents are angered by raised expectations followed by unkept promises (Shonder and Melnyk 1997). Indeed, in several cases disagceement ‘or generalized discontent has led to increased violence (Cabrera 1951). Finally, more often than not, projects exacerbate existing social inequalities.NGO LANDSCAPES IN THE MAYA MOSPERRE RESERVE 407 ‘Whatare the ethics of experimentation in the field of international development and conservation? Who benefits? Who is asked to endure the consequences as proj ects are initiated, changed, and eliminated? These questions are increasingly being addessed in varied social settings, and many individuals ate seeking not reform of but alternatives to internationally directed development, as shown in the works of ‘Gustavo Esteva (1987) and Majid Rahnema and Victoria Bawtree (1997). In addition, these alternatives are being sought not in academicand planningcirclesbutin ongo- inglocal social movements throughout the Third World (Escobar and Alvarez1992), Soctoponrmical Eerects ‘The biosphere-reserve model attempts to balance the tate, Nas, local populations, and the environment. But it also compels a depoliticization of the relationships be- tween them, disregarding myriad ways in which politics shapes environment. The model's management structure places local communities and the environmentin an, especially disadvantaged position, As the practices of conservation transform space and society, this imbalance has consequences at various levels. Can the biosphere- reserve model address environmental degradation and poverty in Guatemala if the model precludes engagement with wider sociohistorical processes and the global economy? The Guatemalan government finally has accomplished its goal of integrating the Petén into the national political and economic scene with the creation of the Maya Biosphere Reserve. Indeed, the increased presence of the state in previously remote areas—with various consequences for local people—is cornmon effect af cansesva- tion and develapment projects (Ferguson 1994; Utting 1994). Through conae, the state has increased its bureaucratic presence, reasserted its authority over the re- gion’s natural resources, and reorganized and rationalized resoucce extcaction and production, all with the assistance of international aos, From the perspective of the National Palace in Guatemala City, international in- terest in the Petén’s forest has become a source of loans and donations. The creation of the Maya Biosphere Reserve has also relieved the central government af responsi- bitity tits constituents in the reserve, as international donors provide social services and, in some cases, infrastructure. NGOsalso train resource-management personnel. Pressing regional environmental concerns are taken up by international arganiza- tions leaving the governmentto pursue other issues, such as free-trade agreements How will the government's objectives for the Petén change after the internation- alshave left, leaving behind locally run Nos? Will they remain thesame as they have been historically: to incorporate the Petén into the national economy; to promote moneymaking industries such as tourism, cattle ranching, and food production; and to provide an outlet for thelandless and the victims of violence? These political motivations have remained consistent throughout the twentieth century, and the Maya Biosphere Reserve may be simply another way of attracting international funding, increasing tourism, and filing the gaps in public assistance, If this is the «case, will the state continue to obstruct the conservationist objectives of the Maya408 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW Biosphere Reserve? in sum, the Guatemalan government has done little or nothing to change the current economic system, which privileges the economic interests of clites and foreign investors and perpetuates a system of exteeme social inequality. In filling the gaps left by the state, are Naos promoting conservation and sustainable development or maintaining the status quo? “Thebiosphere-reserve model ishardly without problems. Yet the Maya Biosphere Reserve alone will not determine the fate of the Petén. In the end, solutions ¢o em ronmental degtadation hinge on global social and economnicarrangements, the com- mitment ofthestate,and the desire, experience, and creative energies of individuals. Notes 2 In}uyssssand amtay 994 Flntervewed ly po|ecmanaersand tte ofcilsin he Mays Siogphere Rescve retire tothe ae for ave manthsip 936-957 Dungtha me reper ‘diy neriewei project managers sac offload local people Fala canductesetnagrgete featch ncledngotruturd ndunatactered terion abd parpant observation ina Miguel ietnigtant corm) snd Sea fou (2 ndigenouscommni) Auoeghthisstetndudes he vole of many peaplewholiveand wotkicihe Pete, the opinions expreted ate my vn sates 2. The aster lan was approved ing although ts not published unig Fale ver- sions ofthe plan were cvlatd esding to poblans of erpreaion, have ncided quottions from one of ese unpubluhed docomects 95d fam the offi! version Translons of Spanish sources ate my owe traogut the atid, > Abo tity cos ae operating inthe etn, ch with dierent agenda anan9L48 996) “The orgenzationasgettovery salto veryisge and ate of Guatemalan, North Amen oF ternational rg 4, Tesggestion that 50 cngrnt acne inthe Rte each day istpentedfequentiy Sos di pus he ciatsc weer by pointngout tha sere accorat the umber of miganteach year ‘auld be or asecwhich would fply tht bene fo sndgo,otaco migrants auld ance tered the Bed -an impose ae, giver hate estinated population Insgge war us (Sora toge,33). Demographic and scilogilanalyis bythe Secretaria General del Consejo Nacional de Fnigeacion economia (ato ase Gecerl Sect or canomic lang) einats hat out people eve vcr day beeen i93ane gy saceenbetween gy nd986, twenty gt, eet En 8e heen i gt see twenyfour e990 (exerPLAN 199) ‘5 fer Thad completed my inka esearch Sundberg 904), an evaluation ofthe Maya Bio- sphere Projectby Managemen ters faternstloal at) was leaned in Guatemala MaePaland nd other ga) The alaton team cached several conchislons ha resonate with My tseeh ndings 6, 3y 1996 the Guatemalan government and croperting institutions had made stemptsto ad- dress inland: toute problem wy and-tiing projets athebulet zo he Maya Biosphere Serve and tea tots south. Aa Charles Clan stay of land teste nthe Bete shot, however, nits tne gversent ise people’ aempls oa les 997). 2. Large-scale cattle ranchers were ale to purchae the gest parcels uring rvs colonies sion process Approssty ssn heaces were deveted cite tanchirgin gp, sn here ate appreciate o.oo (0 soj0co eatin tne etn anon 398 33) A een ie ound hat itening and reeling eat tly profitable, even for sbllacale oer (p04). Despite these umber coeanchengis"eotdccv addressed") the Maya osphere Post s033900,8) 5 SeePelaso1s92farsmilarprocesses of reaming whereby forest awscreteideoxcallabels for sewly cine practices. “Gregory Knapp sugested the er “baleanination’ to descrine he process inthe eten, The useatstons of te ay Doephee Project ened thet tereterlaantedeserbe there phe fhamenon (MacPatand and others i994 4).NGO LANDSCAPES IN THE MAYA BIOSPHERE RESERVE 409 to. This project begen in 1988, prlr a usato's Maya Biosphere Project. CATIE now directs the frstcommnunity-forestry concession to be granted in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, The project isexe- ‘guted by carue through the Proyecto Conservacién para el Desarrollo Sostenibleen América Central {ouato; Conservation Project fr Sustainable Development in Central America) funded by Sweden, ‘Norway, and Denmark (caTis/01a50 1995). 4. Localneed notbebetter As Bévard Whitesell illustrates (1996), this correlation is ochelpful in analyzing conservation strategies. My paint, rather is that people who ichabit a place should have ‘the opportunity to paticipate in negotiations about land use and the meaning of landscapes, REEERENCES ‘Adains, WM. 1990, Greos Development Environmene and Sustainailgyin the Third World Lon don: Routledge Aguila |. M. and M. A. Aguilar 1992, Arloler dele Bisfra Maya, Petén. Guatemala, Guatemala ‘Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas Annis, Sand Hakim. 1088. Diret ‘othe Poor: Grassroots Development in Lacix Amarica, Boulder, ‘Cala: Lynne Rieaner Publishers Annis 5.0. Aas, Nations. Cox, A. Urana,K. Brandon, S. Tucker | Stssma. and 8 Celis, 992. Poverty, NaruralReroues, and Public Ply i Central America. New Brink, NJ eansac= ion Publishers ‘eran, 5, and D. Medin. 1997. Keowledge and Action: Cultural Models of Nature and Resource ‘Management in Mesoamerica. In Bwvirorient, Ethic, aad Behavior: The Psychology of Environ serial Valuation and Depredation, edd by M. Baseman, D. Messieky A, Tenbrnse, and KC Wade-Benzoni,ys-208. Sen Francisca: New Lexingioa Pres. BatsesM. 1986. Developing and FocusingteBiosphereConcept Narureand Resource 2363): Bebington. A..and. Thiele. 1993. Now-Governmtenal Orgeatons ad the Staten Latin Amer- tea: Rethinking Roles Sustainale Agricaitaral Development London: Routledge. Bake, Randi Brooktiel 1987. ApproschestotheStudyof -and Degradation. ln Land Degrada ‘ionand Society editedby 2 Blaikleand#. Brookfld,27-48 Lendonand New York Meteo BryantsR. 1gg Polical Eenlogy An Emerging Research Agend in Thid-World Stocies, Palitcal Geography (0): 2-96, Bryant, and 5 Bailey. 1997. Third World Plea! Ecology London: Roudedge Cabrera, Mo igo), Informe del viaje eiizado la comunidad de EL Naranjo-Prontera, Manicipio la ‘Libertad, Bl Pecén, durante ls fechas 28 febrero al 2 de marzo 1g. Internal Report. Guatemala, “Guateraa: Centro de Bstdies Conservacionses. ‘CARE-AID (Cooperative fr Asitance and Relief Everywere-Agenc fo Tnterational Develop- ment). 19338. Diagndstayestaregea agraforestal para a vonadeamortiguamiento dela Reserea tila Bisfera Moya Ftén, Custemale: CARE > ig53b. Dingnistcaparticipariacamaritai eaado en comunidades dels zonadeamor- tiguamienta dea Reserva ea Bide Maya. Psén, Guaceraia: CARE. 1996. Project Desriprion: Maya Bagphere Project. Petén, Guatemala: CARE. GCARE- Guatemala. i992. CARE-Guatemala Projet Description Santa Elena, Guatemala: CARE. CATIBIOLAFO [Genito Agrondmlea Topical de tvestigaciony EnehanvalPeoyect Conservacion patel Desarrollo Sostenibleen Amévie Cental). 962. Pautasparauplan de desarrllo vont leon un dra de uso rile dela Reserva dela fra Maye Tula, Cota Rica; CATIE. 1994, Plan de manejo forestal para la tidad de mang Seh Miguel, Bi Petén, Guatemala “Tuvala, Cost Ries: CATIE. 1995. Informe de a primera experiencia de manejo orca sucentablereazade por acorn nidad de San Miguel La Palotada divante 994 Flores, Guatemala: CATIE. Centro Maya. md. A New Atiude fora Puople anda Foret in Distress Promotional brochure. Fe ‘aus, Pa: Rodale Insite {CL{Gonseratian inerntions. 1994, ProPeén Projet Desripion Ploves, Gustin: Cl Carl. 1997. Seeking Legitimacy ‘The Story Land Tenure n Petén, Guatemala Democratic ln- tions Awaken amidst Rapid Deforestation and Spontaneaus Colonization, Unpublished Post-Graduate Fulbright Scholarship report Colchester, M. 1991, Guatemala: The Clamout for Land ane the Fate ofthe Forests. The Eloisa ah 78s410 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW CONAP [Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas]. 1992. Plan maestra de la Reserva de la Bisa ‘Maya, Flotes, Guatemala: CONAP. 1993. Resumen eecutio: Proyeca de la Reserv de la Bidsfra May entre las gbiennos de ‘Guatepia y ls Evtdas Unidos, lores, Guatemala: CONAP. 1996. Plan maesir, Reserva dela Biésfera Maya. Tarralba, Costa Rica: CATIE. Deevey,B.$D, 8. Rice, P.M, Rice, H.H. Vaughan,M, Brennet,and M.Flannery. 1979, Maya Urban ‘sm: Impact on 2 Tropical Karst Fnviconment. Science 206: 298-306. Denevan, W. 1989. The Geography of Fragile Lands in Latin America, In Fragite Lands of Laie ‘America: Strategies for Sustainable Development edited by | Browder, 1124, Boulder Colo: Wes'- view Bees. BPOCA |The Environmental Project on Central America}. 1990. Guatemala: A Poliica! Beaogy, Green Paper Na. San Francisen: Earth [land Institute Escobar, A. 1951. Anthropology and the Development Encounter: The Making and Marketing of Development Anthropoiogy. American Ethnalogist 18 (4): 658-682. 1995, Encovotering Development The Mating and Unmaing ofthe Third World. Princeton, [NJ Princeton University Press. Escobar, Ay and 8.-Alvarez,eds. 1992. The Making of Social Movements ia Latin America: Idem, ‘Strauegy, and Democracy. Boulder, Cala: Westview Press. Exeva,G. 1987. Regenerating People's Space, Alternates 1 {1):125-152 Fabet,D. 1992. Imperialism, Revolution, and the Ecological Crisis of Central America. Latin Ameri. cam Perspectives 9 (Y17-44 Falla, 1954. Masscresin che jungle acd, Guatemla,1975-I9%2. Boulder, Calo: Westview Press, Pergusan, |. 1994 [1990]. The Ancr-Paliis Machine: “Development” Depolitiization, and Burecu= ‘static Power in Lesotho, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Goodier,R.,and I.N.fffers. 1981. Biosphere Reserves, Advances iz Appied Biclogy 6: 79-317. Grunberg, G.,andV.H. Ramos. 1998. Base de datos sobre poblacién,tierrasy medioambiente dela Reserva de la Bigsfera Mays, Database. Guatemala, Guatemala: CONAP. Handy}. 1984, Giftof ke Devil: 4 History of Guatemata, Boson: South End Press. Hiarray,J-P. 1974. A Centuryin the Growth ofthe National Park” Concept throughout zhe World. Ta Second World Conference on National Paris, edited by H. Elliot, 24-32. Morges, Switzerland: TweN. Hacvey,D. 1996. Justice, Narure and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell Pub- lishers. Holdridge, LR and others. 1950. Los borques de Geatemala. Mueialba, Costa Rica: CATIE TUCN [International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources|. 1993. Hl Pro- ‘grama Agroforescal del PPE. EI Reporiero7(43):14. Jarosz, L. 1993, Defining and Explaining Tropical Deforestation: Shifting Cuitivation and Popula- tion Growth in Colonial Madagascar (1836-1940). Economic Geagraphy 69 (4): 366-379. Livernath, R- 92. The Growing Insluence of NGOs in the Developing World Environment, ane, MacFarland,C. J.C. Godoy S. Heckadon,. Popper.and |.Posadas, 1994. Evaluacién del Proyeciode 1e Bdafera Maya Washingran, D.C: Management Systems International. ‘Mana, B, 1988. Refugeesafa Hidden War: The Aftermath of Cownterinsurgency it Guazemala, Albany: State University of New York Press Murchell,T s991. Colanizang Fgypi. Berkeley: University of California Press. Peet, Ru and M, Watts, ede 1996, Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Move iments, Landan and New York: Routledge. PelusoN. 1992. Rick Forests, Poor People, Resource Control and Resistance i fava, Berkeley: Univer ‘ity of California Press. Perera, V, 1993. Unfinished Conquest: The Guatemalan Tragedy. Berkeley: Univesity of California Press, Price, M. 1994, Ecopoltis and Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations in Latin America, Geographical Review 84 (1) 42-59. Rainema, Mand V. awtree, eds. 1997. The Fos- Development Reader London: Zed Books. Reina, R. 1967. Milpa and Milperos: ImpScations for Prebstoric Times, American Anshropolagisc69 ()o-an.NGO LANDSCAPES INV THE MAYA BIOSPHERE RESERVE, au Reining, Cand R. Heinzman. 1553. Nom Timber Forest Products ofthe Maya Biosphere Reserve, Peti, Guatemala, Weshington, D.C. Conservation International Foundation. Reyes Rodas,R. 1935. Caracteriacién yevalaciGn de sostenbilidad de os sistemas de produccion ‘eadiconaly modifica dela comnidad de San Miguel, Peter, Guatemala MS. thesis, Cenc ‘Agconémica Tropical de avestigacidn y Enseaanza. Sachs, Wed. 1993. The Development Ditonay: A Guide t Knowledge as Power, London: Zed Books Sade, 4, T.Seve J.C. Smoot and M. Richards, gga. Forest Change Estimates or the Northern Petén Region of Guatemala, 1986-1990. Human Ecology 223) 317-332 Schwarta, Ne i999. Fores Society: A Social Hisory of Peien, Guatemala Philadelphia: Univesity of Pennsyvacta Press. 1994. Inteview with the author. Flores, Guatemala, uly SEGEPLAN (Sectetarla General del Conseja Nacional de Planifcacion Ezondimical, cost. lan de desaroloinegrado de Pedn: Informe de orienta, anaiss demografc p sacalgico. Santa lena, Guatemala: SEGEPLAN, 1992. Flan de desaralonteqado de Pei. Sant Elena, Gatemal: SEGEPLAN. == 9938. Blan de dewrvolonteqrada de Peten Diagnostica general de Ped. Sept Plena, Ga temala SEGEPLAN. topib. Fan de deseo inerade de Pan: aruda de prefcibiidad, Proyecto Fortenta de da Agicleray Agofoesria en Pit, Santa Flena, Gustemale: SEGEPLAN. 1996. Ditty of Government and Nan-Coversoseneal Orpasisaions in the Fen Santa len, Guaterals Shiva, Vo i989. Staying Alive: Women, Bcalagy and Development London: ed Backs Shorter, and M. Melnyl. 1997. Reporte sobre la evalaacdn dei Proyecto le la Reser Bidsera “Maye: Flores, Guatemala: USAID Smith, €. 1990, The Miltacization of Cis Society in Guatemala: Ezonomic Reorganetion a8 ‘Continuation of War Latin American Perspective 1 (a 8-43. $024,C-A'M. 1996. Factores queincden enlaconcienci ecldgicadelos bite dla Rear dela ‘idsfera Maya ene departamentede# Pid Guateoala, Guatemala: Upweridad deSan Carlos deGuatemals. Stuart, G, 1992. Maya Hearand under Siege, Nationa! Geographic Magazine, November, 94-107 Sundberg, 1.1994. NGO Landscapes: Conservation and Commustes in the Mays Biosphere Re seve, Petén, Guatemala. MA thesis, Universty of Texas, Austin Tomer, BL I 1993. Rethinking the "New Orthodoxy” Interpreting Aucienc Maya Agriuleure ‘and Environment. In Culture, Form, and Place: Esa i Cultural end Htc Ceara et ed by K. Mathewson 57-88, Baton Rouge, La: GeoScienee Pobeations ‘UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cltural Organization). 1384. Acton Plan for Biosphere Reserves. Nature and Resour 30 (4) 1-23. USAID [Vatted States Agency for fmternational Developmen]. 90a, Project Papet: Maya Bios sphere Project. Internal Document. Guatemua, Gaterals United States Agency for Interna onal Development 19306. Socal Soundness Analysis Project Paper: Maya Biosphere Projet. internal Docu ‘ment. Guatemala, Guatemala: United Sates Agency fr Eatemational Development 195. Amendment No.6 9 che Project Grant Agreement between the Republic of Guate thala and te United States of America for de Maya lospere Projet Inceral Document Gus- ‘ernala, Guatemala: United States Agency for international Development ‘Utcngs. 1994. Socal and Peitical Dimensions of Environmental Protection ia Central America InDeveigpmentand Environment: Sustaining Peopleand Nate editedby Dh a31-2§9.Cam. bridge, Mass: Blachowel Publishers ‘Van Orman,|-R. 18. Leadership and Grassrots Development Reflections ofan IAF Representa tive. Grassroots Development 33 (3) 5-2 Vandermeer, |.andL Perfecto. 1595. Brealfast of Biodversin The Truth about Rain Fret Destrs- tion. Oakland, Cali: tnsticute for Foad and Development Poy Verne, |. i987. Biosphete Reserves The Beginoings the Pesen, andthe Future Challenges. ‘Symposiums a Biosphere Reserves, eve by W. Gregg 5. Krugman, and. Wood I, 7-20 Ate lana, Ga US, Department ofthe Interior Nasional Prk Service4 THD GOsRAPHICAL REVIEW Visanatha,S. spt, Mes. Brundand’s Dischanted Cosmos, Alert 1 (337-385. eats 198s, The Eonnoiesaf Central Ameri New Yorke Hales and Nel. West brand: Brechin 99 Resident Peoples and Nanana Parks Sac Diemmas ond Serae fein Intron Conservation. Ton iver of Ariaona Pres \Western,D.andW Hen. 1979. Beonomicrand Conservation Tid World National ark. fi Seine 9): at. Wiitesel, EA. 1996: Local Sirugales over Rain-Frest Conservation. Geographical Review 86 (3) 436 WilsrRG. 1, Expre Arictreand se Crit Contral America. Chapel Hile Universitat ‘Nort Carla Pree,