STRATEGIES FOR AUTHENTICITY AND SPACE IN THE MAYA BIOSPHERE RESERVE
>> Friday, January 30, 2009
from Political Ecology: An Integrative Approach to Geography and Environment-Development Studies
Juanita Sundberg argues that international NGOs have generated a set of environmental discourses to explain environmental degradation in a way that generates inequities. These NGOs have access to the “unbiased” truths, and the moral authority to delineate which is the right way to relate to the local environment.
In 1970, 70-80% of the Peten in Guatamala was covered in forests, yet 50% of this forest coverage was lost by 1986. The deforestation of the Peten was attributed to cattle ranching, farming, commercial logging, and oil exploitation. In 1990 the 1.6 million acre Maya Biosphere Reserve was created under direction of USAID and other international NGOs. NGOs flocked to this area to ensure a more “rational” management of the land in the reserve.
The NGOs have represented local forest collectors, and petenero farmers as “appropriate” users of the land, and all others have been marginalized. Additionally, forest collectors and peteneros were considered “authentic” and “traditional” as campaigns for handicraft workshops and museums developed this narrative.
Inappropriate farmers included immigrants practice slash and burn and cattle ranchers. These groups are considered to have no connection to the land, and therefore, no commitment to its sustainable use. “Truths” about the nature of the environment are created to support these views, and the reasons for the marginalization of these groups are attributed to the poor soils, or inappropriateness of the land for grazing.
Yet Juanita Sundberg points out how these narratives begin to break down if looked at more deeply. The traditional or local forest collectors have only migrated to the region in the past 100 years, and the ecological impacts of these people are also prevalent as forest collectors create footpaths, and clear land for corn cultivation. Additionally, a percentage of the trees from which forest collectors harvest die annually. Furthermore, the practices of Petanero farmers are not different from immigrant farmers, with the main difference that immigrant farmers clear more land.
Petaneros and forest collectors have used this narrative to further their own goals by proclaiming themselves as the true stewards of the land, further exacerbating this marginalization.
NGOs also assert their authority both in morality and knowledge by taking on the technical and mental aspects of projects, leaving hard labor to the locals, while lamenting that locals don’t “see the project as their own”.
While I agree that the unequal allocation of labor and mental work, and the privileging of some groups over others is problematic for environmental initiatives, I do find Sundberg’s analysis to be problematic.
First of all just what is this percentage of trees that die from forest collectors activities, and what ecological impacts would immigrant farmers that clear more land have on the reserve. Could the NGOs be right in asserting that some practices are more ecological than others? Before the creation of the reserve, much of the land in the Peten region was lost due to cattle ranching and farming, yet does Sundberg suggest that these practices return to the region? While NGOs certainly do not have privileged access to the truth, there may be some legitimacy to their claims. Potentially, the practices of both immigrants and locals must be subject to an assessment of sustainability to ensure a more sustainable approach.
What is clear from Sundberg’s case studies is the importance of knowledge sharing in NGO-community environmental initiatives, and encouraging local participation without which local communities will not develop a sense of stewardship for the land. If this were the case, it is quite possible that exploitative practices would return to the area immediately after the NGOs leave.
Juanita Sundberg argues that international NGOs have generated a set of environmental discourses to explain environmental degradation in a way that generates inequities. These NGOs have access to the “unbiased” truths, and the moral authority to delineate which is the right way to relate to the local environment.
In 1970, 70-80% of the Peten in Guatamala was covered in forests, yet 50% of this forest coverage was lost by 1986. The deforestation of the Peten was attributed to cattle ranching, farming, commercial logging, and oil exploitation. In 1990 the 1.6 million acre Maya Biosphere Reserve was created under direction of USAID and other international NGOs. NGOs flocked to this area to ensure a more “rational” management of the land in the reserve.
The NGOs have represented local forest collectors, and petenero farmers as “appropriate” users of the land, and all others have been marginalized. Additionally, forest collectors and peteneros were considered “authentic” and “traditional” as campaigns for handicraft workshops and museums developed this narrative.
Inappropriate farmers included immigrants practice slash and burn and cattle ranchers. These groups are considered to have no connection to the land, and therefore, no commitment to its sustainable use. “Truths” about the nature of the environment are created to support these views, and the reasons for the marginalization of these groups are attributed to the poor soils, or inappropriateness of the land for grazing.
Yet Juanita Sundberg points out how these narratives begin to break down if looked at more deeply. The traditional or local forest collectors have only migrated to the region in the past 100 years, and the ecological impacts of these people are also prevalent as forest collectors create footpaths, and clear land for corn cultivation. Additionally, a percentage of the trees from which forest collectors harvest die annually. Furthermore, the practices of Petanero farmers are not different from immigrant farmers, with the main difference that immigrant farmers clear more land.
Petaneros and forest collectors have used this narrative to further their own goals by proclaiming themselves as the true stewards of the land, further exacerbating this marginalization.
NGOs also assert their authority both in morality and knowledge by taking on the technical and mental aspects of projects, leaving hard labor to the locals, while lamenting that locals don’t “see the project as their own”.
While I agree that the unequal allocation of labor and mental work, and the privileging of some groups over others is problematic for environmental initiatives, I do find Sundberg’s analysis to be problematic.
First of all just what is this percentage of trees that die from forest collectors activities, and what ecological impacts would immigrant farmers that clear more land have on the reserve. Could the NGOs be right in asserting that some practices are more ecological than others? Before the creation of the reserve, much of the land in the Peten region was lost due to cattle ranching and farming, yet does Sundberg suggest that these practices return to the region? While NGOs certainly do not have privileged access to the truth, there may be some legitimacy to their claims. Potentially, the practices of both immigrants and locals must be subject to an assessment of sustainability to ensure a more sustainable approach.
What is clear from Sundberg’s case studies is the importance of knowledge sharing in NGO-community environmental initiatives, and encouraging local participation without which local communities will not develop a sense of stewardship for the land. If this were the case, it is quite possible that exploitative practices would return to the area immediately after the NGOs leave.
|