Environmental Policies and Socio-Territorial Impact in Lacandon Jungle 2002-2012

Environmental Policies and Socio-Territorial Impact in Lacandon Jungle 2002-2012

S. E. Valle-García

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México

Page: 
875-885
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V11-N6-875-885
Received: 
N/A
|
Accepted: 
N/A
|
Published: 
01 November 2016
| Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

In México, since the beginning of the 21st century, the government has established a scheme of environmental policies in socially poor and environmentally rich areas like the Lacandon Jungle. The policies concern Protected Natural Areas (PNAs), Payments for Ecosystem Services (PESs) and sustainable activities such as ecotourism. In order to understand the socio-territorial impact, a comparative analysis was made of three communities with different governmental initiatives, using ethnographic methods – life stories, in-depth interviews and participant observations – and cartography methods with remote sensing analysis of spot images. The results show that, when the level of cash transfers is high, the subsidies cause the beneficiaries to be more dependent on the government for their livelihoods; the restricted areas have led to changes in the landscape, causing high rates of deforestation in small areas and finally, well-being is also directly correlated with social capital. However, at the same time, there is a high level of social polarization.

Keywords: 

environmental policies, policies’ impacts and socio-territorial changes

  References

[1] Roe, D., The origins and evolution of the conservation-poverty debate: a review of key literature, events and policy processes. Oryx, 42(4), pp. 491–503, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605308002032

[2] Niemi, G.J., Johnson, L.B. & Howe, R.W., Environmental indicators of land cover, land use, and landscape change, eds. R.H. Armon & O. Hänninen, Environmental Indicators, Springer Science & Business Media Dordrecht, pp. 265–276, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9499-2_16

[3] Reid, R.S., Tomich, T.P., Xu, J., Geist, H., Mather, A., DeFries, R.S., Liu, J., Alves, D., Agbola, B., Lambin, E.F., Chabbra, A., Veldkamp, T., Kok, K., Noordwijk, M., Thomas, D., Palm, C. & Verburg, P.H., Linking land-change science and policy: current lessons and future integration. In Land-Use and Land-Cover Change, eds. E.F. Lambin & H. Geist, Springer: Berlin Heidelberg, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32202-7_7

[4] Pacheco, P., Aguilar-Støen, M., Börner, J., Etter, A., Putzel, L. & Vera Diaz, M.D, Landscape transformation in tropical latin america: assessing trends and policy implications for REDD+. Forest, 2, pp. 1–29, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f2010001

[5] Aliste, E., Sustainability and territory: an approach to shape development from the perspective of the imaginary, ed. B. Werlen, Global Sustainability, pp. 119–135, 2015.

[6] Chen, X., Lupi, F., He, G., Ouyang, Z. & Liu, J., Factors affecting land reconversion plans following a payment for ecosystem service program. Biological Conservation, 142, pp. 1740–1747, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.012

[7] Dhakal, B., Bigsby, H. & Cullen, R., Socioeconomic impacts of public forest policies on heterogeneous agricultural households. Environmental Resource Economics, 53, pp. 73–95, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9548-4

[8] Forsyth, T., Leanch, M. & Scoones, I., Poverty and environment: priorities for research and policy. UNDP, European Comission, Institute of Development Studies, 1998.

[9] Hertel, T. & Rosch, S., Climate change, agriculture and poverty. The World Bank, Agriculture and rural Development Team, 2010.

[10] Larson, D. & Nash, J., Resource managemente and the effects of trade on vulnerable places and people: lessons from six case studies. The World Bank, Development Research Group. Agriculture and Rural Development Team, 2010.

[11] Vincent, J., Ecosystem services and greeen growth. The World Bank, Development Research Group, Environmental and Energy Team & Sustainable Development Network, 2012.

[12] De Hong, B.H., Hellier, A., Castillo Santiago, M.A. & Tipper, R., Application of the ‘climafor’ approach to estimate baseline carbon emissions of a forest conservation project in the selva lacandona, chiapas, Mexico. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 10, pp. 265–278, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-005-7132-8

[13] Tejeda Cruz, C., Conservacion de la Biodiversidad y Comunidades Locales: Conflictos en Áreas Naturales Protegidas de la Selva Lac Andona, Chiapas, México. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 34(68), pp. 57–88, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08263663.2009.10816975

[14] Buda Arango, G., Trench, T. & Durand, L., El aprovechamiento de palma camedor en la Selva Lacandona, Chiapas, México. ¿Conservación con desarrollo? Estudios Sociales, 22(44), pp. 199–223, 2014.

[15] O’ Brien, K.L., Deforestation and climate change in the Selva Lacandona of Chiapas, Mexico: some preliminary results. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 49(3), pp. 105–122, 1995.

[16] Gaona Ochoa, S., Hernández Vázquez, F., De Jong, B.H. & Gurri García, F.D., Pérdida de diversidad florística ante un gradiente de intensificación del sistema agrícola de rozatumba-quema: un estudio de caso en la selva Lacandona, Chiapas, México. Ecología, 81, pp. 65–80, 2007.

[17] Trench, T., Representaciones y sus impactos: el caso de los lacandones en la Selva Lacandona. Liminar, 3(2), pp. 48–69, 2005.

[18] Van der Haar, G., El movimiento zapatista de Chiapas: dimensiones de su lucha, Labouragain Publications, pp. 1–24. 2005.

[19] Arreola, A., Peresgrovas, V., Reyes, C., Pérez, R. & Martínez, R., De las metas a los procesos: la evaluación de proyectos de desarrollo rural exitosos en el área del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano-Chiapas. Geografía Agrícola, 41, pp. 51–64, 2009.

[20] Tejeda Cruz, C. & Marquéz Rosano, C., Los sistemas de producción en la selva lacandona. (el caso de Frontera Corozal, Chiapas). Ciencia y Tecnología en la Frontera, 1, pp. 19–30, 2004.

[21] Mendéz Barrera, A., Planteamiento para la formulación de un programa de conservación y manejo regional para siete áreas naturales protegidas de la selva Lacandona, Chiapas, México, eds. G. Halffter, S. Guevara & A. Melic, Hacia una cultura de conservación de la diversidad biológica, Zaragoza, España: Monografías tercer milenio, pp. 89–96,2007.

[22] Muñoz Piña, C., Rivera, M., Cisneros, A. & García, H., Retos de la focalización del Programa de Pago por los Servicios Ambientales en México. Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros, 228, pp. 87–113, 2011.

[23] Pastor Alfonso, M.J., Gómez López, D. & Espeso Molinero, M.D., Turismo comunitario y sus consecuencia entre los lacandones de Chiapas. Organismos y sistemas de apoyo. PASOS, pp. 23–43, 2012.

[24] Vos, J., Camino del Mayab. Cinco incursiones en el pasado de Chiapas, México: CEICH-UNAM, 2010.

[25] Boege, E., El patrimonio biocultural de los pueblos indígenas, México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia: Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, 2008.

[26] Timmer, P., Population, poverty, and policies. The American Economic Review, 84(2), pp. 261–265, 1994.

[27] Haltia, O. & Keipi, K., Financiamiento de inversiones forestales en América Latina: El uso de incentivos, Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, Environmental, Washington D.C., 1997.

[28] Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, (14 de 10 de 2014). Recuperado el 19 de 01 de 2016, de CONANP: http://www.conanp.gob.mx/regionales/

[29] Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, (17 de 10 de 2014). Recuperado el 19 de enero de 2016, de CONANP: http://www.conanp.gob.mx/acciones/#

[30] Comisión Nacional Forestal, (26 de junio de 2015). Recuperado el 19 de 01 de 2016, de CONAFOR: http://www.conafor.gob.mx/web/apoyos/pronafor/