PeteneroDiscourses of
Harmonious Forest Management
The petenero/sureñobinary neatly coin-
cides with, and in part reflects the percep-
tions and material interests of those who
consider themselves to be peteneros.
Many petenerosassociate immigrants with
subsequent changes in land tenure
regimes initiated by the state. In this peri-
od, public land was privatised and previ-
ously usufruct rights to land came to
depend upon ability to pay; in the
process, many peteneroslost access to
land and natural resources.^26 As the
state’s presence expanded in the Petén,
petenerosexperienced a loss of control
over the region’s future, a sentiment often
manifest in Revista Petén-Itzá, a magazine
produced by and for local elites.^27
Moreover, due to changes in economy and
demography, urban-based peteneroshave
shifted from subsistence and resource
based economies to employment in edu-
cation, local government, administration,
and tourism, thereby forming a middle
class.^28 Because they had the education
and skills necessary for employment,
NGOs sought out many of these individu-
als; as noted above, NGOs also presumed
that petenerosnaturally have a stake in
conservation. Projects associated with the
Maya Biosphere Project created important
sources of employment for peteneros. In
turn, influential petenerossought to shape
the direction of conservation policy in
ways that reflect issues of importance to
this group.
Carlos Soza, a petenerowho came to
have a significant influence upon
Conservation International’s (CI) discursive
representations and project designs – and
eventually became the director of CI’s
local NGO, ProPetén – establishes clear
distinctions between petenerosand immi-
grants in his study of the reserve.^29 Soza
stipulates which communities can be clas-
sified as traditionally petenero; his cate-
gorisations are based upon geographical
location, age of settlement, but also par-
ticular ways of interacting with nature.^30Soza correlates length of time in the Petén
with the adoption of appropriate environ-
mental practices, suggesting that natural
morals become apparent over time; thus
petenerosare said to maintain “harmo-
nious relations: man-nature.”^31
“Traditional” peteneros– whether forest
collectors, farmers, or teachers – are said
to have developed a “value system of eco-
logical reciprocity: what one takes from
the forest, one must return in some fash-
ion.”^32 As an example of such relations,
petenerosin the communities of Carmelita
and Uaxactún are said to have “practiced
agriculture only as a means of subsis-
tence; and as such, for economic reasons,
they are aware of the need for environ-
mental conservation.”^33In contrast topeteneros, Soza suggests
that “sureñosonly care about intensive
agriculture and if possible, ranching, and
the forest doesn’t matter to them.”^34 He
wonders why “these people have destruc-
tive attitudes instead of taking advantage
of the forest and its benefits to them-
selves and others.”^35 Indeed, they are said
to be unable to recognise the value of
precious hardwoods, which they simply
burn for corn.^36Such narratives are reproduced and elabo-
rated by petenerosin the every day dis-
courses of conservation. For example,
Oscar, an NGO staff member stated that:
“The petenerosfarmer has always planted
primarily for subsistence, with a little extra
thrown in to sell.” The immigrants on the
other hand, clear large areas; “They have
a commercial, merchant mentality.” When
asked for clarification about the specific
difference between the two groups’ envi-
ronmental practices (size of the field,