[preparado]”. This comment was seconded
by Chema; “No [we can’t continue alone],
because there are no educated people
here.” Francisco said, “we need advice
from someone who knows about these
things. We work, but in written and other
things, we can’t do it.”In sum, the discourses and practices of
conservation in San Diego frame migrant
farmers as lacking in appropriate human-
land relations; this notion of lack translat-
ed into exclusion from decision-making
processes. Lacking rights to reside within
the newly created boundaries of the
reserve, migrant farmers in San Diego saw
themselves in a vulnerable position. In
this context, immigrants engaged with the
discourses and practices of conservation in
ways that enabled them to accomplish the
goals of land tenure security and access
to resources – even as they reproduced a
discourse of lack.Analysis and Concluding Remarks
In the Maya biosphere reserve, NGO dis-
courses focus on the environmental prac-
tices particular to petenerosand immi-
grants, making them appear as essential
or inherent cultural traits. These traits
then are used as a basis for determining
which local groups are capable of partici-
pating in decision-making processes, with
uncertain consequences for those groups
whose environmental practices are
deemed inappropriate to the goals of con-
servation.Such exclusionary prac-
tices are made possible by
what is left unsaid. For
instance, NGOs neglect
the fact that environmen-
tal practices emerge in the
context of specific political
economic conditions – as
these shift over time, so
do people’s practices.^41
Petenerosthemselves are a clear exampleof this argument, as many have shifted
from forest collecting to service-based
employment in the past forty years in
response to changing conditions. NGO dis-
courses also are silent
about similarities in envi-
ronmental practices
between groups as well
as the variation internal to
each group (as in individ-
ual differences in environ-
mental knowledge, prac-
tices, and values). For
instance, one long-term
study revealed little differ-
ence between native
peteneroand immigrants’
environmental values and
knowledge.^42 In addition, not all peten-
erosare pro-conservation, nor are all
migrants anti-conservation.As the brief examples outlined here sug-
gest, NGO discourses are the product of
specific configurations of power and
knowledge, not objective mirrors of reality.
In the face of changing power structures
and environmental governance regimes,
local groups in the reserve engage with,
elaborate, and appropriate NGO discours-
es to reflect their own interests and goals.
The outcomes are uneven.While my analysis of the cultural politics of
conservation is specific to the Maya bios-
phere reserve, my research leads me to
conclude with a question of relevance to
conservation the world over. If visions of
nature and human land relations are
effects of social relations rather than natu-
ral or static entities, how might they be
renegotiated and reconfigured in ways
that support inclusive rather than exclu-
sionary futures? The answers to this ques-
tion, I believe, are key to the creation of
conservation policy that supports social
equity and democratisation.History, cculture aand cconservation
NGOs nneglect tthe
fact tthat eenviron-
mental ppractices
emerge iin tthe ccon-
text oof sspecific ppolit-
ical eeconomic ccondi-
tions –– aas tthese sshift
over ttime, sso ddo ppeo-
ple’s ppractices.
If vvisions oof nnature
and hhuman lland rrela-
tions aare eeffects oof
social rrelations rrather
than nnatural oor sstatic
entities, hhow mmight
they bbe rrenegotiated
and rreconfigured iin
ways tthat ssupport
inclusive rrather tthan
exclusionary ffutures?