Communities in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Petén,
Guatemala, The Geographical Review88: 388-412,
1998.
Torres, B., “Transnational Environmental NGOs: Linkages
and Impact on Policy”, in MacDonald, G., D. Nielson,
and M. Stern (eds.), Latin American Environmental
Policy, Westview Press, 156-181, Boulder (CO), 1997.
UNESCO, “Action Plan for biosphere reserves”, Nature &
Resources2, 11-22, 1984.
United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), Project Paper, Maya Biosphere Project,
USAID, Washington, D.C., 1989.
Zimmerer, K., and E. Carter, Conservation and
Sustainability in Latin America and the Caribbean, in
Knapp, G. (ed.), Latin America in the 21stCentury:
Challenges and Solutions, Conference of Latin
Americanist Geographers, University of Texas Press,
207-249, Austin (TX), 2002.
Notes(^1) Zimmerer and Carter, 2002; MacDonald et al., 1997.
(^2) Bulmer-Thomas, 1996; Christen et al., 1998.
(^3) Christen et al., 1998; Torres, 1997.
(^4) Fieldwork in Guatemala from 1996-1997 was funded
by an Institute of International Education Fulbright
Fellowship. The University of British Columbia funded
Additional fieldwork in 1999 and 2000. Fieldwork in
June 2003 was funded by a Canadian Council of
Social Science and Humanities research grant.
(^5) Latour, 1999; for a summary of the debates, see
Soulé and Lease, 1995.
(^6) Byant and Bailey, 1997; Fisher, 1997; Foucault, 1978.
(^7) Haraway, 1989; Demeritt, 2001.
(^8) This paper would not have been possible without the
generosity and participation of the men and women
residing in the Maya biosphere reserve. However, I
am responsible for the argument presented here.
(^9) Schwartz, 1990; Soza, 1970. I would like to thank
Paul Jance for the maps.
(^10) Ponciano, 1998.
(^11) Schwartz, 1990; Nations, 1999.
(^12) Bulmer-Thomas, 1996. The World Bank – advocate
of shrinking the state – has argued that Guatemala
spends too little on social services and must expand
tax-support to sustain growth (Spence et al., 1998).
(^13) USAID, 1989, p. 1.
(^14) CONAP, 1996, p. 11.
(^15) UNESCO, 1984.
(^16) Ladinois the term used in Guatemala to refer to a
person of mixed European and indigenous descent; it
can also refer to an indigenous person who no
longer identifies him or her self as such.
(^17) Nations et al., 1988, p. 10; see also Nations, 1992.
(^18) Nations et al., 1989, p. 4.
(^19) Nations et al., 1988, p. 11. This statement repro-
duced in Nations et al., 1989, p. 16.
(^20) For an elaboration of these discourses, see
Sundberg, 1998.
(^21) Soza, 1996, p. 153.
(^22) SEGEPLAN, 1993, p. 2.
(^23) CARE, 1996, p. 5.
(^24) Gradia et al., 1998, p. 367.
(^25) Here I draw from a central tenet of political ecology,
which considers claims to knowas relative to the
position of the knowledge producer (Blaikie and
Brookfield, 1987). As Watts and Peet (1996, p. 261)
suggest, “all thought systems are understood as
serving the interests of specific social forms of
power.”
(^26) Schwartz, 1987, pp. 163-183.
(^27) Between 1958 and 1986, the principal authority in
the Petén was a military-led institution – the National
Agency for Promotion and Development of the Petén
[Empresa Nacional de Fomento y Desarrollo de El
Petén(FYDEP)]. FYDEP was given “extensive and in
practice exclusive authority” in the Petén, ostensibly
to promote economic development in the region
(Schwartz, 1990, p. 253).
(^28) Schwartz et al., 1997.
(^29) Soza, 1996. In this case, I use the individual’s name,
as I am citing his book. Soza is not the only individ-
ual to have an influence over conservationist dis-
courses and strategies for the multiple use zone
however, he is one of the few to have published an
influential study. Sadly, Soza died of cancer in June
2003; the environmental movement has lost one of
its important leaders.
(^30) Soza, 1996, p. 112.
(^31) Soza, 1996, p. 100, 108. In addition to distinct land-
use practices, petenerosettlements are said to have
maintained steady populations, unlike the “demo-
graphic explosion” witnessed in migrant communities
(Soza, 1996, p. 62).
(^32) Grandia et al., 1998, p. 366.
(^33) Soza, 1996, p. 19.
(^34) Soza, 1996, p. 63.
(^35) Soza, 1996, p. 18.
(^36) Soza, 1996, p. 112.
(^37) The names of the community and its inhabitants
have been changed to protect the identity of the
individuals. The families in this community identified
as ladino, Chorti’, and Mopan; it was difficult to learn
about ethnic identity as many people in Guatemala
are accustomed to hiding such information.
(^38) Gretzinger, 1998.
(^39) CATIE, 1992, p. 1.
(^40) CATIE, 1994, p. 1.
(^41) Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Byant and Bailey, 1997.
(^42) Atran and Medin, 1997, p. 181.