Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, July 2000

Contents IK Monitor (8-2) | IKDM Homepage | Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl | © copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 2000.

A farmers' perspective on biodiversity from Western Mexico

by Peter R.W. Gerritsen

Today the conservation of biodiversity is a major international goal. In this endeavour, the establishment of protected areas has become a widely accepted policy instrument. However, up to now the participation of farmers in the management of protected areas has been minimal. This article maintains that a farmers' perspective on biodiversity is needed as a first step towards conservation that really works. This will be illustrated by a case study from western Mexico.

Since the 1970s, biodiversity conservation has gained a prominent place on international agendas, and as a result, protected areas have been set aside to conserve the world's biological richness. Many attempts have been made to involve local people in the management of those areas (IUCN, UNEP & WWF 1991), and the involvement of farmers in conservation activities remains crucial (Wells et al. 1992). This is due in part to the complex relationships which exist between farmers and their environment (Toledo 1990), relationships which are often not sufficiently understood by conservationists.

In this article a sociological tool will be presented to promote understanding of farmer perceptions and actions with respect to biodiversity. It is based on experiences in the community of Cuzalapa in the Sierra de Manantlán Biosphere Reserve (SMBR) in western Mexico. The management implications for protected areas such as the SMBR will also be discussed.

De-constructing biodiversity
Broadly speaking, biodiversity is concerned with the 'variety of life', and is generally described at the genetic, species, or ecosystem level. Biodiversity is considered an important guideline for the management of protected areas (Primack 1993). And yet the limitations of using the biodiversity concept as a planning tool emerge when attempts are made to employ it in protected areas inhabited by local people. There are two reasons for this. First, diversity reflects values which scientists attribute to the variety of life forms, and these values do not necessarily coincide with those of other actors, such as farmers. Second, no attention is given to the socioeconomic processes that can cause changes in the environment, thus affecting biodiversity (Gerritsen forthcoming).

The current conceptualization of biodiversity also contrasts sharply with the growing recognition of the 'human nature' of certain aspects of biodiversity. Moreover, taking economic processes into account when conceptualizing biodiversity would recognize the fact that most of the world's biodiversity exists in areas where farmers live and work (Gómez-Pompa & Kaus 1992). That is why I would like to suggest an alternative understanding.

Roughly speaking, nature consists of a number of plants and animals that are found together in a given space and at a given time. Nature can also be seen as a social construction, in the sense that it refers to the set of values attributed to nature by a specific actor. Hence, nature can be either meaningful or meaningless, depending on an actor's value sets. Here meaningful nature will be referred to as 'socially constructed nature' (cf. Ingold 1996), i.e., that part of nature to which values are attributed and from which a product or service is obtained. The use and management of these natural resources is, in turn, determined by their biophysical characteristics.

This brings us to the term 'resource diversity', i.e., 'the socially constructed variety of life, composed of a set of natural resources, and being that part of nature as a whole that is meaningful to a specific actor.' Resource diversity, which is the sociological equivalent of biodiversity, is concerned with the values attributed by specific actors to the variety of life, and to the social processes underlying its constitution. This means that it can overcome the two limitations of biodiversity mentioned above. I would like to demonstrate this by presenting the case of a community in a biosphere reserve, with special reference to its implications for involving farmers in protected area management.

The SMBR and Cuzalapa
The Sierra de Manantlán Biosphere Reserve (SMBR) is located in western Mexico and comprises a mountainous area of some 140,000 ha. The region was decreed a protected area in 1987, due to its biological richness, its forestry potential, its watersheds, and, hence, its importance for conservation. The SMBR, which encompasses 29 agrarian communities and 80 private properties, has been designated a biosphere reserve (IMECBIO 1997).

The community of Cuzalapa lies on the SMBR's southern slopes and has some 1,330 inhabitants spread over several localities (see map). The total territory of the community is around 24,000 ha. Cuzalapa farmers cultivate maize and raise cattle, and these activities are supplemented by the collection of non-timber forest products and wood for domestic use. The quantity of land and cattle owned by farmers can differ greatly (Gerritsen 1995).

The conservation strategy followed in the SMBR communities such as Cuzalapa is aimed at actively involving farmers in the management of the reserve. The realization of that aim, however, has proved to be a considerable challenge (Gerritsen 1998).

Location of the Sierra de Manantlán Biosphere Reserve in Mexico , and the community of Cuzalapa.

Resource diversity in Cuzalapa
Cuzalapa farmers have a broad knowledge of their environment. Through their cultivation, cattle raising and forestry practices they are actively transforming their environment. As a result, the landscape around them is highly heterogeneous, consisting of various land-use and vegetation units. Together these units constitute the resource diversity of Cuzalapa farmers, while each unit has a specific place within farmer discourse and practice.

Cuzalapa farmers distinguish three main types of land-use: home gardens, cultivation fields, and agostadero land (i.e., land for grazing purposes), all of which can also be subdivided (see Table 1). Agostadero land is special in that it may comprise cultivation fields left fallow, as well as pasturelands and monte (i.e., secondary vegetation and forests). Table 2 presents an overview of the agostadero classification used by farmers.

Table 2. Farmer classification of agostadero land

As in the case with agostadero land, farmers distinguish several different types and subtypes of monte vegetation.

Farmers differentiate between the various monte subtypes largely on the basis of dominant tree species. This results in a highly diverse picture of vegetation types, which represents the second dimension of resource diversity. Farmers base their further monte classification on vegetation height, dominant tree species and management practices which they, their parents, and their grandparents have employed over the years. Through their farming practices, farmers maintain the different land-use and vegetation units (i.e., resource diversity), as well as the relationships that exist between them. This is illustrated by Figure 1.

Farmers can recount at length the various ways in which they use and manage their landscape, i.e., resource diversity. There are multiple interactions between farmers and nature, in both time and space. In this way, the farm families of Cuzalapa obtain the desired products and services, while the reproduction of natural resources, including resource diversity, is also assured (Gerritsen forthcoming).

The dynamics of resource diversity
The above representation of Cuzalapa farmers' resource diversity is a somewhat idealized picture. In reality, changes are constantly taking place and farmers now attribute different values to their environment. As a result, they are modifying the resource diversity within their community. This is indicated in the figure by the two types of relationships between the different resource diversity units. We also see that farmers now value pastureland more than the other land-use and vegetation units. The resulting land-use conversion has led to a homogenization of the landscape. In other words, resource diversity in Cuzalapa is being reconstituted.

There are two main factors underlying the changes. First, more farmers are now directing their farming efforts towards cattle raising, due to the unfavourable economic situation of maize cultivation. (The photo on page 18 shows maize cultivation in better times.) The second factor is related to the first: pasture for feeding cattle is now so important that it has, in fact, become a cash crop, and is grown by farmers who do not own cattle.

The tendency toward land-use conversion has been partially reinforced by the establishment of the SMBR. Many elderly farmers recall that before the establishment of the SMBR, land-use was unrestricted. Nowadays, farmers are prohibited from using the land in the rigidly protected core zone of the SMBR, located in the highest part of the community (i.e., in monte alto). They are allowed to cultivate maize and raise cattle in the buffer zone of the SMBR, but are bound by many new restrictions. These rules apply above all at the middle and higher parts (including monte alto); some 70% of the units are located in the buffer zone, and 20% in the core zones. Due to the restricted access to natural resources in those areas of the community, conversion into pastureland is proceeding faster in the lower parts of Cuzalapa, and the different types of monte baja are increasingly coming under pressure.

Implications for protected area management
It will be clear from the above that the farmers of Cuzalapa make intensive use of their environment. In doing so, they have created a specific resource diversity which is one of the features of their 'socially constructed nature'. In addition, the resource diversity created by these farmers is highly dynamic. The implications of looking at resource diversity for the management of protected areas are twofold. On the one hand, resource diversity provides insight into perceptions regarding the natural resources of actors other than biosphere reserve managers. At the same time, it sheds light on the social dynamics underlying its constitution.

In those protected areas opting for co-management, resource diversity can be a helpful tool in discussions between different actors on natural resource use and management, and biodiversity. While the latter emphasizes the 'ecological side' of natural resource management, the former focuses on the 'social side'. Using both concepts, allowing them to complement each other, makes it possible to establish explicit interfaces for 'negotiating' sustainable land-use and 'tailoring' intervention approaches to the specific context of local communities (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996). But all too often farmers are perceived as functional partners in conservation, who have to be made 'aware' of the importance of biodiversity conservation. Co-management of protected areas is possible only within a 'new' conservation professionalism (cf. Chambers 1997) which acknowledges the existence of multiple resource diversities.

Peter R.W. Gerritsen
Rural sociologist / Social forester
IMECBIO/CUCSUR
University of Guadalajara
P.O. Box 64
48900 Autlán, Jal.
Mexico
E-mail: pgerritsen@cucsur.udg.mx

Acknowledgements
The ideas expressed in this article were developed during a five-year period of fieldwork in Cuzalapa, involving a great many discussions with farmers. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of them. I am also grateful to colleagues at IMECBIO in Mexico and at Wageningen Agricultural University in the Netherlands, in particular Jan Douwe van der Ploeg and Freerk Wiersum. Finally, the comments of an anonymous referee [this was Dr Carlos H. Avila Bello, ed.] are acknowledged.

References
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative management of protected areas: tailoring the approach to the context. Gland: IUCN. Issues in Social Policy.

Chambers, R. (1997) Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: IT Publications.

Gerritsen, P.R.W. (1995) Styles of farming and forestry. The case of the Mexican community of Cuzalapa. Wageningen, the Netherlands: CERES/WAU. Wageningen Studies on Heterogeneity and Relocalization 1.

Gerritsen, P.R.W. (1998) 'Community development, natural resource management and biodiversity conservation in the Sierra de Manantlán biosphere reserve, Mexico', Community Development Journal 33 (4): 314-324.

Gerritsen, P.R.W. (forthcoming) Diversity at stake. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research Centre. Ph.D.-Thesis.

Gómez-Pompa, A. and A. Kaus (1992) 'Taming the wilderness myth' BioScience 42: 271-279.

IMECBIO (1997) Programa de manejo de la reserva de la biosfera Sierra de Manantlán. Documento para consulta. Autlán: IMECBIO/SEMARNAP.

Ingold, T. (1996) 'Hunting and gathering as ways of perceiving the environment.' Pp. 117-156 in Ellen, R. and K. Fukui (eds) Redefining nature. Ecology, culture and domestication. Oxford: Explorations in Anthropology Series.

IUCN, UNEP and WWF (1991) Caring for the earth: a strategy for sustainable living. Gland: IUCN.

Primack, R.B. (1993) Essentials of biodiversity conservation. Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.

Toledo, V.M. (1990) 'The ecological rationality of peasant production', pp. 53-60 in Altieri, M.A. and S.B. Hecht (eds) Agroecology and small farm development. Boca Raton/Ann Arbor/Boston: CRC Press.

Wells, M.; K. Brandon with L. Hannah (1992) People and parks. Linking protected area management with local communities. Washington, DC: The World Bank/WWF/USAID.

Illustrations
Location of the Sierra de Manantlán Biosphere Reserve in Mexico , and the community of Cuzalapa.

Photos
The Sierra de Manantlán biosphere.
Photo: Peter Gerritsen

Cattle raising in Cuzalapa, 1995.
Photo: Peter Gerritsen

Maize cultivation in Cuzalapa, 1995.
Photo: Peter Gerritsen

Websites that may interest readers of this article.

Back to: top of the page | Contents IK Monitor (8-2) | IKDM Homepage
Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl
© copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 2000.