Abstract
In many developing nations, “paper parks”, or protected areas that have little or no formal management on the ground, have resulted from the failure of protected area systems to achieve their foremost goal: biodiversity conservation. This analysis incorporates biophysical, socioeconomic, and land use/tenure data collected by a multi-disciplinary team of Guatemalan and American researchers in order to identify potential management plans and multiple-use/concession arrangements. The Sierra Chinajá is a classic paper park protected area in Guatemala. Many factors have rendered Guatemalan protected areas management policies ineffectual in the Sierra Chinajá despite the fact that it has been an “area of special protection” since 1989. Proximate causes of forest conversion mask underlying driving forces responsible for rapid biodiversity loss. Despite the fact that Guatemala’s protected areas management system is similar to that promoted by international conservation organizations it has yet to effectively conserve biodiversity. These factors suggest that protected areas management in Guatemala, and other developing nations possessing unique cultural and natural histories, must be rooted in the local context as promulgated by the local non-governmental organization ProPéten in their proposal for an official Indigenous Reserve category. The proposal suggests the devolution of management responsibilities from federal institutions to local communities in the effort to develop a community-based, site specific conservation agenda.
Resumen
En muchos países en desarrollo, las “áreas protegidas en papel” o parques que no poseen un plan de manejo formal, han sido el resultado de la incapacidad del sistema nacional de áreas protegidas de alcanzar su meta mas importante: la conservación de la biodiversidad. El siguiente análisis incorpora datos biofísicos, socioeconómicos, de uso y tenencia de la tierra recolectados por un grupo multidisciplinario de investigadores guatemaltecos y norteamericanos con el objetivo de formular una estrategia de conservación que incorpore concesiones de usos múltiples. La Sierra de Chinajá es un ejemplo clásico de un “área protegida en papel” en Guatemala. Muchos son los factores por los cuales la política de áreas protegidas ha fracasado en la Sierra de Chinajá, a pesar de estar clasificada como un “Área de Protección Especial” desde 1989. Las causas subyacentes responsables por el cambio en la cobertura forestal están escondidas debajo de los síntomas más visibles de la perdida de biodiversidad. A pesar de que el Sistema Guatemalteco de Áreas Protegidas es similar al promovido por organizaciones internacionales aun no es efectivo en la conservación de la biodiversidad. Estos factores sugieren que el manejo de las áreas protegidas en Guatemala, y en otros países en desarrollo que poseen historias naturales y culturales únicas, deben estar enraizadas en el contexto local, como ha sido propuesto por la organización Pro-Peten en su propuesta por una categoría de manejo denominada Reservas Comunitarias Indígenas. La propuesta sugiere la delegación de la protección la biodiversidad de instituciones estatales a las comunidades locales con el propósito de establecer una agenda de conservación basada en el manejo comunitario.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams WM, Hulme D (2001) If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx 35(3):193–200
Alvarado A, Najera M, Quezada C, Lopez J, Samayoa J (1998) Estudio de base y caracterización de la sierra de Chinajá, Chisec, Alta Verapaz. Consejo de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo de Centroamérica (CIDECA). Ciudad de Guatemala, 140 pp
APROBA-SANK (2004) Plan de Manejo Comunitario: Reserva Tzuultaqa. Unpublished Community Management Plan, Chisec Alta Verapaz, 55 pp
APROBA-SANK (2006) Estudio Técnico para la Declaratoria del área de Protección especial “Sierra Chinajá” Ubicada en el Municipio de Chisec, Alta Verapaz. Fondo Nacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (FONACON), 93 pp
Barrett C, Brandon K, Gibson C, Gjertsen H (2001) Conserving tropical biodiversity amid weak institutions. BioScience 51(6):497–502
Brandon K, Sanderson S, Redford K (1998) Parks in peril: people, politics, and protected areas. Nature conservancy. Island Press, 532 pp
Bray D, Merino-Pérez L, Negreros-Castillo P, Segura-Warnholtz G, Torres-Rojo J, Vester H (2003) Mexico’s community-managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes. Conserv Biol 17(3):672–677
Brechin S, Wishusen P, Fortwangler C, West P (2002) Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Soc Nat Resour 15:41–64
Brosius JP, Russell D (2003) Conservation from above: an anthropological perspective on transboundary protected areas and ecoregional planning. J Sustain For 17(1/2):39–65
Bruner G, Gullison R Rice R, da Fonseca G (2001) Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291:125–128
Clark C (1998) The delegitimation of land tenure in tropical Péten, Guatemala. Research Paper Series No. 31. The University of New Mexico Albuquerque
CONAP (1989) Decreto 4-89. Ley de Áreas Protegidas, reformas a la ley Decretos 18-89, 110-96 y 117-97, y reglamento. Congreso de la República de Guatemala. Guatemala
Dudley N, Stolton S (1999) Conversion of paper parks to effective management: developing a target. Report to the WWF-World Bank Alliance from the IUCN/WWF Forest Innovation Project
Gaitan L et al (2002) Estudio Técnico del Área de Protección Especial Sierra de Chinajá, Chisec, Alta Verapaz. Fundación Interamericana de Investigación Tropical (FIIT), 77 pp
Geist H, Lambin E (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52:143–150
Godoy R, Jacobson M, De Castro J, Aliaga V, Romero J, Davis A (1998) The role of tenure security and private time preference in neotropical deforestation. Land Econ 74:162–170
Hughs R, Flintan F (2001) Integrating conservation and development experience: a review and bibliography of the ICDP literature. London International Institute for Environment and Development
International Labor Organization (1989) Convention (No. 169) concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries. General Conference of the International Labour Organization. Adopted 27, June 1989
Jones J (1990) Colonization and environment: land settlement projects in Central America. United Nations University Press, 168 pp
McNeely J (1994) Protected areas for the 21st century: working to provide benefits to society. Biodivers Conserv 3:390–405
Miller K (1994) International cooperation in conserving biological diversity: a world strategy, international convention, and framework for action. Biodivers Conserv 3:464–472
Mittermeier R, Myers N, Thomsen J, da Fonseca G, Olivieri S (1998) Biodiveristy hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conserv Biol 12:516–520
Ostrom E, Burger J, Field C, Norgaard R, Policansky D (1999) Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284:378–282
Peluso N (1993) Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control. Glob Environ Change June:199–217
Perfecto I, Rice R, Greenberg R, Van der Voort ME (1996) Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. Bioscience 46:598–608
ProPéten (2003) Reserva Comunitaria Indigena BioItza: Categoria de Manejo. Unpublished proposal to CONAP
Putz F, Blate G, Redford K, Fimbel R, Robinson J (2001) Tropical forest management and conservation of biodiversity: an overview. Conserv Biol 15:7–20
Salafsky N, Dugelby B, Terborgh J (1993) Can extractive reserves save the rain forest? An ecological and socioeconomic comparison of nontimber forest product extraction systems in Peten, Guatemala, and West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conserv Biol 7:39–52
Senanayake R (1987) Analog forestry as a conservation tool. Tiger Paper 14(2):25–29. FAO, Bangkok
Stallings J (2001) An ICDP implementation paradigm of crossed lines: south–south and south–north. In: Rhoades R, Stallings J (eds) Integrated conservation and development in tropical America: experiences and lessons in linking communities, projects, and policies, chapter 1. SANREM CRSP and CARE – SUBIR, Athens
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) (1994) Guidelines for protected areas management categories. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland
Zerner C (1996) Telling stories about biological diversity. In: Brush SB, Stabinsky D (eds) Valuing local knowledge: indigenous people and intellectual property rights. Island Press, 68–100 pp
Zimmerer K (1999) Overlapping patchworks of mountain agriculture in Peru and Bolivia: toward a regional-global landscape model. Human Ecol 27:135–165
Acknowledgements
This project was made possible thanks to support from the Guatemalan Fund for the Conservation of Nature (FONACON), the non governmental conservation organization ProPeten, and the Center for Conservation Studies at the Universidad de San Carlos. In addition we express our gratitude to S. Siebert, T. Brient, and the anonymous referees for their help in the revision of this text.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bonham, C.A., Sacayon, E. & Tzi, E. Protecting imperiled “paper parks”: potential lessons from the Sierra Chinajá, Guatemala. Biodivers Conserv 17, 1581–1593 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9368-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9368-6