Counterinsurgency Ecotourism in Guatemala's Maya Biosphere Reserve

Abstract

Through analysis of a Guatemalan ecotourism project, this paper examines how tourism development is driving the militarization o f conservation through a modality o f violence I identify as counterinsurgency ecotourism. I look at four manifestations o f counterinsurgency ecotourism: the repurposing o f the army to enforce conservation law; the creation of an environmental 'predator' discourse; the eviction o f peasants from protected areas; and the construction o f military outposts. These practices illustrate that ecotourism development has become a means by which the Guatemalan state is militarizing conservation spaces in ways that revive and repurpose tactics o f counterinsurgency warfare from the country's civil war (1960-96). Furthermore, this militarized approach to ecotourism development obscures the structural production o f poverty, insecurity, and deforestation in northern Guatemala and undermines environmental conservation and social justice efforts. The counterinsurgency ecotourism practices identified in Guatemala resonate with many other conservation and ecotourism spaces found across the world, such as UNESCO Biospheres, as well places across the Global South with histories o f counterinsurgency warfare.

Accumulation by securitization: Commercial poaching, neoliberal conservation, and the creation of new wildlife frontiers

“…Rural communities in particular are routinely portrayed as environmentally irresponsible peasants, a common practice used to legitimize their dispossession and the enclosure of common land and resources (Brockington, 2002;Li, 2007;Neumann, 1998;Ojeda, 2012;Spence, 1999). More than this, residents in and around the GLC are rendered environmentally destructive security threats: as rhino poachers who are heavily armed, increasingly dangerous, and who jeopardize national security (Lunstrum, 2014; also see Devine, 2014;Ojeda, 2012;Ybarra, 2012). More broadly, such rewriting of peasants as security risks in need of eviction is a disconcerting outgrowth of the growing integration of conservation, tourism, and security practice.…”

“…This reframing of conservation and poaching can lead to Òrepressive, coercive and violent practicesÓ (Duffy, 2014, 833) including the state-sanctioned killing of poachers (Humphreys and Smith, 2014;Lunstrum, 2014;Neumann, 2004). The militarization of conservation is further facilitated by the expansion of security actors within conservation practice, often including national armies and at times soldiers for hire (Cavanagh et al, 2015;Devine, 2014;Lombard, 2012;Lunstrum, 2014;Ybarra, 2012). In fact, in post-conflict settings, militaries have at times reinvented themselves and their legitimacy by putting their skills to use as anti-poaching and broader conservation enforcers (Devine, 2014;Lunstrum, 2014;Ybarra, 2012).…”

“…Furthermore, given the cross-border context and regional history of war-induced ecological destruction, this exchange plays out in a specific way within the GLC. Yet it reflects a broader process whereby access to natural resources provides the necessary incentive for actors to invest in security practices and partnerships, what we see as a nascent theme in the conservation-security literature (see, for example, Cavanagh et al, 2015;Devine, 2014;Dunlap and Fairhead, 2014;Ferrad ‡s, 2004;Ojeda, 2012;Ybarra, 2012).…”

“…A young but growing body of critical conservation scholarship has begun to examine the securitization of conservation space and conservation practice itself (Cavanagh et al, 2015;Devine, 2014;Duffy, 2014;Duffy, this issue;Humphreys, 2012;Humphreys and Smith, 2014;Lombard, this issue;Lunstrum, 2014;Ojeda, 2012;Peluso and Vandergeest, 2011;Ybarra, 2012). Of particular concern is the militarization of conservation practice in response to commercial poaching.…”

“…The militarization of conservation is further facilitated by the expansion of security actors within conservation practice, often including national armies and at times soldiers for hire (Cavanagh et al, 2015;Devine, 2014;Lombard, 2012;Lunstrum, 2014;Ybarra, 2012). In fact, in post-conflict settings, militaries have at times reinvented themselves and their legitimacy by putting their skills to use as anti-poaching and broader conservation enforcers (Devine, 2014;Lunstrum, 2014;Ybarra, 2012). Building from this work, we see the securitization of conservation as a two-step process consisting of an initial framing of conservation matters as security issues and a subsequent move to address these issues via security measures often instituted by security actors.…”