‘Diversity (still) at stake’: a farmers’ perspective on biodiversity and conservation in Western Mexico

Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

“…Studies in Australia [22], Nepal [23], Norway [24], Mexico [25], Indonesia [26] and USA [27] revealed local inhabitants appreciating areas for their aesthetic and spiritual values as well as environmental products and economic and leisure opportunities. Mexican farmers in particular value the land for its provision of food, water, wood and other products, and they have developed farming styles along a spectrum of reciprocal relationships between man and nature between wilderness and urbanisation [28]. Diaw [29] claims that a resettlement policy to establish a IUCN II category park in Cameroon in 1961 was driven by scientific myths of a pristine forest whose protection was incompatible with indigenous residents despite historical analysis showing that the current forest structure was the result of sustained use over centuries.…”

“…Communication problems could be compounded by new regulatory arrangements being incompatible with traditional ways. For instance, very few Mexican farmers applied for resource use permits because the formal biosphere (IUCN VI) rules competed with customary rules [28]. The formal rules were generic and did not take into account local variation in natural resource management.…”

“…Appreciation of protected areas other than for economic benefit was found in IUCN categories II, IV and VI; and both before and after the Durban Accord Communities expressed a tension between appreciating the environment and wanting to protect it, and also needing to make immediate use of land or natural products They could be encouraged to participate in further conservation measures where they could anticipate socio-economic benefits Evidence synthesised from seven studies [23,25,26,28,29,38,43] Even where residents have recognised that conserving a park (IUCN II) and its wildlife is valuable on an individual, local, national and global scale for economic, educational, recreational, aesthetic and environmental reasons, and for future generations, they still lament the economic limitations imposed by restrictions on access, extracting resources and grazing, and the dangers of wild animals [23]. Indeed, some communities refuted the need for resettlement, having managed the land (IUCN II) for centuries; this was confirmed by the authors' historical analysis and portrayal of a pristine forest whose protection was incompatible with indigenous residents as a scientific myth [29].…”

“…A range of Mexican farming styles have developed along the spectrum of reciprocal relationships between man and nature (co-production) between wilderness and urbanisation, with farmers valuing the land for its provision of food, water, wood and other products [28]. Despite appreciating protected areas for their aesthetic, environmental products, economic opportunities and spiritual values [25,28] their positive attitudes were lost when conservation regulations (IUCN IV) competed with productive activities such as cattle ranching or growing imported varieties of fruit, or with personal safety [25].…”

Strengthening Endogenous Regional Development in Western Mexico

“…the on-going interactions and mutual transformations between man and nature in the local area, and where farmers play a strategic role. It is through the process of co-production that the typical (cultural) landscape of a region comes to life, or where an unique (agro-) biodiversity is being created (van der Ploeg, 1997;Gerritsen, 2002). Moreover, it has multiple benefits, such as the generation of local employment; the generation of income articulated to the regional economy, the maintenance of culture and local identity, and the conservation of natural resources, amongst others.…”