Course:CONS370/Projects/The Zapotec people's management of forests in Oaxaca State, Mexico
Abstract
The management of forests among the Zapotec Indigenous Peoples of Southeastern Oaxaca, Mexico represents an important case relating to power dynamics in conservation. Although much of their territory is comprised of biologically diverse, forested mountains, recent failures in attempted co-governance between state actors and community authorities have resulted in a negative sentiment among some Zapotecs toward protected areas (Barmeyer 2012: 51). Among other problems, this is likely a result of poor communication and even coercion on the part of Mexican government officials when seeking Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) from Zapotec Communities to implement Natural Protected Areas (NPAs) on ancestral Zapotec territory. This is demonstrated by several areas where notable misunderstandings occurred, included the restrictions that would be imposed in protected areas, as well as how benefits would be shared from Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) provided by Zapotec forests (Barmeyer 2012: 53). This Wiki page will first examine the historical context of the Zapotec peoples as it relates to colonization and current power structures, followed by a review of land tenure arrangements and current stakeholders & rights holders, in order to highlight the lessons that can be learned from this case in the broader context of designing equitable conservation policy.
Keywords:
Oaxaca, Conservation, Sustainability, Equity, Indigenous Rights
| Country: Mexico | |
| Province/Prefecture: Oaxaca | |
This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS370. | |
Description
Historical Context
Zapotec Indigenous People have existed in what is now known as the Oaxaca province of Mexico since around 700 AD, where their cities and culture flourished in a pre-colonized society. Prior to the arrival of the Spanish in 1521 AD, Zapotecs had developed advanced infrastructure, government structures and complex religious practices; including temples, elaborate residences, and ceremonial spaces (Joyce 2009: 24). With the arrival of Spanish conquest in 1521, dramatic changes occurred including the collapse of ruling institutions and dynasties, ultimately leading to a vast population and cultural decline in the Zapotec civilization (Schmal, 2006: 2). Despite this oppression, the Zapotec people have been able to regain usage rights of part of their ancestral territory through land grants or ejidos, following the Mexican revolution of 1910 (Gill, 2007: 3). According to a 2005 census, 664,717 people from “Zapotec households'' and 410,900 Zapotec speakers can be found in Mexico, making Zapotecs the fourth largest indigenous population in Mexico (Minnesota Population Center, 2015). Today, Zapotecs live predominantly in the state of Oaxaca (see Figure 2), where the majority of populations live in communities whose internal government system has remained largely independent and autonomous from state or federal systems (Gill, 2007: 2). This system is recognized by the state of Oaxaca as Usos y Costumbres, or Indigenous Customary Law, and it allows for communities to continue social traditions based on leadership by elders and other experienced community members (Gill, 2007: 3). However, while it offers a relatively large degree of autonomy, it has not always guaranteed Zapotecs the right to make decisions about land use, especially in the face of outside management of conserved areas by Mexican state authorities (Azcona et al. 2020: 178).
Geographic Context & Traditional Land Management
The state of Oaxaca covers 9.5 million ha of land, and is located in the Southern part of the country (see Figure 2) (Markopoulos, 1999: 23). Oaxaca is home to extensive temperate and tropical dry forests, covering about 5.1 million ha or 54% of the state's territory along with very high cultural and biological diversity (Markopoulos, 1999: 23). Currently, Oaxaca hosts the greatest biological biodiversity in Mexico, containing around 50% of plant species, 40% of mammal species, 63% of birds, 26% of reptiles and 23% of river fish in all of Mexico (Oviedo, 2002: 9). As a result, Oaxaca represents a key location for the creation of new NPAs. Due to their prolonged relationship with the land, Zapotecs have developed an array of knowledge related to resource and land use. Historically relying on subsistence farming of maize, beans and squash, their philosophies in land management can be most succinctly described by the Zapotec word "Gapanu", meaning "to care, to have and to use" (Azcona et al. 2020: 177). Sustainable land management practices among the Zapotec are generally based in a desire to cultivate natural ecosystems, so as to maintain them for communal use (Azcona et al. 2020: 177). This is demonstrated in their traditions and practices which exhibit altruistic and sustainable results, despite regular harvest and use of natural resources. As a result, there is a notable disconnect between Zapotec methods of land management, and perceptions of conservation among Mexican state actors. The National Commission for Protected Natural Areas (CONANP), for example, does not allow local populations to extract natural resources from NPAs when including territories into its PES programs (Barmeyer 2012: 52). Thus, although both Zapotecs and CONANP may both desire the long-term preservation of natural resources, there exists a potential for conflicts where they differ in their consideration of human use.
Tenure arrangements
Due to the nature and diversity of Usos y Custombros autonomous decision-making structures unique to the state of Oaxaca, there are few standard characteristics of land tenure rights among Zapotec communities, as they instead generally rely on local-level decision-making to resolve conflicts. However, there are several key aspects of land use that influence the nature of contemporary land rights which are summarized in the following section.
Ejidos
The Ejido has been a prominent historic feature of Indigenous land tenure in Mexico, with many reforms over time. Originally appearing in Mexico following Spanish colonization, the Ejido was the main method of defining territorial land holdings among Indigenous Peoples, denoting land that held agricultural importance and communal dwellings (Borah 1983: 37). This followed from historic communal land sharing practices among many Indigenous Peoples in Oaxaca, including among Zapotecs. These lands were protected by the Spanish crown, and recognized in colonial legal systems (Borah 1983: 79). However, after Mexico gained independence from Spain in the early nineteenth century many of these protections were abolished, and Ejidos were no longer recognized (Perramond 2008: 356). The Mexican revolution then re-established the Ejido as a method of re-distributing land to peasants which had previously been held by wealthy estates. This new legislation designated a process through which people could apply to create an Ejido, where communities could gain primary access to communal land areas, which could not be sold without the permission of all community members (Perramond 2008: 357). Although these policies denote usage rights for ejidatarios (members of the Ejido), the land remains under Government ownership. Through this process, many Indigenous Peoples have been able to gain increased property rights on their traditional territories over the past century, although they have still not been granted complete ownership (Perramond 2008: 358). Since then, Ejidos have remained a prominent land tenure classification among Zapotec communities. Additionally, many ejidos have recently gained important recognition as Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) in accordance with the characteristics outlined by the IUCN, where they are governed by communities with a) close historic relationship with the land, b) a de facto or de jure ability to govern the conserved area, and c) conservation efforts which lead to the protection of biological and cultural diversity (IUCN/CEESP 2010: 1). However, the creation of new ejidos ended following Mexico's entry into NAFTA, and recent reforms have allowed ejidal land to be privatised (Perramond 2008: 358).
Modern Community Forestry
Since the decentralization of the many Mexican forest management practices in the 1990s in favour of private market solutions, the structure of land management among Zapotecs has changed drastically. Where before, the rights to ejidal land were restricted to community members and economic reliance on Maize farming was enabled by subsidies, changes to allow privatization of communal land and reductions in Maize subsidies have increased Zapotec reliance on private forestry industries (Barmeyer 2012: 55). For example, in 1992 following community demand, the Mexican government maintained that community forest land could not be sold, but amended the law so that control could be transferred to private enterprises. This change was made to allow communities lacking investment capital to generate income from forest land by forming joint enterprises with private forestry firms. In an effort to reduce unsustainable and often illegal logging practices that took place on ejidal land (Gill 2007: 8), these private firms are required to follow strict guidelines in order to mitigate impacts on the structure of forest ecosystems (Markopoulos 1999: 30). This includes holding external management accountable to an oversight committee, and all forest management plans must be approved by the general assembly of community members (Gill 2007: 12). Additionally, external forest managers must be elected to their positions for terms of one to three years, during which time they must submit financial reports to the general assembly every four months (Markopoulos, 1999: 31). Financial gains from external forestry companies are divided between communal works & services, and reinvestment into the forestry company. Although the privatization of ejidal land enables outside actors to extract forest resources, these forest management agreements grant the power and responsibility to the legitimate forest owners, rather than the state, and allow management to be performed under customary Zapotec frameworks.
Conservation Areas
In 1988, a body of Environmental legislation was passed by Mexico's Congress, constituting the legal framework of the National System of Protected Areas (SINAP), made up by a series of Natural Protected Areas (NPAs) (Salcido, 1995: 30). NPAs generally maintain strong restrictions on the usage of the natural resources they contain (Martin et al. 2011: 255) in accordance with traditional notions of "fortress conservation". While the implementation of the SINAP framework resulted in the protection of culturally and biologically diverse territories across 10% of Mexico's land surface (Martin et al. 2011: 255), their expansion has been slow as they prohibit the traditional styles of sustainable land management performed by Zapotecs and other Indigenous Peoples among the state's 60 Indigenous populations (Azcona, Lugo, Ibarra, & Baltazar, 2020: 173). Following the United Nations' adoption of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation in 2002, as well as efforts at the World Bank to provide economic incentives for conservation, Mexico further invested heavily in protected areas (Barmeyer 2012: 51). Over the last ten years, Mexico's government has been implementing conservation policy to recognize ICCAs as a means for improving co-governance of conservation areas. This legislation has introduced Voluntary Designated Areas for Conservation as a second key type of protected area recognized by CONANP. Although many locally-governed ICCAs already existed among the ejidos of Oaxaca's sixteen prominent indigenous groups, they were not officially recognized under Mexican law until the development the VDAC program (Azcona, Lugo, Ibarra, & Baltazar, 2020: 173). Most notably, the VDAC initiative recognized five new types of conserved areas: protected communal areas, forestry management protected areas, sacred natural sites (SNSs), wildlife management areas, and community reserves. Although they are often not mutually exclusive in practice, each has different forestry management opportunities (Martin et al. 2011: 259). These categories are explored further below in Table 1.
| VDAC Type | Description | Estimated Land Coverage (ha) |
|---|---|---|
| Protected Communal Areas | Dominant type of ICCA in the VDAC framework. Often used for agroforestry land management practices and communal plantations of sustenance crops like Maize and Coffee, many smaller vegitative areas governed by Indigenous Peoples utilise this category of VDAC to ensure community land use rights are protected. Additionally, protected communal areas may be used for active land restoration where certain hardwood trees are planted by community members to aid in ecosystem recovery. | 191,531 |
| Certified Community Reserves | Similar to Protected Communal Areas but at larger scale, Certified Community Reserves were developed to recognise ejidos where governance practices are enabling sustainable use across whole communities. | 103,102 |
| Forestry Management Areas | Used to protect areas with defined Community Forestry Enterprises (CFEs), Forestry Management Areas are found in areas where communities have established communal enterprises to cultivate valuable timber species at a large scale. Timber management practices are then certified by CONANP to provide this designation. This is also one of the dominant protected area classifications among Zapotec Peoples. | 57,311 |
| Wildlife Management Areas | Similar to Forestry Management Areas, Wildlife Management Areas offer protections for communities who have established industries for the cultivation of biodiverse fauna, and/or Non-Timber Forest products. Although this classification plays a larger role in many northern areas of Mexico, Wildlife Management Areas are found less frequently in the state of Oaxaca. | 21,200 |
| Sacred Natural Sites | Although consistent with the IUCN's definition of community conserved areas, Sacred Natural Sites are least strongly recognized among state legislation. This category predominantly relates to the protection of culturally significant natural areas. Owing to the difficulties in assessing the locations and sizes of the sites (due to their confidentiality among Indigenous Peoples), SNSs are thought to be found more commonly within other forms of land protections, rather than on their own (Otegui-Acha et al. 2010: 210). | 2,313 |
Administrative arrangements
Community Level
As previously mentioned, the local forest decision-making process by Zapotec people in Oaxaca is mainly performed by autonomous, self-governing bodies under Usos y Custombres. This system has been in place since near the original colonization of Mexico by the Spanish empire, and although it originally was created from a prejudiced view of Indigenous Peoples as second-class citizens, it has provided a framework for Indigenous autonomy in the state of Oaxaca (Gill 2007: 3). Self-governed management practices are performed in the forms of both community-based forest and natural-resource management (CBNRM) and governance (CBNRG) (Gutierrez-Zamora & Estrada 2020: 1). These self governing bodies have maximum authority among their Asamblea General de Comuneros (General Assembly of Community Members, AGC), who elect community officials, formulate bylaws and determine the use and management of communal lands and resources at regular intervals (Gill 2007: 4). Thus, decision-making power ultimately lies within the community. The actual responsibility of implementing these decisions is decided by an elected community commission, who serve three year terms and are regularly monitored by an oversight committee which performs periodic audits (Markopoulos 1999: 31).
Regional Level
At a regional level, ejidos in close proximity to one another form municipal governments. These municipalities may either centralise in a municipal cabacera (capital), or form structures that do not rely on a capital, known as dependencias (Gill 2007: 9). All AGCs in a given region join together to elect municipal level officials, which often leads to the formation of different factions who alternate, naming presidents every one to three years (Gill 2007: 10). Similarly to the local level, however, ultimate authority rests with the AGCs who may vote to remove elected officials at any time. Other important regional-level positions include the Comisariado de Bienes Comunales (Commission of Common Goods), which are sometimes used to determine the management strategies used for natural resources among several communities at a time (Gill 2007: 11). Similarly, the Consejo de Ancianos (Council of Elders) is a common regional governing body among Zapotec communities, whose purpose is to provide guidance and monitor the effectiveness of the Comisariado (Gill 2007: 11). At a larger regional scale, municipalities may join together to form networks of forest-based communities. One example of this process is the Unión Zapoteca Chinanteca (UZACHI), a union of three Zapotec communities and one Chinantec community (a similar culture to Zapotecs, with around one third the population) who form a united political force capable of providing environmental assessments, forest management training, and lobbying power at a federal level (Gill, 2007: 16).
Federal Level
There are three main Mexican state institutions which directly interact with the land usage rights of Zapotecs. Firstly, although the ultimate decision-making power rests with the members of each AGC, forest management plans must be approved by the Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), who evaluate their social and environmental impacts before they may be implemented (Gill 2007: 12). However, despite this requirement of state permission, there is some consensus among Zapotecs that SEMARNAT does not inhibit their autonomy a great deal, because environmental considerations by community members tend to be more strict than those presented by the Mexican State (Gill 2007: 14). The second key institution is the National Forest Commission (CONAFOR), which represents more direct application of sustainable land use policy. Through programs like the Project for Conservation and Sustainable Management of Forest Resources in Mexico (PROCYMAF), CONAFOR enables Zapotec communities to pursue sustainable development projects by providing PES near conservation areas, as well as supporting Non-Timber Forest Product markets through funding from the World Bank (Gill 2007: 13). Finally, CONANP is the third main institution that interacts with Zapotecs, as they help to establish traditional NPAs (Barmeyer 2012: 54), along with providing assessment and certification of ICCAs through the VDAC program (Azcona et al. 2020: 153).
Affected Stakeholders
| Stakeholders | Primary Relevant Objectives | Relative Power (High-Low) |
|---|---|---|
| Zapotec Community General Assemblies |
|
High |
| Municipal Zapotec Governments |
|
High |
| Regional Indigenous Organizations (e.g. UZACHI) |
|
Relatively High |
| Individual farmers (e.g. milpas Maize farmers, coffee plantation farmers, etc.) |
|
Mid |
Interested Outside Stakeholders
| Stakeholders | Relevant Objectives | Relative Power (High-Low) |
|---|---|---|
| Private Resource Extraction Firms
(e.g. logging companies) |
|
Medium |
| Mexican State Institutions |
|
High |
| Outside Researchers |
|
Low |
| NGOs & Outside Activist Groups (e.g. WWF, IUCN, UNDP) |
|
Relatively Low |
| IGOs (e.g. World Bank, United Nations) |
|
Mid |
| Tourists |
|
Low |
Discussion
There are many examples across the state of Oaxaca that highlight the different paths of Indigenous forest management.
Management Successes
Santo Domingo Tonala Community Strategy for Wildlife Protection.
Citizens from three rural communities and one ejido started an organization called Consejo Municipal de Vigilancia de la Fauna y la Flora (the Municipal Council for Monitoring of Fauna and Flora, or COMUVIFAF), with the goal of developing and enforcing wildlife protections regulations. Most notably, the organization focused towards protecting deer populations in forests. As the organization developed further, contributors sought to orient themselves legally and push to legitimize the efforts of the movement by collaborating with Mexican institutions. In this case, with resources from SEMARNAT, they were able to allocate a Wildlife Management, Conservation, and Sustainable Utilization Unit (UMA), to restrict illegal hunting of deer, along with other practices known to degrade the forest such as goat grazing (Oviedo 2002: 18). This has largely resulted in the recovery of the deer and vegetation populations in the affected areas (Oviedo 2002: 18). Since the establishment of COMUVIFAF, their efforts have been turned into local law, and have contributed to the framework for managing these areas. This case represents an important example of a positive outcome through collaboration, owing to the role of SEMARNAT as a technical resource which maintained municipal autonomy, rather than a governing body which decreed how the natural resources should be managed (Oviedo 2002: 21).
Santa Maria Huatulco Communal Protected Areas System
The next example highlights the Santa Maria Huatulcoa area, and the community who created the The Communal Protected Areas System (CPAS), which looks to secure the natural heritage of the community, the management and protection of the forest biodiversity, and the social and economic development (Oviedo 2002: 22). The dry forest ecosystems Huatulcoa area originally presented a need for conservation, as around 98% of the original forest cover had been degraded (Oviedo 2002: 22). Following the proposition of Huatulco National Park by SEMARNAT, several Zapotec communities in the area initiated the development of the CPAS as an alternative to the proposed governance structure, for fear of losing access to traditional usage rights if their lands were declared an NPA (Oviedo 2002: 23). Their land management plan was instead incorporated into the park, and by collaborating with SEMARNAT the communities were able to foster other programs and relationships with NGO’s to help continue their vision (Oviedo 2002: 23). Though challenges have arisen against these efforts, such as the strong initial opposition to the national park and the tourism development projects which threaten vital ecosystems, further collaboration has the potential to assess the undeveloped benefits of the communal protected areas, and to solidify the integrity of communal life as well as the wildlife spaces (Oviedo 2002: 24).
Relative Failures
Protected Areas & Zapotec Communities
Of the two main systems of protected areas common in Oaxaca state, the older system of NPAs contains much more strict requirements for land that it incorporates (Barmeyer 2012: 52). Despite the success of these strict programs in of protection natural resources in Mexico, there have been points where they have represented sources of conflict among Zapotec communities. In these cases, institutional arrangements have sometimes failed to gain FPIC from local indigenous communities, they have not recognized traditional conservation methods and have prevented local communities from using their own land. One example of this is in the Zapotec community of Santiago Lachiguiri in southeastern Oaxaca (Barmeyer 2012: 52). Originally, in 2002, government officials from CONANP convinced the AGC to consent to the creation of an NPA on their lands, by highlighting the payments for ecosystem services that would benefit the village. However, there is some disagreement over how effectively CONANP communicated the drawbacks of this conserved area, as well as the equity of distribution of benefits accrued through the PES program. These concerns are summarized by Barmeyer (2012: 54) in three main points:
- Many villagers did not realize the degree of land restrictions that would come along with such a protected area.
- The duration for the project was agreed to be a 5-year trial period by the AGC, yet the agreement specified a 30-year moratorium on land use
- The PES system only offered compensation to individual families, rather than the community as a whole, resulting in only 20 of the 120 displaced rights holders gaining access to agricultural assistance offered by the program
Because of this miscommunication, Zapotec community members voted to end the agreement after discovering the actual duration of the agreement, and there continues to exist a distrust of state-sponsored conservation initiatives among community members (Barmeyer 2012: 55). Under newer VDAC agreements, management and control of land is similarly passed from Zapotecs to external actors working with CONANP, with the agreement that management decisions will be done with active participation and consultation from local communities (Azcona et al, 2020: 173). Despite this agreement, as well as the increased recognition of traditional usage among official ICCAs, emerging studies have reported that participation among Zapotecs continues to be very limited (Azcona et al, 2020: 173). Often, external actors will perform the bulk of the decision making process, and will manage the area almost entirely alone. Moreover, the initial understanding that VDAC was promoted by local communities has been questioned heavily, with reports that the agreement was met with large amounts of external pressure and little consultation to Zapotec communities (Azcona et al, 2020: 173).
Land Tenure Disputes
Since the decentralization and devolution of Mexican forest management responsibilities to the community level in the 1980s, CBNRM and CBNRG have offered important governance strategies for Zapotecs by aiding the control and management of their territories (Gutiérrez-Zamora & Hernández-Estrada 2020: 1). However, despite these community-focused management styles being generally viewed as successful, they have sometimes had difficulty resolving disputes over land tenure between communities. Although this devolution of power to Indigenous communities has resulted in a greater degree of control, there are several areas in its implementation that have lead to negative outcomes at the local level. In general, this decentralization process has increased the burden of responsibility for Zapotec communities, a process known as responsibilization (Gutiérrez-Zamora & Hernández-Estrada 2020: 2). Combined with reactive policies that remain in Mexican legislation (where government intervention is allowed after conflicts arise), some argue this burden of responsibility has functioned to stealthily increase state power (Gutiérrez-Zamora & Hernández-Estrada 2020: 12). A study reviewing 11 such socio-territorial conflicts found that difficulties in resolving land tenure disputes stemmed from remaining conflict resolution practices employed by Mexican government. Gutiérrez-Zamora & Hernández-Estrada (2020: 13) discuss four key characteristics of dispute resolution policy that have caused these difficulties:
- Forcing Indigenous communities engaged in land conflict through slow, bureaucratic and legalistic trials.
- Using almost entirely economic compensation as a method of resolution, only once land tenure dispute have escalated significantly.
- Limiting any use of the disputed land areas and natural resources by either party during the legal process.
- A lack of enforcement of agreements reached through legal means, followed by reactive policing after disputes have escalated into violence.
Thus, whether intentionally or not, the policies which allowed for the devolution of power to Zapotec communities have also allowed for the continued suppression of their autonomy. This does not necessarily mean that these policies have had a net negative effect, however a more thorough system of dispute resolution is needed to allow for land conflicts to resolve peacefully.
Assessment
Zapotec Indigenous Peoples
The Zapotec Peoples represent a key part of the ongoing initiative to recognize Indigenous land and community conserved areas. As a result of the adoption of Indigenous customary law by Oaxaca state, the self-governing Indigenous bodies of Zapotec ejidos and communities have a great degree of power at the local level to determine their land management policies (Gill 2007: 4; Markopoulos 1999: 30). However, there still remain some key limitations on their right to self-determination as a result of Mexican state policies. Firstly, the requirement of land management plans to be approved by SEMARNAT prior to their implementation, although generally not limiting to action in practice (Gill 2007: 12), maintains the notion of the Mexican government as the final consenting party in discussions of land management. Secondly, the lack of consideration to communication and FPIC in discussions around establishing protected areas through CONANP has limited the ability of Zapotec communities to make informed decisions when classifying their land as a protected area in the past (Barmeyer 2012: 54). Finally, the increased responsibilization following the devolution of rights to CBNRM & CBNRG has left many Zapotec communities with few options to settle disputes over land tenure. Thus, policy changes are required to ensure Zapotec communities hold the maximum power over their communal lands.
Government
State government publishes policy focused on preserving Oaxacas wild lands. However, the governments lack of incorporation of the Zapotec Indigenous peoples has directly affected the livelihoods of locals in the region. This case on the Zapotec Indigenous peoples journey to reclaim management of ancestral forests displays the indirect power a government can have. (Barmeyer 2012: 51). The Mexican governments power to ignore free, prior and informed consent from Zapotec communities when implementing Natural Protected Areas (NPAs) directly impacts the indigenous locals the on ancestral Zapotec territory.
Recommendations
VDAC and CPAS
Issues surrounding Zapotec people and the usage of resources under VDAC and CPAS plans have caused many hardships to the livelihoods of Zapotec communities. A study conducted by Azcona et al (2020: 172) interviewed local Zapotec community decision makers within their territories and found that conservation is a term that has been used by Zapotec people for centuries. The term is "Gapano" which generally means that people do not "own" the land, it is for collective use and "to have" is a responsibility to care. This term is said to be linked to the perception of an integral and holistic universes were everything is interconnected, relying on a symmetric relation between human and non human life (Azcona et al, 2020: 179). This contrasts with the modern conservation proposed by CONANP which demands complete avoidance of the natural world, leaving it in its pristine state. By integrating the term "Gapano" into conservation strategy and creating a more inclusive conservation policy, issues amongst Zapotec communities and conservation protocols could be avoided. This strategy could work along side local communities defining meanings, interests, motivations and life dynamics before developing management protocols promoting conservation. These conservation methods could allow the sustainable extraction of resources so as not to damage ecosystem function or structure and maintain livelihoods of Zapotec communities.
Land tenure disputes
To address issues surrounding land tenure disputes, their should be a drastic alteration towards CBNRM and CBNRG land-conflict resolution practices and mechanisms. This should include the ability for communities to have direct access to the socioeconomic factors behind land tenure disputes, access to fair trials and proper enforcement of dispute agreements. Land tenure disputes could benefit by altering forest policy to ensure that land tenure disputes focus on common interest of neighboring communities and interdependent forest management. Moreover, rather than absolute zero-sum conclusions, professional mediators in land tenure disputes can reduce conflict by creating collaborative forest management regimes where partial land or profits are shared in a fair and equitable way.
References
Azcona, I. P., Lugo, E. I. J. E., Ibarra, A. M. A., & Baltazar, E. B. (2020). Meanings of Conservation in Zapotec Communities of Oaxaca, Mexico. Conservation & Society, 18(2), 172–182.
Cid, R. A. (2019). Territory and ontology in the educational practices of an indigenous Zapotecan community in Mexico. Southern African Journal of Environmental Education, 35. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajee.v35i1.4
Dr. Barmeyer, Niels. (2012). “Local Effects of Global Forest Conservation Policy: On Zapotec Resistance against a Protected Natural Area.” In: “Fields and Forests: Ethnographic Perspectives on Environmental Globalization,” edited by Daniel Münster, Ursula Münster, and Stefan Dorondel, RCC Perspectives2012, no. 5,51–58. 10.5282/rcc/6158.
Gill, P. (2007). La Trinidad Ixtlán, Mexico indigenous community forestry: La Trinidad Ixtlán, Mexico indigenous community forestry. La Trinidad Ixtlán, Mexico Indigenous Community Forestry, 29.
Gutiérrez-Zamora, V., & Hernández Estrada, M. (2020). Responsibilization and state territorialization: Governing socio-territorial conflicts in community forestry in Mexico. Forest Policy and Economics, 116, 102188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102188.
Joyce, A. (2009). People, Culture and History. In Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Chatinos: Ancient Peoples of Southern Mexico. (pp. 1-34). Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Klooster, D. (2000). Institutional Choice, Community, and Struggle: A Case Study of Forest Co-Management in Mexico. World Development, 28(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00108-4
Markopoulos, M. (1999). Community Forest Enterprise and certification in Mexico. Oxford Forestry Institute, 67.
Martin, G.J., Camacho Benavides, C.I., Del Campo García, C.A., Anta Fonseca, S., Chapela Mendoza, F. and González Ortíz, M.A. (2011), "Indigenous and community conserved areas in Oaxaca, Mexico", Management of Environmental Quality, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 250-266. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777831111113419.
Minnesota Population Center. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, International: Version 6.4 [dataset]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2015. http://doi.org/10.18128/D020.V6.4.
Oviedo, G. (ed) 2002. “The Community Protected Natural Areas in the State of Oaxaca, Mexico.” WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Salcido, Ramón Pérez Gil (1995). "Natural Protected Areas in Mexico". The George Wright Forum. 12: 30–38 – via JSTOR.