Geospatial modeling
It is necessary to put clearly that Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is necessary previous to develop any activity related to Map or community mapping in Indigenous land or territories
Institutional analysis
All the indicators are related to natural resources conservation, but there is no reference to agrobiodiversity and land farming systems (as Milpa, chacra, fallow agriculture).
It is not implicit that for all the activities related to this issue it is needed not just the allowance by the FPIC but a continuous process to inform and include the participation of indigenous peoples using participatory methodologies
All the approach is related to conservation and protection. I think it is a mistake to think that all related activities in an indigenous territory are on this frame. It is not easy to identify strict enforcement rules without understanding that communities are living entities that created such rules influenced by local decisions or external pressures.
For more details on this discussion please look at:
CHHATRE, A. y A. Agrawal (2008) Forest commons and local enforcement. PNAS Vol. 105
No. 36 13286-13291
BERKES, F y N. Turner. (2006) Knowledge, Learning and the Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems. In: El manejo de los recursos de uso común: la conservación de la biodiversidad. Ed: Leticia Merino y Jim Robinson. FyG editores México. pp. 22-33
BERKES, F. et al. (2000). “Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management”, Ecological Applications. Vol. 10, num. 5, pp. 1251-1262.
ROMA, R. (2006) Cross sectorial issues in a post conflict zone in Guatemala: El Amay Mountain Initiative, Quiché, Guatemala. Pp. 10-11. ELP Alumni Newsletter College of Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley, EUA.
SCHWARTZMANN, S., D. Nepstad y A. Moreira. (2000) Arguing Tropical Forest
Conservation: People versus Parks. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, No. 5: 1370-1374
TOLEDO, V. et al. (2003). “The multiple use of tropical forests by indigenous people in México: a case of adaptive management”, Conservation Ecology. Vol. 7, num. 3, pp. 9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geospatial modeling
I think there is a lack of information about politics that are highlighted as the external forces that drives deforestation. At the same time there are many scholars that had pointed that not all protected areas reach the function of biodiversity conservation in comparison with communal land management .
Lands are legally controlled
There are many indigenous groups that still do not have any governmental recognition instead they have live for centuries in such lands, and previous the creation of current countries and its borders (e.g. Botswana's San People, Ethiopia's Om People, Myanmar's Rohingya People, Argentina's and Chile's Mapuche).
People do not act to protect “biodiversity” they act to protect their territory
- The governmental efforts to conserve in my opinion could not be considered as collective action, because the Government is not part of any community or indigenous group.
- It is not easy to calculate the “budget” that indigenous communities spent in “protect” their forest, because many do so by collective action rules, in which such activities are their compromise without any compensation ( money). If we try to put price to an activity that is part of the formal responsibilities of community members, we are putting in risk the community services by adding value that something that has not value.
Some bibliographical references to discuss about this issue:
ACOSTA, M.L. (2004). El derecho de los pueblos indígenas al aprovechamiento sostenible de sus bosques: El caso de la comunidad Mayangna (sumo) de Awas Tingi. URACCAN. Nicaragua 180 p.
ELIAS, S et al. (2009). Tenencia de la tierra, bosques y medios de vida en el altiplano occidental de Guatemala. PERT/FAUSAC Guatemala 28p.
EKERN, S. (2010). Chuwi Meq'enJa': comunidad y liderazgo en la Guatemala K'iche'. Cholsamaj, Guatemala 285p.
HAYES, T. (2006) Parks, people and forest protection an institutional assessment of the
effectiveness of protected areas. World Development Vol. 34, No. 12, 2064-2075
IBARRA, J. et al. (2011). “When formal and market-based conservation mechanisms disrupt food sovereignty: Impacts of community conservation and payments for environmental services on an indigenous community of Oaxaca, Mexico”, International Forestry Review. Vol. 13, num. 3, pp. 318-337.
LOPEZ BARCENAS, F Nava Ku Ka'anu in Ñuú: Para engrandecer al pueblo. Pensando el desarrollo entre los mixtecos. Centro de orientacion y asesoría a pueblos indígenas. México 120 p.
PERES C.A. y B. Zimmerman. (2001) “Perils in Parks or Parks in Peril? Reconciling Conservation in Amazonian Reserves with and without use”. Conservation Biology, Vol 15 No. 3: 793-797
REDFORD K.H. y A.M Stearman. (1993) Forest dwelling native Amazonians and the
conservation of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 7: 248-255
ROMA, R. Gestión comunitaria del bosque nuboso en San Miguel Uspantán y Chicamán, Quiché, Guatemala: las reglas de uso comunitarias como base para la permanencia del bosque. Tesis de Maestría. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Chiapas, México. 2011. 125 p.
URL. (1998) El sistema jurídico Maya: una aproximación. URL/IDIES Guatemala 202 p.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutional analysis
All the different steps could not be carried out without the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in which it is needed to explain what will be the advantages and risks to develop such methodology. At first glance it seems that the authors follow an extractive methodology for reach governmental or conservative goals. It is not any reference of what could be the main interest of any community to write such information by a team leaded by outsiders.
It is important to think about the importance of indigenous territories for Governments, not just for conservation goals, but for mining, dams, fracking, etc, for that reason I think that this information could put in risk the customary use of indigenous territories. Thus it is not clear who will be the owner of the obtained information.
Bibliographical references to discuss about this issue:
AGRAWAL, A., et al. 2008 Changing governance of the world forests. Science Vol 320, 1460-1462
BERKES, F et al. 1989 The benefit of the commons. Nature Vol. 340, 91-93
IBARRA, J. et al. (2011). “When formal and market-based conservation mechanisms disrupt food sovereignty: Impacts of community conservation and payments for environmental services on an indigenous community of Oaxaca, Mexico”, International Forestry Review. Vol. 13, num. 3, pp. 318-337.
IUCN (2006) Policy Matters: Poverty, wealth and conservation. Issue 14. CEESP. Hoonan, Tehran, Iran. 440 p.
IUCN (2010) Policy Matters: Poverty, wealth and conservation Exploring the right to diversity in conservation law, policy, and practice. Issue 17. 251 p.
OSTROM E. (2000) El gobierno de los bienes comunes: la evolución de las instituciones de acción colectiva. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. México Pp. 392
PHELPS, J et al. (2010) Does Redd+ threat to recentralize forest governance?. Science Vol. 328, 312-313
SCHLAGER, E. y E. Ostrom (1992) Property rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Economics, Vol. 68, No. 3, 249-262
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2.1
The approach is just to obtain as much information at community level but there is no any explanation of community engagement, which will be the ethics on the research and the most important the Free Prior and Inform Consent. Such information could put in risk places, traditional norms and collective work, because it is only focused on conservation matters.
Community actions related to its territory are more integral and complex than this methodological approach. This methodology lack's of co-enquiry approaches, and in my perspective it seems again an approach to colonized the knowledge.
Ecological assessment module
The approach lack of participatory methodologies, the Free Prior and Informed Consent is not the basis to develop such work. That represent an imminent risk for Indigenous Peoples.
Bibliographical references:
BEACON NORTH EAST. Co-enquiry Toolkit. (2011) Community-university participatory research partnerships: co-enquiry and related approaches. Durham University.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/beacon/CoinquiryTookitFINAL.pdfBERKES, F., Colding, J y Folke, C. (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Aplications. Vol. 10, Num. 5, 1251-1262 p. Estados Unidos.
BROWN, L. y Strega, S. (2005) Research as resistance: critical, indigenous and anti-oppressiveapproaches. Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press. 312 p.
http://occupyresearchcollective.files.wordpress.com/2012/06research_as_resistance__critical__indigenous__and_anti_oppressive_approaches1.pdf BROWN, K., y Potts K. Capítulo 10: Becoming an Anti-oppressive researcher. En: Brown, L; Strega S. (eds). Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches. Canadian Scholar's Press. Canada. Pp. 255-286
CAMACHO-BENAVIDES, C., Caruso, E., del Campo-García, C., Roma-Ardón R. (2014) Desarrollo de un modelo de co-investigación en y para un contexto etnobiológico. Estudio de caso en dos comunidades chinantecas. IX Congreso Mexicano de Etnobiología, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas
CAMACHO BENAVIDES, C., Caruso, E., Roma-Ardón R., del Campo-García, C. (2014)Acercando las etnociencias a actores comunitarios a través de procesos educativos en investigación colaborativa. IX Congreso Mexicano de Etnobiología, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas
Freire, P. ¿Extensión o comunicación? La concientización en el medio rural. 19a. Edición. Siglo Veintiuno Editores. México. 1996. 108 p.
MARTIN, G., Camacho, C., del Campo, C., Roma, R. (2014) Investigación comunitaria, aprendizaje mutuo y divulgación participativa.
http:
http://www.combioserve.org/es/project/investigacion-comunitaria-aprendizaje-mutuo-y-divulgacio-participativa
PERSIC, A. y Martin, G. (2008) Links between biological and cultural diversity-concepts, methods and experiences. Report of an International Workshop, UNESCO, Paris.
SMITH, L.T. (1999) Decolonising methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. London, Zed
books
