FROM “ORPHANS OF THE STATE” TO THE COMUNIDAD CONSERVACIONISTA INSTITUCIONAL: THE CASE OF THE LACANDÓN COMMUNITY, CHIAPAS¹

1. The title alludes to the well-known article by Jan Rus entitled “The ‘Comunidad Revolucionaria Institucional’: The Subversion of Native Government in Highland Chiapas, 1936–1968” (1994). Although the process described by Rus, whereby Highland communities in Chiapas became harnessed to the state (and the ruling party) through the “co-optation of native community structures” (1994: 267–268), is distinct from the case described here, I suggest a new form of clientelistic relationship between the state and those indigenous communities that “own” areas rich in biodiversity. For this reason I refer to the Comunidad Conservacionista Institucional (Institutional Conservationist Community), echoing the name of the Mexican state party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional [PRI]), which ruled Mexico from 1928 to 2000.

Abstract

This article briefly traces the history of the Lacandón Community in the Lacandón rainforest of Chiapas to reflect upon the impact of growing state presence in a hitherto periphery region of southern Mexico. This agrarian community, created in 1972, and made up of Tzeltal, Chol, and Lacandón Maya groups, has become over the decades an important player in the current configuration of interests that purportedly aim to conserve the remaining forest in this strategic region. The article shows how these three ethnic groups have become gradually absorbed into the logic and practices of the state, developing a novel clientelistic relationship in the context of efforts at biodiversity conservation. But rather than becoming traditionally dependent political clients, the Lacandón Community has unusual leverage in its relationship with the state as the legal owner of 500,000 hectares of sub-tropical forest, containing seven protected areas. But the article concludes that despite the Lacandón Community's relative influence in the region (compared to other peasant indigenous communities with distinct political affiliations) and its sporadic struggles to attain more autonomy of action, this occurs within limits defined by the state; in other words, the state continues to define the plot, if not the exact script.

Key Words:

• Chiapas (Mexico)
• Lacandón Community
• the state
• agrarian history
• biodiversity conservation
• clientelism

I thank the University of Manchester (UK) and the Economic and Social Research Council for providing the vital financial support for the doctoral stage of this research (1999–2002), the three anonymous reviewers who commented on a previous version of this manuscript for their valuable suggestions, and José Luis Escalona for helping me to make the necessary cuts to the final version.

Notes

1. The title alludes to the well-known article by Jan Rus entitled “The ‘Comunidad Revolucionaria Institucional’: The Subversion of Native Government in Highland Chiapas, 1936–1968” (1994). Although the process described by Rus, whereby Highland communities in Chiapas became harnessed to the state (and the ruling party) through the “co-optation of native community structures” (1994: 267–268), is distinct from the case described here, I suggest a new form of clientelistic relationship between the state and those indigenous communities that “own” areas rich in biodiversity. For this reason I refer to the Comunidad Conservacionista Institucional (Institutional Conservationist Community), echoing the name of the Mexican state party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional [PRI]), which ruled Mexico from 1928 to 2000.

2. Much of this article is derived from my Ph.D. thesis (Trench 2002), but it also reflects subsequent fieldwork in the region within the framework of the research project “Sustainable Development and Society in Priority Conservation Regions” at the Universidad Autónoma Chapingo in Chiapas, Mexico.

3. By the term “irregular settlements,” I refer to a diverse group of communities that have occupied land within the Lacandón Community for differing amounts of time, but whose agrarian position has never been formally acknowledged by the authorities.

4. The phrase “orphans of the state” was used by Gertrude Duby to describe the Lacandones in 1944, to highlight the fact that this tiny ethnic group had been largely ignored by the Mexican government until the mid-twentieth century.

5. In the last five years alone, the Lacandón Forest has witnessed the intervention of the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility (GEF), most recently through the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor project, the United Nations Population Fund, and the European Union through its bilateral participation in the Proyecto Desarrollo Social Integrado y Sostenible (Integrated and Sustainable Social Development Project [PRODESIS]), which operates in eighteen micro-regions in and around the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve (2004–2008). The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has also channeled funds through the transnational NGO, Conservation International.

6. Compare, for example, the differing hypotheses in Scholes and Roys 1948, Hellmuth 1972, Thompson 1977, De Vos 1980, Perrera and Bruce 1982, and Aubry 1987.

7. Between 1903 and 1905 an ethnographic study was carried out by a North American anthropologist in one of the northern Lacandón settlements (Tozzer 1907). Since then there have been a number of studies. See, for example, the works by Bruce (1967; 1968; 1974; 1977), Marion (1991; 1997; 1999), McGee (1990), and Soustelle (1971).

8. For example, since 2003, the Lacandones have participated in an annual, nationwide campaign to “save” the Lacandón Forest promoted by TV Azteca (one of the two principal national television networks) and sponsored by the Ford Motor Company (“Salvemos la Selva Lacandona”). In such spaces, the Lacandones are presented as the “legitimate” inhabitants of the forest, defending their inheritance from vaguely defined forces, such as “invader” communities, forest fires, and meddling, left-wing NGOs.

9. The ejido was the principal way in which the Mexican state distributed land to campesinos during the period of agrarian reform (1917–1992). Ejidos are portions of land allocated to applicants on a collective basis, although they are generally managed by family production units. Until 1992 they remained property of the state lent in perpetuity, but they now can be bought and sold under certain conditions.

10. There are now a number of studies that deal exclusively or partially with the colonization of this region; see especially Lobato (1979), Leyva and Ascensio (1996), O'Brien (1998), and De Vos (2002). See also Navarro Smith in this volume.

11. Conservation International is a United States-based international organization, founded in 1987, dedicated to the conservation of biodiversity that works in forty countries worldwide. In Chiapas it has attracted certain local notoriety owing to its alleged connections with the American intelligence community and its “hard-line” on the irregular communities within the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve.

12. The Chiapas office of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) chose two priority areas in the Lacandón forest: the Nahá and Metsabok reserves and the Communal Reserve of La Sierra de la Cojolita. Both, needless to say, belong to the Lacandón Community, which, incidentally, is the only community in the Lacandón Forest represented in the MBC's Consultative Council established to ensure regional “participation” in the GEF-sponsored program.

13. Work Group for the Integral Attention to the Lacandón Community and the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve (El Grupo de trabajo para la Atención Integral a la Comunidad Lacandona y la Reserva de la Biosfera de Montes Azules).

14. It is worth noting that the legal mechanism used to relocate “irregular” settlements outside of the Lacandón Community does not derive directly from the government or from environmental legislation (as it is generally supposed), but from charges (demandas) initiated by the Lacandón Community (through its own attorneys) based on the fact that parts of its territory have been illegally occupied by outsiders. This is obviously convenient for government authorities because they can claim to be simply responding to legal complaints lodged by the affected party.

Diario Oficial de la Federación, 6/3/72. Resolución sobre reconocimiento y titulación a favor del núcleo de población Zona Lacandona, municipio de Ocosingo, Chiapas. Pp. 10–13.

Diario Oficial de la Federación, 12/1/78. Decreto por el que se declara de interés público el establecimiento de la zona de protección forestal de la cuenca del río Tulijá, así como de la reserva integral de la biosfera Montes Azules, en el área comprendida dentro de los límites que se indican. Pp. 6–8.

Diario Oficial de la Federación, 8/3/79. Resolución sobre reconocimiento de derechos agrarios comunales en el núcleo de población denominado ‘Zona Lacandóna’, municipio de Ocosingo, Chiapas. Pp. 40–45.

Diario Oficial de la Federación, 23/9/98. Decreto por el que se declaran Áreas Protegidas de Flora y Fauna a las tierras comunales de Najá y Metsabok, con una superficie de 3,863 y 3,385 hectáreas respectivamente. Pp. 1–10.

Diario Oficial de la Federación, 8/5/07. Decreto por el que se expropia por causa de utilidad Pública una superficie de 14,096–97–18 hectáreas de temporal de uso común, de terrenos de la comunidad Zona Lacandona, Municipio de Ocosingo, Chis. Pp. 26–33.