SMA PROGRAMS: Biocultural Conservation:
Backlash: A Strategy of Defamation and Aggression

Despite the general support for the Biosphere Reserve in the Sierra and with the State and Municipio governments, the logging and mining sectors began to aggressively oppose the reserve in early 2005. Opposition was led by a group of Jesuit missionaries and an NGO called CONTEC, who launched a widespread campaign of misinformation against the reserve, as well as a defamation campaign against CONANP and the NGOs involved in pre-planning the Biosphere Reserve.

Initially, the basis for the attacks was that the Biosphere Reserve would violate indigenous rights. In other areas of the world, conservation organizations and agencies have been criticized for alleged violations of indigenous rights in establishing protected areas. Some of these criticisms are based upon well-documented cases, but most are highly exaggerated and overblown, as most conservation organizations are deeply committed to indigenous rights.

In Chihuahua, the Jesuits convoked forums of Indigenous leaders where misinformation was presented. It was said that CONANP would force relocations, prohibit traditional use of timber for construction and firewood, and restrict hunting and harvesting of medicinal plants. Indigenous leaders supportive of the reserve were slandered, and one was kidnapped and threatened.  Despite this campaign, most indigenous leaders remained either neutral or supportive of the reserve.  This support was strengthened where CONANP, SMA, and CESTAC conducted workshops with the indigenous pueblos.

In June, 2005,SMA co-sponsored a forum (with World Wildlife Fund and the Inter-Institutional Porgram for Indigenous Affairs, PAIA) on indigenous rights and protected areas in Mexico which brought representatives of indigenous communities, CONANP and NGOs from seven protected areas in Mexico to openly discuss benefits and problems within their protected areas.  The forum revealed that claims of violations of indigenous rights within Biosphere Reserves had been largely over-stated. CONANP in recent years had made exemplary advances in respecting indigenous rights and assuring tangible benefits to local communities within and surrounding protected areas.

Mexico already possesses a vast network of Biosphere Reserves and other protected areas, encompassing nearly 10 percent of national territory. Millions of dollars are invested each year in alternative development in these regions, including crafts and ecotourism, temporary employment, watershed restoration, and in some cases, payments for relocation of recent immigrants from ecologically sensitive areas.  In the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, the federal government is investing nearly $20,000,000 in US dollars to settle land conflicts.

However, there have been historic abuses of indigenous rights in Mexico by conservation agencies and organizations. Prior to 2000, reserves were often declared with inappropriate local participation or even the total absence of consultation with the actual inhabitants. Some restrictions in management plans did infringe upon indigenous rights and some forced relocations occurred.  The most common ethical problem for large conservation organizations has been their focus on negotiation and program development with federal and local government rather than local communities or indigenous groups.   However, the trend in conservation over the past decade has been a greater focus on community diagnostic and planning.

CONANP and conservation organizations have made extraordinary progress in respecting indigenous rights and community participation in recent years. For example, the General Law for Ecological Equilibrium enables the Secretariat of the Environment to adapt regulations of core protected areas according to local traditions. This statute was the basis for an agreement between the NGOs and CONANP to protect indigenous rights in Chihuahua.

Despite the clear indication of positive benefits for indigenous groups and other residents, opposition from the Jesuits and CONANP continued to mount in 2005. International mining companies and some of the most corrupt logging interests in the state to aggressively attacked the proposal. Not surprisingly, mining companies are currently planning dozens of mines and investments of over 60 million dollars in the Sierra Madre with little oversight.

Advertisements attacking the reserve and the involvement of SMA and CONANP were placed in local newspapers by logging and mining interests. Other foresters and former government officials involved in the defamation of the reserve proposal are a “who’s who” list of alleged illegal loggers and associates of local foresty and narco-mafias. SMA and CONANP for a time were ludicrously labeled the biggest threat to the economic security and culture of the Sierra Tarahumara by this coalition of hysterical clergy and industry leaders. Negative rumors and threats were circulated against indigenous leaders such as Luz Elena Villalobos, Martin Chavez, and Alejandro Rivas of CESTAC (EcoRegional Counsel of the Sierra Tarahuamara).  Luz Elena, president of Buwi Nikuruma Raramuri, a coalition of 100 indigenous governors in the Municipio of Bocoyna,  was kidnapped and held for 18 hours.  She, her husband and children were threatened for collaborating with SMA.  Nevertheless, Luz and the governors in her organization remained supportive of the Biosphere Reserve, and continue to collaborate with SMA.

When questioned about their motives for attacking the Biosphere Reserve, a representative of CONTEC responded “Los gobernadores no saben nada (The governors do not know anything)…”  and then revealed her underlying motives “es demasiado poder para Sierra Madre Alliance y la CONANP (it is too much power for Sierra Madre Alliance and CONANP).”  

As a result of all this controversy, the state government withdrew support for a large scale reserve and is proposing a small, 50,000 hectare reserve in the Barranca Batopilas that has little conservation significance. CONANP has shown little interest in the diminutive state proposal to date.