(Dis)agreements in the management of conservation conflicts in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, Mexico

Abstract

Summary To manage widespread conservation conflicts, building a shared understanding among the parties involved has been considered key. However, there is little empirical evidence of the role this understanding might play in the context of imposed biosphere reserves. Using semi-structured and in-depth interviews in two communities within the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, we explored whether or not there is a shared understanding of conflicts between local people and reserve managers, and we analysed its contribution to conflict management. We found that a shared understanding is not a determining factor when the conflict solution demands actions that exceed stakeholders’ functions. While a shared understanding helps with the global process of conflict management, there are other challenges: local impairment resulting from the exclusionary creation and the operation of protected areas and the need for action to solve a conflict that exceeds the functions of stakeholders.

Impact of Productive Activities on Forest Cover Change in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Region: Evidence and Research Gaps

“…Biosphere reserves in Mexico have particularly complex zoning because they are usually established on historically occupied land under social ownership, which restricts local owners’ use of forest resources (Durand & Jímenez, 2010). The establishment of CBR in 1989 implied a series of agreements, rearrangements, and conflicts in land-use planning and the regulation of productive activities (Levy-Tacher et al, 2019; Oliva et al, 2020). The CBR zoning resulted in the ‘humanless’ core zone experiencing the recovery of mature forests (Porter-Bolland et al, 2015).…”

Understanding Social Dimensions in Wildlife Conservation: Multiple Stakeholder Views

“…Instead, it can escalate because community needs for social and economic development often cause negative landscape changes, which impact wildlife distribution [ 4 , 56 ]. Global measures for mitigating both conflicts across different continents show varying degrees of success [ 7 , 57 ]. These measures include: (1) compensation, electrical fences, and legislation for human–wildlife conflict; (2) shared understanding of differing stakeholder values regarding conservation; (3) improved transparency and trust by engaging all parties; (4) willingness of parties to recognize problems as shared and to have open discussions about them, and (5) understanding that certain actions required for solving both types of conflicts exceed stakeholder capabilities [ 7 , 57 , 58 ].…”

“…Global measures for mitigating both conflicts across different continents show varying degrees of success [ 7 , 57 ]. These measures include: (1) compensation, electrical fences, and legislation for human–wildlife conflict; (2) shared understanding of differing stakeholder values regarding conservation; (3) improved transparency and trust by engaging all parties; (4) willingness of parties to recognize problems as shared and to have open discussions about them, and (5) understanding that certain actions required for solving both types of conflicts exceed stakeholder capabilities [ 7 , 57 , 58 ]. Kinabatangan authorities use electrical fences and appoint honorary wildlife wardens to address human–animal conflicts.…”