natural protected areas and decentralization in the ... · alfredo arellano guillermo, julia fraga...

117

Natural protected areas and decentralization in the Peninsula of Yucatan

Alfredo Arellano Guillermo, Julia Fraga y Rafael Robles de Benito

Introduction

The themes on environmental management, particularly those related to t han-dling of the Natural Protected Areas (anp) as the most solid instruments for the in situ conservation of natural wealth, have gained force due to the accel-

erated degradation of the ecosystems and the diminishment of biological diversity.The anp´s include areas of human population with a great socio-economic mar-

ginal degree; a condition that for some of the authorities offers the possibility of facing the situation with one strategy for the social marginality as well as for the biological conservation. However, this is not necessarily compatible, as the conser-vation of biodiversity can imply new restrictions for the use of the natural resources, assigning economically unsustainable quotas.

A general look at the distribution map of the anp´s in Mexico and particularly of the Peninsula of Yucatan shows a great percentage of the total of protected areas with different management categories, which, therefore, becomes a problem, where the existence of multiple interests also generates a diversity of real or potential prob-lems. That is, a multiple use of territory where a second critical aspect is the fact that these anp, specifically those on coastal zones, register an increasing demand from

118

Decentralization anD environmental management. coastal governance in mexico

119


the tourist market in all its modals. A third critical aspect is the one directly related with the growth of the anp area, the use of land and the available resources, that is, they become areas of political interest and can be considered as competitors of the municipalities.

At present, the number of natural protected areas of Federal administration in Mexico is 149, with a total area of 17 486,741 hectares. The Yucatan Peninsula has 19 of them (12.75%) with a total of 2 620,010 hectares, representing 15% of the total hectares (Table 1). As well, the local governments have decreed 12 anp of state administration (6 in Yucatan, 4 in Quintana Roo and 2 in Campeche) with a total of 932,296 hectares and one of municipal administration (Merida).

The complexity in the management of the natural protected areas

Different from other countries, in which the land where the natural protected areas are established is property of the administrating government under the category of public wealth, in Mexico they remain, in most of their extension, private, “ejido” or communal property. On the other hand, to understand the complexity of the mana-gement it is necessary to observe what many users of the natural resources consider as acquired rights,1 particularly in the case of the marine anp, which require a special analysis of the access to the public wealth. This implies the need to plan and discuss with all the local residents and temporary visitors, owners and users, the use of the land and the natural resources management under schemes that will allow them to have and maintain participation.

The complexity of the anp administration does not end with what was mentioned before. To achieve an efficient territorial administration and management of the nat-ural resources, an integration of public policies in the midst of this territorial space is required. To achieve this implies being able to fall into the decisions of more than 10 government offices, from the environmental sector as well as from other govern-mental sectors in the three levels of government, in relation to the enforcement of the government programs, in what refers to use of land authorizations, permits, and concessions, as well as the resource exploitation (Table 2).

1 It is worth while asking if this concept of “acquired rights” has any judicial sense in a society that pretend to be democratic and is said to be subject to a State of Law. It would seem that the idea of acquired rights answers, not to a formal judicial frame, but to a criterion that attends the first to arrive or, in the worst of cases, to the law of the strongest.

118


119


Table 1. Natural Protected Areas of Federal Administration.Natural Protected Area Date of Decree Surface

Reserve of Calakmul’s Biosphere May-23-89 723 185Reserve of Sian Ka’an Biosphere Jan-20-86 528 148Reserve of Sian Ka’an Reefs Biosphere Feb-02-98 34 927Reserve Los Retenes Biosphere May-24-99 282 858Reserve Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Jul-19-96 144 360Reserve Ria Celestun Biosphere Nov-27-00 81 482Reserve Ria Lagartos Biosphere May-21-99 60 348Uaymil Flora and Fauna Protection Area Nov-22-94 89 118Yum Balam Flora and Fauna Protection Area Jun-06-94 154 052Otoch Ma’ax Yetel Kooh Flora and Fauna Protection Area

Jun-05-00 5 367

Bala’an K’aax Flora and Fauna Protection Area May-03-05 128 390National Park Xcalak Reefs Nov-27-00 17 949National Park Puerto Morelos Reefs Feb-02-98 9 067National Park Cozumel Reefs Jul-19-96 11 988National Park East side of Isla Mujeres, Punta Cancun and Punta Nizuc

Jul-19-96 8 673

Isla Contoy National Park Feb- 02-98 5 126National Park Alacranes Reef Jun-06-94 333 769Tulum National Park Apr-23-81 664Dzibilchaltun National Park ** Apr-14-87 539Total surface 2 620 010* Some of the ANP have decrees with prior dates. However, they were postponed in order to adjust them to the current management categories.** The administration was given to the State of Yucatan; however the Federal decree has not yet been annulled. Source: National Commission of Natural Protected Areas.

120


121


Table 2. Government offices in charge of issuing authorizations, permits and concessions, and of applying development programs in the National Protected Areas.

Trámites y Aplicación de Programas DependenciaProceedings and Program Application Government office

Fishing permits conapesca-sagarpa

umas permits – Hunting Dgvs-semarnat

Permits to change the use of land - Forestry Dgvs-semarnat

Permits for forestry exploitation Dgfs-Dgira-semarnat

Concession for the exploitation of federal Marine/land zone

Dgzofematac-semarnat

Permits of environmental impact matters Dgira-Del-semarnat

Construction permits MunicipalityCommercial functioning licences MunicipalityVessel traffic Captain of the Port – sct

Permits for scientific collection in anp’s Dgvs/conapesca

Endowment and regularization of National land sra

Division of “ejido” land sra

Development of partial plans for Urban development (pDu)

Municipality

Tourist-commercial exploit permits conanp

Appliance of social development programs seDesol, sectur, conaDepi, sagarpa

Permits for the use of National waters cna-semarnat

Design, planning and application of Territorial Ecological Ordinance Programs

(pet, poel) Dgp-semarnat, State/Municipal governments

Source: Political Constitution of the Mexican United States. Federal Government – Internal Ruling.

120


121


The examples in which the policies or decisions of the different government or-ganisms are contradictory due to the sector vision of each office or administrative area, as well as the criteria used by the officials who issue permits or authorizations, are multiple and diverse. This constantly affects great part of the management per-formed by the anp administrations, especially when the communal work requires a consensus on the use of the natural resources. This is frequently seen in the cases in which the authority responsible of the anp – with the formal backing of the Manage-ment Program of the area under its control – and the users of the natural resources voluntarily adopt better management practices, as is the case of the elimination of fishing nets in high biological productivity areas.

In as much as the fishing resources start recovering, nothing guarantees that this agreement will be backed by the fishery authority and, going against a community’s initiative, will authorize new groups or concessions or the fishing with nets; ending with social and judicial problems, as well as discredit towards the governmental institutions, including the anp administration.

We also have to take into account that in other occasions the communal work is convoked by non-governmental organization working at local community’s level and are strictly linked with the municipalities and the representatives of the govern-ment offices. Therefore, many of the consensuses with management schemes are not concluded resulting in discouragement of the local groups and puts them in contra-dictory dynamics of decision making on local matters.

The Management Program is the instrument that the anp have for the planning of the use of land and the exploiting activities of the natural resources. However, this instrument presents serious limitations, even when it is presented as the most adequate to reflect a real integration of the public policies. It has very little judicial weight, as it has to subdue to what is established in the different laws and regulations of territorial administration, use of land and exploit of natural resources. That is, it cannot establish new norms and regulations if these are already defined in any other regulatory instrument, which makes it difficult for it to become and ad hoc instru-ment to attend on all the specific needs of each anp.

The Management Programs as well have limitations in the regulation of densi-ties and construction rules of development works inside the anp, in such a way that the use of the Territorial Ecological Ordinance Programs (poet-poel) and the Urban Development Plans (pDu) become alternative instruments in the planning and regula-tion. Based on this premise, to attend the need to regulate the construction densities in the coastal zone of the Reserve of Sian Ka’an Biosphere a poet was conceived, while the National Parks of Xcalak and Tulum have been considered within the plans of regional or local poet. The Management Programs are also limited in the marine

122


123


anp for the regulation of fishing and other type of activities held in other judicial instruments.

Within this complexity are the processes for public consult of the anp Manage-ment Programs, in which the problem of representation of the economical sectors of the “community” and the Federal, state and municipal offices is present. Another problem refers to the continuity of consensuses and the “appropriation”; that the ac-tors involved take over or share responsibilities.

Generally the social sectors guide responsibilities in a one way fashion, leaving the total solution of the problems to the government. And on the government’s side, it is frequent that the municipality does not adopt the responsibilities and capabili-ties it should. The problem of communication and negotiation has to be considered not only in what concerns the government’s organizations and their different levels, but also the ong´s, taking into account their strong dependency on the actions of the organizations that finance the conservation and development activities.

Decentralization of natural protected areas

In the construction of a genuine Federal and democratic system, one of the themes, which analysis is still pending, is the one that implies the administrative decentrali-zation of the Federal government’s faculties towards the states and municipalities for the management of Natural Protected Areas.

When observing the complexity that entails the management of the anp, it is worth asking if its administration would be easier in the hands of the State or munici-pal governments. Even though there are some experiences, a documented analysis has not been made of the results, and consequently neither has it been determined which are the elements required to define policies directed to enrich the conservation strategies.

To better understand the decentralization schemes it is necessary to point out the normative options that have been implemented in the Yucatan Peninsula and that are part of this analysis. The following modals are not exclusive, but we present them segmented with the intention of offering a more detailed analysis and a better histori-cal understanding.

Coercive decentralization. In this modal, the state and municipalities are treated as regulatory agents for the Federal government. It is expected that they perform a series of prerequisites imposed by the Federal government. The management policies and regulatory measures should have standards and procedures to achie-ve the fulfillment of objectives and reduce the discretion of the authority. When

122


123


these measures are not fulfilled, the Federal government can establish certain sanctions. Under this premise, the Federal government – first through seDue and, in due time seDesol – decentralized the management of the Reserve of Calakmul Biosphere in Campeche at the beginning of the 90’s.Cooperative decentralization. This is an approximation to the inter-governmen-tal structures and treaties of the Federal government with the states, provinces, municipalities or other governmental units, in which they are conceived as “part-ners”. It is assumed that the necessary agreements exist between the government and the indispensable coordination for the appliance of public policies and, suffi-cient incentives for the achievement of goals. Even though we can point out that due to the requirements needed by the anp in Mexico, this modal is a desirable condition and is working in the proper direction, it is also true that there are ex-periences where the signing of these more formal co-administration agreements have generated non commendable experiences as was the case of the Reserve of the Sian Ka’an Biosphere in Quintana Roo and the end of the 80’ and beginning of the 90’s.Participation of academic institutes, ong´s. Communities and local compa-nies. In this modality the resource management projects do not necessarily de-pend on the orders of a central government agency. But the fact is that there is no case in the Yucatan Peninsula where the administration of a Federal anp has been given to private institutions or of academic character, even though it has happened in areas subject to state jurisdiction such as was for several years the State Reserve El Palmar in Yucatan. It is also true that ong´s, investigation centers and higher education institutes have frequently participated in anp activities or programs.De-concentration. This implies that the Federal authority (conanp) preferably concentrates the majority of its authority and management decisions in the regio-nal offices. The conanp has performed its chores in this modality since 2001.

The experience

The experience of coercive decentralization in the case of the Reserve of “Calakmul” Biosphere, allows the appreciation retrospectively of several mistakes: the “delivery” of the administration to the government of the state of Campeche was performed wi-thout counting with the necessary normative elements, particularly a Management Program, it did not have internal controls assigning the specialized profiles to fill the responsibility positions in the administration of the area.

124


125


Consequently, this broad area (723 000 hectares) that had been subject to wrong colonization policies during the 60’s and 70’s mainly due to lack of available water and, that suffered the in-definition of its territorial limits between Campeche and Quintana Roo, and is also far away from the capital city (350 km), did not count, for its management, with a capable control and promotion instrument. The Reserve’s Direction was occupied through a direct assignment from the governor in turn, and was seen as a step to aspire to a Mayor’s position. In more than one occasion, the available resources from the international programs supporting the conservation were utilized for social programs of political promotion.

A second case could be the one of the National Park of Dzibilchaltún in Yucatan, whose administration was given to the State government through a coordination agreement at the end of the 90’s and, different from Calakmul, it continues, up to this day, subject to the State administration. However, the results generated by the change over are, in all sense, practically nil: the Natural Protected Area of Dzibil-chaltún is still a paper park.2 The pressure on this area because of the change in use of land, due to the urban growth of Merida, the capital city, continues to increase, and the available surface for conservation, decreasing.

One of the reasons that explain the abandonment of the National Park of Dzibil-chaltún by the Federal authorities – the conanp has made no efforts to re-integrate the management – and what makes it different from the Calakmul case, is that its participation in the National System of Natural Protected Areas seems to lack a pri-ority character.3

A second decentralization experience, closer to the cooperative form, was the one that was established between seDue and the government of the state of Quintana Roo for the attention of the Reserve of Sian Ka’an Biosphere, during the end of the 80’s and beginning of the 90’s.

Different to the Calakmul experience, this area has good vigilance due to, among other reasons, that is has received multiple international appointments and recogni-tions (World Wealth Site, Biosphere Reserve Nets, ramsar Site) as well as the atten-tion it has received from the ONGS working to support its conservation.

2 It is worth stating in this case, that the administration of Dzibilchaltun as an archeological zone continues to be subject to Federal jurisdiction through the National Institute of Anthropology and History, but in reality there is no effective cooperation between the offices responsible of the conservation and administration of the cultural wealth and the office responsible of the national park’s management.3 The analysis and evaluation of what has happened with the state systems of natural protected areas, which reflects the low level that natural resources conservation has among the priorities of the state governments, would contribute to explain the situation of the “decentralized” areas.

124


125


However, as well as in the Calakmul case, the appointment of the Directors by the Governor in turn, converted the Direction of the Natural Protected Area in a position of political agenda and with different interests in its management. By the end of 1995, the discrepancies between the Federal and State governments in the administration decisions were severe, in a scenario that manifested the institutional weakness of the local government facing the pressures of the representatives of the coastal development interests in the South of the state of Quintana Roo.

Table 3 reflects the budgets for environmental attention in the states of the Yucatan Peninsula, as well as the low management level that the administrators or representa-tives of the state administration anp have, when it exists. Apart from the low salaries, and minimum incentives for the development of personnel capabilities, the low level of management explains the lack of interest of capable people to fill the position. The state administration level implies little access to the management of economi-cal, technical, political and promotional resources and inter-institutional cooperation at local, national or international levels. This does not imply that those who occupy these charges lack the necessary capabilities, but as they are low rank officials they do not have access to those making decision in the cooperating institutions.

Finally, in terms of conservation and development, these limitations are reflected in the loss of habitant, in coverage as well as in quality, as it lacks institutional pres-ence as well as conservation projects that will allow fomenting an environmental culture among the local communities and the government officials that make the decisions that affect directly or indirectly the area. This – the public officials’ lack of environmental conscience – is frequently observed in the constant modifications in the planning and the changes in the use of land, conceived and executed only to adequate them to the financial needs of the private investors. Further on, in many occasions the local authorities promote unsustainable activities that violate the rul-ings of the anp.

It is not exaggerated to suppose that if the anp´s of Federal administration were to be found under a state or municipal administration their physiognomy would be very different. It is difficult to generalize from the different experiences aroused from the management of these areas, but it is valid to mention that local authorities (states and municipalities) have traditionally maintained a “development” view that sees the primary usage extractive and “private-able” of these areas, before valuing the public benefits of the environmental services they provide and the sustainability conditions they can give to the local and regional development processes.

The participative decentralization scheme, also called “co-management”, is a management system practiced since the 80’s in the Mexican anp. In those days the non-governmental organizations proliferated focusing on environment and biodiver-

126


127


Table 3. State natural protected areas management.Management level (responsible)/

Counts with an anp manager (net monthly salary)

Budget for the environment **

Surface (has)

Quintana Roo. Level of attention to the environment (2)Level of attentionTo the ANP (4-5)

1. Minister of Urban Development and Environment 2. Under-secretary to the Under-secretary Environment3. General Planning and Ecological Policy Direction.4. Area Director (there is none) – ANP unit chief Xcacel-Xcacelito($16,300 to 26,400) * 5. ANP Department ($9,100 to 13,100).

2007: 36 157 3462006: 31 747 136 2005: 76 157 500

Manati Sanctuary(Chetumal Bay)

Manager (yes) 281 320

Xcacel-Xcacelito Manager (yes) 362

Colombia Lagoon Administrated by the Cozumel Parks and Museums Foundation

1 114

Chacmochuc Lagoon

Manager (no) 1 914

Manatí Lagoon Manager (no) 203

Yucatan. Level of attention to the environment: (1) Ministry. Level of attention to the ANP: (5)

1. Minister of Urban Development and Environment.2. Conservation and Management of Natural Resources.3. Assistant Director of Conserva-tion and Management of Natural Resources4. Department of Natural Protect-ed Areas ($16,028 to 30,364).5. Manager of ANP (non existent)

2007: 21 363 991 2006: 18 759 415 2005: 18 195 359

State Reserve El Palmar

Manager (no) 50 177

State Reserve Dzilam

Manager (no) 69 039

126


127


Table 3 (cont.). State natural protected areas management.Management level (responsible)/

Counts with an anp manager (net monthly salary)

Budget for the environment **

Surface (has)

State Park Kabah Manager (no) 949State Park Yahalau Lagoons

Manager (no) 5 683

San Juan Bautista Tabi and Sacnicté Annex

Manager (no) 1 355

National Park Dzibilchaltún

Manager (no) 539

Campeche Level of attention to Environment (1)Ministry.Level of attention to ANP (4)

1. Minister2. Asst. Director of ANP3. Department of ANP (7,681 to $8,286) 4. Manager (non existent)

2007: 16 521 3862006: 16 388 298

State Reserve Balamku

Manager (no 409 200

State Reserve Balam Kin

Manager (no) 110 980

Source: Web. Page: Transparency of the Government of Quintana Roo, the Government of Yucatan; and the Government of Campeche.*In the SEDUMA’s administrative structure the position of Manager of ANP Xcacel-Xcacelito is shown with a bigger salary than that of the Manager of Natural Protected Areas.**It is not possible to know the exact expense budget for the ANP, therefore we count the entire budget destined to the environment. In the case of Quintana Roo, we have to take into account that it is also divided into urban development and environment, which makes the numbers 50% less. In the year 2005, the infrastructure area was still under this Ministry; therefore a substantial decrease is noted in 2006 and 2007.

128


129


sity protection, in the context of an organized and participative society in the absence of a structurally strong government to attend the matter. In spite of the obstacles that the lack of authority’s transference to the civil society’s organization represent, these organizations together with the investigation and superior education centers have maintained for more than two decades an active participation form in the anp man-agement, which can be appreciated in the generation of projects and investigation, education, monitoring, restoration and social development programs

In this sense, it must be recognized that previous to the formation of the semarnap in 1995, and lacking the physical presence of the authority in charge of the adminis-tration of these natural protected areas, the participation in them, particularly of the ong´s, was determinant to their conservation.

The participation of ong´s and private sector has been of purchasing property inside the anp as a measure to reinforce the conservation as has been the case of Pronatura, a.c., in the Reserve Ria Lagartos Biosphere and of Amigos de Sian Ka’an, a.c, in the Reserve of the same name, as well as entrepreneurs that up to now have decided to dedicate some of their property to conservation. Some of these purchases have counted with the support of international organizations, by collecting funds, and this adds to private international participation.

This theme will require further analysis due to the discomfort of some sectors that see the risks of “land appropriation”, specifically when the areas are extensive, which could lead to the “natural wealth” staying in the “hands of a few” and these are who will exploit the resources of the anp. Even if it is true that this presumption could respond to the false premise of the private wealth versus public wealth, it also suggests that the designated administrator of the anp should return to the institution responsible of its management, the land that constitutes the nucleus zone, in which no human activity should be allowed that would modify the ecosystem’s evolution.

Another activity pending to analyze is the one that refers to private anp in the Yucatan Peninsula – a representation still incipient in the area-, in the modals that re-sulted from the Federal government’s decree or the certification of the conanp. The first effort in its type is developed by “El Eden, A.C.” in the municipality of Lazaro Cardenas and “Uyumil Ceh” in Othon P. Blanco, both in the state of Quintana Roo.

The administrative de-concentration of the conanp that began during President Vicente Fox’ administration and continues in Felipe Calderon’s, was originated with the initiative to regionalize all the environmental sector, however, since the change of the head of semarnat, only conafor and conanp withheld this initiative. These changes in policy not only generated uncertainty in the forms and times of the re-gionalization process, but also disappointment in the political and economical sup-port.

128


129


Even though the regionalization process has obtained, to this day, a greater insti-tutional reach and the operation of new administration schemes for the attention, in greater or lesser degree, of all the Federal Administration anp, it has also generated an excess of functions and commitments on local and regional levels for the institu-tion’s personnel, as well as reduce the achievements that some of the anp could have obtained individually throughout the six year mandate of president Ernesto Zedillo.

Among this excess of functions in the Yucatan Peninsula, we can point out the in-crease in attention from 12 to 18 anp; the entry 8 new anp to attend new international arrangements (mab, whs, or ramsar), the attention and issuance of tourist exploita-tion permits, the institutional opinions in matters of environmental impact, changes of use of land, scientific investigation and collection, and many others. To this re-sponsibility cumulus we have to add the attention to the Sustainable Rural Develop-ment programs and Priority Species programs, the establishment of new anp, the design and implementation of fees for the use of anp and the support of ANP state, municipal or private systems. All of this without obtaining the necessary increase in personnel according to the required needs.

It is important to indicate that since the 80’s in the Peninsula of Yucatan, - dif-ferent from other regions in the country- conditions have been built to consolidate the regional administration: continuity and cohesion of a work team, internal coop-eration, institutional coherence in decision making, and social and environmental homogeneity.

Even though to many it may seem that this picture is weakened and erased, espe-cially in these last years, the truth is that the human capital regionally formed, the in-teraction nets between the actors and the relevant organizations, and the knowledge acquired jointly by the institutional work teams focused on conservation, the ONGS and an important group of academics, continue being an important local wealth that bonds the possibilities of continuously fortifying the in situ conservation.

Another factor to take into account is the fact that regionalization of the conser-vation originated through the trial-error method, which generated different schemes during two or three decades for the “established” regions. At present, proposals for new limits and number of regions in the country are under study (Figure 1).

For the case of the Yucatan Peninsula, the guiding objectives for the regionaliza-tion are:

Raise the local and regional management level with the state and municipal • governments and the social sector.Ease the decision making and agreement mechanisms with the communities • and social sector organisms.

130


131


Figure 1. Regionalization proposal for the administration of the Federal ANP - 2007.

Generate advisory, training and collaboration mechanisms between the • region’s anp that will allow increasing their management level and the profes-sional capabilities of the personnel.Broaden the attention coverage to the totality of the Natural Protected Areas • in the Yucatan Peninsula.Ease the administration of the natural and financial resources of the region.•

The process of fortifying the institutional capability for the de-concentration of the anp also includes:

Improve the recruitment and use of the personnel’s abilities.• Restructure the work and the relations with authorities.• Improve information and communication flow.• Do another inventory and reassign the material resources.• De-centralize and open participative intervention opportunities in the proces-• ses of decision making.Improve the administrative processes.•

130


131


Among the proposed regionalization models, schemes were proposed where the anp directors will additionally count with a regional level thematic leadership or with a regional leadership by protected ecosystem.

The obtained model of regionalization is detailed in Table 4.

Table 4. conanp Mission: Conserve the natural wealth of Mexico through the Natural Protected Areas and the Sustainable Rural Development Programs in priority regions

for conservation.Role

of the ANP DirectorsFunctions

of ANP DirectorsAdvantages

Geographical distribu-tion of directors and a regional directorship or coordination based on four types of support to the directorships.

The directors attend and coordinate the themes and matters related to their assigned ANP, and receive the support of a Regional Directorship in four main areas: administrative-finan-cial; judicial; political and technical-this one only in region projects, that is, that it encompasses more than one ANP in the area. Instal-lation of an Internal Council for the Directors that will support the strategic re-gional features.

It maintains the management level of the directors.It maintains the integrity of ANP territorial management.Fortifies political management at local level.Eases the local administrative and judicial requirements.Coordinates the programs that involve more than one ANP and promotes the cooperation and technical assistance between them.Increases analysis capability and strategy proposals.Weakens in lesser degree the directors’ attention in ANP internal matters.Eases the attention to the de-mands of local actors.The Council watches the wel-fare of the institution and gives an objective perception for decision making.More influence in the region as there is grater representation in regional decision making.

Source: National Commission of Natural Protected Areas.

132


133


Conclusions

The developed regionalization process required “institutional de-concentration” ac-tions, reflected actually in the modifications to the Internal Ruling of the semarnat (Dof xi/30/06). Some functions and acts of authority that were performed from the center were transferred.

Considering that de-concentration is not independence, but allowing or lessening the administrative hierarchy, the central power maintains limited faculties for veri-fication and control. It is necessary to see the asp as functioning cells of the system (sinap) and the institution (conanp), as another purely centralist vision would mean a backward motion in decades and would cause distortions in the purpose that encour-aged the creation of this institution in the year 2000.

The decentralization of the Natural Protected Areas theme is also manifest in the international agenda. In the recent Quintana Roo experience, the interest showed by the municipal authorities to administrate the anp is due either by the attraction rep-resented by the generation and collection of economical resources from tourists or by the fact that the governmental institution in charge of the administration is seen as a stop to the private economical interests for the use or exploitation of natural re-sources, the construction of infrastructure and tourist developments, mainly coastal, or to favor, through use of resource permits, specific interests groups or sectors. The manifested interest has not revealed a real commitment with the conservation of the anp.

Based on these experiences and other strategic character arguments, we can en-list the reasons for which it is not convenient, at this moment, to promote the decen-tralization of the anp in terms of ceding its administration to the states or municipali-ties.

a). Considering that the anp hold the most valuable natural capital of the coun-try and that it should be preserved and strategically managed – it is also being talked about considering a matter of national security -, then a national strategy is required in order that the management obeys one high level policy of State commitment.b). Even though some states and municipalities are interested in administering the Federal anp and can supply important elements towards that end, it is also clear that not all will maintain the same level of commitment in the theme and the technical and economical capabilities of each one will be different. Some past experiences in Campeche and Quintana Roo have shown that state management of the anp has a tendency to politicize its administration and decision making.

132


133


c). There is still a strong financial and international cooperation dependency in the management of the anp. The financial international strategies have traditio-nally been directed towards the National Systems of Protected Areas based on the priorities arisen from the consults with experts. The management of those resources from local level could generate an unnecessary competition that will contribute to diminish and form a bureaucracy of the international cooperation relationships.d). The management of the anp requires an integration of public policies and the confluence of the management and territorial administration, and natural resour-ces decision making. In this sense, it is not judicially seen, at least on a short term, that the administration and acts of authority of the marine areas, lagoon systems, the Federal land/marine zones and other national wealth within the anp become of state or municipal character. This condition would limit an integral management of the anp.e). The management experiences of state or municipal character, or the state sys-tems of anp, not counting the exceptional cases, do not show a satisfactory per-formance or a real institutional commitment in its management throughout the governmental changes. This reflects and turns into a secondary matter the local government’s interest in an adequate management and conservation. There are also some states and many municipalities for whom this theme is completely foreign, even though the lgeepa allows the creation of state systems of municipal initiatives for the conservation of local biodiversity.f). Many of the anp have been established covering more than one municipality and including two or more states in the Republic, due to the fact that natural conditions do not respect political boundaries. The integration of public policies in divided administrations is still more complex.g). It is not contradictory to indicate that it is necessary to maintain the opportu-nities that arise from the creation of the anp from local initiatives for their conser-vation, with the understanding of the existence of channels according to Federal procedures and laws.h). Recognizing the asymmetries that exist between the social and natural scien-ces in relation to the management initiatives (Breton and Davy, 2006), will allow recognize the need to work jointly in favor of the anp, in multi-disciplinary work groups focused in the reorientation and in depth analysis on decentralization and centralization themes of environmental management.In face of the problems expressed in this chapter, product of our experience (the

“political” factor in the protected territory’s management, the little access to sup-port negotiations, the lack of institutional presence, the voracity of the authorities

134


in fomenting non sustainable activities, lack of economical and political support) we are left with challenges and struggles (foment environmental cultures, the need of private investment, a management that will attend the integration of public poli-cies) that will have to be assumed and worked with different multi-scale and multi-functional groups, taking care that real defense of our territory as a Nation prevails. A new Federalism?

Bibliography

Bretón, Y., D. Brown, B. Davy, M. Haughton, and L. Ovares, L. (Eds), 2006. Manejo de Recursos Costeros en el Gran Caribe. IDRC, Ottawa.

Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (conanp), “Logros 2003”, México D. F.http./ www. Página web Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas.http:/ www. Portal de transparencia del Gobierno de Quintana Roo, Gobierno de Yucatán y

Gobierno de Campeche.

natural protected areas and decentralization in the ... · alfredo arellano guillermo, julia fraga...

Documents