PM12 with cover.qxd

324 Pages·2003·6.67 MB·English

Table of Contents
Letter from the Chair ................................................................................................. Taghi Farvar .................................... 3
An issue with a message!........................................................................................... The editors ...................................... 4-5
Section I: The complexities of governing protected areas
David Kaimowitz, Angelica Faune, and
Your biosphere is my backyard: the story of Bosawas in Nicaragua ................................... Rene Mendoza ................................ 6-15
Gouvernance des aires protégées et « normes pratiques » de gestion locale au Bassin du
Congo ............................................................................................................................ Jean Claude Nguinguiri ................... 16-21
Injustice and conservation: is local support necessary for sustainable protected areas? ...... Dan Brockington ............................. 22-30
Myths, challenges and questions on mobile pastoralism in West Asia ................................. M. Taghi Farvar ............................... 31-41
Michael Cernea and Kai Schmidt-
The end of forcible displacements? Making conservation and impoverishment incompatible
Soltau ............................................. 42-51
Protected areas and poverty ........................................................................................... Thomas O. McShane ....................... 52-53
¿Son los comunes una tragedia o una oportunidad? ......................................................... Patricia Madrigal and Vivienne Solis .. 53-54
Intangible values of protected areas ................................................................................ Dave Harmon ................................. 55-63
National parks as cultural entities .................................................................................... Mark Infield .................................... 64-70
All parks are peopled parks ............................................................................................. Andy Wilson ................................... 71-75
Reclaiming diversity and sustainability in community-based conservation ........................... Michel Pimbert ................................ 76-86
Dilys Roe, Jon Hutton, Joanna Elliott,
Munyaradzi Saruchera and Kule
In pursuit of pro-poor conservation ................................................................................. Chitepo ........................................... 87-91
Governance of protected areas: innovations in the air... .................................................… Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend ................ 92-101
Section II: The civil society speaks out!
Areas protegidas y comunidades rurales: una convivencia natural .................................... ACICAFOC (Central America) ............ 102-103
Local Communities, Equity and Protected Areas in Southern Africa ................................... PRETORIA workshop participants ...... 104-105
La Kompienga Declaration on governance of Protected Areas in Africa ............................... The Kompienga workshop participants 105-108
A legal breakthrough for Aboriginal Australians! ................................................................ Sean Kerins ..................................... 109-110
Section III: CCAs and CMPAs: a full spectrum of learning and struggles
The Shimshal governance model—a CCA, a sense of cultural identity, a way of life… .......... Inayat Ali and David Butz ................. 111-120
Bijagos Islands: resistance and conservation .................................................................... Claudio Carrera Maretti ..................... 121-131
Traditional institutions manage their forests in Zimbabwe ................................................. Zvidzai Chidhakwa ............................ 132-140
Communities Conserved Areas in India ............................................................................ Ashish Kothari and Neema Pathak ..... 141-144
Matavén forest: creating a Community Conserved Area in Colombia .................................. Andres Luque .................................. 145-151
Ramses Iwan on behalf of the
Setulang village in Kalimantan: we protect our river! ........................................................ Setulang village ............................... 152-153
Contra la expansion de la acuacultura del camaron en Honduras: la historia de Modesto
Ochoa ........................................................................................................................... Jorge Varela .................................... 154-155
Woulimata Thiaw, Seydina Issa Sylla
Les Aires du Patrimoine Communautaire au Sénégal ......................................................... et Jean Larivière .............................. 156-165
Coron island and rights-based conservation in The Philippines ........................................... Maurizio Ferrari and David De Vera ... 166-170
Germán Zuluaga, José Ignacio
Conservacion bio-cultural: el Parque Nacional Natural Alto Fragua-Indiwasi en Colombia ..... Giraldo y Marcela Jiménez Larrarte ... 171-180
Co-management, oil & gas industry & indigenous empowerment in Kaa Iya del Gran Chaco,
Bolivia ............................................................................................................................ Nick Winer ...................................... 181-191
Politics and participatory planning of Pohnpei’s Watershed, Micronesia ............................... Andrew Tilling ................................. 192-195
Protecting Miraflor… or protecting the livelihood of small-scale farmers?.............................. Helle Ravnborg ................................ 196-199
Las áreas de manejo de administración pesquera en Chile ................................................. Jaime Aburto & Wolfgang Stotz ........ 200-204
Ralph Buss y Eileen Mairena
Manejo participativo y autodeterminación indígenas: la reserva Bosawas en Nicaragua ........ Cunningham .................................... 205-215
Community-based management of national forests in the Western United States .................Randall Wilson ................................. 216-224
Hanane Allali-Puz, Eléonore Bechaux
Gouvernance et démocratie locale dans les Parcs Naturels Régionaux de France ................. et Catherine Jenkins ......................... 225-237
Edson Rodrigues Santos, José
Marques de Souza, Jean-Philippe
Une filière économique pour préserver les paysages du Pantanal ...................................... Delorme, Reginaldo Lima de Barros .. 238-245
Port Honduras Marine Reserve ........................................................................................ Will Maheya .................................... 246-248
The Dayak people & Kayan Mentarang— first co-managed protected area in Indonesia ...... Cristina Eghenter and Martin Labo ... 248-253
Regina Birner and Marhawati
Community agreements on conservation in Lore Lindu, Sulawesi (Indonesia) ..................... Mappatoba ..................................... 254-263
Réseau Régional de Planification
Les aires marines protégées de la Zone Côtière en Afrique de l’Ouest ................................ Côtière Ouest Africain ...................... 264-268
Co-management alive and well in the Caribbean! .............................................................. Patrick Mc Conney ........................... 269-270
Hamid ould Bah, Arhmed ould
Micro finance et conservation dans le Parc National du Diawling, Mauritanie ...................... Boubout et Stéphane Boujou ............ 270-275
Nepal’s experience in participatory biodiversity conservation & buffer zone initiatives .......... S. Shyam Bajimaya .......................... 276-282
Devolving rights or shedding responsibilities in Uganda’s Protected Areas? ......................... Tom Blomley and Agrippinah Namara. 283-289
The “W” Park of Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger ................................................................ Thomas Price ................................... 290-293
Linda Norgrove, Mariana Montoya
The Communal Reserves of Peru ..................................................................................... and Alcides Chávarry ........................ 294-300
Section IV: New resources from CEESP members
Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend and Michel
Announcing: Sharing Power: Learning by Doing in CM of Natural Res. throughout the WorldPimbert ........................................... 301-302
Reviews on war, peace and conservation .......................................................................... David Pitt ........................................ 302-302
Announcing: Innovative Governance: Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities & PAs .......... Hanna Jaireth and Dermot Smyth ..... 304-305
Review of Equidad entre Áreas Protegidas y Comunidades Locales .................................... Thora Amend ................................... 306
Announcing: Linking Local Learners .................................................................................
Ricardo Ramirez .............................. 307
Announcing: Local Forest Management—The Impact of Devolution Policy .......................... Eva Wollenberg ............................... 308
Announcing a young people’s call for the protection of the worlds mountains ..................... David Pitt ........................................ 309
Network News ..................................................................................................................................................................... 310-318
CEESP Steering Commitee ................................................................................................................................................... 319-320
LETTER FROM THE CHAIR
M Taghi Farvar
Dear CEESP members and partners, “Communities and Conservation” (no 12.2) and,
“Conservation Partnerships in Africa”(no. 13.1).
This issue is the largest ever published by our
We like to work this way, as we believe that
journal (over 320 pages!) despite having asked
CEESP does not have a “turf to defend” in IUCN
for and often imposed an upper limit to individ-
but lots of concerns, experiences and insights to
ual articles. To us, this is signalling two facts.
share, develop and set to operation jointly with
On the one hand, that the theme of communi-
others.
ty empowerment and the debate on the gov-
ernance of protected areas are central to As a matter of fact, this issue is being pre-
conservation. On the other hand, that a forum pared forthe World Congress on Protected
to air such a debate is bubbling, useful and in Areas, Durban (South Africa) September 2003. I
demand. We believe that such a forum should should also say that this issue is being prepared
host the reflections of conservation stakeholders, withthat Congress, as some of the key players
practitioners, decision makers and policy makers in the Congress have been contributing to shap-
at various levels and address broad issues and ing this issue, editing its content, and making
concerns rather than narrow technical points. It sure that its “message” transpires from it loud
should be a forum where people can draw prac- and clear. Together with Kenton Miller, the
tical sense out of the large amount of conserva- Chair of WCPA, and David Sheppard,
tion information they receive. A forum where Secretary-General of the World Parks Congress, I
we can find out that others share our own am very thankful to all the authors of the papers
predicaments and still others have devised solu- in this issue and to the co-editors and in particu-
tions applicable also to our case. A forum where lar to Grazia, who has inspired and coordinated
we can air ideas that have political as well as the work all along. See you all in Durban!
technical meaning; where we can share knowl-
edge but also advocate principles, pathways and
ideas. Even a forum where controversial opin-
ions can be launched, as nothing dulls the mind
more than a sequence of platitudes and innocu-
ous propositions…
This journal also wishes to be a forum where
barriers can be overcome and partnerships can M Taghi Farvar
be established, among others with other IUCN Chair, CEESP
Commissions. As a matter of fact, this is the
third joint publication with the IUCN World
Commission on Protected Areas in a space of a
little more than a calendar year. Two previous
issues of Parkshad editors who are members of
both CEESP and WCPA. They dealt with
3
PolicyMatters12, September 2003
EDITORIAL
An issue with a message!
W protected areas are and do for society; they render
hen Policy Matters12 was started several the debate richer, more realistic and consequential.
Some of the documents we received were actual-
months ago, it did not have a “message”. It was
ly distilled debates, often with a regional or
possibly searching for one, but the call for papers
sub-regional perspective. Thus the reports
was broad, spanning various experiences of pro-
from large meetings in Africa and Central America
tected area governance involving local and indige-
and from legal decisions in Australia bring forward
nous communities. We asked CMWG, TILCEPA and
the essence of long-term processes, nourished by
1
SLWG members to let us know about interesting
many people and organisations. We gathered
and inspiring stories related to a particular site or
these documents in Section 2.
issue of relevance and they did, from all over the
Very telling, the individual case examples of
world and with quite some gusto!
community conserved areas and co-managed
Over the past eight months, as papers poured in,
protected areas we assembled in Section 3 of
discerning a coherent if composite collective mes-
this journal signal the crucial conservation impor-
sage from them all became less and less difficult.
tance of the relationship between communities and
A number of the articles, which we gathered in
the state. Community conserved areas can be
Section 1, dealt with the complexities inherent
born in opposition to national conservation agen-
in governing protected areas (PAs)—the rich-
cies, or because of their will and support. They
ness of traditions and experiences but also the wis-
can be socially celebrated, or resented and violent-
dom, flexibility, ingenuity and sense of fairness
ly struggled against. They can be the result of a
required to understand and deal with, matters that
conscious choice towards more profound communi-
impact upon biological wealth, nature’s support to
ty autonomy, or be eagerly waiting for the state’s
life and cultural values. We heard about the pow-
recognition. We received illustrations of areas in-
erful interplay among actors de facto in charge of
between community-conserved and co-managed,
PA management. We heard about the uncommon
some caught within long-term power struggles,
human qualities required by PA managers. We
others striving to master the complex scientific
heard that some conservation NGOs have learned
details of sustainable resource management, and
to trust indigenous peoples more than any other
still others enormously benefiting from unlikely
environmental caretakers. We heard about the
partnerships such as those between the oil and
persistence of injustices on the ground— despite
gas industry, state conservation agencies and
well-written mission statements and objectives of
indigenous communities. We received examples
conservation projects and programmes. We heard
of areas conserved for livelihood reasons, political
about the need to reverse pernicious myths that
reasons, cultural reasons, spiritual reasons or pure-
exclude key conservation experts, such as mobile
ly economic reasons. We heard about long-stand-
peoples, from conservation alliances and action.
ing and cohesive communities and about communi-
We heard about the need to halt, once and for all,
ties made up of loose aggregations of individual
forcible resettlements for conservation. We heard
landowners with similar interests and concerns.
about the need to understand and deal with pover-
We heard about large communities devising com-
ty along with conservation concerns. We heard
plex institutional mechanisms to develop a com-
about the roots of much potential success—com-
mon conservation vision and related initiatives,
mon property resources still existing throughout
such as environmental charters or public-private
the world, powerful cultural values embedded in
committees. We heard about the important and
nature, the abundance of management diversity,
often determining influence of supporting projects
the possibility of win-win situations (pro-poor con-
and about slow adjustment of management rules
servation) and the current mounting interest in
through time. We heard about ambitious pro-
good governance principles and practices. The
grammes of exchanges and learning by doing
experiences and values conveyed by the authors of
through similar conservation initiatives. We heard
the papers point towards a re-assessment of what
4
PolicyMatters12, September 2003
some rather self-congratulatory notes about the lack of inspiring vision and commitment.
achievement of participatory approaches from a “Wait a moment,” you may say, “How can a sin-
government point of view. But we also published gle message be extracted from this enormous vari-
more critical assessments, including complaints ety of experiences and insights?” We believe it
about the slow pace of progress in the relationship can. And it is the following.
between governments and local actors, and the
Alongside inspiring examples of collaboration and joint action, unresolved ideological and power conflicts exist
between governments and their specialised conservation agencies and indigenous and local communities throughout
the world. The latter, in contrast to what has all too often been assumed, have long had their ways, means and insti-
tutions of conservation, but generally at a different scale and responding to different values than the state. Central to
the conflicts have been the tendency to centralise decision making in the hands of non-local experts and the tendency
to separate conservation from natural resource use— tenets of state practices generally alien to community practices.
De facto, an enormous potential of community-based knowledge, skills, resources and institutions has been squandered
or rendered hostile to conservation. This is true in both the so-called South and North of the world. The single most
important missed opportunity for conservation today may well be the misunderstanding, neglect and dis-
affection of civil societies— and of indigenous and local communities in particular.
Recognizing the above is enormously important in the context of the global changes upon us, when conservation
needs all the allies it can get and all the resources it can muster. The approach of choice is one of adaptive manage-
ment, which demands maximum management flexibility and responsiveness and the willingness of society to invest the
required resources and sustain sacrifices and changes. For that, a broad social consensus is indispensable. Challenges
include extending current systems to close gaps in protection of specific ecosystems and species, and to ensure the
physical connectivity essential to long-term efficacy of protected areas. They also involve dramatically improving man-
agement practices and fairly distributing benefits and costs. Fortunately, a diversity of models delivering conservation
exists throughout the world. Besides state-managed PA systems there are areas managed by provincial or local gov-
ernments, co–managed arrangements with local communities and other stakeholders, community conserved areas, pri-
vate protected areas, and others. Community Conserved Areas, in particular, remain an important mechanism for con-
servation despite poor recognition and neglect and in the face of
serious threats. And Co-managed Protected Areas are an impressive
world-wide laboratory to improve governance in conservation.
“Conservation” can respond to the interests and concerns of a
variety of social actors, rediscover its profound link with cultural
identity and work in harmony with other important goals, such as
livelihoods, cultural strength, social development and social equity.
Fundamental changes arehappening, carried along by various glob-
al changes, and yet they cannot be sustained lukewarmly.
Empowering indigenous and local communities in conserva-
tion may require a difficult sharing of authority and respon-
sibility, but conservation can no longer afford to consume
its precious resources fighting its most promising allies. The
challenge of community empowerment for conservation is a most
powerful opportunity. We need to nurture it with all the capacities
and strengths we can muster.
Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend([email protected]), Alex de Sherbinin
([email protected]), Chimère Diaw([email protected]), Gonzalo
Oviedo [email protected]) and Diane Pansky([email protected]) are the
co-editors of this issue. The co-editors express their warmest thanks to Jeyran
Farvar([email protected]) for her art work and layout for this very long special
issue!
1CMWGis the Collaborative Management Working Group of CEESP;
TILCEPAis the joint Theme on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity and
Protected Areas of CEESP and the
World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA);
WGSLis the Working Group on Sustainable Livelihoods of CEESP.
5
PolicyMatters12, September 2003
Section I: The complexities of governing protected areas
Your Biosphere is my backyard— the story of Bosawas in Nicaragua
David Kaimowitz, Angelica Faune & Rene Mendoza
D living in the area, none of whom were consult-
espite efforts to establish protected areas ed about the decree. Equally importantly, the
national government had little effective control
around the world, the authority of government
over any of the reserve area.
remains weak in forested areas. We examine
here the largest protected area in Central This situation illustrates the contradictory and
America, ‘Bosawas’ National Natural Resource partial nature of
Reserve in Nicaragua, to demonstrate how over- many government Nicaragua’s central authorities
lapping systems of governance have encour- efforts to establish
did not really govern the area
aged rapid ecological destruction and social dif- protected areas,
they had just declared a reserve,
ferentiation, as well as corruption and violence. especially where they
We will conclude that Migdal’s observation coincide with policies probably did not own it, and
about forest governance as being guided by that ‘devolve’ control
certainly did not ‘possess’ it in
‘strong societies and weak states’ (1988) is over natural
any real sense.
unlikely to change and must be the starting resources to local
point for future efforts in decentralized natural authorities and com-
resource management. munities. Protected areas advocates who con-
tinue to view conservation needs from a ‘top-
With one fell stroke of the pen, on October
down’ perspective, greatly overestimate and
31, 1991Nicaragua’s President Violeta Barrios de
over simplify the central government’s ability to
Chamorro created the largest protected area in
control protected areas. From a local or regional
Central America, the 8,000 square kilometers
perspective, it quickly becomes apparent that
‘Bosawas’ National
Migdal’s observation about central governments are only one of many
Natural Resource
actors and often not among the most powerful.
forest governance as being
Reserve. Or at least so it
As ‘non-state spaces’, i.e., places beyond the
guided by ‘strong societies and appeared to the govern-
1
effective control of government many forested
ment officials, members
weak states’ (1988) is unlikely
areas have been too impenetrable and remote,
of the diplomatic corps,
to change and must be the rebellious, sparsely populated, economically
international conserva-
irrelevant or hard to tax to justify the central
starting point for future tion agencies, and rep-
government’s presence. Under such circum-
resentatives of the
efforts in decentralized natu-
stances, it is misleading to talk about central
press. There was only
ral resource management one small catch. governments managing protected areas. Our
key message for policy analysts and conserva-
Nicaragua’s central
tionists is that they should stop assuming that
authorities did not really govern the area they
policy documents and laws reflect reality on the
had just declared a reserve, probably did not
ground. A decree is not a park. Management
own it, and certainly did not ‘possess’ it in any
plans generally have little to do with how things
real sense. A few years earlier, the government
are managed. Just because a ministry or project
handed over much of its authority over the
has fancy brochures and a large office in the
eastern portion of the reserve to a regional gov-
capital does not mean it influences daily life in
ernment. Theoretically, at least, it had also rec-
the interior.
ognized the rights of indigenous communities
6
PolicyMatters12, September 2003
This paper traces the history of the
Bosawas Reserve to illustrate these
points. The area provides a good exam-
ple because it involves numerous failed
government efforts to exert centralized
control. The paper covers the period
until 2001. We begin by offering some
background about the region. For con-
venience sake, we refer to the area of
the Bosawas Reserve as Bosawas.
Following that we analyze aspects of
the region’s history that explain why the MMaapp 11.. AA mmaapp ooff NNiiccaarraagguuaa sshhoowwiinngg tthhee nnuucclleeuuss aanndd bbuuffffeerr zzoonnee ooff
government’s rule over the area and its tthhee BBoossaawwaass bbiioosspphheerree rreesseerrvvee
perceived legitimacy there remain tenu-
Bosawas is rather flat.
ous. Then we focus on the government’s cur-
rent ability to govern the reserve. We end with A dense network of rivers, streams, and
a few concluding remarks. creeks flows down from the mountains out to
the Atlantic Sea. Historically, the Amaka, Bocay,
Coco, Lakus, Wina, and Waspuk Rivers formed
Cowboys and indians in the humid tropics
the central axes of traditional indigenous settle-
When the government finally measured the ments in the area. The name Bosawas itself,
Bosawas Reserve several years after ‘creating’ invented by Incer and his colleagues, takes the
it, the area within the boundaries it had defined first letters of the Bocay River, the Saslaya
was only 7,400 square kilometers, not the 8,000 Mountain, and the Waspuk River. The Coco
it first imagined. About half the area belonged River demarcates Nicaragua’s northern border
to three municipalities of the Northern with Honduras. Both it and the Bocay River are
Autonomous Atlantic Region (RAAN), Bonanza, navigable over long stretches. The climate gets
Siuna, and Waspam. The other half fell under wetter as you move east or go into higher ele-
the jurisdiction of the municipalities of Cua- vations. Yearly rainfall averages 1,600 to 2,000
Bocay and Wiwili in the Department of mm in the western areas, but rises to over
Jinotega2. Historically and culturally, most of 3,000 mm in some eastern areas and higher
the RAAN forms part of Nicaragua’s Atlantic locations3.
coast, while most of Jinotega forms part of
As of 1996, humid tropical broadleaf forest
Nicaragua’s predominantly mestizo “Interior”
still covered 77% of Bosawas, with most of the
Region. As we explain below, the history, gov-
remainder already converted to crops and pas-
ernment institutions, production systems, and
4
ethnic composition of these two regions are tures . Together with the adjoining area on the
markedly distinct. Honduran side, this constitutes the largest
remaining more or less continuous forest area
As one moves from the southwest portion of
in Central America. These forest still house a
Bosawas to the northeast the elevation slowly
large percentage of the country’s 2,500 tree
descends from over 600 meters down to almost
species, including highly coveted species such
sea level. The highest elevation is in the
as mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla),royal
reserve’s southeast corner where the peaks of
cedar (Cedrela odorata), and “blond cedar”
Saslaya and El Toro are each above 1,600
(Carapa guianensis). They also constitute the
meters. Smaller mountains surround them and
habitat for a diverse and colorful collection of
contribute to a landscape that ranges from
animals, including jaguars, monkeys, deer,
rolling hills to quite rugged terrain. The rest of
tapirs, crocodiles, parrots, toucans, and hawks.
7
PolicyMatters12, September 2003
The complexities of governing protected areas
About 250,000 people live in Bosawas, more the Coco River, a large Dominican company
or less equally divided practically monopolizes the timber trade.
A decree is not a park. between indigenous Sometimes it logs itself; more often it purchas-
people and mestizos. es timber from local farmers. Wealthy
Management plans generally have
Due to rapid in-migra- Nicaraguan timber merchants dominate the
little to do with how things are tion, in recent years trade in most of the rest of Bosawas. They gen-
managed. Just because a ministry on average the mesti- erally buy boards cut with chain saws from
zo population has small farmers who live near the reserve and log
or project has fancy brochures
grown 17% each year. inside it. On occasion, the merchants also hire
and a large office in the capital Over two-thirds of their own logging crews or purchase wood from
does not mean it influences daily them moved into the the reserve’s inhabitants.
area after the end of
life in the interior.
Nicaragua’s civil war in
A Miskito kingdom, a forgotten hinterland,
1990 and most arrived
and a couple of wars
after the 1991 Bosawas decree. Most mestizos
settled in the south, along the Bocay, Iyas, and For most of their history, the indigenous peo-
Wina Rivers. The only increase in the indige- ple of what is now Bosawas largely governed
nous (Mayangna and Miskito) population comes themselves. Even under the colonial regime of
from natural fertility, which amounts to some the British, the British crowned a Miskito leader
3.5% yearly. The Mayangnas live chiefly to the as king around 1680 and recognized the
north of the mestizos along the Waspuk, Lakus, Mosquito Kingdom as the government of the
Bambama, and Wawa Rivers as well as to the Atlantic coast, acting under British rule8. After
north of the mestizos on the Bocay River. Most Nicaragua gained sovereignty over the region in
Miskitos dwell along the banks of the Coco 1860, the Nicaraguan government’s only real
River5. Mestizo farmers have lain claim to the attempt to govern the Atlantic coast occurred in
bulk of Bosawas’ southern quarter, most of 1894 when President Jose Santos Zelaya sent
which is in Jinotega. Even though a great troops to occupy the region and created a new
majority lacks ‘valid’ legal titles, their informal department
In the indigenous villages, governance
property rights carry a great deal of weight called Zelaya.
was largely in the hands of the traditional
locally. These farmers grow corn, beans, and But in 1909,
rice and raise cattle. Although at present, the the United indigenous authorities (council of elders,
region still has less than 2,000 heads of cattle, States gov-
sindicos, and judges), the Yatama com-
most mestizo farmers aspire to own more cattle ernment
6 forced Zelaya manders, and church leaders. In the
in the future . Some communities rely on log-
out of office mestizoareas, municipal governments,
ging for an important part of their income but
and for the
reliable data on timber extraction are not avail- community ‘peace commissions’, command-
next twenty-
able.
five years, ers of armed bands, priests, NGOs, the
Mayangna and Miskito households have much the country farmers union (UNAG), and donor projects
more diversified livelihood strategies. They grow was racked
with little connection to Managua were all
a wider variety of crops including more plan- by civil war.
tains, tubers, and rice; they hunt and fish more; Between important in different ways.
they harvest timber and they pan for gold. 1928 and
Although a few families own cattle, it plays a 1934, only the troops of Nicaraguan guerilla
minor role in village life7. Outside loggers regu- leader General Augusto Cesar Sandino main-
larly enter the area, mostly looking for tained a regular presence in Bosawas. Under
mahogany and cedar. In the Miskito areas along the Somoza regime (1934 to 1979), although
8
PolicyMatters12, September 2003