169
Reserve’s management a legal status; it consisted of representatives: local inhabitants,
the research institute INECOL, the National Council of Science and Technology
(CONACYT), and MAB-Mexico (Halffter 1981; Kaus 1992). The first studies in
the BRM were basic evaluations of vegetation and vertebrate populations, undertaken by researchers from the Instituto de Ecología, “Ecole Normale Supérieure”
from France, the National Mexican Autonomous University (UNAM), and the
“Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones sobre Recursos Bióticos” (INIREB)
(Halffter 1978).
Soon after, an integrated research program was developed to study interrelated
topics in a multidisciplinary approach. The following priorities were identified:
climate, soils, vegetation, wildlife, livestock, and human population with the common objective of exploring the potential of ecosystem production that would be
sustainable for conservation and human development (Montaña 1984). This project
developed out of common interests among the researchers and some of the ranchers
that had expressed their concerns during the reserve formation regarding limitations
of water and pasture (Kaus 1992). However, this initial momentum lost force and by
the time Kaus (1992) conducted her anthropological study in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, research was being conducted mainly in the vicinities of the Desert
Laboratory and had focused on ecological, biological, and meteorological topics
with no emphasis on livestock and human population (see Kaus 1992, p. 116–123)
for an ample description of this impressive and broadly conducted research.
Therefore, the role of researchers of the natural sciences had been “to coordinate
the available research projects rather than actively develop programs which seeks
out needed expertise, combines research results for regional application, or provides
mechanisms for local participation in research activities” (Kaus 1992, p. 115–116).
In occasions, local inhabitants were hired as labor or guides, while the relationship
between the researchers and local inhabitants was cordial there was no collaboration. Some complaints expressed by the local inhabitants were described as lack of
courtesy from the local perspective, for example, leaving trash behind, damaging
fence lines, failing to close gates properly, driving fast when passing through settlements, not informing residents about research activities nor taking time to visit, or
giving unsolicited advice (Kaus 1992, p. 124). Kaus’s (1992) research contributed
to the discussions on how local people might be included within a conservation
program, how development and conservations goals can be compatible, and how
conservation can benefit local human populations. She describes how the human
perspective of the RBM was usually considered from an outsider perspective. Along
this line, solutions to apparent problems that the inhabitants did not even know
existed were imposed. Hence, conservation programs were developed that ignored
alternative perceptions of the environment in which humans are not detached from
nature but are an integral part of it.
Kaus (1992) recommendations were crucial then and some still remain even
more pertinent and urgent today: (1) the need for obtaining baseline data and longterm studies, (2) collaboration with local residents on research projects or including
residents in meetings about the activities in the protected area, (3) develop visible
demonstration of the relative benefits of alternative forms of land use or non-use or
10 Conservation and Development in the Biosphere Reserve of Mapimí…
Reserve’s management a legal status; it consisted of representatives: local inhabitants,
the research institute INECOL, the National Council of Science and Technology
(CONACYT), and MAB-Mexico (Halffter 1981; Kaus 1992). The first studies in
the BRM were basic evaluations of vegetation and vertebrate populations, undertaken by researchers from the Instituto de Ecología, “Ecole Normale Supérieure”
from France, the National Mexican Autonomous University (UNAM), and the
“Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones sobre Recursos Bióticos” (INIREB)
(Halffter 1978).
Soon after, an integrated research program was developed to study interrelated
topics in a multidisciplinary approach. The following priorities were identified:
climate, soils, vegetation, wildlife, livestock, and human population with the common objective of exploring the potential of ecosystem production that would be
sustainable for conservation and human development (Montaña 1984). This project
developed out of common interests among the researchers and some of the ranchers
that had expressed their concerns during the reserve formation regarding limitations
of water and pasture (Kaus 1992). However, this initial momentum lost force and by
the time Kaus (1992) conducted her anthropological study in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, research was being conducted mainly in the vicinities of the Desert
Laboratory and had focused on ecological, biological, and meteorological topics
with no emphasis on livestock and human population (see Kaus 1992, p. 116–123)
for an ample description of this impressive and broadly conducted research.
Therefore, the role of researchers of the natural sciences had been “to coordinate
the available research projects rather than actively develop programs which seeks
out needed expertise, combines research results for regional application, or provides
mechanisms for local participation in research activities” (Kaus 1992, p. 115–116).
In occasions, local inhabitants were hired as labor or guides, while the relationship
between the researchers and local inhabitants was cordial there was no collaboration. Some complaints expressed by the local inhabitants were described as lack of
courtesy from the local perspective, for example, leaving trash behind, damaging
fence lines, failing to close gates properly, driving fast when passing through settlements, not informing residents about research activities nor taking time to visit, or
giving unsolicited advice (Kaus 1992, p. 124). Kaus’s (1992) research contributed
to the discussions on how local people might be included within a conservation
program, how development and conservations goals can be compatible, and how
conservation can benefit local human populations. She describes how the human
perspective of the RBM was usually considered from an outsider perspective. Along
this line, solutions to apparent problems that the inhabitants did not even know
existed were imposed. Hence, conservation programs were developed that ignored
alternative perceptions of the environment in which humans are not detached from
nature but are an integral part of it.
Kaus (1992) recommendations were crucial then and some still remain even
more pertinent and urgent today: (1) the need for obtaining baseline data and longterm studies, (2) collaboration with local residents on research projects or including
residents in meetings about the activities in the protected area, (3) develop visible
demonstration of the relative benefits of alternative forms of land use or non-use or
10 Conservation and Development in the Biosphere Reserve of Mapimí…