4.7 Article

The impacts of cocaine-trafficking on conservation governance in Central America

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102098

Keywords

Conservation; Environmental governance; Protected areas; Deforestation; Drug trafficking

Funding

  1. PEGASuS/Future Earth - Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation's Science Program [1555596]
  2. NOMIS Foundation
  3. National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center under National Science Foundation [DBI-1052875]
  4. Open Societes Foundation's Global Drug Policy Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research is motivated by the compelling finding that the illicit cocaine trade is responsible for extensive patterns of deforestation in Central America. This pattern is most pronounced in the region's large protected areas. We wanted to know how cocaine trafficking affects conservation governance in Central America's protected areas, and whether deforestation is a result of impacts on governance. To answer this question, we interviewed conservation stakeholders from key institutions at various levels in three drug-trafficking hotspots: Peten, Guatemala, Northeastern Honduras, and the Osa Peninsula in Costa Rica. We found that, in order to establish and maintain drug transit operations, drug-trafficking organizations compete with and undermine conservation governance actors and institutions. Drug trafficking impacts conservation governance in three ways: 1) it undermines long standing conservation coalitions; 2) it fuels booms in extractive activities inside protected lands; and 3) it erodes the territorial control that conservation institutions exert, exploiting strict fortress conservation governance models. Participatory governance models that provide locals with strong expectations of land tenure and/or institutional support for local decision-making may offer resistance to the impacts on governance institutions that we documented.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available