1
Margaret Major
ES 600
Conaway, Hill
Case Study
3/12/2013
Ethics in Mapmaking: The Case of Participatory Research Mapping in the México Indígena Project
Introduction A map is a geographical tool that can be used to describe a place, define boundaries and delineate power and authority. Different cultures experience place in different ways, and thus different frameworks and tools are required to communicate these experiences. Geographer Margaret Pearce explains how indigenous cultural knowledge “is processual, situated, and incorporated into the landscape through place names and stories expressed in the meanings, connections, and interrelationships of those place names... In indigenous societies, the communication of this knowledge is also spatialized, through the diverse forms of Indigenous traditional cartographies” (Pearce 2008). Participatory Research Mapping (PRM) is an attempt to incorporate indigenous values and unique conceptions of space and place into a framework that can be understood by other communities who may not share the same values, such as western or capitalist societies. This case study of PRM in Mexico sheds light on some of the positive and negative aspects of this type of mapping, including how the map is made, where the funding for the map making process comes from, and what is done with the map when it is finished. A team of researchers headed by a professor at the University of Kansas completed a PRM project entitled México Indígena, which mapped indigenous lands and land tenure changes after liberal reforms by the Mexican government allowed the privatization of many communally­owned indigenous lands. While México Indigena was exemplary in that it involved community feedback sessions and in 2
some ways, respected local customs and indigenous knowledge systems, some questions of ethics were raised such as the use of military funding for academic research with indigenous groups. This case sheds lights on the ways in which PRM in indigenous communities can be both helpful and harmful, and suggests that while it is impossible to completely communicate indigenous geographies through Western frameworks, strategies such as emphasizing community feedback, maintaining transparency and trust, and placing ownership and power in the hands of the local community can help limit the quantity and quality of indigenous knowledge that is lost when communicated to non­indigenous audiences. Background
In 2005 a team of researchers under Peter H. Herlihy, a geographer at the University of Kansas, began using participatory research mapping (PRM) in two different regions of Mexico’s countryside. The goals of the project, as described by Derek Smith, a geographer on Herlihy’s team, were two fold: 1) to examine land tenure changes that occurred as a result of a national movement to privatize collectively­owned indigenous lands in the 1990s and 2) to collect and synthesize indigenous geographic and cultural knowledge using sketch maps, geographic information systems (GIS), and other western mapping tools, in order to create new maps of the communities that reflected local values and sense of place. This project, known as México Indígena, served as the pilot project for the American Geographical Society’s Bowman Expedition program (Smith, 2009). The goal of the Bowman Expeditions was to “improve U.S. understanding of foreign lands and peoples” (AGS, 2009 and Smith, 2009). In his final report on the project, Herlihy’s emphasizes that the information documented in the maps is not solely for the community, but serves as place­based information for the general public for various “humanitarian, military, scientific, or economic reasons” (Herlihy et al., 2008, p. 35). 3
Geographical Areas of Research
The two regions in which research for México Indígena took place include the Huasteca Potosina of the state of San Luis Potosi, and the Sierra Norte or Sierra Juarez in the state of Oaxaca (Refer to Appendix A). There are nine indigenous Teneek and Nahua villages in the Huasteca Potosina which includes “some of the northernmost reaches of highly diverse tropical rain forest” (Smith, 2009 p. 119). The Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca is home to many Zapotec communities who live “amid breathtaking landscapes that include maize fields, agroforesty plots and cloud forests” (p. 119). Both indigenous groups practice subsistence agriculture as their primary economic activity (Smith, 2009). The Gale Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes, describes the Oaxacan Zapotec as displaying “a strong sense of heritage and political destiny” (p. 448). Despite countless political obstacles including conquest by the Aztecs, cultural and political domination by the Spanish Conquistadors beginning in the sixteenth century, and the Mexican Revolution in the early twentieth century, the Zapotecs of Oaxaca have managed to maintain much of their language and traditions (Malinowski 1998, p. 448 and Indigenous Zapotec People in Mexico). While they clearly express a desire to hold onto their traditions and indigenous culture, Zapotec peoples also demonstrate an ability and desire to adapt alternative value systems and cultures to their own, as evident by the estimated one­third of foreign words that exist in their language, as well as their successful fight to communally manage their forests after years of exploitation by state­owned companies (Malinowski p. 448 and Malkin, 2010). Mapmaking Process
Collecting information to create the indigenous maps was a multistep process. The two regions where data was collected include 1) Teneek and Nahua villages in Huasteca Potosina in the eastern part of the state of San Luis Potosi and 2) Zapotec communities in the Sierra Juárez in the state of Oaxaca. 4
The researchers began by visiting the communities in which they intended to work and in “keeping with local custom,” (Smith, 2012 p. 120) organized community assemblies from which they received approval for their project. The team explained what their research was about, invited the community to select their own representatives to join the research team, and held workshops to “discuss and exchange perspectives on issues like indigenous territorial rights, economic changes and migration, and forest and water conservation” (Smith, 2012 p.120 ). The researchers adhered to local understandings of gender roles, as it was predominantly men who were at the table to share their knowledge of the place (Smith, 2012). The local investigators learned how to read topographic sheets, coordinate systems, and field mapping using GPS receivers (Smith 2012). The first step involved mapping sessions in which community members worked together using colored pencils and blank paper to draw their lands as they perceive them. The drawings by community members included natural features such as trees, streams, mountain ranges and farmlands, as well as places of cultural significance. The places and features of the map were labeled by their indigenous names. The local investigators traveled throughout the landscape with university students to document the coordinates of the various places identified on the sketch map with GPS receivers. All the data collected, including GPS coordinates, field observations and spreadsheets were transformed into spatial data layers as well as “extremely detailed, spatially accurate maps for each of the participating communities”(Smith 2012, p. 121). In order to develop the most accurate maps possible, feedback sessions were held with the community. Researchers and university students went into the field to record GPS coordinates of a region, and would later return to the village where the community would look at the data and give their feedback as to the accuracy of the names and locations of the places. Community members were able to add missing information, clarify information or make any other 5
changes to the map. The maps include elevation lines, roads, property boundaries, and other local geographic knowledge in the indigenous language of the Zapotec and Teneek, and Nahua communities. Other information obtained from government agencies was also included, though the researchers did not specify in their paper what that information was. Though the researchers note that digital and paper copies of the maps were given to the respective communities, they do not specify in this paper what was done with the original copies. This is significant because it raises questions about who maintained power and authority throughout the process. The maps represent a collaborative effort to record indigenous knowledge that is the property of the community. Giving the communities copies rather than the originals disregards the communities as rightful owners of the valuable and perhaps sacred knowledge of their place. Policies affecting the case
This case study was primarily affected by two policies or programs, PROCEDE at the national level, and the Bowman Expeditions, funded and implemented by the United States Military. The “Programa de Certificación de Derechos Ejidales y Titualción de Solares Urbanos” (PROCEDE), implemented by the Mexican government through constitutional changes in 1992­1993, is a national certification program that surveyed hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of indigenous and other communal lands in Mexico (Smith 2009). Prior to PROCEDE, both indigenous and non­indigenous local residents had constitutionally recognized rights, established in the wake of the Mexican Revolution, that allowed for designated lands to be owned communally. Ejidos and comunidades agrarias are two forms of communally owned land or “social property” that are referred to collectively as “núcleos ugnirios,” and together make up 52% of the national territory. This 6
demonstrates the strong indigenous presence and significance of communal land in Mexico (Smith 2009, p.177). Decisions about the land use and natural resource management on these lands were made by elected leaders and an assembly who meet every week to a few times a year, depending on local circumstances and customs (Raitenmann 1998; Barnes 2009). As part of a wave of larger neoliberal reforms, PROCEDE allowed for these communally owned lands to be partitioned and sold (Smith 2009). By partitioning communal lands, the Mexican government sought to provide greater land security to the residents, stimulate investment and enhance productivity in the rural sector (Smith 2009), aims that in a capitalist or neoliberal framework, are achieved through the designation of land as private property. However, case studies that have investigated the effects of PROCEDE on indigenous communities, including one by the same researchers in the current case study, have found that the privatization of communal lands raises concerns such as “the generation of new boundary disputes, loss of forest cover, and threats to the cultural survival of vulnerable indigenous populations” (Smith 2009, p.177). Changing the status of agrarian community land to ejido threatens indigenous sovereignty because “under ejido law, [indigenous lands] may be privatized through PROCEDE, divided up and sold individually” (Ramor 2009). In addition to the threat of land privatization at the national level, the case of participatory research mapping in San Luis Potosi and Oaxaca was also affected by a program of the United States Military known as the Bowman Expeditions. Bowman Expeditions
The dominant ethical question involved in the México Indígena case is the use of military funding for research with indigenous populations, a practice which the United States has made into an official program known as the Bowman Expeditions. “Funded by $500, 000 from the U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office, the Bowman Expeditions were designed to ‘improve U.S. 7
understanding of foreign lands and peoples’ among policy makers” (Bryan 2010, p. 414). The participatory map project lead by Herlihy and his team in San Luis Potosi and Oaxaca, known as the México Indigena project, was the first of these expeditions. Bryan describes in his critique of México Indigena, the Bowman Expeditions were designed with the intent of addressing what the American Geographical Society’s President, Jerome Dobson, stood as a lack of geographical and cultural knowledge on the part of U.S. policymakers making the U.S. “a mighty global power crippled by abysmal ignorance of its vast global domain” (Dobson, 2005, p. 1­2). In this way, cultural and physical geographical knowledge of a place can be used as a tool by the U.S. military to enforce its will upon other nations and their people. Herlihy and his team were accused by two indigenous organizations in Oaxaca of not informing the communities of the source of funding and political motivations behind the project (Bryan 2009). In the team’s paper describing México Indígena, the word “Bowman Expedition” is only mentioned once. In the conclusion, Smith et. al states that “since completing the Bowman Expedition, the communities have used their PRM maps independently to lower their property taxes, identify conservation areas, develop ecotourism plans, educate their youth about their culture and history, and have attempted to correct errors in the delimitation of their territorial boundaries” (Smith 2012, p.124). Though they state the ways in which the indigenous communities used their maps, they does not make any mention of the ways in which the U.S. military intends to use the information. In this way, the team appears to mask the driving force behind the Bowman Expeditions, which is a desire to improve U.S. understanding of foreign lands and peoples in order to shape U.S. policy (AGS 2009). Failing to maintain transparent represented unethical behavior by the researchers and prevented a relationship of mutual respect and trust between the indigenous community and the research team/ U.S. government. México Indigena was to serve as a 8
“prototype” for future Bowmen Expeditions throughout the world and was recently hailed by the National Defense Intelligence College as a model for mapping other “tribal” areas in Iraq and Afghanistan (Bryan 2010). It is important that the indigenous communities be notified of the potential risks of sharing their knowledge with the U.S. foreign military if there is an intention to gather the same information for areas in which the U.S. military maintains a heavy armed presence. Analysis and Conclusion
There are multiple environmental and social implications associated with both the process and end products of participatory research mapping in Oaxaca and San Luis Potosi. Compared to older maps that were used by colonizers to “expropriate land, establish new regimes of private property, and delineate restricted spaces for indigenous peoples,” (Smith 2009, p. 176) the maps made by the Zapotec peoples and Herlihy’s team “represent a serious attempt to incorporate indigenous perspectives into geographic research” (Smith 2012, p.122) and to understand and map the landscape and place as it is experienced by its indigenous inhabitants. The differences in the motivations for creating the maps meant that the indigenous communities involved in the PRM process could feel a sense of ownership and empowerment by having “full control of what was to be included or excluded from the maps” (Smith 2012, p. 122). Various aspects of the process including requesting approval to start the project by engaging in a locally appropriate manner, using community feedback sessions, using blank paper to create sketch maps and allowing for diversity in the types of features included in the maps, provided the necessary framework for adhering to a process that better reflects Traditional Ecological Knowledge. The research team noted discrepancies in the boundaries delineated by the State­initiated PROCEDE 9
program as “mapping land tenure and community boundaries revealed much more complex indigenous understandings of territory than what fits within the rigid government cadastral classifications” (Smith 2009). Because the boundaries mapped by the government are official, the team foresees that “the discrepancies could lead to conflicts” (Smith 2012, p. 129). Indigenous Geographies
In the Mexico Indigena project, it was crucial that 95% of the place names were recorded in an indigenous language rather than Spanish. “Indigenous cultural knowledge is processual, situated, and incorporated into the landscape through place names and stories expressed in the meanings, connections, and interrelationships of those place names” (Pearce 2008). For indigenous peoples, the process is equally important to the end result as “ the value of the effort, the coming to know, is found in the journey” (Cajete 2000). It is noteworthy that university students, researchers, and members of the communities all worked in collaboration to complete the mapping as together they were able to produce “hybrid geographies that combine different knowledges into a common cartographic language” (Smith 2009), but the importance of the process itself was tarnished by a lack of transparency on behalf of the researchers. Though the process was laudable, in that it engaged with multiple stakeholders and respected indigenous customs, the fact that the entire project relied on U.S. military funding raises concerns about who maintains power and authority over the information obtained. The information included in the maps, the ways in which that information is conveyed, and map ownership are important questions related to power and authority. Though Herlihy argued that regardless of whether or not informed consent was given by the communities, the use of U.S. military funding to map indigenous geographies “also raises broader questions about the relationship between academic research, military intelligence, and power relations that all geographers would do well to 10
consider” (Bryan 2009, p.415). Mapping of indigenous lands should benefit the communities in which research is done, as well as respect their unique values, worldviews and customs. Respecting the values of indigenous communities involves recognizing the importance of the collective over the individual. After the exposure of the use of military funding, Zapotec leader Aldo Gonzalez, the leader of the Union of Social Organizations of the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca, accused Herlihy and his team of geo­piracy. One of the members of Herlihy’s team responded to the claims, stating that Gonzalez had no right to comment on the cases because he did not legally or politically represent the communities in which they worked. Gonzalez described this logic as a “clash of two visions of life that are very different... This one, the project of the indigenous communities, is collective, and theirs ­ which is the one that the US government wants ­ is to individualize” (Ryan, 2009). Gonzalez emphasized the conflict that arises when individualist values or frameworks are imposed on indigenous communities, noting that “Mr Herlihy and Mr Dobson ­­and indeed the US military­­ are used to speaking to individuals. For them it is sufficient to ask one person as the owner of a piece of land for permission. But for the indigenous communities things aren't like that. Today we are struggling for the autonomy for our indigenous peoples, and this is a project bigger than any one single community” (Ryan, 2009).
Though PRM allows for the entire community to participate and take ownership of a map, the research team must also evaluate how their overarching mindsets and worldviews impact and conflict with those of the local community. Because the communities are the culture keepers and rightful owners of the knowledge of their place, their world views, values and visions of life should be followed and respected in PRM projects. 11
Lessons Learned
Mapping in indigenous communities requires respect, patience, understanding and transparency. The PRM process in in México Indígena was important in that it sought to create a product that could and has been used by the community in positive ways such as “lowering property taxes, identifying conservation areas, developing ecotourism plans, and educating their youth about their culture and history” (Smith 2012, p. 124). Yet the benefits of the map appear to be achieved through a process that did not maintain a relationship of mutual respect, trust, and openness with the indigenous communities. Pearce discusses how in some ways, understanding indigenous knowledge through capitalist or western frameworks entails an inherent loss or sacrifice of the indigenous knowledge itself, and that the process of communicating that knowledge must consider these losses. If mappers are conscious of the ways in which their frames of reference, values, and personal and institutional motivations and biases impact the ways in which they process indigenous knowledge can we create a product such as a map or cultural atlas that benefits and empowers the community.
Appendix A
Regions of Oaxaca Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oaxaca_regions_and_districts.svg
12
Map of research areas in Oaxaca, Mexico for Bowman Expedition project
Source: http://www.prmapping.res.ku.edu/Mexico_Indigena/oaxaca_study_area.htm
Map of Aztec expansion on Zapotec lands from 1502­1519
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aztecexpansion.png
13
Map of ancient Zapotec cities
Source: http://www.ancientscripts.com/zapotec.html
Works Cited American Geographical Society (AGS). (2009). The American Geographical Society’s Bowman
Expeditions seek to improve geographic understanding at home and abroad: Spotlight on México Indígena. Press Release. Retrieved March 12, 2013 from http://web.ku. 14
edu/wmexind/bowmanPRespangles.pdf Appendix A, can be accessed at https://www.flickr.com/photos/120163953@N04/
Bryan, J. (2010) Force multipliers: Geography, militarism, and the Bowman Expeditions, Political Geography XXX 1­3
Cajete, Gregory (2000). Native Science Natural Laws of Interdependence Clearlight Publishers
Indigenous Zapotec People in Mexico. Retrieved March 12, 2014, from Mexico Indigena Oaxaca Study Area website http://www.prmapping.res.ku.edu/Mexico_Indigena/ags_indigenouszapotecpeople.htm
(2008). The AGS Bowman Expeditions prototype: Digital geography of indigenous Mexico (Short version for web). Final Report submitted to the Foreign Military Studies Office. Available at http://web.ku.edu/wmexind/FMSO_Final_Report_2008_web_ version.pdf Accessed 22.02.10. Malinowski, Sharon (1998). Gale Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes Vol. II Malkin, Elisabeth, Nov 22 2010. Growing a Forest, and Harvesting Jobs. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/americas/23mexico.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print
Pearce, Margaret and Renee Pualani Louis. 2008. Mapping Indigenous Depth of Place. American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 32:3, 107­126. Ramor, Ryan, March 12 2009. Mapping Controversy in Oaxaca: Interview with Aldo Gonzalez, Indigenous Rights Officer of UNOSJO. Retrieved from http://upsidedownworld.org/main/mexico­archives­79/1759­mapping­controversy­in­oaxaca­interview­
with­aldo­gonzalez­indigenous­rights­officer­of­unosjo
Smith, Derek A. et. al. (2012). Using Participatory Mapping and GIS to Explore Local Geographic Knowledge of Indigenous Landscapes in Mexico. Focus on Geography 55:4
Smith, Derek A. et. al. (2009). The Certification and Privatization of Indigenous Lands in Mexico. Journal of Latin American Geography, Vol. 8