Skip to navigation – Site map

From ‘Revolutionary’ to Contested Park. Mobilization and Conflicts in the Recategorization Process of the Nevado de Toluca National Park (Mexico)

Stéphane Héritier and Clotilde Lebreton


A governmental project intending to downgrade a National Park into an Area of Protection of Flora and Fauna has encountered both scientific and legal opposition. During this recategorization period, participation has become a major issue mobilizing various groups of interest related to the Nevado de Toluca. These groups include agrarian communities living within the park and others, living in neighboring urban areas, who value the park for its material resources and its biodiversity. This paper will analyze the way this change of category has engaged territorial actors to use participation procedures to gain power over decision-making regarding the future of the protected area. In exploiting the possibilities of the law and regaining legitimacy, local communities have been able to partially redesign actors’ relationships and to regain a central actor status, leading to a renewed governance system.

Top of page

Full text

This paper is issued from a French-Mexican research project – SELINA - Parque Nacional Nevado de Toluca: a Socio-Environmental Laboratory for policy Innovation in National park management – funded for the French part by the National Research Agency (Agence Nationale pour la Recherche). We thank particularly the leader of the French part of the project, Dr. Jacques Imbernon (CIRAD Montpellier, ENS de Lyon/Laboratoire EVS, UMR 5600 du CNRS, ICAR/National Autonomous University of Mexico) for his support and for the excellent research environment he provided to all members during the time of the project (2012-2016).


1The governance of natural protected areas (PAs) represents a challenge in coordinating multiple decision making scales. This is further complicated by a collective land regime where land is under various and intense pressures. During the past few years, Mexico has engaged in a movement to change the status of some of its National Parks (Villalobos 2000, Ceballos 2011), mainly created during the post-revolutionary era (from the approval of the Mexican Constitution in 1917 to the end of Cardenas’ Presidency in 1940).

2The Nevado de Toluca National Park located within the State of Mexico (see also Depraz et al. 2017 in the present issue) not far from the City of Mexico (Ciudad de Mexico), has been a national park for almost 80 years (figure 1). The park was first designated in 1936 during a very prolific period of park designation by the Mexican Federal government under Cardenas’ administration between 1934 and 1940 and with the guidance of M.A. de Quevedo, Head of the Department of Forest, Game and Fish, who was in charge of National Parks (Simonian 1995, Melo Gallegos 2002). These parks were called “Revolutionary Parks” by the historian Emily Wakild (Wakild 2011). At that time, as Wakild wrote, “Land reform and national park creation both stemmed from transformations to legal designations tied to communal property” – refereeing to “lands held in common by a community” and the community itself. Mexican national park law forbids human occupation, but the ejido status gave rights to communities (Assies 2008) to manage and use their natural resources. Thereby, agrarian communities remained permanently active, cultivating crops and raising cattle. The presence of those communities within the park and other issues like illegal logging, have been considered as a threat to the protected area’s biodiversity (CONANP 2013).

3Since 2009, 3 national parks (Pico de Tancitaro PN, Los Marmoles and Toluca) have been downgraded – “recategorized” according to the official terminology – into Areas of Protection of Flora and Fauna (Areas de Protección de Flora y Fauna - APFF) (SEMARNAT 2012). The Nevado de Toluca has been recategorized in October 2013 by presidential decree (DOF 2013), partially ending a long process of the government’s overall plan and political dispute between multi-scale opponents (Lebreton 2015). The process followed by the authorities has been “participative” according to the Mexican environmental law (LGEEPA 1988). Nevertheless, various actors, both local and national, have contested the legitimacy and the efficiency of the participation procedures, and they have also challenged future governance of the Nevado de Toluca APFF. The contestation has changed relationships between actors involved around the protected area (PA) (Grupo de la Faja Volcánica Transmexicana 2014, Mastretta Yanes 2014, Velasco 2015) calling for greater transparency (García Conejo 2014).

Figure 1 – Limits of the former Nevado de Toluca National Park (before the change of status on the 1st of October 2013).

Figure 1 – Limits of the former Nevado de Toluca National Park (before the change of status on the 1st of October 2013).

4This paper focuses on the environmental governance of the PA, and in particular on the effects of participatory processes on the actor system and the multilevel governance system. It intends to understand how can participation reconfigure the actor system, and lead to a new governance system? To answer this question, the following paragraphs will focus mainly on: (1) the downgrading context of the Nevado national park, (2) on the conflicts associated with this change of conservation status, (3) how the actors involved in the recategorization formed new alliances and (4) how they contributed to reconfigure the protected area’s governance system.

Changing the Nevado de Toluca protected area’s Status: A Conservation Requisite?

5The PA dominated by the volcano Nevado de Toluca (4691 meters above sea level) extends over 54,000 hectares and is part of the trans Mexican neovolcanic axis where ecosystems are considered to be “deteriorated” (CONANP 2013, Arriola Padilla et al. 2014). The park includes slopes over 3000 meters of elevation. Located near the industrial city of Toluca (over 2 million inhabitants) and the federal district of Mexico (Mexico City) (about 80 km or 1,5 hours away), regrouping more than 20 million inhabitants, the park appears to be a suburban PA. Despite the establishment of the national park in 1936, about 80% of the total land has been allocated to 54 agrarian communities, living within or around the park, as collective properties. Under the National Parks laws and regulations, economic development opportunities were extremely low and those communities are still affected by a high level of poverty compared to national standards (CONAPO 2010, Lebreton 2015).


6This research is part of a PhD. dissertation financed as part of a French-Mexican project initiated in 2012. It has been focusing on the Nevado de Toluca national park, as a socio-environmental laboratory for political innovations in the management of national parks. For this paper, fieldwork has been based on qualitative research methodologies and interviews, both formal and informal, during a period running from December 2012 to March 2015. Forty semi-structured interviews were conducted with institutions, academics, forest engineers, associations and non-governmental organizations. The objectives of the interviews were: (1) to identify the issues of forest management and Mexican PAs, (2) to identify the relationships between actors and understand the intentions and stakes of the category change, and (3) to highlight the various logics of action or the various strategies implemented during the reclassification. At the same time, 50 interviews were conducted with the community authorities to obtain their opinion on the reclassification and to estimate information accessibility on this subject. In total, approximately 90 formal interviews were conducted. Another source of information has been official reports used to prepare and justify the change of category. Meetings minutes or meetings reviews were also consulted.

Framework analysis

7The situation consisted of a complex set of political, social, environmental and economic issues, and the objective was to understand the inner power and scale of relationships in the PA. In particular, we assessed how some marginal actors at one scale have become key actors at a higher scale. Figure 2 shows that one needs to consider a hierarchy of power between different groups of actors on 3 levels: state (both federal and state), PA and community.

8The governance of PAs has been central in research and in international organization for the past 3 decades (Cruz 2004, Locke and Dearden 2005, Francis 2008, Brenner y Vargas del Río 2010, Pérez Campuzano et al. 2011, Brenner 2012, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013, Saavedra 2014, Saavedra Peláez 2015, Martínez y Espejel 2015). The general trend has been to involve more actors in the decision-making process and to improve the governance of both terrestrial and marine PAs (Christie and White 2007, Lockwood 2010, Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013).

9PAs in Mexico are under both the Federal and the State authority (González Ocampo et al. 2014), but they also involve community authority (Sanderson 1984). Nevertheless, top-down governance has been the historical approach to manage national parks.

Figure 2 – Analytical framework developed at 3 levels: the state level, the PA level and the community level.

Figure 2 – Analytical framework developed at 3 levels: the state level, the PA level and the community level.

10Participation has become a major trend in public policy governance (Cornwall 2008, Smith 2009, Paz Salinas 2008, Rodriguez Saldañas 2015). At the international level, participation has become the cornerstone of all international conservation NGOs, especially for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (Borrini-Feyerabend et al.2004, Greiber 2009). Moreover, the Aarhus Convention, signed in June 1998, aims to improve public access to information, public participation in policymaking and environmental justice. For the past few years, studies have shown significant interest in the application of this Convention to the Mexican legislation (García Granados 2010, Sereno Marín 2013).

11At the national level, the concept has been institutionalized in the 1983 Mexican Constitution – art. 26 – (Rodriguez Saldañas 2015) and in 1992 in the Mexican Environmental Law. New legal provisions have been added since that time, such as, a structure for citizen complaints (denuncia ciudadana), the right to public access of environmental information and the obligation for civil servants to fulfill any public demand (Mollard 2009, Lebreton 2015). Since the amendment (Articulo reformado) in 1996 of the 1988 General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (also known as LGEEPA 1988), the Mexican Government has officially established a national strategy dedicated to citizen participation in environmental issues. Participation has become an imperative to establish or modify a PA. But the law only commands to take people’s opinions and their interests to maximize the “chances of success and their support” (Villalobos 2000). Therefore, the official commitment to citizen participation is reduced to informing citizens and to strengthening social acceptance of change. Participation underlies a potential misunderstanding, especially when it is narrowed to information, a situation Arnstein considers to be the first degree of “tokenism” in her participation’s scale “allow[ing] the have-nots to hear and to have a voice” (Arnstein 1969: 217). More broadly, the effects of participation on public policies and its efficiency to face environmental issues are sometimes contested (Reed 2008). Antoine Vergne considers that success of participation can be estimated through four criteria: “inclusion (Who participates?), relevance (What is participation about?), deliberation (How does the process leading to decision making happen?) and equity (How are the participants considered?)” (Vergne 2013). In the case of the Nevado, it was interesting to consider participation as a democratization process of public action and to look at participatory mechanisms as public policy instruments.

Geographical and Social context: A Park under Pressure

12Before October 2013, the national park status was legally forbidding natural resource use and extraction (CONANP 2013). But many illegal activities have been registered and tolerated within the park both in day-to-day use for self-sufficiency and for local or regional urban development needs such as mineral extraction (CONANP 2013, Villanueva & Imbernon 2013, Atlas du Nevado de Toluca 2015). Local agrarian communities and regional businesses were – and still are – dependent on natural resources located within or immediately surrounding the Nevado de Toluca PA. The demand of raw materials (construction material, wood, and water) has impacted the park landscape during the past few decades (Atlas du Nevado de Toluca, 2015), in particular the communities located on the eastern and the northeastern sides of the PA. In this context, recategorization has been based on scientific studies concluding that forest degradation and various biodiversity threats had been caused mainly by local communities, without considering that the people and the industries from Toluca also contributed to the damage (Franco Mass et al. 2006, Endara-Agramont et al. 2013, CONANP 2013). In other words, the poorest people were held largely responsible for the environmental degradation.

Emerging Conflicts during Recategorization

13Two periods of participation-information have been organized during the recategorization process. The first one started with the project of recategorization itself. The other one occurred after the October 2013 Decree formalizing the protected area management plan.

Convergence of Contestation procedures

14The discontent created by the presidential decision has modified some relationships. During the process, previous power asymmetries have been moderated, and unexpected effects of participation have appeared due to public mobilization (Collectivo 2013).

15The first conflict has been based on a scientific controversy about the quality of some studies used by governmental agencies to justify the recategorization. An evaluation has been produced by an academic group, known as “Grupo de la Faja Volcánica TransMexicana,” or FVTM, a group of biologists and ecosystem specialists mostly affiliated with the Institute of Ecology of the Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). The authors of that study considered that the scientific justification of the status change was questionable because of methodological and scientific bias (Mastretta Yanes 2014, Arredondo, Mastretta 2014, Mastretta-Yanes et al. 2014). They criticized the quality of the supporting study and complained about the lack of scientific robustness to justify the new category. They have also been critical about the management options proposed in the Management Plan Draft (Borrador del Programma de Manejo) which has been “fill[ed] up with incorrect information” including the importance of biodiversity degradation, the change of land-use, and the change of forest density in the past 30 years (Mastretta-Yanes et al. 2014). Through extensive use of social media, as well as classic media, they accelerated the spread of their opposing arguments. Because of their scientific legitimacy, some members of this group were finally invited to discuss the draft management plan for the APFF in order to establish zoning of the protected area.

16The second controversy was based on legal issues. Seven communities filed legal proceedings against the category change. They denounced the violation of the right of audience stipulated in Article 27 of the Constitutional Law. The suit filed by the ejido of San Juan de las Huertas located in the Municipio de Zinancatepec (Figure 1) was the only one accepted by the Court. This ejido has a history of contestation. In the 2000s, the members of the community of San Juan have already opposed a tourism development project from the governor of the state of Mexico because of potential ecological damage to their natural resources (Perez-Ramirez et al. 2012). In the present case, communities blamed the government for not having consulted them before the publication of the categorization decree. In accordance with the law, the consultation should have been carried out before the community assembly, with at least three-quarters of its members present. And the meeting act should have been registered with the National Agrarian Register.

17The third conflict was a lawsuit initiated by Luz Emilia Aguila Zinzer, granddaughter of Miguel Angel de Quevedo, who is considered as the father of forest conservation in Mexico (Simonian 1995). She intended to defend her grandfather’s legacy and she is personally involved in forest protection in the City of Mexico. Working as a journalist and a theater critique, she has professional affiliations with national newspapers. After the recategorization Decree was published, she filed a lawsuit to invalidate it. She invoked the safeguard of the natural heritage founded by her great-grandfather. Even if this suit was not successful, the judge ordered the government in June 2014 to adopt measures to improve transparency and protection for the PA, including a website giving accurate information on the urban development in the PA. In the end, her connection with national media, and her knowledge of the legislation gave her an important voice to contest the Decree.

Negotiations to resolve conflicts

18To contain the first two conflicts, the government tried to negotiate separately with both the research group and the community of San Juan. To negotiate the first conflict, the government has accepted to involve the FVTM in the public consultation to discuss the Management Plan Program (Grupo de la Faja Volcánica Transmexicana 2014). After four meetings, their proposal has been partially used to modify the APFF zoning. But these few concessions from the government did not satisfy the research group who maintained their media attacks regarding the quality of the management plan. To address the second conflict led by the community leaders of the ejido of San Juan de las Huertas, the government has suspended their environmental financial subsidies. Indeed, the environmental program planned to suspend payments to communities in conflict with them. The government has used this financial pressure so that the community withdraws its lawsuit. However, this strategy failed. Finally, the Court (in March 2015) ruled in favor of the community of San Juan de Las Huertas. Since then, the land of the community came back to its former status under the national park law.

19Finally, actors contesting the recategorization have used similar and convergent strategies. Those actors have tried to force the government to reconsider the project of recategorization. They have forced the authorities to accept them to take an active part in the participation and to have a voice in decision-making, a double step involvement that is crucial since, as stated by A. Cornwall, “Being involved in a process is not equivalent to having a voice” (Cornwall 2008: 278). Some actors acted outside the frame that the official participation process planned to lead. “Participation as praxis (…) constitutes a terrain of contestation, in which relations of power between different actors, each with their own ‘projects’, shape and reshape the boundaries of action” writes Cornwall (2008: 276). Focusing on the actors’ relationships during the participation process outside the participative arena, shows the asymmetries of power. Whereas the participation process seemed to lock discourses and controversies, informal negotiations have been initiated between and among opposing parties.

Powerful communities

20The conflictual situation unveiled different government attitudes regarding various actors opposing recategorization. Distributive or conflicting negotiation, implying a confrontation or a bargaining between at least two parties (i.e. San Juan and CONANP), and integrative or dialoguing negotiation (Dupont 2006 after Walton and McKersie 1965) have both been identified during the conflicting period. This situation resulted in alliances between some actors opposing the Presidential Decree and thereby led to a new balance of power between the actors involved in the governance of the APFF.

From Controversies to Unexpected Alliances

21Informal negotiation arenas have been formed since October 2013. During the legal and media conflicts, alliances have been created between actors sharing temporary achievements. The attribute analysis of the actors in terms of power, legitimacy and spatial intervention based on the “theory of stakeholders” (Mitchell et al. 1999) revisited by Brullot (2009) and quoted in Brullot et al. (2014) can explain these alliances and interdependencies (Table 1). The actors seek in the alliances the resources that they do not have. Those with the most attributes have a central position in the formation of alliances and are considered as key players. They concentrate other actors’ attention and structure most of the alliances.

Table 1 – Actors attributes

Table 1 – Actors attributes

22Beyond all expectations, the communities proved to be central actors in that process because they have been central actors of all alliances. First, the government was tied with legal conflicts and needed their agreement to change the category. The change of category was suspended as long as the legal conflict was not resolved, which required obtaining an agreement with the community. Second, the forest sector needed community cooperation to implement conservation programs. Finally, local and national associations needed community agreement to intervene on the Nevado. Other alliances appeared between civil associations. These kinds of cooperations allow exchanges of resources: the research group shares its scientific knowledge, the citizen its legal knowledge and the local association its contacts with communities.

When conflicts lead to Governance innovations

23Often interactions between actors lead to socio-technical innovations (Lebreton 2015: 227-228) which are specific to the PA (figure 3), such as:

24i) A financial incentive mechanism for the conversion of agricultural land around a federal-state-community alliance. In order to convert agricultural lands (mostly potatoes fields) to forest commercial plantations, an alliance between the communities and CONAFOR (Comisión Nacional Forestal - National Forest Commission – federal level) and PROBOSQUE (Protectora de Bosques del Estado De México – Forest Service of the State of Mexico under the authority of the Secretaría del Medio Ambiante – Secretary of the Environment) was formed. Each hectare of converted land from agriculture to forest is eligible for CONAFOR and PROBOSQUE funding up to 37,000 Mexican pesos (about $1’800 US) for the first five years.

25ii) The establishment of a cooperative of ejidos to implement logging. Inspired by the successful experience of the cooperative existing in the Municipio of Amanalco (Agua Bendita), the project would be to extend this cooperation to ejido communities of the Nevado APFF (see also Depraz et al. 2017, in this issue). Thanks to an efficient productive organization and better forest product marketing, the goal is to improve profitability of forestry.

26iii) The development of Nevado Watch Initiatives to follow the effects of the recategorization: a Citizen’s Observatory of the Nevado de Toluca (Observatorio Ciudadano en Pro del Nevado de Toluca) being assisted by a local association (Frente en la defense del Xinacantécatl) with the support of agrarian Communities, and another one being sustained by the national association named Reforestamos Mexico.

27iv) An ecological monitoring system that will link together 2 associations: (FVTM Group and the Mexican Civil Council for Sustainable Forestry – Consejo civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostenible (CCMSS 2017) and a community of the Nevado (Santiago Tlacotepec).

Figure 3 – Governance reconfiguration: New actors and Policy instruments

Figure 3 – Governance reconfiguration: New actors and Policy instruments

28The last 3 projects are indirect consequences of the participatory instrumentation. The lack of transparency and the limits of the participatory processes have led civil society to organize itself and build alternate solutions based on actor networks. In this way, the conflicts related to the categorization have modified and contributed to the way relationships between actors at all scales are recognized. They have also generated sociotechnical innovations that would have been inconceivable without these controversies. As stated by Callon et al. (2009: 34) in another similar context, “[controversies contributed] to the formation of networks of actors sharing a collective project, to the emergence of ‘project’ or ‘cause’ coalitions that otherwise would not have existed”.

29Interdependencies and strategies of traditional and new actors have indirectly shaped new governance during participatory processes. Innovations, listed in the beginning of this section, are new instruments of governance, more or less formal, responding to national strategies or emerging from territorial dynamics without official procedure (figure 3). Finally, in response to legal requirements, a legal instrument has been instituted at the national level: the Decree. Two instruments of norms and standards have been established: the management plan at the PA level and community forest management plans at the community level. Due to the unexpected changes, an economic instrument supported by the communities and 3 information and communication instruments supported by associations are being developed (cf. socio-technical innovation number ii to iv). This leads to hybrid governance based on shared collaborative governance (State and Federal) with an Advice Council that is supposed to represent the different interests. This new governance is based on cross-financing and social-public-private partnerships. In addition to these formal arrangements, other informal arrangements based on new instruments come under “negotiated governance” (Froger 2008) which is a part of collective action.

30At the local level, community forest management is promoted in particular by SEMARNAT as a new form of local management of resources, without taking into account intrinsic ambiguities such as unequal access to natural resources, asymmetry of power, conflicts between community members, etc. In basing the governance mainly on local agrarian authorities, the State is taking into account land owners only, forgetting other members of rural communities, often more numerous.

Strategic analysis reveals the games of negotiation

31Lebreton (2015) has given a full analysis of this game of negotiation (see table 2). The following paragraphs present the positions taken by the various actors during the controversy related to the recategorization.

32On the institutional side, CONANP led the public consultation according to minimalist orientation reserved by the environmental law. During the first consultation CONANP has omitted to give communities full information about the effect of recategorization on further restrictions regarding agricultural activities (see Lebreton 2015: 92 and following pages). On the other hand, CONANP has reinforced the second participative process in the end of 2013 as an answer to the pressure of the opponents. To achieve social acceptance and avoid more conflict, the federal agency tried to negotiate with the university group and communities. The tactic was to integrate scientific counter-evaluation into the management plan.

33During that sensitive period, the State of Mexico (Estado de Mexico) intervened to solve the legal conflict initiated by the community of San Juan de las Huertas. The State of Mexico also used conservation programs as financial pressure on the community. Then it bargained an agreement based on resource access and economic interests for the community.

34On the communities’ side, it has been shown in this paper that they were central actors of the PA’s territorial system. Their cooperation was essential for all actors who wanted or needed to increase their legitimacy to intervene on the PA. Only one community has seen the court procedure through to its conclusion. The absence of agreement between communities may have lowered the efficiency of their protest against the recategorization. This apparent paradox points out that public authorities acted directly on the subsidies they provided to the communities, and confirms their essential position in the controversy. The revenue ensured by the conservation programs and the threats of suspension of their deposits, may have prevented the communities from freely disagreeing with governmental decisions.

35The researchers involved in the FVTM Group have relied on their scientific legitimacy to force negotiations, and they have also based their argument partly upon the need for social justice for communities (Mastretta et al. 2014). In the end, the final zoning integrated partially their proposal. However, they were not fully satisfied, which is why the Group maintained pressure through the media to express their disagreement.

Table 2 – Synthesis of the actor system strategic framework of the Nevado de Toluca PA emerging during the recategorization process (adapted from Lebreton 2015: 233-234)

Local associations’ legitimacy was too weak to intervene in discussions on the Nevado. Frente en Defensa del Xinantécalt

36As for Luz Emilia Aguila Zinzer, she took part in the discussions thanks to a charismatic legitimacy based on the legacy of her grandfather Miguel Angel de Quevedo. She also has an economic power, social capital (Woolcock 1998) and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986), enabling her to have access to accurate information and to justice.

37Finally, actors tried to build their own legitimacy and to limit that of their opponents. They share their forces to further strengthen their partnership.

Conclusions: Reconfiguring the Protected Area’s Governance System

38Participation process led to emerging stakeholders and new instruments of territorial governance. During the period 2012-2015, controversies led to small changes in public action. Confrontation and “social exchange procedures” (Blau 1964, Ferrari 2001, Lascoumes 2002) have been framed by the Mexican democratic practices and power relationships between actors (table 2). They have been achieved by a marginal modification of public action, more specifically, with regard to the PA zoning and the second participative process. However, conflicts have led to the development of non-governmental actor networks that sometimes resulted in socio-technical innovations. Through these conflicts, debates moved to media and legal arenas apart from the government’s system plan. The analysis of power and negotiation games is also important to interpret and understand the challenges of governance because it makes it possible to reveal what Leroux (2006: 95) called the “orientation methods of the territorial governance”, the “games of negotiation” and the “places of negotiation.” Changing the management policy for the Nevado de Toluca PA has inspired new strategies and has partially redesigned actors’ relationships. It has also been nurtured by interdependence and strategies revealed by traditional actors during the process. The participative process analysis related to negotiations games helps to understand changes in territorial governance. This analysis also shows the transformations that have occurred in both the Mexican State and Mexican civil society through the appropriation and the re-interpretation of the participative policies.

39To a certain extent, the analysis can conclude the appearance of the premises of a countervailing power. The instruments of knowledge developed by the associations represent forms of countervailing-power (Fung and Wright 2003, 2005). Efficient governance depends on social forces in play. According to Fung and Wright, the countervailing-power is essential to reduce power asymmetries. Indeed in the collaborative governance system of the PA, the collaborative institution (Advisory board) is the result of government decision. Therefore, this institution may favor experts and powerful group interests (like the forestry sector) and neutralize opposed forces if deliberative processes are not transparent. To conclude, studying participation with power as an analytical concept is useful to analyze the environmental governance evolution of a protected area.

Top of page


Arnstein S R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216‐224.

Arredondo L., Mastretta A. 2014. La recategorización del Nevado de Toluca no favorecerá su conservación. Animal politico, julio 16 2014 06:30 (28/07/2016)

Arriola Padilla V J, Estrada Martínez E, Ortega-Rubio A, Pérez Miranda R, Gijón Hernández A R 2014. Deterioro en áreas naturales protegidas del centro de México y del Eje Neovolcánico Transversal. Investigación y Ciencia de la Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes. 60: 37-49.

Assies W. 2008. Land Tenure and Tenure Regimes in Mexico: An Overview. Journal of Agrarian Change 8(1): 33-63.

Atlas du Nevado de Toluca. 2015. L’activité minière sur le Nevado | Des zones d’ombres. Online:

Blau P. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Borrini-Feyerabend G, Dudley N, Jaeger T, Lassen B, Pathak Broome N, Phillips A. and Sandwith T. 2013. Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN Series No. 20.

Borrini-Feyerabend G, Kothari A and Oviedo G. 2004. Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, IUCN.

Bourdieu P. 1986. The forms of capital, in Richardson J G (ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York, Greenwood Press: 241–58.

Brenner L. 2012, “Desafíos para la gobernanza ambiental en México: El caso de las reservas de la biosfera,” in Rocío Rosales Ortega, Ludger Brenner, and Cristóbal Mendoza, eds., Geografía económica y social: Actores, instituciones y procesos sociales, Mexico City, Siglo XXI Editores/Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Iztapalapa, pp. 207-230.

Brenner L. y Vargas del Río D. 2010 “Gobernabilidad y gobernanza ambiental en México: La experiencia de la Reserva de la Biosfera Sian Ka’an,” Polis: Investigación y Análisis Sociopolítico y Psicosocial, Mexico, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 115-154.

Brullot S. 2009. Mise en œuvre de projets territoriaux d’écologie industrielle en France: vers un outil méthodologique d’aide à la décision. Unpublished PhD diss.

Brullot S, Maillefert M, Joubert J. 2014. Stratégies d’acteurs et gouvernance des démarches d’écologie industrielle et territoriale. Développement durable et territoires 5(1) (retrieved 28.07.2016.

Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y. 2001. Acting in an Uncertain World. An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA & London, England, MIT Press.

CCMSS 2017. Consejo civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostenible, website. (Retrieved 21.02.2017 )

Ceballos G. 2011. Propuesta de recategorización y decreto del Parque Nacional Nevado de Toluca. Toluca, Secretaría del Medio Ambiente Gobierno del Estado de México.

Christie P, White A T. 2007. Best practices for improved governance of coral reef marine protected areas. Coral Reefs 26 (4): 1047-1056.

Collectivo 2013. URGENTE. 20 razones importantes para exigir se cancele el nuevo estatus del Nevado de Toluca. Blog page so-signed by Comunidades del Alto Lerma, Grupo Millihuacan, Fundación ret, Frente de Pueblos Indígenas en Defensa de la Madre Tierra, octubre 18, 2013. (Retrieved 28.02.2015)

CONANP (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas) 2013. Estudio previo justificativo para la modificación de la declaratoria del Parque Nacional Nevado de Toluca. CONANP, México DF, 89.

Cornwall A. 2008. Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal 43(3): 269-283.

Cruz C. N. 2004. Gobernabilidad y ‘governance’ democráticas: el confuso y no siempre evidente vínculo conceptual e institucional. Desarrollo Humano e Institucional en América Latina. Instituto Internacional de Gobernabilidad. No. 23. (Recuperado el 13 de enero, 2009).

Depraz S., Sanial E., Rees-Catalan A. K., Salinas-Rojas A. 2017. Less conservation for better protection? A biased relationship between a city and its protected area in the vicinity of Nevado de Toluca (Mexico). Articulo – Journal of Urban Research (in this issue)

DOF 2013. Decreto que reforma, deroga y adiciona diversas disposiciones del diverso publicado el 25 de enero de 1936, por el que se declaró Parque Nacional la montaña denominada “Nevado de Toluca” que fue modificado por el diverso publicado el 19 de febrero de 1937. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. México DF. (available online :

Dupont C. 2006. Coopérer pour s’entendre ou s’affronter pour vaincre? Entretien avec Christophe Dupont. Négociations 5(1): 93-114.

Endara-Agramont A R., Calderón-Contreras R, Nava-Bernal G, Franco-Maass S. 2013. Analysis of fragmentation Processes in High-Mountain Forests of the Centre of Mexico. American Journal of Plant Sciences 4: 697-704.

Ferrary M. 2001. Pour une théorie de l’échange dans les réseaux sociaux. Un essai sur le don dans les réseaux industriels de la Silicon Valley. Cahiers internationaux de sociologie 111(2): 261-290.

Francis G. 2008. Evolution of contexts for protected areas governance, in Hanna K S, Clark D A, Slocombe D S. (ed.) Transforming parks and protected areas: policy and governance in a changing world. New York, Routledge: 15-38.

Franco Maass S, Regil Garcia H H, Gonzáles Esquivel C, Nava Berna G. 2006). Cambio de uso del suelo y vegetación en el Parque Nacional Nevado de Toluca, México, en el periodo 1972-2000. Investigaciones Geográficas, Boletín del Instituto de Geografía (UNAM) 61: 38-57.

Froger G. 2008. Environnement et gouvernance : de la politique publique à la régulation de l’action collective, in Hufty M, Dormeier Freire A, Plagnat P, Neumann V. Jeux de gouvernance, regards et réflexion sur un concept. Genève, IUED, Karthala.

Fung A, Wright E O. 2005. Le contre-pouvoir dans la démocratie participative et délibérative, in Bacqué M-H, Rey H, Sintomer Y (dir.) Gestion de proximité et démocratie participative : une perspective comparative, Paris, La Découverte.

Fung A, Wright E O. 2003. Deepening Democracy Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. The Real Utopias Project IV. London and New York, Verso Book.

García Conejo M. 2014. Xinantécatl, Programa de manejo del Nevado de Toluca requiere más diffusión y transparencia. Diaportal, 21.08.2014. (Retrieved 23.02.2015)

García Granados F. 2010. La tutela efectiva de los derechos ambientales. El derecho mexicano frente a la Convención de Aarhus. Revista Legislativa de Estudios Sociales y de Opinión Pública 3(6): 129-170.

González Ocampo H A, Cortés-Calva P, Íñiguez Dávalos L I, Ortega-Rubio A. 2014. Las áreas naturales protegidas de México. Investigación y Ciencia de la Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes 60: 7-15.

Greiber T. (ed.) 2009. Conservation with Justice. A Rights-based Approach. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.

Grupo de la Faja Volcánica Transmexicana (Arredondo L, Mastretta Yanes A, Nicasio Arzeta S, Quadri P, Cao R, Escalante Espinosa T, Piñero D) 2014. Argumentos técnicos y propuestas de modificaciones al Borrador del Programa de Manejo del Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Nevado de Toluca, dispuesto a consulta pública por la Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas el 1 de agosto de 2014. 30 de Agosto del 2014.

Lascoumes P. 2002. De l’utilité des controverses socio-techniques. Journal International de Bioéthique 13(2): 68-79.

Lebreton C. 2015. Gouvernance(s) sur un volcan. Controverses, arrangements et reconfiguration autour des instruments participatifs dune aire naturelle protégée mexicaine (le Nevado de Toluca). Lyon, ENS de Lyon – Université de Lyon, Unpublished PhD diss.

Leroux I. 2006. Gouvernance territoriale et jeux de négociation. Négociations 6(2): 83-98.

LGEEPA 1988. Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente. México, DOF 28-01-1988.

Locke H, Dearden P. 2005. Rethinking Protected Area Categories and the New Paradigm. Environmental Conservation 32(1): 1-10.

Lockwood M, 2010 Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management 91(3): 754-766.

Martínez N. y Espejel I. 2015. La investigación de la gobernanza en México y su aplicabilidad ambiental The research on governance in Mexico and its environmental applicability. Economía, Sociedad y Territorio xv(47): 153-183.

Mastretta Yanes A. 2014. El cambio del Nevado de Toluca, une error histórico. Nexos, Agosto 11, 2014, (17/02/2015).

Mastretta Yanes A., Cao R., Nicasio Arzeta S., Quadri P., Escalante Espinosa T., Arredondo L. y Piñero D. 2014. ¿Será exitosa la estrategia del cambio de categoría para mantener la biodiversidad del Nevado de Toluca? Oikos=, Agosto 2014: “Reflexiones sobre la ecología y la conservación en México”, 12 : 7-17.

Melo Gallegos C. 2002. Areas Naturales Protegidas de México en el siglo XX. Colec. Temas Selectos de Geografía de México, México, Instituto de Geografía, UNAM.

Mitchell R K, Agle B R, Wood D J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853-886.

Mollard E. 2009. Idéal démocratique et idéal environnemental: Analyse comparée des pouvoirs territoriaux en France et au Mexique. VertigO - la revue en sciences de l’environnement 9(1): 10. (Retrieved 19.08.2016)

Paz Salinas M F. 2008. De áreas naturales protegidas y participación: convergencias y divergencias en la construcción de la construcción del interés público. Nueva Antropología Volumen 68: 51-74.

Pérez Campuzano E., Perevochtchikova M.and Ávila S. (eds.) 2011. Suelo de conservación del Distrito Federal: hacía una gestión y manejo sustentable? Mexico City, Instituto Politécnico Nacional.

Perez-Ramirez C., Zizumbo-Villarreal L. y  Monterroso-Salvatierra N. (2012). Turismo e identidad de resistencia: La oposición local a proyectos turísticos en el Parque Nacional Nevado de Toluca, México. Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo 21(2): 436-460.

Reed M S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141(10): 2417-2431.

Rodriguez Saldañas M. 2015. Reforma constitucional y participación ciudadana en México: 245-558. In Carbonell Sánchez M, Fix-Fierro Valadés D, Gonzáles Pérez LRH (coord.) Estado constitucional, derechos humanos, justicia y vida universitaria. Estudios en homenaje a Jorge Carpizo. Estado constitucional, tomo IV, volumen 2. Mexico. UNAM.

Saavedra F. 2014. Aires Naturelles protégées ou réserves foncières urbaines ? Les aires de conservation du sol face à l’expansion de la zone métropolitaine de la ville de Mexico et de ses périphéries. Chaléard J.-L. (ed.) Métropoles aux Suds. Le défi des périphéries ? Paris, Khartala.

Saavedra Peláez F. 2015 « L’agriculture urbaine dans la Ville de Mexico : analyse critique des politiques », Problèmes d’Amérique latine 99(4): 67-81. DOI 10.3917/pal.099.0067

Sanderson S. W. 1984. Land Reform in Mexico: 1920–1980. London-New York: Academic Press.

SEMARNAT 2012. Programa anual de trabajo 2012. Sector Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Mexico DF, Gobierno Federal.

Sereno Marín C. A. 2013. El Acceso a la Información Ambiental. Un Estudio Comparado México-España. Derecom (13): 97-114. URL:

Simonian L. 1995. Defending the Land of the Jaguar. A History of Conservation in Mexico. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Smith G. 2009. Democratic Innovations. Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Vergne A. 2013. Qualité de la participation. Dictionnaire critique et interdisciplinaire de la participation, in Casillo I, Barbier R, Blondiaux L, Chateauraynaud F, Fourniau J-M, Lefebvre R, Neveu C, Salles D. (dir.) Dictionnaire critique et interdisciplinaire de la participation, Paris, GIS Démocratie et Participation: 2268-5863. (online: (Retrieved 22.02.2015)

Veslasco R. 2014. El NEvado de Toluca, corrupción y mentiras. La Silla Rota. Rubrica “Opinión” (23.08.2014). (Retrieved 20.02.2015).

Villalobos I. 2000. Áreas naturales protegidas: instrumento estratégico para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Gaceta Ecológica (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales México) 54: 24-34.

Villanueva A, Imbernon J. 2013. Réalités et contraintes d’un corridor biologique dans la zone centrale du Mexique. Bois et forêts des tropiques « Corridors biologique : Le Point sur… » 318 (4): 41-50.

Wakild E. 2011. Revolutionary Parks: Conservation, social justice, and Mexico’s National Parks, 1910-1940. Tucson, University of Arizona Press.

Walton R E, McKersie R B. (1965). A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Woolcock M. 1998. Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society 27: 151–208.

Top of page

List of illustrations

Title Figure 1 – Limits of the former Nevado de Toluca National Park (before the change of status on the 1st of October 2013).
File image/, 1.3M
Title Figure 2 – Analytical framework developed at 3 levels: the state level, the PA level and the community level.
File image/, 644k
Title Table 1 – Actors attributes
File image/, 15k
Title Figure 3 – Governance reconfiguration: New actors and Policy instruments
File image/, 1.0M
File image/, 49k
Top of page


Electronic reference

Stéphane Héritier and Clotilde Lebreton, « From ‘Revolutionary’ to Contested Park. Mobilization and Conflicts in the Recategorization Process of the Nevado de Toluca National Park (Mexico) », Articulo - Journal of Urban Research [Online], 16 | 2017, Online since 30 November 2017, connection on 21 August 2019. URL : ; DOI : 10.4000/articulo.3279

Top of page

About the authors

Stéphane Héritier

Université de Lyon – Université Jean Monnet, EVS UMR 5600 CNRS, 6 rue Basse des Rives, FR-42023 Saint-Etienne cedex 2, France. Email: or Stéphane Héritier is Doctor and Associate Professor in Geography at Jean Monnet University – Member of Lyon University and member of the CNRS, UMR 5600 – ‘Environment, City, Society’ (EVS) ( After a Ph.D. on tourism and heritage issues in Canadian mountain national parks, his research is now focusing on conflicts regarding conservation and integration processes of local and indigenous communities in protected areas’ governance.

Clotilde Lebreton

École normale supérieure de Lyon, EVS UMR 5600 CNRS /CIRAD-Centre de coopération international en recherche agronomique pour le développement, UMR Territoire, Environnement, Télédétection et Information Spatiale. Email: Clotilde Lebreton is a conservation social scientist. Her PhD has focused on socio-environmental and development issues and in particular on governance and sustainable management of natural resources in a context of global change. Her goal is to support societies in the integrated and concerted management of their territory by strengthening the contribution of the social sciences in the formulation and implementation of conservation and development policies. on conflicts regarding conservation and integration processes of local and indigenous communities in protected areas’ governance.

Top of page


Creative Commons 3.0 – by-nc-nd, except for those images whose rights are reserved.

Top of page
  • Logo DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals