The green masks of dispossession. The delimitation of the natural protected area and Ramsar site Laguna de Llancanelo (Mendoza, Argentina)
In this article I analyze the process that stablished the limits of the natural protected area and Ramsar site Laguna de Llancanelo (Mendoza) as a contemporary expression of accumulation through dispossession. I am interested in discussing the idea that dispossession always assumes forms of direct,...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | |
| Formato: | Artículo publishedVersion Artículo evaluado por pares |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Fac. Ciencias Sociales, IIGG, Área de Estudios Urbanos
2024
|
| Acceso en línea: | https://publicaciones.sociales.uba.ar/index.php/quid16/article/view/9559 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=quid16&d=9559_oai |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | In this article I analyze the process that stablished the limits of the natural protected area and Ramsar site Laguna de Llancanelo (Mendoza) as a contemporary expression of accumulation through dispossession. I am interested in discussing the idea that dispossession always assumes forms of direct, explicit and coercive violence. The first part of the article addresses the most salient points of the theoretical discussions about the persistence of original accumulation, recovering the proposal of contemporary Marxist authors who discuss its correspondence only to the origins of capitalism. Then, with the purpose of placing the case of analysis in a broader context, the territorial conformation of the province of Mendoza, the department of Malargüe and Llancanelo is presented, particularly in relation to oil exploitation and conservation. Finally, the process of defining the protected area as a turning point in a broader conflict is discussed in detail, highlighting the role of the social actors involved and the criteria used to define it. It is concluded that the dispossession was masked because (i) biodiversity conservation was part of the actual socio-environmental demands, and therefore usually assumed high levels of social acceptance; in this sense, the existence of the protected area was not questioned; (ii) the negotiations that established the limits of the conservation area were channeled in collective spaces, in which social actors with unequal power endowments participated; and (iii) the protected area was expanded at the same time that oil projects were enabled in the area. |
|---|