How can I buy cocaine online in Choluteca

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

How can I buy cocaine online in Choluteca

Prior work has demonstrated how drug trafficking catalyzes forest loss and smallholder dispossession but does not make clear the extent to which the long-term control of land is moved from state, Indigenous, or smallholders to criminal or other actors. This study attempts to describe those shifts. Specifically: we develop a typology of land control, and use it to track how drug trafficking initiates shifts from public lands and Indigenous territories to private large holdings. We examine an array of secondary sources indicating shifts in land control related to narcotrafficking, including illegal land seizure documents, news media, and surveys of land managers. In absence of formal land registries, frontier actors may signal their control over land through land use change. After establishing where changes in land control have taken place, we analyzed land use and resulting changes in spatial patterns of forest loss. We found that large scale sustained forest losses over , ha and , ha , in Guatemala and Honduras, respectively, from — corresponds with areas undergoing shifts in control towards large landowners, often related to narcotrafficking. Incomplete empirical data on land control prevent comprehensive attribution of all sustained forest loss related to narcotrafficking. Yet the limited evidence gathered here indicates drug trafficking activities initiate widespread and sustained shifts and consolidation of who controls land and resources at the frontier. Our work suggests that in Central America and likely elsewhere, control over land—quite separate from property rights —is the key factor in understanding social and ecological change. Changes to land cover are visible from space and ever-easier to quantify in detail with satellite data. Changes in land-use, the purpose to which land is employed, can be quantified by supplementing satellite data analyses with social data or insights Kugler et al. Land system science has recently called for greater attention to land control as a key factor in shaping land cover and resource use Ashwood et al. Understanding land control is particularly challenging in dynamic frontier landscapes dominated by forms of criminal activity that simultaneously involve use, transformation, and investment in land McSweeney et al. With this study, we examine how expanded drug trafficking networks lead to narco-driven change in land ownership and control hereafter, using the acronym NARC-LOC , and the implications of subsequent land use changes for biodiversity conservation in Central America. Ample research has demonstrated that drug production and trafficking intensity over the last two decades has changed land cover and land use in South and Central America. This region has long been a conduit for South American cocaine heading to northern markets. Cocaine rents are increasingly captured by regional e. The dynamic frontiers of northern Guatemala and eastern Honduras provide the remoteness, maritime and border access, and weak governance systems that drug traffickers prize. The dynamic nature of drug trafficking nodes N. Magliocca et al. As a result, the intensity with which an area is enrolled in drug transshipment correlates with satellite observed land cover changes, such as forest loss Sesnie et al. While Central American forest loss is not only caused by narcotrafficking, it is nevertheless a significant cause of forest loss, even when accounting for other factors Tellman et al. There are thus well-established links between narcotrafficking and resulting land use and land cover changes in Central America. But less is known about a key prior moment: just how, when, and where the business of narcotrafficking creates shifts in land control. Without clarifying land control dynamics, it became clear that there was a gap in our understanding of the key process by which drug trafficking ultimately precipitates land use change. Land control change is important to understand because it can lead to a larger array of socio-environmental degradation beyond land use change, including illegal logging, wildlife trafficking, declining conservation governance, economic inequality, and violence. Previous work estimated forest loss patterns in protected areas Sesnie et al. This paper synthesizes novel data on land controlled by narcotraffickers across nine disparate datasets identifying where and when narcotraffickers built airstrips, developed agribusiness, and usurped land from smallholders, cooperatives, and the state. We answer these questions by linking spatio-temporal data on land control obtained by consolidating news media, land seizures, assets of convicted narcotraffickers, clandestine airstrips, and surveys of members of land-based NGOs to data on spatial rates of forest loss. After establishing where shifts in land control may be taking place, we quantified where and when patterns of slow, dispersed forest loss are replaced by new patterns of large, rapid clearings rates sustained over many years. In regions with established shifts in land control towards large landowners, we assume actors with large amounts of capital are largely responsible for the shifts towards rapid deforestation. While rapid deforestation and shifts in land control can be caused by many factors, here we focus on change in land use and control associated with narcotrafficking. Results estimate where narcotrafficking-related land control and land cover changes across tenure and property regimes in Guatemala and Honduras. We define frontiers as an area with high perceived land and resource abundance relative to the rest of the country and only partially enrolled in capitalist social relations, i. Official or de jure rights differ from de facto processes typically legitimized by appeals to traditional norms or customary use-rights practiced on the ground. The resulting ambiguities over who controls what in frontiers can be leveraged by new actors here we focus on narcotraffickers, and thus narco-frontiers who challenge legitimate sources of authority over land ownership Hayes In the Central American narco-frontiers of Guatemala and Honduras, pre-existing property rights are profoundly impacted and overwhelmed by the influx of money and violence associated with drug trafficking McSweeney et al. This happens because traffickers use their financial and physical power to destroy or co-opt pre-existing sources of legitimate authority over property rights and land control. The fact that Indigenous lands are formally inalienable does not matter; narcos routinely co-opt state authority by bribing political officials into legitimizing stolen land through fraudulent land titles McSweeney et al. In effect, they create a new source of authority for asserting control over land and resources—one based not on law or precedent but on violence, financial coercion, and state cooptation leading to impunity. While wholly illegitimate and illegal it is no less authoritative Wrathall et al. However, narco-frontiers are hardly unique as landscapes in which land control is distinct from ownership. Commodity crop booms from Southeast Asia to Guatemala precipitate elite and corporate control of land that is officially held by communities Alonso-Fradejas ; Hall New urban residents in informally urbanized settlements across Latin America frequently control urban parcels despite not holding legal title Salazar ; Tellman et al. Sometimes land control leads to changes in de jure land ownership. In Colombia, violent land grabs first involve control of land by criminals, and sometimes, subsequent legalization of their rights to that land Grajales For example, changes in who controls access to the Colombian forest after the Peace Accords—absent any changes in ownership per se, transformed patterns of land use and accelerated deforestation in and around protected areas Clerici et al. Understanding changes in land control can predict where land use will, or already has, changed. Powerful actors use their ability to exclude to exercise control through political, economic, or social capital, or violence Knight ; Tellman et al. In illicit land transactions, or exchanges that are intentionally hidden because they violate legal rules or social norms, violence, intimidation or bribes to politicians are often used to enforce the ability to exclude. Hypothetical land control and change scenarios. When control is maintained, and the actors with different levels of power size of black dots , in the action area are constant, land change remains relatively constant same rate, pattern of change. When control changes from type I to type II or III at time 2 T2 , and the action arena shifts who controls land, change might accelerate or decelerate. Changing land uses can feedback into the action arena, influencing who controls land and new land patterns emerge. Changes in land control may lead to changes in land cover and land use. When control by actors is maintained, land cover change is steady outside of exogenous factors market shifts, climatic change, environmental change, or others Lambin et al. However, since land cover is observable by satellite and land control is not , large shifts in land cover patterns can be used to infer when a change in control has occurred between two time periods. For example, accelerated land change can indicate a shift in control from type I to a new arrangement of actors in power in a new control type II e. Decelerated land change can also indicate a change in control, for example, when a military group, such as the FARC in Colombia, controls a forested region and prevents access see Murillo-Sandoval Control types include commonly held to private forms of ownership, formal state control to territories controlled by criminal groups, local to extra-local actor control with net dispossession of residents, or other combinations see land control types column in Table 1. Changes in control do not always lead to change in land use outcomes, likewise rapid shift in land cover patterns are not always an indicator of changes in control e. Forms of land control in Central America across commonly held, state owned, and privately held land. We summarize the most common types of land control and their spatial patterns in Central America in Table 1 , followed by a description of how these types emerged and influence narcotrafficking land control dynamics post Land control types describes de facto land access which may not equate to de jure property rights. For example, persistent smallholder inholdings within the borders of a biosphere reserve represent an instance of effective private land control, in which settlers have demonstrated the power to exclude others who might displace them e. Land control by smallholders on state land may be legitimized by appeals to morality—that is, the right of the poor to use available land or to maintain inholdings preceding protected area designations. In contrast, large holder resident or absentee land control may achieve legal ownership, especially when legal title increases the speculative value of land Gilbert Ascribing specific actors to land control types, however, is challenging cf. Emergent land control types and authority, and change trajectories are rooted in Guatemalan and Honduran land history that pre-date increased drug trafficking intensity. The shared histories of agrarian reform, colonization, conservation, and neo-liberal structural adjustment define Guatemalan and Honduran frontier landscapes, and render them susceptible to NARC-LOC narco-driven change in land ownership and control. The two dominant NARC-LOC dynamics include: 1 direct control over protected areas for territorial operations such as roads and clandestine landing strips, border crossings and money laundering, and 2 trafficking operations and money laundering embedding in private lands territorial control and cattle ranching at different times leading to land consolidation and dislocation of capitalized peasants and ranchers further into the forest frontier. These two dynamics precipitate a shift in control from vulnerable conservation set-asides, concessions, and smallholder residents to large holdings held by local elites or absentee owners. Agrarian and counter agrarian reforms in rural and forested landscapes of Guatemala and Honduras set in motion dynamics of peasant colonization that legitimized de facto land control as means of acquiring formal land rights. State agencies identified forest and scarcely populated rural areas as escape valves for agrarian pressures elsewhere, creating national imaginaries of these frontiers as spaces ripe for colonization. In both countries these efforts established informal land occupation and control as mechanisms for formalizing ownership—creating the occupy-then-title practice defining NARC-LOC today. Heritage or conservation set asides emerged as a key land conservation strategy and form of land control in Guatemala and Honduras in the s and s. Protected areas PA were delineated to conserve relatively intact forest and advance sustainable rural development and biodiversity conservation on state owned lands. These PAs include zoning schemes that allow for non-consumptive uses in core zones, regulated sustainable uses in buffer zones where private property and cattle ranching are permitted, and mixed use or cultural zones that recognize existing Indigenous settlements and permit sustainable land uses Herlihy ; Nations Unfortunately, the creation of protected areas occurred alongside neo-liberal austerity programs in Guatemala and Honduras that resulted in insufficient funding and understaffing of state agencies charged with their stewardship Bovarnick et al. Nowhere is the paper parks phenomenon more evident than in the frontier regions of northern Guatemala and eastern Honduras. In some cases, public heritage or conservation set asides shifted to commonly held land in forest concessions. In mixed use and buffer zones, community forestry concessions represent a unique conservation strategy whereby communities receive long term leases on public lands embedded in protected areas to engage in productive forest enterprises under a state approved management plan Del Gatto ; Nations Neo-liberal market-assisted land reform MALR in the s—present has shifted land control from public lands, concessions, and smallholder residents to large holder residents and even absentee landowners. In Honduras, the neo-liberal Agricultural Modernization Law AML allowed for the sale of agrarian reform lands and the titling of up to hectares of national or public lands that had not been deforested AML Neo-liberal market-assisted land reform in Honduras also shifted control from public land toward commonly held Indigenous lands due to significant Indigenous political mobilization to include Indigenous protections and provisions in the Property Law and the Forestry Law. These titles are legally indivisible, indefeasible, inalienable and imprescriptible ICF However, in the absence of social control, collective management capacities and state support, Indigenous territorial councils have struggled to exclude narcotraffickers and other colonists Hale ; Larson et al. The intensification of drug trafficking through Guatemala and Honduras in the s see UNODC ; Brockett had a variety of impacts on their land control trajectories. Second, narcotrafficking has also caused a shift in control from concessionaires residents who manage the concession to absentee landowners in several cases. Finally, narco-traffickers have also benefited from market-assisted land reforms. These investments led to a consolidation of control over private lands, the displacement of cattle ranchers into the forest frontier, and opened up new settler access to protected area lands; cattle ranching is a preferred means of money laundering and establishing territorial control for DTOs Devine et al. Further, land titling in indigenous territories has also been undermined by narcotrafficking, who can increase land consolidation for absentee owners as they seize on unsure or contested tenure and property relations to seize more land PRISMA In practice, the weak and narco-corrupted state cannot support Miskitu efforts to enforce those rights, and the invasion of narco-enriched outsiders into Miskitu territory has even accelerated since Galeana ; Rayo Our approach is based on the conceptual framework presented in Figure 1. Our first challenge was to empirically demonstrate when and where narcotrafficking catalyzed shifts in land control. But while we could track the location and popularity of drug trafficking hubs, we needed a different approach for analytically linking those trafficking activities to specific sites in which narcos were asserting their control over land. This was difficult for obvious reasons: criminals do not typically seek to make visible the ways in which they acquire, hold, and accumulate land. We therefore turned to a multi-method approach that involved gathering nine different forms of evidence of narco-holdings, including public records, news media, in-situ knowledge based on our prior fieldwork, and a survey of land managers in specific conservation areas. We discuss the sources we used for Guatemala and Honduras, respectively, below. We therefore estimate annual forest loss rates of large and rapid, consolidated versus slower, dispersed land clearing for three land ownership types commons, public, and private from Table 1. To assess when and where land control type change e. We describe this process in detail at the end of this section. Our analysis of the spatial-temporal dynamics of drug trafficking intensity relies on two sources, official records and news media reports Table 2. The official data relies on the CCDB Consolidated Counterdrug Database , widely recognized to be the authoritative official data on cocaine flows seized by law enforcement, lost not delivered to its intended location , or delivered see McSweeney , for a detailed description. However, CCDB is not available for all departments in Central America, and have a known bias of delayed recording of narcotrafficking intensity increases of up to several years, depending on the country Tellman et al. We supplement drug flow data with media reported events of narcotrafficking, which are spatially complete across Central America and more temporally accurate see Tellman et al. The presence of drug trafficking influenced land control was established in five ways Table 3. Data on land control by narcotrafficking specific to Honduras were collected in four ways Table 4. For the subsequent online questionnaire, we identified emails of employees working for the NGOs identified in Honduran directories from 26 municipalities in 12 departments , yielding 82 complete responses. The online survey asked respondents to indicate the degree to which on a 1—4 Likert scale illegal activities influence 17 challenges including governance, economic, and land dimensions related to the success of their organization. We followed Dillman, Smyth and Christian for enhancing response rates for internet surveys. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, the survey was targeted at organizational experiences and not individual experiences. The cover letter attempted to establish the credentials of the research team and make it clear that responses would be anonymous, confidential, and that no identifying information would be requested in the survey. We found similar percentages of each in our responses. Additionally, we assessed the geographic areas of work for each NGO participant invited to participate and found no bias in geographic representation. Data on forest loss and land ownership are summarized in Table 5. To measure forest loss we used annual, spatially explicit, high resolution 30 m grid cells , and validated forest loss data consistent over the Central American region, obtained from the University of Maryland Department of Geographical Sciences Global Forest Change version 1. The location of forest loss and hectares loss per year are summarized in Figure 2. Consolidated data on forest loss, protected areas, and Indigenous territories in for Guatemala and Honduras. Forest loss from — in Honduras and Guatemala. A Map of forest loss and forest cover remaining. B Forest loss in hectares per year in each country. These include IUCN governance category I and II, strict nature reserves and national parks, and exclude multiple use or buffer zones where PA residents and neighbors practice community forestry. We hereafter use the term protected areas, but only refer to these regions with strict protection in this paper Figure 3. In some cases, legal titles transferred state land ownership to Indigenous territories in Honduras from to Figure 3. Our methods aimed to document the spatio-temporal dynamics of land control and the role of narcotrafficking, and to relate those shifts in land control to forest loss. We employed a mixed-methods analytical approach drawing from cross-site comparison techniques Magliocca et al. Cross-site comparison between Guatemala and Honduras is used to both quantify and understand common processes of land control change. We then map or graph these secondary sources of land control data at the department or municipality at annual time steps, and interpret corroboration and disagreement across datasets. Interviews and surveys are used to understand how narcotrafficking versus other types of illicit activity might influence land control. We then analyze two types of forest loss patterns, which we hypothesize are outcomes of two distinct types of land control. To identify incremental versus sustain forest loss patterns, we calculated average annual clearing rates for each contiguous forest loss patch — in Honduras and Guatemala. We summarize the total amount and percentage of forest loss in these two patterns for three de jure land categories, Common, Public, and Private Table 1 for the active deforestation frontier region in each country. We hypothesize incremental forest loss is related to business-as-usual smallholder agriculture or resource extraction and represent steady land change control type I , and a shift in pattern to sustained loss indicates large landholders have gained control control type II, Figure 1. Not all large landholders are narcotraffickers; frontiers are dynamics spaces with many actors clearing land, some with licit capital. Incomplete empirical data on land control prevent straightforward quantification of the amount of sustained forest loss directly or indirectly attributable to narcotrafficking. Instead we use cross site comparison techniques Magliocca et al. To do so, we interpret the spatio-temporal patterns of land control and land change in tandem. In Guatemala, secondary evidence indicates significant land control by narcotraffickers in Northern Guatemala and along the Pacific Coast. The data also indicate a shift in control from publicly held land e. Land seizure data from Caso Genesis indicates DTOs developed cattle ranches operated illegally inside protected areas e. DTOs seized land from peasants by force over 30, ha documented , also converting territories to cattle ranches. Spatial distribution of drug trafficking and land control data in Guatemala per department. A Sum of total media events per department, — B Sum of total cocaine seized, lost and delivered in kilos kg from — C Sum of recorded clandestine airstrips per department from — D Accused land seizures from — per department. Known drug trafficking organizations and land control in Guatemala. This indicates a shift in control from small holders to large, absentee landowners in private lands. Likewise, Izabal forest loss increased in the mid s and peaked in Land control indicators tend to increase together with drug flow and forest loss. Narcotraffickers responded by subsequently moving trafficking operations to Izabal Wrathall et al. Much of the forest loss in Guatemala occurred prior to , with another recent spike between and Forest loss was more pervasive in protected areas than concessions where non-timber forest products of selective logging are practiced Supplementary data Figure 1. Figure 7C. Dominance of control type II sustained forest loss, accelerated land use change as a ratio of total forest loss represented by the size of the box in A protected areas, B Indigenous Territories, and C Community concessions from — D Shows overall totals of annual forest loss patterns in Guatemalan frontier departments. E Shows locations of protected areas in green and names in green text, and departments in grey with black text. Izabal exhibits increasing sustained forest loss in the mid s, and then declines after Notably, these shifts in sustained forest loss patterns are more prevalent in protected areas and in private lands compared to Indigenous territories. The changes in sustained forest loss patterns co-occur with secondary evidence documenting shifts in control from the State to large landholders in protected areas and from small landholders to larger landholders in private lands. In canceled concessions land was returned to the State after seizure by narcotraffickers see Supplementary Figure 1. Evidence of narcotrafficking influenced land control in Honduras begins arounds and continued until Land control shifts are evident in and outside of protected areas. The increased number of clandestine airstrips appearing in publicly held land beginning in and ending in indicates a shift in land control towards narcotraffickers in Gracias a Dios that coincides with trends in media records Figure 6C. Kingpin documents show that land investments varied by region. Los Valle in western Honduras, owned coffee farms and cattle ranches Figure 9D. In eastern Honduras, oil palm and cattle ranching were common investments for the Cachiros and the Atlantic cartel Figure 9C. The mapped location of clandestine airstrips in eastern Honduras that were constructed and decommissioned using explosives during interdiction efforts from to Clandestine airstrips in protected areas indicate a shift in control from the state towards private control from narcotraffickers. A DTO influence per department, with circle size proportional to number of media events ranging from 1—33 for largest DTOs in Honduras. C Seized assets from the Cachiros include palm oil, zoos, cattle ranches, and a mine. D Seized assets from the Valle Valle include three coffee farms and a cattle ranch. These activities occur with settlements and taking illegal possession of national territory. Surveys of sustainable development NGOs in Honduras indicated narcotrafficking influences land control more than other types of illicit activities e. Survey results Table 6 show narcotrafficking had a large effect over 3 on average on a 1—4 Likert scale on illicit cattle ranching, crop cultivation, land speculation, mining, selling land, and timber extraction. Notably, the difference between impacts of narcotrafficking and other illicit activities was greatest in the land category, increasing consolidation of land, land price, illegal settlements, insecurity, and displacement. In contrast, illicit activity not related to narcotrafficking was reported to have only a small effect on these land challenges. Narcotrafficking specifically impacts land challenges in ways general illicit activity does not. An estimated , ha of forest was lost in Honduras between and Loss rates per department and forest loss totals are summarized in Table 3 in the Supplementary Data. In Honduras, forest loss appears to be increasing over time. In and , major droughts FAO likely increased access to forest and susceptibility to fires in Bullock et al. Sustained forest loss save increased in Olancho from to , and maintained until In Gracias a Dios, sustained forest loss appears around , and increases over time, with marked growth from to Dominance of control type II sustained forest loss as a ratio of total forest loss represented by the size of the box in A protected areas, B Indigenous territories, and C community managed areas from — D Shows overall totals of annual forest loss patterns in Honduran frontier departments. Tawahka territories and Patuca National parks in Honduras stand out for high amounts of forest loss dominated by control type II. Narcotraffickers profoundly change the nature of land control in both cocaine production zones Armenteras et al. Along the entire cocaine commodity chain, land tenure, and titles or rights to land, are not meaningful unless the actors with titles can effectively control that landscape by excluding others from access. In general, we find that land control changes related to narco trafficking tend to occur in places and at times that sustained forest loss patterns increase or begin to dominate in both Guatemala and Honduras. In frontier regions where forest loss continues an incremental pattern Jutiapa and Quiche, Guatemala and Choluteca, Honduras , we found little evidence of land control by narcotraffickers. Not all changes in land control led to changes in land cover; in Santa Barbara and Copan, Honduras, DTOs invest in coffee farming, which may not result in land cover changes. We summarize the evidence of changes in land control and sustained forest loss patterns in Table 7 across commonly held, public, and private land ownership categories and control types from Table 1. Across all ownership types, there is a total of , ha and , ha of sustained forest loss in Honduras and Guatemala, respectively from — This area, over half of forest loss in each country, represents a possible upper areal estimate of land cleared by large holders that could be attributable to narcotrafficking directly or indirectly. Spatial and temporal patterns of land control by narcotraffickers at municipal and departmental spatial scales, however, provide strong evidence that a large yet unquantifiable portion of land change occurred due to narco control. Summary of types of changing land control from type I to type II directly related to narcotrafficking based on above evidence. Sustained forest loss patterns, an indicator of large holders clearing land, were uneven across land ownership type. This means protected areas in strategic narcotrafficking regions are the most vulnerable land tenure type to forest loss. Even in the Amazon, however, land titles for Indigenous communities does not ensure land control, and titles are not universally effective in limiting illicit forest loss BenYishay et al. How land is controlled ultimately determines the ways that it can be and is used. In the three canceled community concessions and one active concession in Guatemala, narcotraffickers disrupted community control. The remaining community concessions continue to resist incursions from narcotrafficking and forest loss, even as nearby protected areas are rapidly deforested. By contrast, in Honduras, the recently titled Indigenous territories received little international and state support to maintain land control, rendering them vulnerable to lose control to narcotraffickers or other colonists Hale ; PRISMA US interdiction policies that push narcotraffickers into forested regions in Guatemala and elsewhere in Central America N. Interdiction has negative environmental consequences that often go unacknowledged in both drug and conservation policy McSweeney et al. The sustained forest loss rates and clandestine airstrips in protected areas, in conjunction with canceled forest concessions in Guatemala, are evidence that land control supersedes land tenure or property rights. Narcotrafficking creates territories of impunity Devine et al. Narcotrafficking organizations coopt the land use process for private, public, and commonly held lands with strong incentive to reduce risks to capital investments. Narcotraffickers have no monopoly on violence. Shifts in land control are often achieved through violence, when conservation edicts require displacement of residents West et al. However, the extreme physical and financial violence of the drug business typically far exceeds that used otherwise to exclude others from land. For example, Caso Genesis showed that social elites and DTOs with financial means use violence to co-opt the land titling process, dispossess occupants, and expand agricultural lands at a greater rate than small-share farmers. Some changes in land control, especially outside of protected areas, do not occur violently, and are legally accumulating assets in agribusinesses by narcotraffickers, other elites, and high-ranking politicians. Historic lack of support for Indigenous communities to control territory, defend sovereignty, and invest in development combined with high levels of poverty predispose locals to sell land to narcotraffickers under duress. Narcotrafficking can indirectly shape landscapes: NGOs reported in Honduras that narcotrafficking increased land consolidation, displacement, and illegal settlements by third parties. Narcotrafficking embeds in and accelerates existing processing already consolidating land towards large holders in public and common land. Prior to the arrival of narcotraffickers, the arrival of non-indigenous settler campesinos transformed lands under state and Indigenous control to smallholding private control eventually legitimized by the state e. Land control transitions are not permanent or linear. In some cases, the state re-assumed its effective control over community concessions that were overtaken by private interests including DTOs. Multiple actors may create alliances e. Our evidence strongly suggests that narcotrafficking directly and indirectly accelerates the privatization of publicly and commonly held land, as well as the consolidation of private lands into fewer hands. These shifts in land control type are ultimately what cause the deforestation observed in this region McSweeney et al. Privatization of commonly held property in Yucatan Mexico, for example, is linked to increased deforestation Lawrence et al. Absentee land control on the Central American frontier typifies a global trend in which corporate financial and agribusiness entities seek land for financial speculation and investment Ashwood et al. Further investigation is required to better understand not just the form of land control transition but also its pace. The speed of narco-land-grabbing and the saturation of the violent authority of narcotraffickers over landed property regimes makes resisting control difficult. The way narcotrafficking capital opens and shapes informal frontier land markets that continue to accelerate with new actors even after drug flows shift is also not well known. We found narcotrafficking foments land consolidation, displacement of owners, and illegal settlements in private, commonly held, and protected areas previously protected from accelerated forest loss. Future research could compare how land control in narco-frontiers might shape land change outcomes differently than frontiers where drugs are not involved, or how interdiction influences these dynamics. For example, in the Brazilian Amazon, organized crime and lack of governance wrestled land control from Indigenous forest defenders Acebes et al. Ultimately, we acknowledge that drug traffickers and other illicit actors are enabled by a prohibitionary drug control regime that has historically served the interests of landed elites and investors from the Global North Paley In effect, narco-traffickers act as an advance front in the extension of capitalist social relations into the most relatively under-capitalized spaces of Central America: Indigenous lands and conservation set-asides McSweeney et al. These processes of accumulation do not require drug traffickers, but, as we show here, in Honduras and Guatemala, narco-trafficking greatly accelerated the rate at which control over these frontier landscapes was transferred from many smallholding peasants and Indigenous peoples, or from state-held commons, to privatized enclosures held by a relatively small number of local elites and absentee landowners. Changes in land control can represent an abrupt departure from land stewardship, biodiversity protection, and sustainable socioeconomic development within protected areas or community forest concessions. Drug trafficking can change the social relations around land, causing dispossession and transfers of land control. The incomplete spatial precision outlining where narcotraffickers control land obfuscates attributing each hectare of land use change caused by narcotrafficking. Despite these limitations, we marshal evidence demonstrating that narcotrafficking activities initiate profound shifts in how and where land is controlled, resulting in sustained forest loss patterns. Forest loss associated with changes in land control significantly threatens the conservation and protection of increasingly scarce forested landscapes. These findings suggest that significant prior international investment in land rights and land tenure regularization in Central America—from protected areas to community concessions—are at considerable risk unless NARC-LOC can be addressed. To reduce the ways in which drug trafficking activities lead to widespread land privatization, it is essential for Central American governments, with the support of bi-lateral and multi-lateral partnerships to: a promptly investigate accusations of land seizure that Indigenous and peasant groups continue to file with state prosecutors; b champion the communal land regimes of Indigenous peoples by supporting their efforts at land management sovereignty, including saneamiento clearing territory of invaders , and c calling out elite abuses of power in protected areas as part of broader anti-corruption efforts. Absent these initiatives—ideally implemented simultaneously—the existing, pervasive and pronounced role of narcotrafficking further concentrates territorial and economic wealth in Central America. Absent aggressive action, illegal economies can be expected to play a significant role in further concentrating land, increasing rural inequality, and delivering land to absentee actors with little incentive to invest in the long-term well-being of local peoples and ecosystems. Supplementary figure 1 map of forest loss in concessions and canceled concessons or community managed areas. Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 include forest lost totals and rates from for Honduras and Guatemala, respectively. We define frontier as an area that relative to the rest of the country has relatively high perceived land and resource abundance, and is only partially enrolled in capitalist social relations, i. The factors leading to concession cancellation are nuanced at the level of the individual concessions. In La Pasadita, La Colorada, and Cruce a la Colorada, narco land grabs and narco-cattle ranching played a clear, more prominent role in cancellation Devine et al. San Miguel la Palotada, for example, failed due to the concessions small size, lack of commercial forest products, and mismanagement, alongside narco-trafficking and narco-cattle ranching activities. Rights Watch , Alonso-Fradejas, A. Land control-Grabbing in guatemala: The political economy of contemporary agrarian change. Anseeuw, W and Baldinelli, GM. PLoS One , 8. La Prensa. What owns the land: The corporate organization of farmland investment. Peasant Stud. Insight Crime. Avalos, HS. The logging Barons of Catacamas, Honduras. Everyday state formation: Territory, decentralization, and the Narco Landgrab in Colombia. D Soc. Narco-frontiers: A spatial framework for drug-fuelled accumulation. Baragwanath, K and Bayi, E. Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Indigenous land rights and deforestation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. Blackman, A. Blomley, N. Making private property: Enclosure, common right and the work of hedges. Rural Hist. Blume, LR. World Dev. Land grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean. Financial sustainability of protected areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment policy guidance. Brockett, CD. Remote Sens. Bribes, bullets, and intimidation: Drug trafficking and the law in Central America. Penn State Press. Ceddia, MG. The impact of income, land, and wealth inequality on agricultural expansion in Latin America. Guatemala City. Deforestation in Colombian protected areas increased during post-conflict periods. Cole, DH and Ostrom, E. Introduction, Property in Land and Other Resources. Convicted drug trafficker testifies that he bribed Honduran president, Evolution of Land Rights in Rural Brazil, 1— Trafficking as settler colonialism in eastern Panama: Linking the Americas via illicit commerce, clientelism, and land cover change. Del Gatto, F. Devine, J. Land Use Policy. Narco-Cattle Ranching in Political Forests. Antipode , 1— Devine, JA. Community forest concessionaires: Resisting green grabs and producing political subjects in Guatemala. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Dudley, SS. Drug trafficking organizations in Central America: transportistas, Mexican cartels and maras. In: Arnson, C and Olson, E eds. The Northern Triangle. Characterizing commercial oil palm expansion in Latin America: Land use change and trade. Galeana, F. Galeana, F and Pantoja, E. World bank conference on land and poverty Gilbert, A. On the mystery of capital and the myths of Hernando de Soto — What difference does legal title make? Glazebrook, T and Opoku, E. Defending the defenders: Environmental protectors, climate change and human rights. Ethics Environ. Is community tenure facilitating investment in the commons for inclusive and sustainable development? Policy Econ. Grajales, J. The rifle and the title: paramilitary violence, land grab and land control in Colombia. Land grabbing, legal contention and institutional change in Colombia. Grandia, L. University of Washington Press. Hale, CR. Resistencia para que? Hall, D. Land grabs, land control, and Southeast Asian crop booms. Science , Hayes, TM. Does tenure matter? A comparative analysis of agricultural expansion in the Mosquitia Forest Corridor. The robustness of indigenous common-property systems to frontier expansion: Institutional interplay in the Mosquitia Forest Corridor. Herlihy, PH. Indigenous peoples and biosphere reserve conservation in the Mosquitia rain forest corridor, Honduras. Peoples Prot. Recognizing Indigenous Miskitu Territory in Honduras. Humphrey, C and Verdery, K. Property in question: value transformation in the global economy. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science , , — Kneas, D. Ethnos , 33— Knight, J. Institutions and social conflict. Cambridge University Press. People and Pixels 20 years later: The current data landscape and research trends blending population and environmental data. Laguna del Tigre, tierra sin ley, Prensa Libr. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. In: Larson, A and Soto, F eds. Nicaragua: Instituto Nitlapan, Managua. Lunstrum, E and Ybarra, M. Mackey, D. UU contra las drogas. Modeling cocaine traffickers and counterdrug interdiction forces as a complex adaptive system. Synthesis in land change science: Methodological patterns, challenges, and guidelines. Maingot, A. World Aff. Mansfield, B. Privatization: Property and the remaking of nature-society relations introduction to the special issue. Antipode , — Private-land control and deforestation dynamics in the context of implementing the Native Forest Law in the Northern Argentinian Dry Chaco. Accumulation by securitization: Commercial poaching, neoliberal conservation, and the creation of new wildlife frontiers. Geoforum , — Mcsweeney, K. Drug Policy , Who owns the Earth? A challenge for the land system science community. Land Use Sci. Drug policy as conservation policy: Narco-deforestation. Science , — Grounding traffic: The cocaine commodity chain and land grabbing in eastern Honduras. Middle-range theories of land system change. No peace for the forest: Rapid, widespread land changes in the Andes-Amazon region following the Colombian civil war. The end of gunpoint conservation: Forest disturbance after the Colombian peace agreement. Nations, JD. The Maya tropical forest: people, parks, and ancient cities. University of Texas Press. Nelson, RT. Madison, Wisconsin. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Office of Foregin Assets Control. Narcotics Sanctions Program. Paley, D. Drug war capitalism. Palmer, E and Semple, K. New York Times. Peluso, NL and Lund, C. New frontiers of land control: Introduction. San Salvador, El Salvador. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Rayo, GA. State building, ethnic land titling, and transnational organized crime: The case of honduras. Rural Sociol. Indigenous lands, protected areas, and slowing climate change. PLoS Biol. Salazar, CE. El Colegio de Mexico AC. Schwartz, NB. University of Pennsylvania Press. A spatio-temporal analysis of forest cover loss related to cocain trafficking in Central America. Sikor, T and Lund, C. Access and property: A Question of Power and Authority. Access to Nat. Springer, S. Illegal Evictions? Stonich, SC. Westview Press. Cattle, broadleaf forests and the agricultural modernization law of Honduras: The case of Olancho. Tamariz, G. Agrobiodiversity conservation with illegal-drug crops: An approach from the prisons in Oaxaca, Mexico. Geoforum , 1— Understanding the role of illicit transactions in land-change dynamics. Properties inscribed on the list of world heritage in danger. International Narcotics Control Strategy Report. Unodc, U. US Department of Treasury. Modelling the spatial variability of wildfire susceptibility in Honduras using remote sensing and geographical information systems. Geomatics, Nat. Hazards Risk , 8: — Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Why are drug cartels starting forest fires in Guatemala, The impacts of cocaine trafficking on conservation governance in Central America. Home About. Research Integrity. Crime Beyond Borders. Keywords: land control narcotrafficking Guatemala Honduras illicit frontiers. Year: Submitted on Dec 9, Accepted on Jul 22, Published on Oct 4, Peer Reviewed. CC BY 4. Introduction Changes to land cover are visible from space and ever-easier to quantify in detail with satellite data. Figure 1 Hypothetical land control and change scenarios. Table 1 Forms of land control in Central America across commonly held, state owned, and privately held land. Private Smallholder, resident Individuals or families Moral authority; state-sanctioned legal title; land reform decrees; use precedent settlement history ; other forms of power e. Bounded clearings with low or temporary pace of expansion varies by region , typically emerging along roads or waterways; scattered homesteads; fences; smaller cattle ranches Large holder, resident Individuals or families; employees Legal property titles, whether legitimate or fraudulent; use or threat of violence; external patronage relationships with political, business, or military elites Bounded clearings with rapid or sustained pace of expansion varies by region can be near or distant from infrastructure; fences and permanent establishment of pasture or plantation Absentee Employees of individuals or corporations Property titles, whether legitimate or fraudulent; use or threat of violence; external patronage relationships with political, business, or military elites Sustained presence of large clearings over 5 ha annually; productive uses may be hard to detect; pasture or plantations may be present. Land Use Patterns and Control Types Influenced by Narcotrafficking in Guatemala and Honduras Typologies of Land Control We summarize the most common types of land control and their spatial patterns in Central America in Table 1 , followed by a description of how these types emerged and influence narcotrafficking land control dynamics post Histories of Frontier Change in Guatemala and Honduras The shared histories of agrarian reform, colonization, conservation, and neo-liberal structural adjustment define Guatemalan and Honduran frontier landscapes, and render them susceptible to NARC-LOC narco-driven change in land ownership and control. Materials and Methods Our approach is based on the conceptual framework presented in Figure 1. Data on Drug Flows Our analysis of the spatial-temporal dynamics of drug trafficking intensity relies on two sources, official records and news media reports Table 2. Table 2 Data on drug flows in Central America. Narcotrafficking Land Control Data for Guatemala The presence of drug trafficking influenced land control was established in five ways Table 3. Land held by organized crime was identified via registered private lands under names of DTO members identified in a anonymous report published by InSight Crime ; we digitized and georeferenced these data. While the exact polygons of the properties were not available, the total area by municipality and land use were reported, which we digitized and collated. Reports of illegal land seizures were obtained by request to the Public Ministry under Guatemalan Transparency of Information Laws. The reported timing, and area of seizures was summarized by location and year. The data were obtained by freedom of information request in June by the authors. In three community concessions, traffickers cut forest and established cattle ranches. The concessions were canceled as a result in Table 3 Data on Guatemala land control by narcotraffickers — from various sources. Narcotrafficking Land Control Data for Honduras Data on land control by narcotrafficking specific to Honduras were collected in four ways Table 4. We found no rural landed assets in Guatemala, but in Honduras, three organizations Los Cachiros, Los Rosenthals, and Los Valle Valle and recorded the business type and location of each for the 13 assets mentioned. Of the airstrips identified, have been visibly decommissioned e. Identified airstrips are not connected to municipal airports or official roads. The year each airstrip was built was estimated via satellite data. These data likely underestimate the number of airstrips because strips established on pasture and other agricultural lands can evade detection. Geographic coordinates derived from these media sources where then mapped, yielding articles within 15km of protected area boundaries. To understand how narcotrafficking influenced land control, we rely on a survey of NGOs working in sustainable development. Using purposive chain-referral sampling, we first called 42 randomly selected organizations from the initial list of NGOs. A total of 17 were interviewed. These themes were utilized to develop the online questionnaire and provide contextual richness for interpreting survey results. Table 4 Data on Honduras land control by narcotraffickers — from various sources. Table 5 Consolidated data on forest loss, protected areas, and Indigenous territories in for Guatemala and Honduras. Figure 2 Forest loss from — in Honduras and Guatemala. Data Analysis Methods Our methods aimed to document the spatio-temporal dynamics of land control and the role of narcotrafficking, and to relate those shifts in land control to forest loss. Results Narco-influenced Land Control in Guatemala In Guatemala, secondary evidence indicates significant land control by narcotraffickers in Northern Guatemala and along the Pacific Coast. Figure 4 Spatial distribution of drug trafficking and land control data in Guatemala per department. Figure 5 Known drug trafficking organizations and land control in Guatemala. Figure 7 Dominance of control type II sustained forest loss, accelerated land use change as a ratio of total forest loss represented by the size of the box in A protected areas, B Indigenous Territories, and C Community concessions from — Figure 8 The mapped location of clandestine airstrips in eastern Honduras that were constructed and decommissioned using explosives during interdiction efforts from to Leaders, Conflict with local leaders 2. Incremental and sustained forest loss patterns in Honduras An estimated , ha of forest was lost in Honduras between and Figure 10 Dominance of control type II sustained forest loss as a ratio of total forest loss represented by the size of the box in A protected areas, B Indigenous territories, and C community managed areas from — Discussion Narcotraffickers profoundly change the nature of land control in both cocaine production zones Armenteras et al. Table 7 Summary of types of changing land control from type I to type II directly related to narcotrafficking based on above evidence. Conclusion Changes in land control can represent an abrupt departure from land stewardship, biodiversity protection, and sustainable socioeconomic development within protected areas or community forest concessions. Additional File The additional file for this article can be found as follows: Supplementary figures and tables Supplementary figure 1 map of forest loss in concessions and canceled concessons or community managed areas. Notes We define frontier as an area that relative to the rest of the country has relatively high perceived land and resource abundance, and is only partially enrolled in capitalist social relations, i. Competing Interests The authors have no competing interests to declare. Use precedent ancestral history , moral claims, customary law; state recognition; collective titles. State and international biodiversity or heritage preservation commitments; military might. Dominance of forest or other relatively undisturbed land covers e. Absence of sustained recent human activity, enforced borders. Moral authority; state-sanctioned legal title; land reform decrees; use precedent settlement history ; other forms of power e. Bounded clearings with low or temporary pace of expansion varies by region , typically emerging along roads or waterways; scattered homesteads; fences; smaller cattle ranches. Legal property titles, whether legitimate or fraudulent; use or threat of violence; external patronage relationships with political, business, or military elites. Bounded clearings with rapid or sustained pace of expansion varies by region can be near or distant from infrastructure; fences and permanent establishment of pasture or plantation. Property titles, whether legitimate or fraudulent; use or threat of violence; external patronage relationships with political, business, or military elites. Sustained presence of large clearings over 5 ha annually; productive uses may be hard to detect; pasture or plantations may be present. Media reports with department specific narcotrafficking activity events. Coded newspaper articles from major media outlets Tellman et al. Accusations registered by the Guatemala government of illegal land seizures in protected areas. Georeferenced private land holding linked to identified cartels in legal land registries. Insight Crime Number of clandestine and illegal airstrips identified by the Guatemalan government. Land seized from Mendoza Cartel, who forced peasants to abandon land and re-register land titles for the Mendoza DTO members. Two community forest concessions that were canceled due to land grabs and deforestation by narcotraffickers. Ethnography Devine et al. Media reports with department specific narcotrafficking activity events related to land and named cartels and within 15km of a protected area. Perceptions of the effects of illicitness, survey data. Hansen et al. Polygons of active and canceled community concessions Guatemala , and areas of community management Honduras. Leaders, Conflict with local leaders. Lost jobs due to security, Increased hiring costs, Weakened civil society, Decreased economic resources for the community. Consolidation of land, Increased value of lands, Illegal settlements, Land insecurity, Displaced landowners. Guatemala: 15, ha of sustained forest loss in 3 canceled concessions and one nearly canceled. Guatemala: nearly 30, ha land usurped from peasants by Mendoza cartel Honduras: survey evidence indicates narcotraffickers displace small holders. Data cannot distinguish absentee vs. Guatemala: 95, ha of forest loss directly attributable to cartels; up to , ha of sustained forest loss in regions with high narcotrafficking potentially attributable, airstrips, 1, land seizures in regions with high narcotrafficking Honduras: up to , ha of sustained forest loss in regions with high narcotrafficking potentially attributable, airstrips.

Global Package Tracking

How can I buy cocaine online in Choluteca

How can I buy cocaine online in Choluteca? Order now 77snow. Visit 77snow. Go to 77snow. Understanding the countries where cocaine is most commonly reach-me-down and the sell for associated with it provides understanding into the soporific's hit on society. The U. Visit the site 77snow. Spain, being geographically closer to cocaine-producing regions in South America, serves as a significant entrance site after the drug into Europe. The European Monitoring Middle allowing for regarding Drugs and Pharmaceutical Addiction EMCDDA indicates that cocaine work has been rising across assorted European countries, in many cases seen as a narcotize associated with nightlife and bash culture. South America, particularly Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, is not only a important grower of cocaine but also a region where shire consumption is notable. In Colombia, on as it happens, the narcotic is often tied to social and cultural activities, though the oversight has been actively fighting against its use and trafficking. Chief cities like Unexplored York and Los Angeles over see prices at the higher outcome of this spectrum ample to want and law enforcement pressure. In Europe, prices can also alternations widely. In the Concerted Kingdom, pro illustration, a gram of cocaine can price between? The variability in penalty is influenced next to factors such as chastity, district demand, and the manifestation of organized misdeed networks concerned in tranquillizer trafficking. Notwithstanding how, as the drug moves throughout the purvey limit, prices multiply dramatically sooner than the moment it reaches consumers in North America and Europe. As law enforcement efforts persist to strife trafficking and purchases, the landscape of cocaine consumption intent likely evolve, influenced by changes in availability, legality, and collective norms. Compact these dynamics is momentous looking for developing able strategies to address the challenges posed by cocaine in society. Szombathely where can I buy cocaine? Neringa where can I buy cocaine?

How can I buy cocaine online in Choluteca