By Sothun Nop
Introduction
The issue of
global political ecology remains complex as it associates with the
contradiction of conservation, development and power. The controversy has
emerged as the consequence of unbalancing between key factors above. In other
words, focusing on improving one particular aspect without recognizing and
compromising its impacts on others elements may result in inconsistency in
achieving long-term goals of sustainable development and conservation. At the
same time, the globalization process, which brings about more interaction and
cooperation among the world nations, has played a significant role in sharing
information in term of best practices and failures through contemporary
communication technologies. Along with this process, the issues related to
conservation, development and power, which substantially enlarge in the
contexts of developed and developing countries, has become one of common topic
for debate. The argument which will be presented in this essay is that while
there are some similarities in terms of the overall models or structures of
conservation-as-development in the first and third world countries, this system
consists of some different characteristics in relation to political spaces for
public participation, decision making process, and cultures. This essay will
review two cases studies including Crater Mountain Wildlife Management Area
(CMWMA) in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and New Forest National Park (NFNP) in the
United Kingdom (UK). This paper will begin with the analysis of key
stakeholders who involved in conservation-as-development program and their
power relations in each case study. Then, based on these two case studies, some
similarities and differences in practicing conservation-as-development in the
context of developed and developing countries will be discussed with some
examples.
Crater Mountain Wildlife Management Area (CMWMA)
in PNG
Stakeholders
CMWMA is a
biodiversity conservation area in PNG where conservation-as-development program
has been applied to reach long-term goal of sustainable natural resource
conservation and promote economic development. According to West (2006), the
term conservation-as-development is
parallel with sustainable development since this aims to promote sustainable
growth through balancing environment, social and economic factors. As she
mentions in her study on Crater Mountain project, global conservationists have
applied this approach to reach the goal of biological conservation and improve
the economic situation of local communities through establishing income
generation projects and ecotourism. Main actors involved in this program
include: (1) local communities- the group Gimi people in Maimafu villages and
Pawaia people (the nearest neighbor of Gimi people). (2) private companies
particularly international oil and natural gas company and a national alluvial
mining company that extract goal mine.(3) outsiders including conservation scientists,
activists, planners and practitioners who come along with the different
cultures, perspective and strategies in order to help improve local economic
and preserve the environment. (4) government of PNG who played roles in
supporting the process of conservation
and development.
Power relation among key
actors
The power
relation between main actors in conservation-as-development program complicated
since it associates with cultural context and politics of natural conservation
and development. West (2006) states that before the project, local people
traditionally managed and used surrounding natures for their needs. From their
perspectives, nature is an important part of their lives because nature not
only provides them with source of incomes for livelihoods, but also maintains
their social connections, cultures, and environment. Beside this, nature is a
symbol, which retains a sense of connectivity between local communities and
their ancestors. Based on this belief, local communities commit to protect and
preserve surrounding nature for their lives and for people in the next
generations. She further indicates that through conservation-as-development
project, the habits of natural resources management of local communities have been
reformed when conservationists impose new ideas and strategies base on their interpretation.
Interventions from outsiders have occurred since they believed that traditional
practices of local people, which continued cutting trees, hunting wild animals,
and killing birds, can be a threat for sustainable ecological conservation. According
to West (2006), outsiders who have different background and culture believe
that the conservation-as-development discourse, which reveals the interchange
of values between the conservationists and local communities that commits and
binds new types of social relations, can lead to achieve goals of states in
ecological conservation and enhance economic situation of local communities.
She, however, highlighted that although both parties have worked
collaboratively, there were some contradictions in term of their perspectives.
On one hand, conservationists believed that active involvement of communities
in sustainable use of resources can lead to good results since this will reach
the states’ goals of environmental conservation and improve economic
development at community level. Local communities, on the other hand, believed
that when they give land and resources to states for conservation, they
expected to get some services and materials such as schools, health care,
roads, technology and so on. For West (2006) this contradiction can lead to
tension and skepticism when both of their imaginations and expectations are not
fully understood and fulfilled. From anthropologists’ point of views,
misunderstanding about local people cultures and using capitalism ideology and
liberal strategies to create new forms of social relation may result in
environmental degradation (Beilin,
2010; Castree,
2003; Tsing,
2008; West,
2006). Karanth
and Nepal (2012, p. 10) argue that shifting social practices of local people based
on outsiders’ manipulation brings about negative impacts on biodiversity since
new forms of social practices are somehow in association with restructuring
landscape and nature around the communities.
Furthermore, based
on capitalism ideology, economic development is considered as a priority to
achieve modernization mission. Within
this framework, governments need to promote a maximized use of natural resources
as well as transforming natures or social values in to commodities. As West
(2006) proves in her study, private companies have been authorized to invest on
the land of Gimi people through exploring mines or extracting other natural
resources for achieving economic development goal. This reflects the dominant
power of governments and private companies in relation to managing and extracting
natural resources. This dominant power often supported by government policies
or laws and liberal systems. Once this power is used, it brings about negative
impacts on nature and local community livelihoods when balancing social and
economic, and environmental factor is overlooked.
From conservationists’
perceptions, conservation-as-development approach is considered as a win-win
approach since economy of local people has been improved and goal of
conservation has achieved. This has increased the roles of local community in
participation in biodiversity conservation based on the principle of neoliberal
economy to fight against poverty through transforming nature in to commodity. For
example, the establishment of local women group in making basket for engaging
with global market is a tool to promote local people cultures and values, and
to increase their own incomes in order to interact with other costumers goods
that is seen as a part of development (West,
2006). However, this kind of transformation
that creates new social relation, new meaning of culture, and new community’s
values may be a kind of negatives change because this transformation can lead
to the conflation of the variety of local cultural forms, knowledge and
practices, and such become a part of universal dominant view (Beilin,
2010; Bryant
& Goodman, 2004; Varsi, 2012). They also suggest that when nature is considered as a
commodity, it could be converted to money to maintain the development of
social, goods, and services. Consequently, this cultural tend will diminish
biodiversity.
New Forest National Park (NFNP) in UK
Stakeholders
NFNP was
established to preserve biodiversity and promote development through
transforming the area into recreational and ecotourism zone. Edwards
and Smith (2011) indicate that this NFNP has been created in 2006 under
long-term vision and commitment of governments, local communities and non-state
agencies in contributing to achieving global goal of sustainable environmental
conservation and development. To establish NFNP, there was active participation
from various stakeholders such as local residents, recreational users from
surrounding catchment areas, state foresters, international nature conservation
interests and policy-makers and regulators responsible for governance of the
New Forest.
Power
relation among stakeholders
Through
PROGRESS project (PROmotion and Guidance for Recreation on Ecologically
Sensitive Sites), operational strategies have been designed to ensure relevant
stakeholders involvement in the process of planning, making decision, and
implementation through promoting empowerment, equity, trust, and learning.
Local people are empowered to take part in all stages of project and local knowledge
is valued and integrated in creating model which contributing in expanding
social learning, building trust and solidarity in minimizing human-environment
conflict and build common understanding for ecological conservation (Edwards
& Smith, 2011). They also suggest that based on the principles of
participatory management, local people are empowered to take part in policy
development and reforms in order for them to provide inputs or comments based
on their culture and perspectives as well as to learn new knowledge that
introduced by outsiders. Within this process, local people have a privilege to
contest any development activities that may impact their local natures or
social relations. The governments’ roles are to coordinate and allocate finance
and technical assistances for creating NFNP. Also, government has enhanced
principles and policy enforcement in limiting activities and created conditions
for stakeholders to benefit from the national parks within a frame that do not
affect biodiversity conservation. Beside this, non-state actors encompassing
NGOs, planners, conservationists, and practitioners have played a key roles in
giving suggestions and inputs through sharing best practices, experiences as
well as conducting new researches in order to improve the effectiveness of
project outcomes and achieve better result in resources, wildlife conservation.
For Edwards
and Smith (2011) inputs which introduced by non-state actors to the process
of conservation and development programs was not a kind of manipulation from
outsiders’ interpretation, but it was a kind of offering alternatives for
improving stakeholders participations in conservation and development project. This
reflects the equal power relation among relevant stakeholders when their voices
and concerns have been taken in to account. It is, however, suggested that to
ensure active stakeholders’ participation in all steps of conservation and development
programs, it took a lot of times and resources (Bryant
& Goodman, 2004; Edwards & Smith, 2011).
Discussion
Based on
these two cases, the practices of conservation-as-development program between
developed and developing countries reveal some similarities and differences:
Firstly,
the overall structures and key actors of ecological conservation and
development process are very similar. Key actors who involved in the programs
encompass local communities, states governments, private sectors, and civil
societies including NGOs, conservationist, environmentalists, and
practitioners. In principles, these actors should work cooperatively based on
their roles and responsibilities permitted by policies or laws to reach the
ultimate goals of inclusive development and nature preservation.
However,
power relations between stakeholders in the context of developed and developing
nations are quite different. In developed countries, relevant stakeholders specially
local communities seem to have more spaces to participate in decision-making in
local planning and conservation policy development because they know how to
exercise their rights and have knowledge or experience about virtualism or
capitalism ideology. Furthermore, having greater political spaces can also
generate more opportunities for local people to use their power and rights more
extensively in participating in natural resource conservation and development
program such as recreation and ecotourism (Brown,
2002; Elena,
2011). In developing countries, local people are not independent
in terms of making decision and managing their surrounding natures because top-down
approach has been applied in conservation and development activities (Brown,
2002; Hodgson
& Schroeder, 2002). This problem has a strong connection with politics of
natural resources management and the different perceptions between local
communities, governments, external developers, and conservationists. The
interpretation and assumptions, which outsiders have brought to local
communities, may result in failure of project implementation when the understanding
about discourse of development and conservation between stakeholders are not
consistent (West, 2006). For Bryant
(2000) ecological conservation is a process of visualizing
moral discourse, social relations, and socio-natural place. Meaning that to
achieve a sustainable environmental conservation, it is necessary to understand
and value local culture, moral, and their social relations between the
community and natures.
Secondly,
the implementation strategies between the first and third world nations are
similar since participatory management approach, which values relevant
stakeholders participation, has been promoted. The conservation-as-development
program in both contexts has been designed through public involvement. Promoting
relevant stakeholders participation especially local people in all decision
making process can lead to effective management over biodiversity (Brown,
2002; Hodgson
& Schroeder, 2002; Varsi, 2012). Also, recognizing and valuing local cultures and knowledge
is considered as a key tool to improve the effectiveness of program outcomes
because this can make local people feel secure to involve in the projects (Hodgson
& Schroeder, 2002; Robbins, 2006; West,
2006).
It is, however,
observed that the level of community participations is not the same between
both contexts. While local people in developed countries have more power and
political spaces to participate because they realize the values of public
participation, community members in developing nations have less influence. By
reflecting on the model of community participation introduced by Arnstein
(1969) “Ladder of Participation” the level of
public participation in developed nations is at the highest step ‘Delegated power or citizen control’ while
in developing nations community participation level is at the bottom stage ‘informing or consultation’ (Edwards
& Smith, 2011; Karanth & Nepal, 2012). This disparity
has a strong correlation to the level of knowledge and political spaces between
both contexts (Bryant
& Goodman, 2004; Elena, 2011). Consequently, local people in developing nations are often
manipulated by outsiders who sometimes do not understand the history and
perception of local communities (Varsi,
2012; West,
2006). Related to this, West (2006) has
criticized the conservationists who failed to conduct fully research or
baseline assessment on the social history and socio historical nature of
landscape that they want to preserve. Thus, these resulted in many confusion
and contradiction between stakeholders.
Thirdly, the
main purpose of establishing conservation and development projects in both
contexts is to achieve the goal of sustainable nature conservation and resource
consumption through effective management of spaces for human and nature. This attempt has made based on the belief
that balancing biodiversity is a key tool to ensure ecological sustenance and
environmental friendly.
However, cultural
and contextual differences between developing and developed countries generate
different outcomes between similar programs. In developed nations, natural
conservation is mainly for preserving nature such as wildlife, forest, fishes,
birds, and other species in order to balance ecology and maintain environment
since local people livelihoods depend slightly on nature. In developing
countries, on the other hand, preserving nature aims for both balancing
biodiversity and improving local people livelihoods because local community
depends very much on natural resource extraction such as collecting non-timer
forest products for livelihoods (Hodgson
& Schroeder, 2002; Karanth & Nepal, 2012). According to West
(2006), conservation-as-development, which
follows neoliberal market-based development strategies, is the concept that
outsiders bring to local communities in developing nations because they believe
that strategies can produce win-win outcomes for state and local people. Although
this concept has worked in some contexts, this can be a threat to nature as
well local people livelihoods in many developing nations (Karanth
& Nepal, 2012; West & Carrier, 2004). In Nepal and Philippines, for instance, some people have
lost from conservation-as-development project that transforms nature into
commodity because their access to natural resources has been framed (Bryant,
2000; Karanth
& Nepal, 2012). To address this issue, the creation of PAs or ecotourism
should aim to expand local people incomes and preserve local culture and
existing social relations between community and surrounding nature (Brown,
2002; Elena,
2011; Karanth
& Nepal, 2012).
Conclusion
In conclusion,
understanding the complex relationship between conservation, development and
power of multiple stakeholders is crucial since this helps to better reflect on
current contradictions and issues around natural resource conservations and
development. The increase of attentions and commitment of global institutions
for preserving nature and balancing ecosystem services through promoting local
people participation is a key tool to accomplish a long-term goal. Also,
valuing local cultures and knowledge is a key contributing factor for
sustainability. Conservation-as- development approach can be good strategy to
promote natural resource protection and improve local people economy when every
aspect has fully understood. Although the overall structures and key
stakeholders and strategies in conservation-as-development programs in the
first and third world countries are the similar, the political spaces for
public participation, decision-making and cultural contexts (knowledge, needs,
and livelihoods activities) are very different. These disparities can lead to
different outcomes of conservation-as-development program due to different
level of critical thinking and knowledge. Key lesson-learns from this study is
that contextual and cultural differences can lead to different outcomes event
though the conservation-as-development program follows similar process or
strategies. Beside this, imposing new ideologies to local communities for
promoting nature conservation may not be effective when outsiders miss to
deeply understand the social history or social relations of local community
because this misinterpretation can lead to contradictions and conflict among
relevant parties. This can be reflected that the process of transforming nature
into commodities may not always effective because this external concept will
create change of existing social relations in the community, which can lead to
environmental degradation. Therefore, to minimize this problem,
conservationists and outside development practitioners need to be mindful and
understand the complex structures of communities before introducing development
projects. Exploring best alternatives to balance key elements including social,
economic and environment can result in achieving long-term goals of sustainable
development and ecological conservation.
References
Edwards, V. M., &
Smith, S. (2011). Lessons from the Application of Decision‐support Tools in Participatory Management of the New Forest
National Park, UK. Environmental Policy
and Governance, 21(6), 417-432. doi: 10.1002/eet.589
Hodgson, D. L., &
Schroeder, R. A. (2002). Dilemmas of Counter‐Mapping Community Resources in Tanzania. Development and Change, 33(1), 79-100. doi: 10.1111/1467-7660.00241
West, P., & Carrier,
J. G. (2004). Ecotourism and Authenticity: Getting Away from It All? Current Anthropology, 45(4), 483-498.
doi: 10.1086/422082 |
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Conservation, Development, and Power
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment