The Protected Landscape Approach - Centre for Mediterranean ...

The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community
forest groves in Western Ghats in India and in Nepal have been recognised as islands of natural
biodiversity yet many are managed to accommodate some use for local livelihoods.
Fausto Sarmiento, Guillermo Rodriguez and Alejandro Argumedo describe Andean land -
scapes as “ … the result of intellectual and spiritual constructs that are shaped by traditional
practices ... and the newer uses given to them by the diverse cultures that inhabit them”. They
note that this has led to the unique agro-ecosystems of the Andes, for example, a Potato Park
with 2300 cultivars of potato. This biodiversity includes native plant genetic resources, such as
wild relatives of domesticated plants and animal species. Other important world crops have
been developed and this agro-biodiversity conserved in traditional agri cultural systems such as
the terraced rice paddies in Asia (with rice, fish and vegetables), oasis systems in the Sahara
(with dates), or livestock. The global importance of these systems and the genetic varieties
supported by these diverse cultural landscapes have not always been recognised and included
in conservation strategies.
Michael Beresford has written of the importance of developing a management approach
“based on an understanding of this inter-relationship [between nature and culture]…[since] the
landscape we see is the tip of the iceberg, underpinned by these unseen complex interactions,
based on a series of past and on-going decisions.” Maretti concurs on the importance of
understanding the relationships among social, cultural, and natural elements and processes
since “landscapes are mostly process, defined economically and culturally by people.” Taghi
Farvar, chair of IUCN’s Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy, makes a
cogent point when he observes that “…cultural and biological diversity are natural, powerful
allies and it is this alliance that may eventually succeed in saving both” (in Borrini-Feyerabend,
2002).
3. The protected landscape approach recognises the relation ship
between tangible and intangible values and the value of both.
Tangible values – as described above – are usually the primary focus of conservation. Many
authors in this volume, however, make a compelling case for more consideration of the
intangible values of landscapes, and also explore the relationship with tangible values, chal -
lenging the concept that one can be conserved without the other. Rössler describes a funda -
mental shift in environmental thought and practice with the acceptance of the “value of
communities and their relation to their environment, including the link between landscapes and
powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations even in the absence of material cultural
evidence… sacred sites, which may be physical entities or mental images that are embedded in
a people’s spirituality, cultural tradition, and practice.”
The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas has a Task Force on Cultural and
Spiritual Values that defines intangible heritage as “the intrinsic value of nature as well as that
which enriches the intellectual, psychological, emotional, spiritual, cultural and/or creative
aspects of human existence and well-being” (Harmon, 2004). David Harmon, Executive
Director of the George Wright Society, an NGO, notes that while the focus of conservation is
usually on biodiversity, it is these intangible values that motivate many people since “they lie at
the heart of the protective impulse that drives the modern conservation movement.” Harmon
and his co-author Allen D. Putney create a typology of eleven intangible values that include
cultural and identity, spiritual, and aesthetic and artistic values among others (Harmon and
236