1.Front section - IUCN

Communication as a means of building support for protected areas 14
In Peru almost two decades of violence resulting
from the drug trade and insurgency resulted in a
reduction of the state apparatus for protected areas
(Fernandez Davila, 2003). Parks Canada in the 1980s
and 90s faced changes brought about by immigration,
multiculturalism and urbanization and the
preoccupation of Canadians with social and economic
issues such as the economy, health care and education
diminished support for protected areas (Bronson,
2003).
In addition to activities driven by contradictory
development plans, customary and/or traditional
indigenous practices may also conflict with
conservation objectives, as is the case in Mexico where
unsustainable land-use practices, such as the slash-andburn
system of maize production, “are based on deep
cultural beliefs and have been transmitted by
community elders to new generations“ (Vidal, 2003).
These examples indicate some of the difficulties faced
in creating and managing protected areas.
Many protected area managers come from a
technical background which typically provides little
training on communication, stakeholder management
or interactive policy making (Van Boven, 2003). This
results in technical solutions being applied to external
pressures, when in fact the problem is a people
problem, requiring skills in relation development,
negotiation and learning.
Role of communication in
protected area management
Communication, as a tool of protected area
management, can hardly be expected to bring about
great change in the face of the many socio-economic
issues confronted by protected area managers, unless
combined with other instruments. The complexity of
motivations and sources of changes which affect
protected areas suggests the need for communication
research that can clarify the change agents in the issue,
the sources of influence, the appropriate means to
work with people, and ways to break down the tasks
into manageable steps.
While some actions conflicting with protected area
objectives represent explicit opposition, others may be
due to a lack of awareness or understanding of the
© Jeffrey A. McNeely
conservation objectives, the absence of sufficient
motivation, or no realistic capacity to act differently.
Understanding these reasons for current behaviour is
essential before planning a communication
intervention for bringing about change.
Much conflict around protected areas has arisen from
the failure to adequately involve stakeholders in
decisions on protected area management. Indeed, in
some cases communication with stakeholders may be
so deficient that local people do not even know the
protected area exists, why its biodiversity is important,
or how it benefits the community (Davila, 2003).
Similarly, the lack of clear definitions of protected area
boundaries may result in conflicts and disputes over
matters such as agricultural borders and practices.
In other cases stakeholders may be well aware of the
protected areas, especially when they were established
in top-down approaches, through enforcement and
compulsory exclusion. These processes were
characterized by conflict between the parks and
neighbouring communities, mainly due to disrespect
for local indigenous knowledge and traditional
conservation practices, provoking attitudes against
this model of conservation (Makwaeba, 2004; Viday,
2003).
Reserva Nacional de Lachay, Peru.
179