Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context? - Rainforest ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sandra Pannelltourist facilities established at Loh Liang were designated ‘intensive use zones’. Cultivationby the villagers would be confined to the intensive use zone, while other subsistenceactivities, including ‘hunting and tree-felling’, would be regulated (Blower et al. 1977).‘Wilderness zones’, on the other hand, provided for ‘limited tourism’, while ‘sanctuary zones’were restricted to authorised Park personnel and researchers (see Blower et al. 1977; IUCN1991). As Park management at this point of time was directed towards conservation of thedragons, and thus focused upon the terrestrial elements of the Park, the 1977 managementplan still allowed for unregulated fishing by the local population. Indeed, the restrictionsplaced upon terrestrial human activities served to focus villager’s subsistence andcommercial activities upon the marine environment, in the process creating or exacerbatingthe so-called ‘population pressure problem’ of the Park.While prepared by biophysical scientists, as Hitchcock points out, the 1977 managementplan “made various proposals that would have an impact on the lives of the islanders” (1993:310). Concerned by the size of the human population within the Park, the plan advocatedthe relocation of three settlements on the island of Rinca to the nearby coastline of Flores.The Plan also proposed a registration scheme to prevent further immigration and advocateda prohibition on the erection of new ‘local’ dwellings in the Park (Hitchcock 1993: 311).Ultimately, the authors of the management plan hoped that those islanders remaining in thePark “would eventually become engaged in the work of the [P]ark” (Hitchcock 1993: 311),and thus cease their ‘destructive’ practices. In this sense, the 1977 plan introduces the ideaof ‘education, awareness and alternative livelihoods’ for the islanders, a notion that is pickedup with greater vigour in later management plans as a ‘sustainable’ solution to the problemsposed by the presence of local people in the Park.The ideological emphasis in the 1977 management plan is upon restricting or eliminating theimpact of humans on the environment and thus restoring nature to its proper balance. This isapparent in the many proposals to limit or eradicate human-Komodo monitor interactions,and thus return both dragons and people to their natural habitats. Notable among theseproposals to restore ‘prey / predator relationships’ is the recommendation to cease baitingand feeding of the dragons with goats purchased from the local community. Notwithstandingthe concern of scientists about the ‘artificial’ nature of this practice, it is apparent that thisactivity was still undertaken by Park rangers as late as 1990 when the IUCN assessmentteam visited the region (IUCN 1991) 25 . Emphasising the ‘wild’ and ‘dangerous’ nature of theKomodo dragon is a critical dimension of these proposed restoration activities andassociated scientific ideas about the ‘normal state of nature’ (Budiansky 1995: 71). As such,these restoration activities are aimed at distancing dangerous dragons from defencelesshuman populations. Linking nature with risk, danger, wildness and even savagery has a longhistory in Western thought (see Budiansky 1995; Schama1995; Hell 1996), and certainlyresonates with the National Geographic-style stereotypes of Komodo from the early to midtwentiethcentury (see Burden 1927a; Broughton 1936).In line with the idea of nature ‘in balance’, and in keeping with attempts to restore it to this‘natural’ state, the management plan made several recommendations to curtail and ultimatelystop the hunting of deer in the Park, one of the key prey species for the Komodo monitor.According to the IUCN assessment, the issue of ‘deer poaching’, as it is commonly called inmanagement documents, was actively pursued by the Park director at the time with thecooperation of both the police and the military (1991: 26) 26 . Associated with the ‘deer25 Ellis states that in 1988, “feeding was cut back and permitted only on Wednesdays and Sundays”,the two days of the week that experienced the highest tourist numbers (1998: 84). Later, feedingwas reduced to one day a week and in 1994 the practice was stopped altogether.26 As documented in a TNC report on ‘Enforcement and Protection of Komodo National Park’, mencaught ‘deer poaching’ within the park have been sentenced for up to three years in jail (Pet andSubijanto 2001).28
Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context?Lessons from the World Heritage Listpoaching’ issue, the plan also identifies local burning of grasslands on the island of Komodoas a threat to the Komodo monitor and its primary prey species.Notwithstanding the considerable impact of the 1977 management plan upon the localhuman communities within and adjoining the National Park, the plan portrays a somewhatconfined view of nature, albeit one regarded as ‘out of balance’, focused upon the ‘dragon’and its terrestrial habitat. In keeping with the plan’s objective to restore nature to itsbalanced state, it appears that at the time of the World Heritage listing in 1991 on-groundmanagement activities in the Park were largely devoted to law enforcement and the provisionof guided tourist facilities (WCMC 1994). While Komodo National Park was listed as aBiosphere Reserve in 1977, the implications of this different reading of the environment wasnot readily apparent in the Park until the early 1990s. At this point in time, not only wasnature redefined (once again), but it was also privatised in the process. It is apparent thatthese changes were largely driven by the World Heritage listing of Komodo National Parkand growing international concerns about the loss of nature in the Park.UNESCO’s ‘Man and the Biosphere Programme’, launched in 1970, signalled a new globalvision of nature in terms of the idea of ‘biodiversity’ and the need to halt the loss of it.Paradoxically, the discourse of biodiversity is linked to globalisation and the rise of corporateenvironmentalism (se Katz 1998) 27 . As Luke observes, by the 1970s the Enlightenment ideaof ‘nature’ as “untouched and undisturbed expanses” appeared obsolete, indeed, ‘dead’(1995: 12). In drawing public attention to the impact of humans on nature in the form ofwholesale extinctions, “industrial pollution, greenhouse gases, chemical contamination, andradioactive wastes” (Luke 1995: 12), science played an important role in bringing about the‘end of nature’ (McKibben 1989).In a world no longer replete with unexplored regions, where historically science pushed theborders of the unknown, and confronted with the reality that few, if any, environments wereundisturbed, nature has undergone an ‘involution’ (Katz 1998: 46).Natural spaces have been reworked to produce greater ‘internal sub-divisions’ (loc. cit.).Biodiversity, biosphere reserves, biodiversity ‘hotspots’ and bioprospecting are some of thediscursive and material products of this redefinition and involution of nature. Accordingly,conservation efforts have shifted from an emphasis upon nature as a quantity (i.e. untouchedexpanses ‘hoarded’ for their “pristine appearances and organic presences”) to focusing uponthe ‘quality of nature’ in terms of biodiversity, and the idea of rare or endangered flora andfauna.Rainforests and reefs are among the many ‘hotspots’ in the world where the biodiversitybattles are being waged and won or lost depending on one’s position in the matrix ofrelations involved in the production and preservation of nature. As Katz points out, the rise of‘biocentrism’, wherein nature is viewed as a biodiversity bank, among other things, has seenthe resurgence of ‘preservation’ as a means of protecting these public ‘assets’ (1998: 48).Various state and national instruments, together with international conventions, such as theWorld Heritage Convention, are employed to secure these valuable resources for futuregenerations. In the ‘new nature’, constant scientific surveillance is necessary to survey,inventory and guard the ecological values of these diverse but threatened spaces (Luke2003: 14, 19).The establishment of more than 480 biosphere reserves since 1974 is one of the ‘main linesof action’ adopted by UNESCO to minimise biodiversity loss. From the 1970s onwards the27 The pursuit of diversity within the context of globalisation is not confined to the earth’s biota. AsLechner and Boli point out, globalisation was also seen as a ‘threat’ to cultural diversity (2005: 135).29
Page 3 and 4: RECONCILING NATURE AND CULTUREIN A
Page 5: Reconciling Nature and Culture in a
Page 8 and 9: Sandra PannellCOLOUR PLATESLIST OF
Page 10 and 11: Sandra PannellMap 2: No ‘Terra Nu
Page 12 and 13: Sandra PannellMap 4: The varied cul
Page 14 and 15: Sandra PannellFigure 3 (left):Walla
Page 16 and 17: Sandra PannellFigure 7: Komodo drag
Page 18 and 19: Sandra PannellFigure 10 (above):Fis
Page 20 and 21: Sandra Pannell(a)Figure 14: Aerial
Page 22 and 23: Sandra PannellFigure 16 (above): Bu
Page 24 and 25: Sandra PannellFigure 19: The ‘cul
Page 26 and 27: Sandra Pannell‘habitats of threat
Page 28 and 29: Sandra PannellIn keeping with this
Page 30 and 31: Sandra PannellLike other ‘natural
Page 32 and 33: Sandra Pannelltogether, “they co-
Page 34 and 35: Sandra Pannellof rainforest and the
Page 36 and 37: Sandra PannellAs Raymond Williams (
Page 38 and 39: Sandra Pannelland twentieth century
Page 40 and 41: Sandra Pannelldepiction of Brazilia
Page 42 and 43: Sandra PannellIn the operationalisa
Page 44 and 45: Sandra PannellJakarta introduced pr
Page 46 and 47: Sandra PannellNeedham, provides a d
Page 48 and 49: Sandra PannellPresenting a ‘Komod
Page 50 and 51: Sandra PannellFurthermore, Komodo l
Page 54 and 55: Sandra Pannellearth’s fauna and f
Page 56 and 57: Sandra Pannellintroduces a new role
Page 58 and 59: Sandra Pannellgebang palm, has dire
Page 60 and 61: Sandra Pannellpromoted in the three
Page 62 and 63: Sandra Pannellmethodology of modern
Page 64 and 65: Sandra Pannell‘Integrated Conserv
Page 66 and 67: Sandra PannellWhile a study on alte
Page 68 and 69: Sandra Pannell1996). In TNC’s Ede
Page 71 and 72: Reconciling Nature and Culture in a
Page 93: Reconciling Nature and Culture in a
Page 96 and 97: Sandra PannellLike Marilyn Strather
Page 98 and 99: Sandra Pannellprovide research and
Page 100 and 101: Sandra Pannelland visitor informati
Page 103 and 104:
Reconciling Nature and Culture in a
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115:
show all

Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context? - Rainforest ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?