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

Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context?Lessons from the World Heritage ListThe activities of villagers within the Park are restricted to miniscule areas of land and seadesignated as part of the ‘traditional use zone’. In this zone the collection of firewood,harvesting of traditional staple foods, such as sago from the gebang palm, capturing legallyprotected species and “snakes, turtles, birds, dolphins, whales, horses, deer or water buffalo”is strictly prohibited (PHKA and TNC 2000, Vol. 1: 46). Technology permitted in this zone isrestricted to “traditional tools” such as “machete, knife, sickle, pole, seine net, hook, line, etc.”(ibid, Vol. 2: 141). Use of these tools is “licensed by the Head of Komodo National Park”(loc. cit.). Further regulated fishing by the villagers is permitted in the ‘pelagic use zone’.Surrounding the complex system of zones in the National Park is a ‘limited take andutilisation’ buffer zone.According to an information sheet produced by The Nature Conservancy, the new zoningsystem in Komodo National Park “allows for traditional use by Park inhabitants while at thesame time the most valuable and sensitive locations are protected” (TNC n.d. e: 1). Whatconstitutes ‘traditional use’ by the villagers is based upon an eighteen-month survey ofmarine resource utilisation recorded in the course of 38 ‘enforcement patrols’ within the Parkin the period 1996-1997 (TNC n.d. g; PHKA and TNC 2000; Bakar 1996). To date, noresearch has been undertaken regarding the villagers’ ‘traditional use’ of terrestrial areas andresources. In view of the limited research into the ‘socio-cultural conditions’ of the Park, fromthe point of view of ‘traditional use’ the zoning system partitions the Park in a fairly arbitrarymanner. For local people, the new zoning system transforms what is an inhabitedenvironment into a ‘dartboard’ of pristine ‘natural’ areas, which not only limits or prohibitstheir future use and occupation but also gives priority to tourist access and use of the Park.As this last point suggests, these ‘dartboards of nature’ are “often constructed and overseenby non-residents whose livelihood is not dependent on the preserved environment” (Katz1998: 55). Indeed, in the management plan, tourism is depicted as an ‘eco-friendly’ activityand is associated with minimal environmental impact, as opposed to the high impact,‘destructive’ practices of local people. Locking up biodiversity in a complex zoning and buffersystem, it is clear that management of Komodo National Park is now focused uponpreserving nature outside of culture, or in spite of it. This last point is particularly apparentwith regards to the Park Authority’s official policy on immigration.Under the 2000 management plan, immigration into Komodo National Park is strictlyprohibited. Contrary to local traditions where ‘immigrants’ and in-marrying spouses acquiredusufruct rights, today marriage to a Park resident does not confer any settlement or userights within the Park (PHKA and TNC 2000, Vol. 2: 148). In the same way that Parkrestrictions on terrestrial activities have placed greater pressure on marine resources,prohibiting immigration has led to increased human sedentarisation, again exacerbating the‘problems’ the plan seeks to ameliorate.In the Master Plan for the Park, immigration is seen as the source of the ‘exponential’population increase and resulting human pressure upon the Park’s biodiversity. The “steadyinflux of migrants into the area” (PHKA and TNC 2000, Vol. 2: 64) is also held responsible forthe importation of destructive fishing methods and modern external influences, such astelevision and radio, plus an increase in associated ‘material wants’. Furthermore,immigration is directly linked to the loss of ‘traditional customs’, language and ethnic identity(ibid: 64-67). The 2000 management plan identifies “the majority of the people in and aroundKNP” as fishermen originally from “Bima (Sumbawa), Manggarai, South Flores and SouthSulawesi” (ibid: 57). While the plan acknowledges that the Ata Modo are the “original peopleof Komodo” (loc. cit.), it further states that “there are no pure blood people left and theirculture and language is slowly being integrated with the recent migrants” (loc. cit.). In herbook, ‘Land of the Komodo Dragon’, Claire Ellis goes so far as to state that “recentimmigration has swelled the population within the [P]ark and virtually extinguished the AtaModo” (1998: 77). It seems that for the people of Komodo no sooner had their culture comeinto view then it was deemed to have disappeared. This notion of an ‘extinguished’ people is35