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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sandra Pannellmethodology of modern heritage conservation, with its emphasis upon scientificmeasurement, classification and evaluation, “can inadvertently mummify or destroy aspectsof value by disregarding the less tangible and subtler elements of continuity” (2004: 50).It is apparent from the current management plan that the Ata Modo and the other ethnicgroups in and around the Park have failed the authenticity requirements for preservationentailed in the methodology adopted by The Nature Conservancy. Their cultural beliefsabout ora are diminished as ‘folk tales’, their traditional customs are reported to be“dwindling” at a rapid rate, local heritage is reduced to the status of a handful of ‘culturalrelicts’ (WCMC 1994), and it appears that they have also lost their ability to engage in“sustainable fish culture” (loc. cit.). According to a TNC fact sheet on ‘alternative livelihoods’,“for generations, villagers living in an around Komodo have carefully harvested the sea’sriches in sustainable ways” (TNC n.d. f: 1). However, it appears that nowadays these verysame people are engaged in “overfishing and destructive fishing practices” (loc. cit.). Itseems that while TNC is adept at recognising and saving biodiversity around the world, itdoes not appear able to identify a range of traditional community fishing activities as anythingbut ‘destructive’ or specifically distinguish who, out of the more than 20,000 people living inand around the Park, is responsible for such practices, if anyone. Through the ‘Komodo FishCulture Project’, The Nature Conservancy aims to “steer” local people towards a “thrivingmariculture industry” (TNC n.d. f: 1). In keeping with the translocal vision of TNC, this projectwill also “protect one of the world’s most biologically diverse and productive marineenvironments” (loc. cit.). In Komodo National Park, the burden of deferred consumption ofthe assets of this ‘biodiversity bank’ is firmly placed upon the local population, raisingquestions about who actually benefits from this World Heritage-inscribed, UNESCO-listedbiosphere reserve.THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY: A POSTSCRIPT FROMKOMODO NATIONAL PARK, 2005Back in 1981, when the social science researcher, Michael Hitchcock, visited the newlyformed Komodo National Park, it didn’t appear that the Komodo islanders were reallybenefiting from the environmental and tourism successes that often come with theestablishment of a protected area. Indeed Hitchcock concludes that, “overlooked by theauthorities and lacking the appropriate skills and education, the islanders have been unableto participate in the new developments” (1993: 313). Hitchcock suggests that the islanders’marginalisation partially stems from the fact that the Park’s planners were “primarilyconcerned with environmental conservation rather than the needs of the local population”(loc. cit.). Apparently, the problems posed by the presence of people within the Park were tobe solved by “resettling several villages outside the reserve” (loc. cit.).As Jim Igoe observes, along with many other commentators, “the historical creation of parksoften involved the eviction of local people” (2004: xi). An inkling of the global magnitude ofthis ‘management’ practice is found in the UNESCO-sponsored overview of ‘Human Use ofWorld Heritage Natural Sites’ (Thorsell and Sigaty 1998). While the authors of this studyreport that “the majority of natural World Heritage sites [73 out of 126 ‘natural’ and ‘mixed’sites], have no resident human population” (ibid: 3), examination of these supposedly‘natural’ sites reveals that substantial human populations, in some cases numbering tens ofthousands of people, live immediately adjacent to these protected areas. One of the moreobvious conclusions to be drawn from this material is that people lived in these spaces priorto their declaration as a protected area, whether as a World Heritage property, conservationreserve, or national park. In the 47 ‘natural’ World Heritage sites where resident humanpopulations have not been rendered invisible by the convenience of a line on a map andahistorical statistics, the degree to which their presence and involvement in shaping an38
Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context?Lessons from the World Heritage Listanthropogenic landscape is acknowledged by national governments and globalenvironmental organisation varies dramatically.P. J. Fowler gives us some idea of this variation in the UNESCO report on ‘World HeritageCultural Landscapes, 1992-2002’ (Fowler 2003). Of the 730 properties inscribed on theWorld Heritage List by 2002, only thirty are listed as ‘official’ cultural landscapes (Fowler2003: 14). After examining the listings for ‘natural’, ‘cultural’ and ‘mixed’ properties, Fowlerfound that at least 70 other sites could readily be identified as cultural landscapes accordingto the World Heritage Convention (ibid: 60). While Fowler observes that the pre-1992 listingof some World Heritage sites precluded their nomination as a ‘cultural landscape’, he canonly surmise that the reasons why state parties have not seized upon “the new opportunitypresented by the creation of the category ‘cultural landscape’ […] may well be economic andpersonnel [ones]” (ibid: 60). In solely focusing upon financial and logistical obstacles, Fowlerappears oblivious to the politicisation of nature, culture and heritage that surrounds the listingprocess, leading one commentator to label World Heritage a “political football” (Sullivan2004: 51). As such, Fowler ignores the powerful discourses about an ‘untouched nature’ inwhich the idea of a cultural landscape appears as an oxymoronic concept.As these comments suggest, the creation of a World Heritage area or a national parkimposes more than just new cadastral boundaries and regulatory regimes. The ‘eviction oflocal people’ that Igoe and countless others have commented upon is one of the moredisturbing and long-lasting effects of the intersection of a number of discourses focused upon‘the environment’. In this sense, the creation of a park also imposes scientific frameworksabout species and ecosystems, environmentalist notions about nature conservation andprotection, elitists ideas about heritage and culture, developmental ideologies aboutcommunities and customs, bureaucratic concepts regarding planning and management, andstate-sanctioned assumptions about property and people’s rights. As Sullivan and otherspoint out, in this situation relying upon “national or local government systems to encouragelocal involvement and the fostering of traditional practices is often unrealistic and counterproductive”(2004: 51). In the case of Komodo National Park, local involvement at the behestof the Park’s authorities, the national government and the transnational environmentalorganisation The Nature Conservancy also proved to be an alienating and disempoweringexperience.As reported by the ‘Awareness Officer’ of the Indonesian NGO Yayasan Pusaka AlamNusantara 40 , established by The Nature Conservancy as part of its ‘environmental educationprogram’, the ‘globally good’ intentions of the Park Authority have met with indifference fromthe local communities within and adjoining the Park (1996: 5). For local people “theprotected area is deemed an imposed regulation that puts constraints on their livelihood”(Bakar 1996: 28). Indeed, the officer concludes that:During the sixteen years since the establishment of Komodo National Park ithas not yet been evident that the local communities play an active role insupport of conservation efforts. The population in general remains indifferentto the cause, and even presents a potential threat to the ecosystem” (loc. cit.).To combat this ‘indifference’ and ‘vitalise’ community participation, the Indonesianenvironmental NGO recommends, “the local community must be made to recognise that theyare to gain greater benefits from the Park if they comply with conservation policies” (Bakar1996: 29). Notwithstanding the considerable financial and logistical effort of the nationalgovernment and The Nature Conservancy to develop alternative livelihoods, “not in conflictwith conservation values” (loc. cit), it is clear that the local community regard these40 The ‘Nusantara Natural Heritage Organisation’.39
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 52 and 53: Sandra Pannelltourist facilities es
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 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 113 and 114:
Page 115:
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?