The cultural context of biodiversity conservation - Oapen

238
The cultural context of biodiversity conservation
If the creation of knowledge reflects a social process of perception, Arizpe et al.
(1996) have argued, then socially and politically sustainable solutions to environmental
problems can only be successfully negotiated if the differences of perceptions and assessments
of such problems between diverse social groups are well understood. The
use of natural resources has a great deal to do with the way in which societies are reproduced,
which implies that natural sustainability must be premised on social sustainability.
If we agree that the internal dynamics of human societies shape the behaviour
of individuals in those societies toward nature, then a future task remains to ask
»what kinds of concept those societies have about nature« (1996: 34f.). The question
of what should be done in the future has been answered by Weber Nicholsen as follows:
»We should foster the mental space that will allow for creative links to be made
that can then become the basis for creative – and hence unpredictable and unprescribable
– actions« (2002: 1999).
As to such claims for creative actions, environmental education has been widely
considered by conservation agencies as an initial step in improving people's attitudes
towards conservation. Hence, many implemented co-management arrangements such
as the Laguna Lachuá National Park include environmental education programmes that
address local concerns and aim to communicate resource management objectives and
natural values of the protected area. The idea behind this strategy became clearly evident
in an interview I conducted with one of the park managers during fieldwork.
When talking about external threats to the integrity of the resources within the Park,
he stressed the necessity to »educate the local residents because they are unaware of the ecological
diversity in their habitats and ignorant of conservational initiatives« (personal communication,
2002). Repeatedly I heard similar comments such as »the peasants are destroying nature out
of lack of consciousness«. They are clearly seen as functional partners in the conservation
scheme, who have to be made ›aware‹ of the importance of biodiversity conservation
as achieved through the establishment of the protected area. In my opinion, there is
no need for educational measures on this level. Farmers most often were aware of the
issues and problems of forest conservation in the area, but saw themselves unable to
act correspondingly because their economic situation forced them to act in a way that
would negatively affect the balance of the ecological conditions. But I agree with
Fiallo and Jacobson (1995), who emphasise the need for further research to understand
local people's attitudes towards protected areas. As nature conservation as a science
which separates the phenomenon of biological diversity from cultural diversity is
not an inherent value among the indigenous peoples, the relatedness of culture and
nature through which they conceptualise their world might serve as a better basis for a
meaningful consideration of alternative conservation measures. To do so, comanagement
needs to be modified to realise the implications of a multicultural definition
of environment. The implementation of such an approach demands an entirely
different epistemology for cultural affirmation, which may be derived from environmental
ethics and principles rooted in the indigenous cosmovision.