The cultural context of biodiversity conservation - Oapen

The discursive context
in a protected area are involved in a substantial way in management activities.« 20 A core idea of
this concept is that the agency with jurisdiction over the protected area develops a
partnership with other stakeholders, primarily local residents and resource users, which
specifies and guarantees their respective functions, rights and responsibilities with regard
to the area. However, it is difficult to identify clear demarcations between various
levels of participation in collaborative management activities. As this process itself is
complex and highly context-dependent, the author concludes that the approach can
neither be operationalised in terms of rigid guidelines nor is it to be seen as a panacea,
because a number of costs and potential obstacles need to be evaluated in advance,
before embarking on such specific processes (1999: 227ff.). A number of such obstacles
that need to be considered as basic prerequisites to successful conflict resolution
have been discussed by Hough (1988). He identifies eight key issues: the institutional
environment of national parks; the lack of trust between national park authorities and
local people; the difficulty of effective communication between all parties involved;
the number of stakeholders with different perspectives; the difference in power between
state agencies and local people in rural areas; the degree of risk and uncertainty
involved in entering into discussions aimed at conflict resolution; the problem of
binding or enforcing any agreement; the alternatives, for all the stakeholders, to participating
in the process.
By analysing the politicised nature of conservation programmes, Wilshusen et al.
(2003) explore how conflicts and resistance often develop in response to the designation
of protected areas. They argue that even those approaches labelled ›peopleoriented‹
conservation generate complex political challenges that may hinder biodiversity
protection efforts and detract from sustainable human development. Nevertheless,
the outlined development may be interpreted as part of a general process of decentralisation
toward devolution of power to the local level and has been described by
Oviedo and Brown (1999) as a trend away from exclusive management models of protected
areas towards more inclusive models that allow for a high level of participation.
Referring to future policy trends, the authors expect that systems of management and
protection will become more decentralised, progressively transferring power to local
entities. Moreover, they predict an ongoing movement towards ›bioregional models‹
of conservation that will be developed on a larger scale of ecosystems. Following this
scheme, the emphasis will move from complete protection of isolated areas towards a
more comprehensive and dynamic concept of conservation and management of
›working landscapes‹ that values the interactions between people and nature and assumes
resource management activities as a critical aspect of protection (1999: 100ff.).
In discussing the latest phase of conservation planning, this overarching model has
20 The term stakeholder is used widely to refer to the various institutions, social groups or individuals
who possess a significant and specific stake in the protected area. This may originate from an institutional
mandate, geographic proximity, historical association, dependence for livelihood or economic
interest. In particular, these include governmental agencies, administrative authorities, local businesses
and industries, research institutions, NGOs and above all the local residents who live within
or close to protected areas (Borrini-Feyerabend 1999: 225).
63