The cultural context of biodiversity conservation - Oapen

The discursive context
Wells and Brandon (1993) have critically examined numerous field-based experiences
with the ICDP approach. In general, they observe that most of the initiatives emphasise
participatory approaches, although only very few specify exactly what is really
meant by participation or how participation in conservation projects may contribute
significantly to reduce threats to protected areas. According to their review of the
constraints, which have limited the effectiveness of implemented projects, the critical
link between development and conservation is often missing or unclear, and most
ICDPs have been designed without adequate understanding of the specific local
socio-economic context. As they treated local people as passive beneficiaries of activities,
most of the surveyed projects even failed to involve people in the process of decision-making
related to their own development. Another outlined barrier to local
commitment is the reliance on existing authority structures in many societies that inhibit
participation in decision-making. However, the authors realise that some of the
projects could at least make important progress in gaining the confidence of local residents
and eliciting the participation of community members in project-initiated activities.
As there seem to be no reasonable alternatives, they argue in favour for
ICDPs to be further reinforced and expanded. Following an understanding of participation
as »empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be social actors rather
than passive subjects, manage their resources, make decisions, and control the activities
that affect their lives«, they conclude that the relationship between local residents
and park authorities remain essential to the conservation of biodiversity und thus to
sustainable development (1993: 160ff.). 21
3.2.4 The remaining quest for participation
Jeanrenaud reminds to distinguish between participation »as a means and an end«
(1999: 130). In the former sense, it serves as a more efficient tool for realising predetermined
objectives set by outsiders, whereas direct involvement is seen in the latter
sense as a fundamental right of local people to influence the course of events, which
implies a process of empowerment, critical to the goal of self-determination. Thus,
contexts of decision-making raise fundamental questions in participatory development
and conservation. It is important to understand how participation works in particular
cultural and political contexts. When reference is made to participation, Jeanrenaud
writes, it is often assumed that it is the task of projects to encourage the local population
to participate. She suggests that the concept may be turned around and the question
be raised of »how does a conservation organization participate in local people's
projects?« Conservation organisations need to consider systems of »environmental
brokerage« in which diverse values and interests are negotiated and they should be
prepared to accept concepts of nature and conservation as defined »from below, as
21 Chatty and Colchester (2002) have undertaken to delineate a typology of participation related to
protected areas from passive participation in the 1970s, to participation by consultation in the 1980s and interactive
participation in the 1990s.
65