The cultural context of biodiversity conservation - Oapen

66
The cultural context of biodiversity conservation
well as from above« (1999: 131ff.). The importance of cross-cultural negotiations,
which imply the acceptance of a plurality of interpretations, meanings and approaches,
has been discussed by Clay et al., who write that the success of long-term sustainable
use and conservation efforts will be enhanced only »if indigenous peoples feel that
they have ownership of a project« (2000: 14). However, a basic necessity, as suggested
by the authors, is that communication takes place and that this endeavour needs time
and trust. With regard to the indicated ›empowerment‹ of local communities, Redford
et al. question the common assumption »that there is such a thing as local people who
operate in a cohesive community fashion« (2006: 237). The recognition that groups of
people are not homogenous has also been referred to by Jeanrenaud, as she clearly
points to the questions of how to define groups to which people belong: »What is a
community? Who is local?« (1999: 127).
Borrini-Feyerabend has attempted do answer the first question in her definition of
communities as »complex entities, within which differences of ethnic origin, class,
caste, age, gender, religion, profession, and economic and social status can create profound
differences in interests, capacities and willingness to invest in the management
of natural resources« (cited in Redford et al. 2006: 237). According to a definition
provided by Laird, a local community is »a group of people having a long-standing social
organization that binds them together, often in a defined area« (2002: 458). Beyond
specific conditions to be taken into consideration at the local level, Redford et al.
(2006) assume that an understanding of the biological and social history of a given
site, together with the particular political circumstances of its creation, is essential in
creating feasible conservation programmes. They specify their argument by asserting:
Each site is linked to regional, national, and international scales through agricultural, trade, and
colonization policies and the politics of conservation, development, and local peoples. These connections
can interact with one another and create conditions that impact threats, partnerships, and policies.
Moreover, there is no ›right scale‹, but a set of cross-scale dynamics important to biodiversity. When
crafting local approaches, it is vital to understand the proximate and ultimate driving forces that have
influenced and will continue to influence conservation actions (2006: 239).
The authors remind to take into account that conflicts concerning a given conservational
setting shift over time, involving different threats, interest groups and social
values. When developing ways of resolving these conflicts, it is important to understand
these contexts and not compromise the long-term viability of the protected area
itself in the belief that resolving a given conflict will provide an ultimate solution. Protected
areas are necessary, but not sufficient for the conservation of biodiversity. They
must be seen as an integral part of a larger national or eco-regional scheme that will
effectively address conservation issues within, as well as outside park boundaries.
Park-based conservation will not survive in isolation, but rather must be integrated
with subordinate efforts focused on agriculture, forestry, pollution, water diversion
and urban areas in order to ensure a compatible future for human societies (2006:
240f.). Assuming that non-intervention is not an appropriate option to encounter the