From conflict to cooperation

entific credibility of such notions be recognised, the common logic of conventional conservation management continued to deny the complexity of interfering factors that contribute to any given environmental situation. Howitt argues that the weakness of many resource management systems is »their failure to address the social, cultural and political complexity as competently and comprehensively as they tackle ecological and engineering complexities« (2001: 71). In pursuing simplicity, he writes, scientific think-ing underlythink-ing conservational practices »minimises the extension of interaction to a relatively narrow range of direct causes and effects« (2001: 69). Likewise, Berkes (1999: 10) refers to the limitations of scientific paradigms inherent in conventional re-source management, which are based on an instrumental attitude towards nature. In the same way, Chatty and Colchester (2002: 7) assess the positivist or rationalist principle of conservation science that assumes the existence of only one single reality. This ap-proach, they argue, reduces complex aspects of problems into discrete parts to be ana-lysed with the goal to discover, predict and control this reality and to summarise the obtained knowledge in universal laws or generalisations. These expressions concerning the inadequacies of scientific thinking and inherent ethnocentric values underlying conventional conservation practice came along with the quest for an »entirely new ecological paradigm« (Kalland 2000: 321) to identify and promote social processes that enable local communities to conserve and enhance biodiversity as part of their liveli-hood systems. In the search for alternative conservation and development approaches, it became increasingly clear that protected areas had almost always been created on the top of areas inhabited and used by existing populations. This perspective involves the growing awareness that the biodiversity that parks are designed to protect is in fact a »social good« (Redford et al. 2006: 240).

3.2.2 From conflict to cooperation

In their account on Building Alliances with Indigenous Peoples to Establish and Manage Pro-tected Areas, Oviedo and Brown (1999) observe that significant changes in the way pro-tected areas are currently conceived, established and managed indicate the emergence of the claimed new ecological paradigm. Apparently, as a result of changing political perspectives within the environmental movement, there has been a broadening of un-derstanding with regard to cooperation in natural resource management over the past decade. As it became increasingly clear that conservation and development initiatives that pay attention to local perceptions instead of merely being imposed from above were more likely to be relevant to people's needs and to generate sustainable interven-tion, the major international conservation agencies responded increasingly to the call for collaborative approaches in the planning and implementation of protected areas.¹⁷ This way of thinking is mirrored in the definition of a protected area as provided by

17 Among other multilateral lending organisations, even the World Bank has recognised the crucial role of community-based and people-oriented approaches as key issue in sustainable development and environmental protection, as Davis (1993) indicates.

the IUCN as »an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means« (Phillips & Harrison 1999: 14; em-phasis added). Principles and guidelines were adopted for instance by the WWF and the World Commission on Protected Areas of the IUCN (Beltrán 2000) with emphasis on the need for joint agreements based on the effective participation of local popula-tions.¹⁸ As summarised by Oviedo and Brown (1999), the agencies recognise that pro-tected areas will only survive if they are seen to be of value to the nation as a whole and to local people in particular, if territorial and resource rights of local communities are respected, if it is acknowledged that their knowledge, innovations and practices have much to contribute to the management of protected areas, if governments and protected area managers incorporate customary tenure, resource use and control sys-tems as a means of enhancing biodiversity conservation and if indigenous peoples have the right to participate effectively in the management of the protected areas es-tablished on their lands or territories.

The emergent directives reflect the extent to which conservation organisations have reframed their perceptions of environmental issues relating to local communities over the past decades. The revised directions in conservation policy include the con-cept of Integrated Conservation and Development Programmes (ICDPs), which have the dual objective of conserving biological diversity and promoting improved conditions of life and meeting the necessities of communities living in and around protected areas. As there are always likely to be conflicts of interest between such communities and the management of protected areas, ICDPs are based on the principles of mitigating or reconciling such conflicts to balance competing objectives by generating alternative income sources and education programmes (Wells & Brandon 1993: 161).¹⁹ The con-cept that has also been framed by other terms such as community-based conservation (Berkes 2004) or people-oriented conservation (Jeanrenaud 1999) is based on the assump-tion that if local people have a stake in protected area management and their liveli-hoods were linked to conservation strategies, they would likely cooperate and comply with restrictions. Another popular term labelled a key concept in natural resource management is collaborative management. According to Borrini-Feyerabend, the co-management approach aims at »a situation in which some or all of the relevant stakeholders

18 In order to increase attention to the role of protected areas in achieving conservation and devel-opment goals and to provide international standards, the IUCN undertook to designate a global clas-sification system in 1994. For details on these categories that recognise a gradient of human interac-tion, see Holdgate & Phillips (1999: 7ff.) and Stolton & Dudley (1999: xiv).

19 Although not a point of interest in this study, it is worth mentioning that eco-tourism has become a popular and much debated issue in recent years. As it has been recognised that it may be a means of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, nature-based tourism, which often takes place in protected areas, entered the CBD context. A basic issue within the ongoing debates is how interests of tourism can be accommodated with protected area management and the needs of local residents who may earn a living from such activities.

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 re-gard 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 obsta-cles 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 be-tween 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 par-ticipating 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 designa-tion of protected areas. They argue that even those approaches labelled ›people-oriented‹ conservation generate complex political challenges that may hinder biodiver-sity protection efforts and detract from sustainable human development. Neverthe-less, the outlined development may be interpreted as part of a general process of de-centralisation 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 pro-tected 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 as-sumes 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 institu-tional mandate, geographic proximity, historical association, dependence for livelihood or economic interest. In particular, these include governmental agencies, administrative authorities, local busi-nesses and industries, research institutions, NGOs and above all the local residents who live within or close to protected areas (Borrini-Feyerabend 1999: 225).

also been favoured by Wilshusen et al. (2003). From an ecological point of view, they argue that the protection of ecosystems will be best achieved at the eco-regional or landscape level. Given that conservation programmes do not take place in a social and political vacuum, the authors call out to explore the complex human dimensions that underlie protected area management in questioning who decides how conservation will occur, at what social cost and who benefits from biodiversity conservation.