One of the main sites of the people-ecology interface is ‘protected areas' in the form of nature parks, game reserves and heritage sites. While these areas protect the ‘stock' of biodiversity on the planet and are a sanctuary for animals and plants, the historical, political and social processes that lead to the creation of such areas have in recent years been highlighted because of the social impact protected areas have on local people. It has become apparent - in many cases - that some people and communities in and around protected areas have become marginalised or excluded from nature, conservation practices and the economic gains that tourism, for example, may bring to these areas. Therefore, although a participatory approach emphasises rural engagement in conservation in order to stress sustainability while providing communities with economic gains, this brief examines whether the ecological is - ultimately - protected at the expense of the social, i.e. whether community-based conservation truly benefits rural people or whether the participatory approach is merely a banner for elitist accumulation under nature-based development.

The development and conservation paradox

Aldo Leopald (1935) stated that the anomaly of the modern study of ecology is the creation of two groups of scholars "each of which seems barely aware of the existence of the other."(2) The two groups are the social and natural sciences, with the latter for instance having "comfortably relegated the hodge-podge of politics to the liberal arts."(3) The science and methodology of ‘the natural' and ‘the social' have created a dichotomy in science, and this has helped to drive a wedge between people, their natural environment, and the conservation of that environment. In other words, conservation is by and large governed by biology and the natural sciences, whilst a socio-economic analysis under the social sciences is often ignored. Hence, while many development experts aspire to alleviate poverty and conserve the environment, the lack of success of both development and conservation programmes in developing countries results from this confusion of two inherently divergent agendas.(4)

The processes of modernity and post-modernity, through excessive consumption, natural-use exploitation and industrialisation, have radically reduced biodiversity and global ecological sustainability. Protected areas seemingly represent a chance to save endangered species; however, they also serve to produce rapid changes in the livelihoods of rural people, mainly local communities in and adjacent to such areas in Africa and abroad. Historically, this ecological-social tension (even conflict) has often arisen because of the authoritarian methods underpinning the establishment of protected areas, especially in colonial Africa. This is often called the "fortress" approach to conservation, in which people are forcefully removed from their land and then further excluded from participating in conservation or even tourism ventures. Such conflicts between park authorities and communities ultimately revolve around land and the competition over access to and control of land and land-based natural resources.(5)

Furthermore, the conservation of ‘nature' is inevitably and regularly driven by political and economic interests. The often-ignored social dimension, i.e. the principle of local participation, seems to soften the effect of these political and economic interests on rural communities. Haller et al (2008) thus state that community participation through co-management "appears to be an institutional means to mitigate problems of global change, reconciling local people with conservationists and conservation with development."(6) On a conceptual and political level, the scramble for land rights (and access) and community-based conservation involve a range of competing ideologies, narratives and discourses, and power, and raise questions about economic and political justice: justice for nature and the right to a healthy ecosystem as well as the right to land, culture and heritage of people. It is this point of justice which pinpoints the tension that this paper seeks to address - to consider and analyse environmental versus social justice in an overall theme of sustainability.

Commodification of land

The protection of ‘pristine nature' as an ethical issue often justifies the acquisition of rural land, the restriction of the use of natural resources by local people, and sometimes even the purposeful exclusion of people as they are often seen as degrading the land. Alternatively, in many known cases, people living in and/or around these areas view nature conservation negatively because of its imposed conditions and restrictions, despite the studied existence of a cosmology of sustainability in many local knowledge systems - especially in Africa. What has become central to proponents of protected areas are the land itself and the land-based natural resources, both of which are exclusively maintained by park authorities and the state for conservation purposes and tourism benefits. A number of articles of CAI's Enviro Africa series (7) have exemplified the need to conserve Africa's biodiversity and this fact cannot be denied. However, the commodification of protected areas through, for instance, eco-tourism is problematic insofar as it solely benefits national and provincial parks, and tourist ventures in and around these areas. While there are a few cases where the inclusion of culture and participation of local communities under an ecotourism strategy have benefited both conservation and community development, these cases present exceptions.

In this regard, Karl Polanyi speaks of land (and labour) as fictitious commodities, as they become increasingly exchanged through markets. Their very existence becomes reduced to what they can fetch (monetarily) in the open market.(8) Polanyi labels land as a ‘fictitious' commodity because it is not produced like ‘real' commodities, i.e. the earth as the bearer of land and land-based natural resources exists for reasons other than market transactions.(9) Rural people, though, often require land for reasons (both economic and cultural) that are not directly reducible to market considerations. Land and agriculture have therefore become a particularly sensitive and contentious issue, given the importance of land-based livelihoods in Africa.

On a global scale, neo-liberalism and deregulation (involving commodification of land and nature) have had a detrimental impact on land, agriculture and rural livelihoods.(10) The increasing privatisation of land (as well as state acquisition of land) and the monopolisation of commodity markets by large agribusinesses and corporations have, in many known cases, undermined and marginalised rural communities while limiting their access to the economic benefits potentially deriving from agriculture, conservation and tourism. This, in many ways, reproduces the colonial legacy of conservation in Africa, which meant conserving "natural pristine wilderness" free from the involvement of local stakeholders and the "threatening" effects of land use by local people.(11) To this day, centralised governments, ‘conservation and economic experts' from the North and conservation NGOs continue to initiate top-down approaches to local involvement, which undermines local cultures and severely restricts land use by rural communities.

From fortress to community conservation

It can readily be acknowledged that the practices of conservation authorities have changed in recent years as they reappraised their role and prospects in a democratic society.(12) But it is evident that, more often than not, protected areas remain very much the property of centralised authorities (Government and private land holders) despite efforts aimed at involving local people. Tension still largely relates to debates over tenure rights, rights of access to natural resources, forms of exclusion (i.e. the fortress approach) or inclusion (involving different levels of participation, whether collaborative, co-management or community-based).(13)

Protected areas have come to mean far more than just conservation, as they spark debates about state control over rural areas, governance structures, heritage rights, resource rights, privatised elitist accumulation and - very importantly - the uneven distribution of wealth obtained from tourism. Notably, the main weapon for alleviating poverty through conservation (under nature-based development) is ecotourism. Ecotourism has become a leading component of strategies to develop tourism in African countries (especially in South Africa). More specifically, it has become the focus of many efforts to integrate natural conservation with rural development.(14) Such efforts have been successful in a few cases in South Africa, such as the case of the Makuleke people in the Kruger Park. In conservation theory, ecotourism should ideally promote the sustainable enjoyment, appreciation and conservation of nature, and should also contain a social ecology programme which emphasises the cultural heritage of the people of these areas. However, this means breaking down the hostility and mistrust between local people and conservation authorities that previous policies have created. It can therefore be argued that the controversy surrounding land and the debate of development versus nature conservation have led to an antagonistic relationship between park authorities and communities.

Gibson (1999) states that if economic motives for ecotourism do not consider and appreciate local stakeholders and their power, interests, needs and cultures, then community participation is likely to exist only rhetorically, on paper.(15) Therefore Galvin and Haller say that it is governance and, in particular, the style and manner of governance of conservation authorities and local municipalities that will ultimately determine whether a specific conservation effort is successful or detrimental in integrating the rural poor into the benefits of ecotourism.(16) The kind of governance established is itself a function of existing power relations and the ideologies that legitimise such relations. It is therefore important to focus on the ideologies, discourses and narratives of all stakeholders involved, insofar as they underpin and give shape to efforts around conservation and rural livelihoods. Although some scholars argue that fortress-type conservation has been replaced with a humanitarian element, there is evidence in Africa and elsewhere that forced removals, harsh restrictions and high animosity still exist today (see Mbeyale and Songorwa, 2008;(17) Muttenzer, 2008 (18)).

Ideologies, discourses and narratives

The debate around participatory approaches to nature conservation revolves around whether we are conserving natural or cultural landscapes.(19) This is important because local people's historical perception of the manner in which protected areas were implemented affects their trust in the conservation authorities and government agencies. Therefore, there needs to be clarity on the ideology of conservation and participation, especially regarding local involvement as simply a tool used to justify conservation initiatives, or as meaning the actual implementation of programmes that benefit local people through inclusion and subsequent poverty alleviation. Existing ideologies of protected areas and rural people, and thus the subsequent solutions, lie somewhere within the spectrum of social justice and environmental justice. Benefiting nature through development and poverty alleviation can be detrimental to nature and vice versa. A balance needs to be found in which both can progress.

Galvin and Haller describe three lines of argument concerning conservation strategies and their ideologies (20) that attempt to find this balance between environmental and social justice. The first argument favours bottom-up politically-driven participation where actors in the community decide on actions to be taken. It is sensitive to minimising centralised state controls. The second argument favours the integration of development and conservation, where poverty is seen as the primary cause of pressure on conservation areas. Poverty can be reduced by increasing livelihood options and raising living standards. While this may create incentives for local people, it negatively affects conservation goals as these may be in conflict with development goals. The third argument reflects political economy/ecology approaches in which cost-benefit analyses weigh up the pros and cons of interventions in terms of social and ecological benefits. For example, participation can increase local power and lead to involvement even when there are no economic benefits.

Terborgh et al (2002) state that protected areas comprise the largest land-use category on earth; they claim that there is no point in asking how we can make biodiversity work because conservation invariably produces both winners and losers. The problem is that a true win-win solution is rare and, in fact, since conservation is by definition for sustaining nature, it will benefit mainly nature.(21) The point is to try to identify ideologies, discourses and narratives used by specific actors that control and profit from conservation, in order to avoid pursuing environmental justice under conservation at the expense of the rural poor and for the enjoyment of the world's rich. It is impossible to only consider political and economic aspects without reference to the ideology of all people involved, as this would not explain institutional outcomes of governance and community/conservation outcomes.

In relation to the process of conservation and local involvement in it, ideologies and bargaining power are critical to a fair outcome for nature and people. Social groups justify and legitimise actions through ideologies. In the absence of widespread benefits for local people, it is costly not only in a monetary sense, but in a moral and social sense to develop and maintain a conservation institution. The same could be said in the extreme case of full-blown development at the cost of the ecology. Community-driven conservation and co-management would ideally provide a discourse that tries to promote local involvement as well as issues pertaining to biodiversity. In the meantime, the ideologies and narratives of different stakeholders (e.g. the state, rural people) create different pools of legitimacy in which one group aims to increase its bargaining power and reduce that of the other. The outcome often produces conflicts, which have a strong influence on protected areas and associated conservation strategies - which mostly impact negatively on local communities.

In the end, it might be that a sustainable development discourse and practice, benefiting both society and the ecology, remains elusive. At the centre is the scramble for land and the question one must answer is: who benefits from the land more and what policies and ideologies surround this hotly debated issue?

Concluding remarks

Protected areas are perhaps one of the most important sites of conflict in the people-ecology interface. The protection of ‘pristine nature' and biodiversity has successfully excluded the ecological sphere from the social sphere in that there exist two distinct worlds: one of human beings and the other of the natural world. Of course, the latter has become a sanctuary away from the harmful effects of the former's quest to develop under economic accumulation, materialism and technological industrialisation. The ecological benefits of such places should not be undermined; however, we have to recognise that these two spheres are interlinked in many ways. People are a part of nature and specifically rural communities rely on nature's resources for survival. This is why there has been an increased emphasis on a participatory approach that emphasises community conservation, which would benefit both the social and ecological aspects of conservation.

Protected areas, however, are not exclusively geographical; they are by and large dominated by politics, economics and the power of institutions involved in the process to find a sustainable solution between the social and ecological. These processes are also not exclusively local or regional and are heavily influenced by global processes. Particularly, neo-liberalism and deregulation have serious implications for the agricultural and social aspect of community conservation by marginalising the rural poor. The commodification of land and land-use as well as the privatisation of conservation and the tourism industry create unequal wealth distribution and elitist accumulation. By and large, this gives conservation authorities (as well as the state) the power to involuntarily resettle people where necessary, or benefit biodiversity above adjacent communities. To find a way to satisfy both conservation and development, is to find a space somewhere in between the spectrums of environmental and social justice; thus finding a true solution to the elusive sustainable development goal that people strive for.

Written by: Alex Kaminski (1)

NOTES:

(1) Alex Kaminski. External Consultant through Consultancy Africa Intelligence's Eyes on Africa Unit
(2) Bradley, .N. L. 1998. A man for all seasons. National Wildlife. http://www.nwf.org.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Sayer, J and Campbell, B. 2004. The Science of Sustainable Development: Local Livelihoods and the Global Environment. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
(5) Haller, T. Galvin, M. Meroka, O. Alca, J. Alvarez, A. 2008. "Who gains from community conservation? Intended and unintended costs and benefits of participative approaches in Peru and Tanzania. Journal of Environment and Development 17(2): 13-34.
(6) Ibid.
(7) See http://www.consultancyafrica.com.
(8) Helliker, K. 2008. Game Farming Research Project. Second Report for the Eastern Cape Agricultural Research Project (ECARP).
(9) Ibid.
(10) Helliker, K. 2008. Bridging the Gap. Final Report for Africa Groups of Sweden.
(11) Haller, T. Galvin, M. Meroka, O. Alca, J. Alvarez, A. 2008. "Who gains from community conservation? Intended and unintended costs and benefits of participative approaches in Peru and Tanzania. Journal of Environment and Development 17(2): 13-34.
(12) Turner, S. 2001. Tourism, the Environment, and Rural Development, in Coetzee, J. Graaf, J. Hendricks, F. Wood, G (eds) Development: Theory, Policy and Practice. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
(13) Galvin, M and Haller, T (eds). 2008. People, Protected Areas and Global Change: Participatory Conservation in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe. University of Bern: NCCR.
(14) Turner, S. 2001. Tourism, the Environment, and Rural Development, in Coetzee, J. Graaf, J. Hendricks, F. Wood, G (eds) Development: Theory, Policy and Practice. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
(15) Gibson, C. C. 1999. Politicians and Poachers: The Political Economy of Wildlife Policy in Africa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(16) Galvin, M and Haller, T (eds). 2008. People, Protected Areas and Global Change: Participatory Conservation in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe. University of Bern: NCCR.
(17) Mbeyale, G.E and Songorwa, A.N. 2008. "Conservation for whose benefit? Challenges and opportunites for management of Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania in Galvin, M and Haller, T (eds). 2008. People, Protected Areas and Global Change: Participatory Conservation in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe. University of Bern: NCCR
(18) Muttenzer, F. 2008 "Integrated Fortress Conservation in the Buffer Zone of Ankarafantsika National Park: Malagasy Narratives of Conservation, Participation and Livelihoods" in Galvin, M and haller, T (eds). 2008. People, Protected Areas and Global Change: Participatory Conservation in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe. University of Bern: NCCR.
(19) Neumann, R.P. 1998. Imposing Wilderness: Struggles for Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
(20) Galvin, M and Haller, T (eds). 2008. People, Protected Areas and Global Change: Participatory Conservation in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe. University of Bern: NCCR.
(21) Terborgh, J, Van Schaik, C, Davenport, L, Rao, M (eds). 2002. Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature. Washington DC: Island Press.