Lillian Sol Cueva
Master in Humanitarian Action University of Groningen
NOHAGRONINGEN
Network on Humanitarian Action
Peace through Peace Parks
Critical Revision of the Santiago Comaina Reserved Zone
Peace through Peace Parks
Critical Revision of the Santiago Comaina Reserved Zone through the Positive-Negative Peace Concept
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Humanitarian Assistance at Groningen University, the Netherlands
Supervisor: Leandro Vergara Camus
December 2011 Lillian Sol Cueva
2057646
NOHAGRONINGEN
Network on Humanitarian Action
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations………
Introduction……….
1. Conceptual framework……….
1.1 Peace………....
1.1.1 Definition………
1.1.2 Negative and Positive Peace………
1.2 Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation: Peace Parks…………...
1.2.1 Definition………
1.2.2 History and Objectives………
2. Critical Stance………
2.1 Critical Stance about Peace………..
2.2 Critical Stance about Peace Parks……….
2.2.1 Nature at Risk………
2.2.2 Conservation of Wilderness vs Human Practices………..
2.2.3 Static Communities vs Dynamic Communities………
2.2.4 Scientific Conservation Knowledge vs Indigenous Conservation Knowledge………
2.2.5 Indigenous Rights vs Nature Rights……….
2.2.6 Conservation Lands vs Indigenous Lands………
2.2.7 Migration………
2.2.8 Cooperation………
2.2.9 Community-based models……….
2.2.10 Stakeholders………..
2.2.11 Relationship between Capitalism and Conservation……….……
3. Negative Peace through the Santiago Comaina Reserved Zone……….
5 6 9 9 9 10
12 12 14
18 18 21 21 22 23
24 25 27 28 29 30 32 33
36
3.1 Ecuadorean-Peruvian Conflict………
3.2 Object of Dispute………
3.3 The Conflict’s Solution: Santiago Comaina Reserved Zone………..
3.4 Current Situation……….
3.5 Negative Peace Achieved? ...
4. Positive Peace through the Santiago Comaina Reserved Zone……….
4.1 Santiago Comaina Reserved Zone: Ecologically and Culturally Diverse…
4.2 Critical Stance about the Santiago Comaina Reserved Zone………..
4.3 Positive Peace Achieved? ...
Conclusions………
References………..
36 40 42 45 47
49 49 53 58
60 64
List of Abbreviations
AIDESEPE- Interethnic Association for Development of the Peruvian Jungle CI- Conservation International
CITES- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CFA- Conservation Finance Alliance
CONAP- National Confederation of Peruvian Amazon Nationalities GAP- Gap Analysis Process
GEF- Global Environmental Facility GIS- Geographic Information System
GTZ- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit INRENA- Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales
ILO- International Labor Organization
ITTO- International Tropical Timber Organization
IUCN- International Union for Conservation of Nature
LTER- Long-Term Ecological Research
MOMEP- Military Observer Mission to Ecuador- Peru
PIMA- Participation of Native Communities in the Management of Protected Areas in the Peruvian Amazon
REA- Rapid Ecological Assessment TBPAs- Transboundary Protected Areas
TBPAC- Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation TFCAs- Transfrontier Conservation Areas
UNEP- United Nations Environment Programme WCPA- World Commission on Protected Areas WWF- World Wildlife Found
Introduction
The Ecuadorian-Peruvian Amazon is the ecosystem of several species, central reserves of nonrenewable resources (i.e minerals, oil and water), and the ancestral territories of the shuar, achuar, aguajún and huampis
1communities. These territories have been disputed since the Ecuadorian and Peruvian states reach their independence in early nineteenth century and mired in inequality from the same period. Each state has been claiming to be owners of the territories, even when the indigenous communities living in the area on both sides of the border have declared themselves in peace with each other (Manrique 6-7; St. John 82-83). To solve the conflict several protocols and agreements were signed but it was only on October 26, 1998, that these two nations end the conflict by signing the “Brasilia Agreements” (Manrique 6-7; St. John 82-83).
The Brasilia Agreements were the package of accords and the Presidential Act that announced the global and definitive settlement and placed the new frontier between Ecuador and Peru. The agreements also, among other things, announced the creation of two
1 This is the official denomination of the communities, some write the name of the communities as followed:
ashuar, ahuajún and wampís.
environmental protection areas in the frontier zone, under sovereignty of each state but with a common name (St. John 82-83).
The Ecological Protected Zones, in 1998, included 2,540 ha in Ecuador territory and 5,440 ha in Peru. In 1999 Ecuador established the Cordillera del Cóndor Park and Peru the Santiago Comaina Reserve Zone with 863,277 ha, as the beginning of the creation of the Cordillera del Cóndor Peace Park (McNeely J., 148). At the same time, Buffer Zones were created on the shores of the park to concentrate the communities and prevent these from accessing the protected areas, in order to conserve samples of the unique biodiversity and the environmental services that the Amazon provides.
Immediately after the park and the buffer zone was created, communities, governmental authorities and international NGOs met to discuss the action already taken.
The communities were in favor of the reserve zone’s creation in order to stop the colonization of the land that had begun in the 1970s, to legalize their land property, to stop mining activities which pollutes and depletes the environment, and so on. However, years later, communities and the public opinion, realized that neither peace nor conservation, nor equitable structures were established in these areas (Mamayaque Act; ODECOFROC 2009, 19; INRENA/GEF-Banco Mundial 16-17, 25-26). On the contrary, demonstrations and clashes between indigenous and police forces took place in 2001 and 2009, mining pollution continued, and communities’ practice, knowledge, forms of organization and access to resources have been affected. Moreover, it was showed that their interconnected relation between the environment and the communities was ignored, that the territories were not recognized as land owned by indigenous communities, and that communities could not take responsibility for the administration of the conservation park (which was on their land) (INRENA/GEF-Banco Mundial, 16,17,25).
Consequently, in general and particularly in Peru, I questioned the effectiveness of
peace parks in bringing a broader peace, this means positive and negative peace; also, the
kind of peace, if there is any, brought by the Santiago Comaina Reserve Zone, and the
reasons why peace was achieved or not. Peace Parks can be defined as transboundary
protected areas dedicated to conservation of biological diversity, promotion of peace and
cooperation, and development of the border zones (Lejano, P. R., 2006). By peace I mean
absence of organized and unorganized violence, macro and micro, both internal and
external (body/community), direct and indirect (positive and negative); and presence of community-based development. Negative peace refers to the absence of direct or personal violence. Positive peace refers to the absence of structural violence (Galtung 1969).
Negative violence can involve all kind of wars, repression, fights, etc., and structural violence can include the absence of social justice, equality, human rights, human well- being, participation, and so on (Harris 2004).
For this analysis first I will present the concepts of peace parks and positive and negative peace. Second, I will critically analyze them, mainly focusing on the critical stance of conservation parks. Third, I will evaluate the Santiago Comaina Reserve Zone with the negative peace concept and in which ways this park did or did not achieve negative peace, by describing the conflict between Ecuador and Peru, the establishment of the park and its buffer zone, the object of dispute and the current situation. Finally, I will evaluate the Reserved Zone through with the positive peace concept and in which ways this park did or did not achieve positive peace, by describing the indigenous communities living there and their circumstances, and analyzing the reserved zone through the critical stances about conservation parks. Moreover, this study will attempt to show that generally these peace parks from their roots do not end the armed conflict, but start new clashes over ownership and control of local land and that these projects do not address the structural violence experienced by the communities. On the contrary, they increase poverty, discrimination, injustice, and so on, in a context in which access to resources and clean water, for traditional production systems, are limited.
The importance of this research is to contribute not only to the description of a phenomena and the use of traditional concepts, but also to the critical analysis of concepts and policies, in order to provide governments and planners recommendations and innovations that should be consider if the ultimate goal of peace parks is peace for the territories and the people living there.
A
t the core of this research the following research questions will be taken into consideration:Research Questions
To what extent does the creation of conservation/peace parks contribute to the establishment of permanent positive and negative peace for local communities in conflict areas?
Why the Cordillera del Cóndor Peace Park, particularly the Santiago Comaina Reserved Zone, did not achieve negative and positive peace for the territory and the communities living there?
1. Conceptual Framework In this first chapter, I will revise key concepts for the analysis of the object of study:
the Santiago Comaina Reserved Zone. Peace parks, positive peace and negative peace will be at core of this study.
The objective of the conceptualization is to make evident that how we define influences what we conceived, hence, how we act. Therefore, the recognition of peace parks and peace’ concepts can, at the end, bring to light dominant and alternative visions, perspectives, and contexts that must be acknowledged for a better understanding and practice. In this paper, particularly, I will pay attention to alternative perspectives, as well as, I will present the dominant vision.
1.1 Peace 1.1.1 Definition
Peace is a concept existent in every single civilization and matter of study of many
sciences. According to different cultures, the concept of peace can be presented in a
positive and/or negative manner, and represented by different aspects, namely intrapersonal peace, intra-community peace and peace outside the community or inter-communities.
Nonetheless, until the Second World War, peace was just scientifically defined in its negative way and related to inter/intra national relations.
Peace, in the positive sense, means the presence of something particular, for example, having security; while negatively, peace represents the absence of something specific, for instance, nonexistence of gender-based violence (Barash 7-9; Singh 5; Brock- Unte “Education for Peace” 1; Galtung “Social Cosmology” 186; Chatfield 1-3).
Inner peace means being a person mentally, physically and spiritually in peace or absence of disorders. Peace inside the community represents harmony, justice, well-being, etc. of the community/family/tribe/nation (sometimes including the environment and the supra- and infra-world) or absence of conflict, threat, discomfort, inequality, and so on.
Lastly, peace with neighbors means to have friendly, respectful and solidarity relations with other communities, or just absence of war (Brock-Unte “Education for Peace” 1; Chatfield 1-3; Galtung “Social Cosmology” 186; Galtung “Peace Theory” 252,254-255).
Despite these varied ways of conceptualized peace, to the end of the World War II, the Roman pax was the peace concept that dominates theory and practice (Brock-Unte
“Education for Peace” 1; Galtung “Social Cosmology” 186; Chatfield 1-3). The Roman pax means absence of war (direct violence), unity and order for Romans, but it does not include justice, prosperity and equity for the vassals of the Empire. Generally speaking, peace was conceived just around violence, negatively and as intra/ intercommunity (Galtung “Twenty-Five” 194; Singh 3; Galtung “Social Cosmology” 187, 192; Galtung
“Peace Theory” 252). The Western tradition of peace corresponds to this concept.
After the World War II and taking place the decolonization process in Africa, peace research took a turn and peace scientists started to question the assumption that peace was just the absence of direct violence. In the last years of 1960s, with Johan Galtung’s ideas, the concept of peace was widened to distinct between direct and indirect violence (or structural violence), splitting peace in two respectively: negative and positive peace (Singh 1; Barash 6).
Simply, the new idea of peace included the absence of direct violence (negative
peace) and the construction of social structures to stop structural violence (positive peace).
Hence, the new concept of peace was scientifically conceived around violence and structures, in its negative and positive way, and as intra-/inter- community. This idea, according to Galtung, was based on medical sciences because a healthy body is not just the absence of disease but also the construction of a body capable of resisting diseases, relying on its own health sources (Galtung “Twenty-Five” 145; Singh 2).
1.1.2 Negative and Positive Peace
Johan Galtung, the so called father of peace studies, was the first to scientifically state the distinction between negative and positive peace when he realized that violence is not just the act of directly harm but injustice structures that reproduce inequality, exploitation, discrimination, etc., which also cause harm.
Negative peace, according to Galtung, is the absence of direct violence, which is when a person(s) acts directly and deliberately to cause physical and observable bodily injury and/or the infliction of pain and/or threat of being harmed. Yet negative violence concept was left for a direct physical/psychological violence, meaning torture, rapes, physical and sexual assaults, killings, destruction, etc. (Brock-Unte “Feminist Perspective”
67; Barash 7; Galtung “Violence, Peace” 172,173, 179).
On the other hand, positive peace represents the absence of structural violence and presence of positively- defined social conditions such as social justice, equality and human well-being (Galtung “Violence, Peace” 169; Galtung “Twenty-Five” 145).
Structural violence, in Galtung’s terms, is an untended harm but as a process, works slowly and silently, eroding humanistic values, impoverishing human life and finally killing. It is structural because when unjust structures are reproduced, also inequality, inequity, discrimination, exploitation, etc., are reproduced by the political and economic order. It is untended because persons are already socialized into certain unjust structures that all they do is to project them (Barash 7; Galtung “Violence, Peace” 169; Galtung
“Twenty-Five” 145; Galtung “Cultural Violence” 292, 299; Brock-Unte “Education for
Peace” 1; Brock-Unte “Feminist Perspective” 66, 68). Hence, structural violence is left for
indirect violence where people are so in disadvantage (poor, starve, sick) that they die, or
be left in a permanent, unwanted state of misery. Thereupon that positive peace comprises
the presence of social-political-economic structures that provide an equitable distribution of
resources, non-exploitative production systems, and so on. (Barash 7; Galtung “Violence, Peace” 172; Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos 1-2; Galtung
“Twenty-Five” 145; Galtung “Cultural Violence” 292, 299; Harris 12).
Interesting in Galtung’s conceptualization is that, following the positive and negative rationale, direct and structural violence can be also perpetrated against nature. In his point of view, slashing, burning, etc. can be catalogued as direct violence, while pollution and depletion associated with modern industry -which leads to dying of forests, extinction of species, global warming, etc.- can be cataloged as structural violence (Galtung
“Cultural Violence” 294).
Galtung concludes the idea of positive peace by stating that the world must be populated by human beings stimulated to develop their capabilities in many directions, surrounded by ecologically balance nature, and free of exploitation (Galtung “Peace Theory” 255).
In general, negative peace is just the absence of direct violence, while positive peace is the absence of structural violence and the construction of equitable structures.
Direct violence refers to an event, actor and victim; structural violence to a process, multiple actors and many victims. Direct violence inflicts pain, directly and immediately.
Structural violence erodes values and impoverishes slowly and silently. Both types of violence kill or left in permanent physical damage (Galtung “Cultural Violence” 294; Singh 2; Barash 7). Finally, attention to negative peace usually results in a diplomatic emphasis on peace keeping or peace restoring. By contrast, positive peace focuses on the establishment of non-exploitative and equitable social structures (Barash 8).
1.2 Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Cooperation: Peace Parks 1.2.1 Definition
Based on the premise that nature has been threatened by human activities, protected areas were created. A protected area is, according to the definition of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the ‘clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’
(Dudley N. et al. 8; Sandwith et. al. 3).
Protected areas are classified in 6 types conferring to their characteristics, functions and administration. These are Strict Nature Reserve- Wilderness Area, National Park, Natural Monument, Habitat/species Management Area, Protected Landscape/seascape, and Managed Resource Protected Area
2. Also, protected areas can be located within a State or in areas that straddles one or more boundaries between states or subnational units (i.e.
provinces, indigenous people´s territories, autonomous areas or other jurisdictions). The last ones are called Transboundary Protected Areas (TBPAs).
Transboundary Protected Areas, are territories ‘especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed co-operatively through legal or other effective means’, hence, these include cooperative managerial structures and are designated to protect nature without excluding other purposes (Sandwith et. al. 3, 12; Zbicz 24). In general, cooperative management is the distinctive element and prerequisite of transboundary protected areas in comparison to other protected areas of non-transboundary character.
The definition of TBPAs was established in 2001 by the IUCN as a revision of the two previous definitions. First, in 1996, the World Bank just defined transfrontier or transboundary conservation areas as those relatively large areas that straddle frontiers.
Afterwards, in 1999, the Biodiversity Support Program looked instead at these areas as transboundary natural resource management areas (Zbicz 24). Currently, the IUCN definition is the one used worldwide.
2 1a) Strict Nature Reserve is an area of land and/or sea possessing an outstanding ecosystem, geological or physical features and/or species, dedicated for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring (Dudley N. & Phillips A., 15).
1b) Wilderness Area is a large area of unmodified or slightly modified land and/or sea, without permanent or significant habitation, protected and managed to preserve its natural condition (Dudley N. & Phillips A. 15).
2) National Park is areas of land and/or sea designated to protect ecological integrity of the ecosystem, excluding exploitation but allowing scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities (Dudley N.
& Phillips A. 16).
3) Natural Monument is one or more specific cultural/natural feature which is of outstanding or unique value because of its representative, aesthetic or inherent qualities or because its cultural significance (Dudley N. &
Phillips A. 16).
4) Habitat/Species Management Area is areas of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for maintenance of habitats purposes (Dudley N. & Phillips A. 16).
5) Protected Landscape/seascape is a number of areas of lands with coast and sea, where interaction of people and nature have produced an area of distinct character or significant aesthetic, cultural or/and ecological value. The protection of these areas is for safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction (Dudley N.
& Phillips A. 17).
6) Managed Resource Protected Area is specific areas with unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time flow of natural products and services (Dudley N. & Phillips A., 17).
TBPA are subdivided in Transboundary Protected Areas or Transboundary Conservation Parks, Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation (TBPAC) or Peace Parks (or Parks for Peace), Transboundary Conservation and Development Areas, and Transboundary Migratory Corridors. Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co- operation are going to be the center of this dissertation.
Peace Parks are transboundary conservation areas dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, at the same time that, promote peace and cooperation (Sandwith et. al. 3, 12; Lejano 564; Sandwith & Besançon 61; Duffy “Global Politics” 67).
The United Nations University for Peace has added to the term, the idea of specific territories where there is a significant conflictive past between at least two countries or sub- national jurisdictions, and the explicit purpose of encourage reconciliation during and after armed conflicts (Sandwith T. et. al. 3, 4; Ali 2; Duffy “Global Politics” 67).
Peace Parks do not allow habitants within but allow private/public investments to develop ecotourism projects or ecologically friendly economic activities. Therefore, accompanying the concern of biodiversity destruction, as a solution of conflict and as a way to preserve peace in past-conflictive territories, Peace Parks have been created to attract significant inflows of foreign direct investment (Sandwith et. al. IX).
To acquire the status of Peace Park, the protected area ought to be agreed on a bilateral or multilateral agreement by high level authorities, and the parties should be guided by, and adhere to, the elements of the Code for Transboundary Protected Areas in Times of Peace and Armed Conflict, created by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Commission on Protected Areas (Sandwith et. al. 5,8,9).
1.2.2 History and Objectives
The concern of establishing protected areas as such can be tracked to the second half of the XIX century. In 1872, the Yellowstone National Park was founded in the United States of America, as the first protected area under State’s control for the conservation of nature (Romme & Knight 664).
Specifically, intends to create Parks for Peace dating back to 1925, when Poland
and Czechoslovakia signed the Krakow Protocol. This agreement pioneered, by creating
three border conservation parks, the concept of international cooperation through
transboundary parks. However, the idea of promoting peace through parks was not indicated as an objective (Schoon 2). Later, in 1932, the first officially declared international Peace Park was established. The Waternon-Glacier Peace Park, in the Rocky Mountains of Canada and USA, was created at the initiative of Rotary International to commemorate the long history of peaceful friendship between Canada and the United States (Schoon 2; Sandwith et. al. 1,12).
Reflecting the growing importance of TBPAs all around the world, national and international organization specialized and specific management methods were presented. In 1996, Peace Parks Foundation was born as the first NGO designated explicitly to create, expand and promote Peace Parks in Africa. Peace Parks Foundation was founded under Anton Rupert coordination (South African billionare) (Schoon M 2.; Peace Parks Foundation webpage).
Since 1997, in alignment to Peace Parks Foundation’s work, IUCN has extensively promoted TBPAs as a tool to reach regional cooperation for biodiversity conservation, peaceful relations, conflict prevention, reconciliation, and sustainable development (Sandwith et. al. 1). Other organizations, have also worked in this regard. Conservation International, the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) and the World Wildlife Found (WWF) have implemented and promoted TBPA’s projects all around the world; the United Nations University for Peace has promoted the concept and the objectives of Peace Parks; and the World Bank’s Global Environmental Facility (GEF) has financially and managerially supported TBPAs (Sandwith et. al., 2; Duffy “Peace Parks”
2). Particularly, for the case of Central Africa, the African Wildlife Foundation, Fauna and Flora International and WWF have encouraged and supported Peace Parks. In Central America, GEF, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ) and the European Union are financially and technically supporting transboundary protected areas.
Finally, in Asia, WWF, ITTO, Conservation International and GEF are the most important supporters and promoters of Peace Parks (Sandwith et. al. 12; Ali 33).
Currently, Peace Parks are suggested as strategies to de-escalating conflicts, for
example, in Kashmir (India-Pakistan border) to de-escalate the Siachen conflict; to keep
demilitarized zones like the North and South Korea border; to prevent conflicts along
borders, for example a conservation park along the US-Mexico border; or to build peaceful
relations with neighbors, for instance, the conservation park recommended along the Israeli’s border with Jordan and Palestine. Other Peace Parks have been promoted to integrate new countries or to expand current parks and create corridors, for instance, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor along 8 countries (Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua y Panama), which could include more than ten protected parks (Ali 59-61; Duffy R. “Peace Parks” 2,5, 14).
In 2001, 169 was the total number of TBPAs, which in comparison to 1988 was an increase of 65.08%, in comparison to 1997. Explicitly, in 2001, the total number of two or more adjoining protected areas was 169, involving 113 countries and 666 individual protected areas. In 1997, there were 136 clusters that contain 488 individual parks in 98 countries. In 1988, there were just 59 complexes (Zbicz 24; Sandwith et. al. 6).
Referring to the objectives of Parks for Peace, these have considerably increased over time, as did the number of TBPAs. In general, Parks for Peace have pursued biodiversity conservation, cooperation and peace, as main objectives. Particularly, TBPAS pursue the following objectives
3:
Building trust;
Understanding and reconciliation between nations;
Reunion of ecosystems divided by “artificial” political boundaries;
Prevention and resolution of conflicts;
Prevention and resolution of tensions over access to natural resources;
Promotion of cooperation through common management practices;
Promotion of equitable and sustainable access to natural resources, consistent with national sovereignty;
Promotion of integrated land-use planning management;
Assurance of better cross- border control problems, such as fire, pests, pollution, smuggling, illegal migration, drugs and guns trafficking; and
3
Sandwith et. al., 3-12; Lejano R.564; Sandwith & Besançon, 61; Duffy R. “Global
Politics” 67
Sharing biodiversity management skills and experiences, including research and information.
Additionally, Peace Parks are aimed to stimulate the rule of law; adherence to human rights, whether civil, political, economic, social or cultural; and bring economic benefits to local and national economies, mainly through nature-based tourism or ecotourism “because of a greater attraction for visitors, the possibilities of joint approaches to marketing and tour operator training, and the possibility of agreement on fees, visitor management, etc.” (Sandwith et. al. 4, 8).
For reaching the above mentioned objectives, Peace Parks have to be established in exclusive areas for conservation. In the case of areas inhabited by communities, these must be evacuated and economic activities must be prohibited. Communities will be relocated into buffer zones. At the buffer zones, productive activities can be allowed by authorities if these are scientifically sustainable (e.g. ecotourism) (Sandwith et. al. 4-9).
Community involvement could be at the planning, policy formulation or management phase. Prior consultation of indigenous peoples must happen, taking into consideration the ILO (International Labor Organization) Convention No169. Finally, Peace Parks ought to create specialized managerial bodies with national and NGO’s representation, and publish specific norms and rules that protect conservation areas for peace and cooperation (Sandwith et. al. 9-15).
Summarizing, since their creation, Peace Parks have been expanded in number and
purposes. Currently, there are more than 150 transboundary conservation parks in more
than 100 countries, and their objectives include economic, political, managerial and
conservational issues. In general, Peace Parks aim to achieve positive and negative peace
through the establishment of conservation areas, cooperative relations, and eco-friendly
productive activities. Interestingly, international NGOs and multilateral organizations, like
the UN, have played an important role in this regard. Peace Parks, nowadays, are promoted
in new areas like Asia and the Middle East, and expanded in the Americas and Africa.
2. Critical Stance
In this second chapter, revisions and critics around peace parks and positive- negative peace concepts will be presented. The purpose is to locate critics and alternative visions of these concepts, in order to have a broader idea of the same and to find the reasons why positive and/or negative peace has not been achieved by peace parks.
The first sub-part of this chapter will state the critical stance of positive and negative concepts. The second sub-part will analyze Peace Parks’ concepts and projects. In the second sub-part, specifically, I will present the discussion around the following topics:
1) nature at risk, 2) conservation of wilderness vs. human practices, 3) static communities vs. dynamic communities, 4) scientific conservation knowledge vs. indigenous conservation knowledge, 5) indigenous rights vs. nature rights, 6) conservation lands vs.
indigenous lands, 7) migration, 8) cooperation, 9) community-based models, 10) stakeholders, and 11) the relationship between capitalism and conservation.
For the reason that there are a few critical articles about Peace Parks, conservation parks revisions will be used instead.
2.1 Critical Stance about Peace
The recognition of structures that cause harm, misery and death, the need of ecological balance, and the stimulation of development of human capabilities in many directions, has been recognized as the most valuable contribution of Galtung in Peace Research. However, the outstanding critical perspectives on these ideas have highlighted new perspectives around Galtung’s concepts in order to make us understand and comprehend an even broader conceptualization of peace. The concept of negative and positive peace, after its publication, continues to stimulate new work, generate debate and encourage reassessment.
In 1987, Håkan Wiberg declared that it was not enough to say that positive peace requires the absence of structural violence, hence, the presence of equitable structures, human rights and so on. What about identity and cultural freedom, he asked? From his point of view, identity and cultural needs are as fundamental as economic and political needs, thus, both should be considered for the study and realization of peace (Wiberg 200- 207).
Successively, in 1991, Kenneth Boulding noted that Galtung’s concepts had not differentiated between economic and politic reasons of violence that, in his opinion, refers to different scientific disciplines and implies different ways of tackling violence. For example, for understanding the Napoleonic Wars different disciplines must be used than to comprehend the First and Second World War
4. Additionally, Boulding considered that peace studies must focus on situations where peace is present instead of situations where conflict is present, as Galtung states, in order to know why in some places -with similar circumstances- there is peace instead of conflict (Boulding 109-113).
In very much the same vein, Birgit Brock-Unte, in 1990, made a distinction between organized and unorganized violence in order to pointed out that violence can be perpetrated by common persons not necessarily by institutions or organized groups; also, that violence can be committed in a macro and micro level (Brock-Unte “Feminist Perspective” 63). For Brock-Unte, the macro level refers to collectivities and the micro level to each individual.
Organized groups are armies, guerrillas, police officers, rebel groups, parties, etc. that have common objectives and rules of procedure; while unorganized groups are individuals that do not follow specific mandates towards a violent incident (Brock-Unte “Feminist
4 Boulding, in his analysis did not explicitly mention which disciplines.
Perspective” 63-65). Using Galtung’s example of one million husbands keeping their wives in ignorance as structural violence, Brock- Unte exemplify that, if one million husbands beat their wives and keep them in ignorance, there is a presence of structural violence but also a unorganized direct violence in the micro level; therefore absence of negative and positive peace, even if their country (husband and wife country) is not involved in any kind of armed conflict (Brock-Unte “Feminist Perspective” 62).
Currently and since the Cold War, the means for ending direct war and what exactly a just, equitable and peaceful society is, has been the most important discussion. In general, researchers have studied two ways of achieving negative peace, by peaceful means and violent means, and four ways of achieving positive peace, by capitalism, socialism, development and lately by community-based development.
Achieving negative peace by peaceful means is the main scientific trend in which Galtung can be located (Galtung “Peace Theory” 1-8; Barash, 8). On the contrary, leaders of armed movements and authors, like Margarita Serje, indicate that rebellion and conflict are not necessarily negative processes that must be either suppressed or silenced but, they must be visible, object of reflection and considered as opportunities of creation (EZLN 1;
Serje 2-3, 5-7).
As well as there is disagreement about the means to achieve negative peace, there is much disagreement about the best routes toward positive peace. The liberal theory, with democracy as its political expression and capitalism as its economic expression, claims peace as an automatic consequence because, by expanding commerce and spreading free- market capitalism, as well as by promoting democracy, reciprocal relations, interdependency and economic growth for all, war will be obsolete. Correspondingly, Marxist theory, with its political expression in democratic centralism and socialism as its economic expression has claim that abolishing private property and accumulation, war will be obsolete. However, neither capitalism nor socialism has succeeded in reaching peace (Barash 8; Galtung “Peace Theory” 253; Cortright 275).
Nowadays, revising liberal theory there is a widespread agreement among
international organizations and governments, like the US government and the World Bank,
that development is the effective strategy for achieving peace. Nevertheless, even this idea
has been questioned, since development has not proved to be contrary to capitalism, and
because development aid has caused dependency to outside assistance. For example, former World Bank economist William Easterly calculated in 2005 that rich countries spent $568 billion dollars to end poverty in Africa between 1960 and 2003, but the number of poor people increased on the continent, as did the number of armed conflicts (Cortright 276;
Barash 19). Similarly, it was found that some aid programs are justified as means of overcoming the conditions that give rise to terrorism or armed conflicts but, this has only been the other arm of the corporate agenda along with militarization, i.e. USA’s intervention in Iraq (Cortright 275, 277).
Alternatively, community-based development refers to sustainable practices, autonomy, recognition of different forms of production, protection of natural-cultural diversity, self-determination, political autonomy, internal and external peace, etc. according to what is there and now seen as the greatest evil, the desirable situation and the means to achieve peace (Leff “Racionalidad Ambiental” 360)
2.2 Critical Stance about Peace Parks
2.2.1 Nature at Risk
One of the most important concepts around Peace Parks, therefore around conservation parks, is that conservation initiatives take shape because certain places or the species that inhabited them are perceived to be at risk. This idea has generated a discussion about how and by whom such perceptions of risk are formed and their utility.
According to analysts of conservation practices, the perception of nature at risk is mainly made by conservational organizations, national governments and international institutions, who propose the establishment of conservation parks as the only solution to rescue nature. These actors, according to analysts, in order to scientifically select areas at risk, use visualization models such as Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA), Gap Analysis Process (GAP), Geographic Information System (GIS) and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which quantify species and qualify diversity based on ideas like “wilderness” and “traditional” communities (Brosius
& Russel 48; Schoon 5).
The main problem, according to protected areas analysts, is that this perspective is
of limited utility because: first, it does not consider the root causes of depletion (current
consumption patterns, industrial pollution, overexploitation, etc.); second, tends to select only one part of nature -species at hotspots-; third, considers only one part of humanity -those small indigenous communities living in places of high biodiversity (Brosius &
Hitchner 143); fourth, because who decide if a territory is at risk are external persons who do not live in those territories and sometimes, those who even do not live in that country; as an analyst of this phenomenon said, ‘apparently the future of the planet is being mapped out by about seven guys in Washington DC’ (Brosius & Hitchner 152); finally, because it has been proved that anxiety and fear, created by the idea of risk and scarcity, thrive demand which in consequence, creates new forms of accumulation and exploitation (Brockington &
Duffy 472).
2.2.2 Conservation of Wilderness vs. Human Practices
Other important perception in conservation practice is that Peace Parks, or any conservation park, take shape to protect, preserve or return to pristine ecosystems or
“wilderness” and that, all kinds of anthropogenic landscapes processes are threats to nature.
Until now, this idea has been so important that the majority of conservation projects (64.8%) restrict human occupation and resource use. (Wilshusen et al. 22; Brosius &
Russel 52; Brosius & Hitchner 147; Colchester 1365). This idea has inspired several revisions that proved that conservation practices that criminalized human practices and dreamt with a “wild” world, are in an error.
First, revisions have showed that there are not “pristine” or “wild” areas since almost every single piece of land is inhabited by humans or belongs to communities usually ignored, for example, indigenous peoples, rural communities, etc. (Duffy “Global Politics”
7; Wolmer 7; Brosius & Hitchner 144,145, 148; Brosius & Russel 58).
Second, scholars have showed that not all human communities behave the same
way towards nature. Some communities are most respectful than others, particularly local
communities that base their economy and social organization on available natural
resources. Indigenous peoples tend to be, in comparison to other communities, more
respectful, because these have closer ties with their ancestral lands and based their practices
on ecological cycles (water cycle, soil cycle, etc.) (Colchester 1365; Brosius “Endangered
Forest” 54); for example, 85% of the world’s protected areas are inhabited by indigenous
peoples and most remaining areas with high biodiversity are also claimed or owned by them (Colchester 1365). However, this does not exclude the possibility of environmental degradation caused by indigenous populations.
Third, researchers have demonstrated that human modification of landscapes can actually improve soil and water quality, maintain or increase levels of biodiversity, and create new balance ecosystems, as a result of resource management by local communities and other practices (Brosius & Hitchner 148).
Finally, it has been argued that the practices of indigenous communities as such, are not the cause of depletion. Poverty, competition, private capital, foreign agricultural models, neoliberal policies, and so on, are the main causes of biodiversity depletion and pressure over nature (Colchester 1366). As an example, in order to achieve development (in terms of economic growth and Western democracy), 69% of the arable lands of the world, located mostly in low-income countries, have transited from short to long continuous cropping and have incorporated new landscapes, causing soil erosion that consequently causes biodiversity loss, soil compaction, acidification, watershed degradation, etc. (Scherr 485).
2.2.3 Static Communities vs. Dynamic Communities
When conservation practices recognized that protected areas are inhabited by communities, these based their participation models and projects on the idea of communities as static, fixed, timeless and monolithic entities which has been extensively questioned.
In one hand, according to the majority of conservation organizations and other actors, indigenous communities have perceived as unified groups based on a “traditional”
way of living. Also, as communities that have remained the same since their origins, have
not incorporated newly knowledge and practices, and have not modified behaviors that
have been scientifically rejected (Brosius & Russel 46; Brosius & Hitchner 145). On the
contrary, critics of conservation parks, anthropologists, historians, political-
environmentalists, etc. have proved that “traditional” communities are dynamic and
multidimensional groups of humans, bonded by a set of cultural meanings, political
institutions and productive practices differentiated in some degree from the dominant
culture of the nation-state, and people in continuous processes of hybridity and cultural reproduction (Brosius & Hitchner 145; Brosius & Russel, 46; Leff “Racionalidad Ambiental” 279,280).
According to critics’ opinion, conservation organizations prefer to adhere to such images of indigenous community because: first, it allows them to get done quickly and efficiently their work (Brosius & Russel 46); second, because models, fixed time tables, short- and long- term objectives and Western-based managerial institutions, are concrete, universal and effective, therefore, these do not represent accurately indigenous communities, which are diverse, complex and dynamic; third, because these blood and soil essentialisms allow them to include or exclude certain categories of people in ways to reduce diversity and complexity (i.e. minority groups, factions or sub-factions within community) (Brosius & Hitchner 145); and finally; to deny communities agency, impose external values and concepts, and support modifications in local political institutions, local conservation practices, and so on (Brosius & Hitchner 145; Brosius & Russel 46; Leff
“Racionalidad Ambiental” 279,280).
2.2.4 Scientific Conservation Knowledge vs. Indigenous Conservation Knowledge
Other idea questioned about Peace Parks is that conservation practices Western science and culture has predominantly rejected the importance of indigenous communities’
knowledge for conservation of nature. Therefore, conservation practice has largely been rooted in the values, perceptions, and methods of Western science and culture, since this considers “traditional” knowledge as not systematic, irrational and imprecise (Rusell et al.
7; Brosius & Hitchner 142). For example, in the Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Daniel Janzen argues than with regards to preservation areas, only biologists have the competence to decide how the tropical landscape should be populated and used, for the reason that, biologists are representatives of the natural world, in charge of the future of tropical landscape (Guha 75,76).
On the contrary, critical positions have argued that indigenous communities do have
sophisticated knowledge of the natural environmental that may equal (and sometimes
surpass) codified “scientific” knowledge. Indigenous knowledge can be superior because it
has been developed and proved by centuries, because it does not deny complexity and
diversity while attempting to discover universal truths, and so on (Leff, E. “Racionalidad Ambiental” 246, 247; Rusell et al. 7,8; Brosius & Hitchner 142).
Indigenous’ knowledge is important for conservation practices, according to critics of conservation parks, because several reasons
5. First, it is an in situ complex cognizance of life cycles, balances, imbalances, and limits of nature. Second, because it does not separate humans from nature, making people agents in the depletion and conservation of nature.
Third, because it understands that, when the integrity of ecosystems is compromised so is the cultural and economic integrity of communities. Fourth, because it gives humans agency in the protection of ecosystems, in order to safeguard their livelihood, their culture, their territories, their identity, their institutions, etc. Fifth, because indigenous communities often perceive their surroundings environments and the need to protect them differently from Western societies. Sixth, because indigenous cosmovision is complex and based on diversity of beings, spectrums and explanations; for example, for the shuar, achuar and awajun communities, the protection of waterfalls is related not just to the use of water but to the idea that spirits flow on the water, creating live and connecting live/death. Finally, because even when communities’ knowledge is different from scientific knowledge, it does not reject the last, on the contrary, it values science and its use; for instance, indigenous communities use the Arabic numbering system to perform arithmetic operations, although some of them, like Mayas and Aztecs, have different numbering systems and representations (Fedrian E. & Tenorio A. 163; Rusell et al. 7,8; Brosius & Hitchner 142;
Leff “Saber Ambiental” 36; Guha 77).
Therefore, even when conservation projects will predominately continue to use hypothetical deductive/inductive science for viewing conservation problems and solutions, critics have recommended that other intellectual and philosophical traditions should be recognized, in order to open the dialogue with other groups, including a wide variety of local communities, and to neither romanticize “traditional” knowledge, nor to neglect and dismiss it. Also, critics have suggested that indigenous knowledge should be considered as valid as scientific knowledge, and that local principles, concepts, and knowledge should be
5 The first international document to explicitly identify this connection was the 1988 Declaration of Belem, which was held in Belem, Brazil, as the first international congress of the International Society of Etnobiology. Later in 1972, the World Heritage Convention recognized local communities and their knowledge as those who have created and protected landscapes with “outstanding universal value” (Brosius &Hitchner 142; Brosius & Hitchner 157).
incorporated into conservation practices and decision-making processes. Moreover, as a result of the recognition of indigenous knowledge as valuable, critics have suggested that intellectual property rights should be given to indigenous communities. Finally, indigenous peoples and territories need science that serves to protect human and nature, indigenous knowledge, practices, beliefs, etc. not as regulator that establishes how they should live and behave (Colchester 1367; Wilshusen et al. 25; Rusell et al. 8; Brosius & Hitchner 159).
2.2.5 Indigenous Rights vs. Nature Rights
As it was mentioned before, environmentalists campaigns are generally concerned for those species who are at risk; also, for the impact of human communities on the conservation of biodiversity. On the other hand, critics of conservation parks, indigenous communities and indigenous rights activists are worried for those communities who are
“endangered” because they, their institutions, their knowledge and their systems of land- tenure are endangered by conservation projects (Brosius “Endangered Forest” 64; Russell et al. 5).
Those who advocate for nature rights, conservationists and researchers like John Terborgh, John Oates, Katrina Brandon, Kent Redford, Steven Sanderson, Randall Kramer, Carel van Schaik and so on, agree on the idea that other plants and animals, and nature itself, have intrinsic rights to exist ( i.e humans do not have the right to eradicate them);
therefore, humans, particularly the state, have the obligation to look after them
6(Guha 73;
Wilshusen et al. 24). For example, Schaik and Kramer state that in order to protect nature’s rights, the nation-state has to limit personal freedom and use military intervention if it is necessary, and that there should be economic development and incentives to avoid future use of protected resources (Wilshusen et al. 24, 33).
Contrarily, those who advocate for indigenous rights, point out that several rights have been violated in the name of nature’s rights. Mainly, the right to the use, ownership, management, and control of indigenous lands, the right to be consulted when projects impact indigenous territories, the right to self-determination and the indigenous prerogative
6 There have published many books about nature rights vs human rights, here some examples: Requiem for Nature by John Terborgh (1999), Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest by John F. Oates (1999), The Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity, edited by Randall Kramer, Carel van Scaik, and Julie Johnson (1997), and Parks in Peril: People, Politics and Protected Areas, edited by Katrina Brandon, Kent Redford, and Steven Sanderson (1998).
to protect their customary use of biological resources, their knowledge, practices, etc.
7, have been violated (Colchester 1365). Also, these have pointed out that the approach of human rights vs nature rights just creates a zero-sum decision-making scenario where nature “loses out” while humans “win all”. Finally, these disclaim win-lose scenarios that imply a confrontational dichotomy and no room for dialogue or negotiation (Wilshusen et al. 26; Rusell et al. 5). Moreover, critics have pointed out current projects leaded by indigenous people’s organizations and supporting NGO’s who link natural conservation and indigenous rights, for example, the Peoples Movement on Climate Change in Bolivia.
2.2.6 Conservation Lands vs. Indigenous Lands
Conservation projects aim to, among other things, gain control over biological diverse extensions of land in order to protect them. Peace Parks, in particular, aim to gain control over “unmanaged” and “unregulated” wild places sited around international borders. However, indigenous communities, activists and critics of conservation practices have challenged the idea of terra nullius (land belonging to no one) and have showed that conservation has been used as an excuse for territorial control and alienation of indigenous lands (Duffy “Peace Parks” 1,2; Brosius & Hitchner 148).
Conservation projects aim to regulate and manage apparent areas where there is no territorial control, social authority or communities, or where there is an “inappropriate” use of resources. For these, as it was mentioned before, cartographic technologies and methodologies such as REA, GAP, GIS, and Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) are the instruments use to determine whether lands are at risk or not, and if human populations are negatively impacting those lands (Brosius & Hitchner 152).
7 Indigenous rights have been recognized by international agreements. The right to be consulted when a project impact their lands and the rights “to the use, ownership, management, and control of their traditional lands and territories are recognized in the 1969 International Labour Organization Convention. Their right to self-determination has been acknowledged by the United Nations Subcommittee on the Elimination of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The Convention on Biological Diversity, signed into being in 1992 and now ratified by 117 countries, likewise emphasizes the need to protect customary use of biological resources.” (Colchester 1365). Therefore, the World Bank, national and international agencies have all included the obligation of acquire informed consent of indigenous peoples to their projects and programs.
In contrast, indigenous communities request power to control, use and access to environmental resources, recognition of their land ownership, respect for their political, economic and social determination, protection of their environments, and no external intervention without their consent. Critics to conservation projects suggest a fundamental change in conservation practices. Environmentalist organizations, in critics’ opinion, should respect indigenous right of self-determination and should no longer aspire to be managers of other people’s lands but rather to be advisers (Wolmer 7; Colchester 1367; Brosius &
Russel 58). Indigenous communities and critics of conservation are not against conservation as such but of conservation projects that increase exploitation, inequality and dispossession (Brosius “Indigenous Peoples” 609).
2.2.7 Migration
Other important idea for the establishment of Peace Parks is that conservation parks aim to restore migration corridors for wildlife. However, critics to conservation parks have noted that beyond restoring natural corridors, governments seek to extend state control to curb migration and other activities at the border (Schoon 3; Duffy “Global Politics” 8).
The notion of transfrontier conservation areas is the idea of ecological regions which do not follow national borders and that for their conservation, need to be managed as integrated wholes. Nevertheless, these ecological regions are also important areas of human migration and, as all border regions, are passages areas of legal and/or illegal goods (Duffy
“Global Politics” 3, 16).
According to analysts of conservation parks, the location of transboundary
conservation parks follows undeclared purposes and have consequence that are not stated in
the projects. First, at the same time that conservation projects aim to restore biological
corridors, these hope to increased state presence and impose a physical barrier that will
reduce human migration, trafficking and other “problems” (Duffy “Global Politics” 16,
Schoon 4). Second, increased state and conservationist groups’ presence in these areas
increase international conservation groups power ad states authority over resources and
over local communities. Third, transboundary conservation parks, at the same time that
block illegal activities and undesirable migration, obstruct “traditional” human migratory
routes and relations between communities historically united. Finally, “traditional”
migration and indigenous activities on the border have been wrongly associated with illegal activities, perpetrated often by corrupt government officials and external stakeholders (Duffy “Global Politics” 8, 16; Schoon 3; Wolmer 7; Brosius & Russel 58).
In consequence, in one hand, we have Peace Parks being promoted by migrant- receiving countries surrounded by one or more countries with high emigration rates, i.e. the park suggested along the Mexican-US border, the current park located along the South African- Mozambique- Zimbabwe border or the park along the Israeli-Syrian border (Duffy
“Global Politics” 16; Duffy R. “ECS report” 67). While on the other hand, we have communities, like nomadic indigenous people in the fifth World Park Congress, which expressed their distinctive concerns about conservation. They mentioned that their migration routes were blocked by national or protected-area boundaries, forcing them to settle down, and that current conservation indicators make less visible their historical presence in the landscape, leading to dispossession or removal of territories (Brosius
“Indigenous Peoples” 610).
2.2.8 Cooperation
Other fundamental idea that encourages organizations and governments to create Peace Parks is the idea of promoting cooperation between countries through joint administration of protected areas. However as it was proved by Zbicz in 2003, cooperation between national authorities and between national authorities and conservational organizations in transboundary conservation parks, is minor. Cooperation between communities and between communities and authorities has not even been considered as an objective of conservation parks, nor measured by any instrument.
Zbicz in order to create, measure, testing and re-testing the levels of cooperation in transboundary areas, divided cooperation in six different categories. First, no cooperation.
Second, communication, which means some information sharing like number of species,
people in charge, etc. Third, consultation, which implies notification of actions,
emergencies or constraints. Fourth, collaboration, which denotes frequent communication
and meetings, and active cooperation on multiple activities like patrolling, monitoring and
researching. Fifth, coordination of planning, which represents regular meetings and
coordinated actions. Finally, full cooperation, which indicates fully integrated organisms,
ecosystem-based planning, cooperation on management and join decision-making committee (Zbicz 26).
After analyzing 169 protected area complexes, Zbicz found that no cooperation accounts for 18%, 39% communication, 12% consultation, 14% collaboration, 10%
coordination of planning, and fully cooperation 7% (Zbicz 26, 27). According to the same research, cooperation depends on the share idea of transfrontier cooperation, communication technologies, leadership and personal contact and organizations and governments should communicate, facilitate, equip and educate but never imposed or forced parks, “as if sovereign countries were children being instructed to cooperate and play nicely” (Zbicz 29, 35).
2.2.9 Community-based Models
The concept of community involvement and participation in environmental decision-making and management arose during the 1950s, in response to a series of critiques, primarily by intellectuals and activists in the so called Third World. It was until 1980s and early 1990s that the bottom-up approach became a priority issue and point of discussion for conservation practices (Smith 354,355).
The bottom-up approach was perceived to be inclusive of different cultures, knowledge and ways of life, encouraging the local population to participate in the establishment of conservation areas. These models claimed to incorporate the needs and priorities of local communities under community-based resource management, stakeholder- based approaches, participatory research, etc. However, community-based conservation models have been questioned by researchers and communities because these have failed to comply with their purposes, on the contrary, have relegated communities (Brosius & Russel 44; Brosius & Hitchner 149, 156). Notwithstanding, it is important to mention that community-based projects are on improvement in respect to earlier practices.
First, community-based conservation, based on the erroneous idea of community,
have left out sub-groups or factions of projects, programs and consultation process. This
idea, among other consequences previously mentioned, empower some sectors of a
community at the expense of others and exacerbate gender and class differences. For
example, when indigenous communities work with non-governmental organizations to
produce maps, elderly people, women and poor people are left out, as well as, their needs, opinions and interests (Brosius & Hitchner 156; Sultana 357).
Second, community-based conservation projects rarely offer local actors the resources, influence and power to change the structural conditions that are the ultimate causes of environmental degradation. On the contrary, participation has used to produce
“consensus” about conservation programs and as a managerial tool (Brosius & Russel, 43,44).
Third, community-based research has been carried out by teams of external consultants rather than communities (or at least with them). Participation under such research approaches tends to be characterized by two things: 1) the “stakeholder syndrome”
(further discussed in the next section), where local communities’ needs, concerns, and interests get reduced to “exchangeable goods” or left out of conservation projects because these are not development projects and, 2) final reports do not adequately represent local people, matching the objectives of the conservation projects with the apparent communities’ needs (Brosius & Hitchner 156; Rusell et al. 11).
Fourth, communities’ participation in transboundary conservation schemes with a number of globally powerful actors can severely undermined the needs and political power of communities because in practice communities do not have the power, instruments and
“monetary” resources to sit in the table, discuss projects and make decisions (Wilshusen et al. 26).
Finally, in practice, participation process in community-based conservation projects is one of communities being “consulted” about decisions already taken at higher levels, about plans already made, and rarely being present on decision-making forums. Institutions where communities can decide about their future and their lands have also not been considered in practice (Wolmer 6).
Nowadays, in addition to these negative consequences of community-based models,
authoritarian models, based more on coercion and expropriation than on collaboration, have
reinvigorated their discourse based on the idea of current conservation failure due to
community-based models (Rusell et al. 10). However, as analysts have argued, failure or
success of community based approaches to conservation is due to far more complex causes
than simple long-term objectives not being achieved. The failure and success is for
example, due to colonial histories, market pressures, historically governed degrees of sovereignty and political influence, the roles played by international NGOs and private companies, clashes between communities and national governments for land use, etc.
(Rusell et al. 11).
In consequence, critics, activists and communities suggest that real community- based conservation models should support rather than usurp local institutions and should take control of nature away from the state and the industrial sector and place it in the hands of communities (Guha 81; Brosius & Russel, 58). Moreover, these suggest that local participation in research should entail much more engagement with community members on the recognition of communities’ status as custodians of the knowledge and landscapes that are the focus of research interest; and that power and control over resources must not being substitutable for participation and tourism-gain sharing (Brosius & Hitchner 157).
2.2.10 Stakeholders
