Nature Unbound - Conservation Capitalism and The Future of Protected Areas

Prelims.
qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page i
Nature Unbound
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page ii
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page iii
Nature Unbound
Conservation, Capitalism and the
Future of Protected Areas
Dan Brockington, Rosaleen Duffy and Jim Igoe
publishing for a sustainable future
London • Sterling, VA
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page iv
First published by Earthscan in the UK and USA in 2008
Copyright © Dan Brockington, Rosaleen Duffy and Jim Igoe, 2008
All rights reserved
ISBN 978-1-84407-440-2 paperback

978-1-84407-441-9 hardback
Typeset by Domex e-data Pvt Ltd

Printed and bound in the UK by TJ International Ltd, Padstow
Cover design by Dominic Forbes
For a full list of publications please contact:

Earthscan
Dunstan House
14a St Cross Street
London, EC1N 8XA, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7841 1930
Fax: +44 (0)20 7242 1474
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.earthscan.co.uk
22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166-2012, USA
Earthscan publishes in association with the International Institute

for Environment and Development
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been applied for.
The paper used for this book is FSC-certified.

FSC (the Forest Stewardship Council) is an
international network to promote responsible
management of the world’s forests.
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page v
Contents
List of Figures, Tables and Boxes vii

Preface ix
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xiii
1 Nature Unbound 1
2 Histories and Geographies of Protected Areas 17
3 The Imperatives for Conservation 47
4 The Power of Parks 63
5 Local Management of Natural Resources 87
6 Conservation and Indigenous Peoples 113
7 The Spread of Tourist Habitat 131
8 International Conservation 149
9 Conservation and Capitalism 175
References 203
Index 239
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page vi
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page vii
List of Figures, Tables and Boxes
Figures
1.1 The global growth of protected areas 2
1.2 A typology of conservation practice 12
2.1 The geography of protected area growth over time 30
3.1 Red List indices for birds 60
9.1 The metabolic rift and the black box of productive nature 187
9.2 The ecotourism bubble and the green box of consumptive nature 189
Tables
1.1 A taxonomy of biodiversity conservation approaches and strategies 11
2.1 The protected area category system 22
2.2 The different prioritizing mechanisms 26
2.3 Distribution of marine and terrestrial protected areas
in different IUCN regions 40
3.1 The IUCN Red List Categories from Baillie et al 2004 54
3.2 The IUCN Red List 55
3.3 Comparing predicted and actual extinctions 59
4.1 A comparison of the distribution of parks in Hayes’
sample and others 66
4.2 Establishment decades of protected area for which evictions
have been reported 76
4.3 The history of publication of eviction 76
4.4 Timing of removals reported in papers published after 1990 77
5.1 Conditions facilitating common property management regimes 102
8.1 The growth of conservation NGOs working in Africa 156
9.1 Comparing the FSC and PEFC 182
Boxes
2.1 Classifying protected areas: The evolution of the IUCN
categorization system 21
2.2 Setting global conservation priorities 25
2.3 Famous and less famous protected areas from around the world 35
3.1 Extracts from ‘Walking’ by Henry David Thoreau 48
9.1 Local and community ownership of forests 179
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page viii
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page ix
Preface
Writing about conservation is never straightforward. Describing and analysing

conservation policies, and particularly the development of protected areas (national
parks, game reserves, forest reserves and the like), can lead to intense argument. For
some people the story of wildlife and landscape conservation is a story of progress.
It is about the fight to persuade societies and governments that it is important to
protect nature. This tale makes compelling reading, for while conservation
legislation has made significant gains in many parts of the world, its enforcement is
weaker and its failures are permanent. There are no more passenger pigeons, dodos
or quagga left in the world, and we are currently facing a major extinction spasm.
Conservationists are always racing against time, and often doing battle with titanic
forces such as population growth or industrial development. Recording this history
means following invigorating, compelling, but sometimes tragic struggles.
Some of the greatest literature in conservation is told in this way. In Roderick
Nash’s classic book Wilderness and the American Mind (2001), protected areas are
firmly equated with progress. For Nash, the preservation of wilderness in national
parks and protected areas is the US’s greatest idea and export. Wilderness and its
protection in parks is a good thing, and the historian’s task is to document the
success of humanity in learning about and taking up the model. Nash cheers the
successes of the parks movement and decries their failures.1 He imagines futures
where people are concentrated into a relatively few places from where they can
travel to vast wilderness areas (if they pass wilderness entrance exams). Similarly
Weiner’s account of conservation in the Soviet Union emphasizes the bravery of
conservation scientists and the perfidy of their opponents. The story of protected
areas’ demise and revival in the Soviet Union is told as one of courage, death and
resurrection (Weiner, 1988, 1999). In both Russia and the US this version of
conservation’s history is a popular widely received account. Protected areas and
the conservation policies that support them are viewed as unquestionably good
things. Anything that hinders them is bad, those who defend them are heroes.
But, alternatively, and simultaneously, the story of protected areas could be
told as a tragic record of failure, error and underachievement, notwithstanding
the extraordinary effort and energy selflessly devoted to it. Bill Adams, in his
history of the conservation movement Against Extinction, observes that thus far
the movement has not done well enough. He notes that the ‘[t]he 20th century
saw conservation’s creation, but nature’s decline’ (Adams, 2004, p231). He argues
that unless conservationists can restore people’s relationship to the wild then the
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page x
x NATURE UNBOUND
movement will lose its lifeblood and vigour, such that ‘even if the diverse jewels
of the earth are “saved”, we will still face a gloomy trudge through the new
century accompanied by the steady leaching of natural diversity on every hand’
(Adams, 2004, p231).
Combine these problems with the protests that parks and protected areas
occasion in so many parts of the world and the history of protected areas does not
look so good. A strong body of critical literature has arisen, which questions
diverse aspects of conservation practice and history. Some authors question
conservation’s colonial and imperial roots (Mackenzie, 1988; Neumann, 1998).
Others portray contemporary conservation practice as a murky political enterprise
rather than the struggle of a just cause (Anderson and Grove, 1987; Bonner, 1993;
Duffy, 2000; Steinhart, 2006). Else they challenge the marginalization and
disempowerment that rural groups experience because of conservation
(Jeanrenaud, 2002; Anderson and Berglund, 2003; Walley, 2004; West, 2006) or
the transformations it entails (Duffy, 2002; Igoe, 2004b). Some document the
material and psychological hardships of eviction from protected areas (West and
Brechin, 1991; Brockington, 2002). Many have been particularly concerned with
the impact of conservation policies on indigenous peoples (Gray et al, 1998;
Colchester and Erni, 1999; Spence, 1999; Jacoby, 2001; Chatty and Colchester,
2002; Colchester, 2003). Finally, some collections compile diverse concerns about
all these aspects (Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997; Brechin et al, 2003).
These criticisms have occasionally been met with anger (e.g. Spinage, 1998),
but more often bewilderment – how can a good thing like conservation be subject
to these criticisms? The conservation movement has often had particular
difficulty incorporating criticisms of the negative social consequences of
protected areas. One prominent conservationist, after reading a critique that
grouped biodiversity conservation together with the extractive industry as
‘culture-wrecking institutions’, wondered out loud:
One must ask by what alchemy have the names of those who see
themselves as defenders of the planet’s biological heritage come to be
linked in the same breath with the names of those who are more
appropriately seen as its degraders.
(Agrawal and Redford, 2007, p.12)
Equally critics of parks, including ourselves, are often indignant at the wrongs
being done in the name of a good cause, and voices quickly become shrill. As we
shall see below this often means that the argument about, for example, the
effectiveness of parks or community conservation has not asked the right
questions. The debate risks getting bogged down in asking whether parks ‘work’
or not, rather than asking what are the social and ecological gains and losses that
result from the changes that parks bring about, who experiences these gains and
losses, and in what ways?
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page xi
PREFACE xi
We have been among the critical voices above, but our purpose here is not to
justify those views, or criticize conservation’s defenders. This book is not intended
as another brick in the wall dividing two camps. Rather it has been heartening to
see in the last five years an increasing rapprochement between conservation
advocates and their critics. Old polarizations have broken down. Social scientists
have proliferated in conservation meetings, and publish in conservation journals.
Amongst conservation’s critics there are senior voices calling for constructive
engagement with conservationists (Brosius, 2006), just as there are senior
conservationists calling for a better engagement with social scientists (Chan et al,
2007).
This book is intended as a contribution to that process. Accordingly we do
not take a stand as critics or fans of protected areas here. Rather we ask how they
have distributed fortune and misfortune between different groups and we
compare the versions of these histories that the winners circulate, and those the
losers remember. We ask by what means are conservation goals achieved, the
broader processes with which it is intertwined, and the consequences, often
unexpected, of these interactions. Addressing these issues will give us a better idea
of what a conserved world would look like, and who will enjoy living in it.
Many people have helped us during the course of writing this book; their
support, comments and critical engagement with earlier drafts and the ideas
therein, has been invaluable: Kathy Homewood, Bill Adams, Sian Sullivan, Jon
Hutton, Dilys Roe, Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Taghi Favor, Phil Franks, Kai
Schmidt-Soltau, Ashish Kothari, Lee Risby, Elinor Ostrom, Tanya Hayes, Kent
Redford, Katrina Brandon, Fred Nelson, Paige West, James Carrier, Christo
Fabricius, Eric Pawson, Garth Cant, Colin Filer, Kartik Shanker, Mahesh
Rangarajan, Meera Oomen, Ravi Chellam, Vasant Saberwal, Barney Dickson,
Jo Elliot, Matt Walpole, David Thomas, Bhaskar Vira, Monique Borgerhoff
Mulder, Pete Copollilo, David Wilkie, Tim Davenport, Neil Burgess, Libby
Lester, Graham Huggan, Richard Ladle, Paul Jepson, Lindsey Gillson, Kathy
Willis, Hassan Sachedina, Emmanuel Nuesiri, Timothy Doyle, John Urry, Liz
Bondi, Melissa Leach, Christopher Clapham, Feargal Cochrane, Marina Novelli,
Will Wolmer, Jeanette Manjengwa, Steven Brechin and Marshall Murphree.
Colleagues and doctoral students at the University of Manchester have
proved to be invaluable sounding boards for some of the ideas contained in this
book; we would like to thank the Society and Environment Research Group
(SERG), especially Noel Castree, Tony Bebbington, Gavin Bridge, Admos
Chimhowu and Phillip Woodhouse, John O’Neill and Erik Swyngedouw; we
would also like to thank the Environment and Development Reading Group
(especially Katie Scholfield, George Holmes, Hilary Gilbert, Lorraine Moore,
Lisa Ficklin, Lindsay Stringer, Rupert Frederichsen and Tomas Frederiksen). We
must also thank Bharath Sundaram and colleagues at the Ashoka Trust for
Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) at whose field station in the
Biligiri Rangaswami Temple Wildlife Sanctuary this manuscript was completed.
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page xii
xii NATURE UNBOUND
We are also grateful for the support of funders for our work: Dan
Brockington held an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Research
Fellowship on the Social Impacts of Protected Areas (RES-000-27-0174).
Rosaleen Duffy held three ESRC grants to examine Transfrontier Conservation,
illicit mining networks and conservation, and ecotourism and charismatic
animals (grant numbers RES-000-22-0342, 00-22-3013 and RES-000-22-
2599). Jim Igoe held a Fulbright teaching and research grant for the 2005–2006
academic year, during which time he taught at the College of African Wildlife
Management in Mweka, Tanzania, and conducted research in the privatization of
conservation.
Note
1 In the fourth edition of his celebrated book Nash writes: ‘I will veer away from
the hallowed (if always somewhat hollow) traditions of academic objectivity. I
have tenure now; in fact I am retired! I don’t have to conform to those canons of
impartiality that my graduate school mentors valued so highly. So I can come out
of the closet. I like wilderness, and although I wrote as a scholar about its history,
I’m also a fan and an advocate.’ Nash, R. (2001) Wilderness and the American
Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press. Nota bene: hollow indeed, why not
declare your stance from the start?
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page xiii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ANGAP Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées

ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
ATREE Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
AWF African Wildlife Fund
BI Birdlife International
BINGO big international non-governmental organization
CAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management Plan for Indigenous Resources
CAR comprehensive, adequate, representative (protection)
CBD Convention on Biodiversity
CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management
CBT community-based tourism
CCAD Central American Commission on Environment and
Development
CC Africa Conservation Corporation Africa
CI Conservation International
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora
COP Conference of the Parties
CPR common pool resource
CPR common property regime
DDT dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane
DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo
ESRC Economic and Social Research Council
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
GCF Global Conservation Fund
GEF Global Environment Facility
GIS geographic information system
ICD Integrated Conservation with Development
IDCP Integrated Development with Conservation Projects
IFI International financial institution
IFRI International Forestry Resources and Institutions
IMF International Monetary Fund
IPA Indigenous Protected Area
IPCC Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change
IPZ Intensive Protection Zone
Prelims.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page xiv
xiv NATURE UNBOUND
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

MBRS Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System Project
MNC multinational corporations
NEAP National Environmental Action Plan
NES National Eco-tourism Strategy
NGO non-governmental organization
PEC Problem Elephant Control
PEFC Pan European Forest Certification
SAP Structural Adjustment Programme
SERG Society and Environment Research Group
SPWFE Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire
TFCA Transfrontier Conservation Area
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VSO Voluntary Service Overseas
WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WDPA World Database of Protected Areas
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
Chapter01.qxd 9/30/2008 2:06 PM Page 1
1
Nature Unbound
A good place to begin a study of wildlife and landscape conservation is to look at

trends in the growth of protected areas in the last few years. Protected areas are
all the national parks, game reserves, national monuments, forest reserves and the
myriad other places and spaces for which states provide special protection from
human interference. There is a curious pattern in their recent history, which we
have shown in Figure 1.1. The period of most dramatic growth was between 1985
and 1995. While these data have to be treated with caution, the pattern is striking
and its timing odd.1 For that time was also the period when neoliberal economic
policies were dominant globally (Peet and Watts, 1996). Neoliberalism is based
on the ideas of reducing the power, reach and interference of government
(expressed in the catchphrase ‘small government’) and giving industry greater
freedom and less red tape. Neoliberal policies were favoured by the powerful
financial institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund and World
Bank, with tremendous influence over the details of many governments’ policies
through the implementation of economic liberalization in the form of Structural
Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) (Clapham, 1996; Harrison, 2004, 2005). Yet it
was precisely when pressures to reduce government were greatest that the extent
of state control and restriction on land and natural resource use increased more
dramatically than any other period.
Could there be a mechanism behind the pattern, or is it mere coincidence?
Could there be anything about the nature of modern capitalism that seems to favour
the establishment of protected areas? One explanation is that conservationists
have collectively responded to the threats and damage of contemporary capitalism
by securing lands from development. In the face of increased development
pressures they have risen to the challenge, identifying the places that need
protection, fighting and winning the political battles required for governments to
support their plans. They have created international conventions to further their
cause, strengthened conservation and wildlife departments in numerous
countries to fight for nature, as well as nurturing and training state actors
throughout the world to champion conservation causes in their respective
countries (Frank et al, 2000).
There is some truth to this idea, many protected areas were set up explicitly to
limit development and had significant success in doing so. Fights to save places
such as Jervis Bay near Sydney in Australia, and the West Coast Forests in South
Island, New Zealand, resulted in new, or stronger, protected areas. Moreover
these fights have been defining moments in the history of environmentalism. The
2 NATURE UNBOUND
3,500,000 12,000
3,000,000 10,000
2,500,000 Area 8,000
Area (km2)
2,000,000 Count
Count
6,000
1,500,000
4,000
1,000,000
500,000 2,000
– –
18 0
18 5
80
18 5
18 0
19 5
19 0
19 5
19 0
19 5
20
19 5
19 0
35
19 0
19 5
19 0
55
19 0
19 5
19 0
75
19 0
19 5
19 0
20 5
00
7
7
8
9
9
0
0
1
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
9
18
18
19
19
19
19
Five year period beginning
Figure 1.1 The global growth of protected areas
Source: The World Database of Protected Areas (2005)
successful campaigns to prevent the construction of the Franklin Dam in

Tasmania, and the dams proposed in the Dinosaur National Monument in the
US, strengthened and invigorated the movement internationally. Conversely, in
India for example, extractive and timber corporations find that protected areas
limit their operations and have actively campaigned for their denotification
(Saberwal et al, 2001).
Many contemporary battles are also fought on these lines, while expanding to
include the question of indigenous land rights. For example current disputes
about oil exploration in Alaska and its impact on the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) represent a complex mix of national security, indigenous rights,
notions of wilderness and global energy supply (Lovecraft, 2007). The ANWR
was established in 1960 to conserve wildlife populations in their natural habitats.2
Supporters of opening ANWR for oil exploration have claimed that it could
reduce dependence on oil supplies from the Middle East and that current oil
installations in ANWR have been designed and sited to take account of wildlife
populations. Critics are adamant that the area should remain as a ‘pristine
wilderness’, while other interest groups have lobbied for the rights of indigenous
groups to maintain their access to fishing grounds.3 The creation of the Kuna Yala
Reserve in Panama united conservationists and indigenous peoples in the
protection of indigenous homelands from the environmentally destructive spread
of homesteaders and cattle ranchers (Chapin, 2000). Alliances between the
Kayapo Indians and international conservationists, beginning in the 1980s and
championed by the rock star Sting, have thus far protected Brazil’s Xingu
National Park from flooding by proposed hydroelectric dams along the Xingu
River (Turner, 1993; Nugent, 1994).
But the problem with trying to interpret the spread of conservation in terms of
successfully fighting and resisting capitalist development is that it suggests a
confrontational stance to capitalism in the conservation movement. Dramatic
confrontation against construction projects remains the leitmotif of groups like
NATURE UNBOUND 3
Greenpeace. But, in the main, conservation is more conciliatory and

accommodating of the needs of capitalism than it once was (Daily and Walker,
2000). Fights to save places have given way to complicated geographic
information system (GIS) software models, which distribute protected areas
optimally across the landscape according to such priorities as rarity and
vulnerability while minimizing cost. The more sophisticated GIS models
specifically include human economic and social needs to reduce the potential for
dispute (Sarkar et al, 2006; Wilson et al, 2006, 2007). Many conservationists
now work to a simple pragmatic mandate: cooperating with the powers that be
in order to protect nature. From this perspective, the growth of protected areas
under neoliberal regimes is a testimony to their success in working with the
system, speaking comfortable truths to power.
But this again is only part of the story. For it suggests a distance between the
values and practices of biodiversity conservation and those of neoliberal
capitalism. According to this explanation, conservationists compromise with the
demands of capitalism, with humanity’s hunger for resources and industries’
demand for profit, because they have to. But their own values and priorities
remain distinct from these dominant forces and values. We do not believe that
this is accurate. It is more appropriate to recognize that capitalist policies and
values, and often neoliberal policies and values, pervade conservation practice;
indeed in some parts of the world they infest it.
If that seems far-fetched, consider the current situation in Laos where the
World Bank is currently supporting a US$50 billion dollar project to build a
series of dams on the Mekong River. The dams will eventually supply energy to
Laos and its neighbours, most notably Thailand, stimulating and sustaining
economic growth for years to come. But they come at a huge ecological cost.
Thousands of square kilometres of lowland tropical rainforest will be lost, and are
indeed now being logged by the Laos military to ensure that as much valuable
timber as possible is extracted before the waters rise. But this project has the
support of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF, which was one of the organizations that
was instrumental in protests against the Xingu Dams in the 1980s). These
organizations are able to support the dams in Laos because the project also
involves setting up new protected areas in the highlands, safeguarding both the
watersheds and the valuable biodiversity therein. Ironically, amidst all the
destruction, this is a project that will vastly increase Laos’ protected area network,
for it had hardly any prior to this project (Goldman, 2001b).
Situations like the one in Laos are not new. In the 1970s and 1980s the donor-
backed Acclerated Mahweli Development Project in Sri Lanka partitioned the
landscape into dams, irrigation fields and national parks and moved people
around accordingly (Levy, 1989; Stegeborn, 1996; Gamburd, 2000). More
recently two new national parks (Campo Maun and Mban et Djerem) have been
set up in Cameroon in mitigation for the damage caused by the new
4 NATURE UNBOUND
Chad–Cameroon oil pipeline, again funded by the World Bank. It is increasingly

expected that large projects that damage the environment in some way should
provide some sort of compensation. And where they destroy habitat it is only
logical that they should protect another place to make good the wrong done. And
it is only logical that the developers should seek the advice of conservation experts
in the IUCN or WWF to help them to do this properly. Nevertheless the end
result is that conservation and capitalism are allying mutually to reshape the
world.
It is even possible for mining to increase the amount of space that conservationists
find available to conserve. In many parts of the world mining companies are given
concessions by governments – large plots of land that they need to drill for oil or
mine for ore or gems. The space required for their operations can often be only a
small part of the concession. But the remaining land is restricted to local hunters and
farmers and can contain untouched vegetation and wildlife (e.g. Laurance et al,
2006). There are also cases of more fundamental alliances forming in which
conservation interests and mining interests are (apparently) united to bring profound
change to landscapes and livelihoods. Consider the development of the ilmenite
(titanium dioxide) mine in the Fort Dauphin area of Madagascar by Qit Minerals
Madagascar (80 per cent owned by Rio Tinto and 20 per cent owned by the
Government of Madagascar). Rio Tinto claims that the project will provide the
catalyst for ‘broader economic development in the country while providing
conservation opportunities’ and it will provide ‘net positive benefits, to biodiversity
conservation.4 The company has set aside zones in the mining project for
conservation, which will form part of the national system of protected areas in
Madagascar. It also set up an ecotourism project, which has been running since
2000, to allow local communities to benefit from the conservation initiatives
established by Rio Tinto.5
The titanium mine is a perfect example of the global networks that allow the
objectives of conservation and capitalism to go hand in hand. Qit Minerals
Madagascar has been working with a range of environmental organizations since
1996 to develop social and environmental projects to mitigate the impact of the
mine, including the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, Missouri Botanical
Gardens, Earthwatch and the Smithsonian Institute.6 Indeed, other global
conservation organizations operating in Madagascar have taken the decision that
they need to work with Qit Minerals Madagascar to gain concessions to
conservation and speak in terms that the Malagasy government and mining
companies will understand. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as
Conservation International have argued that the areas set aside for conservation
will be more lucrative in the long term through the development of ecotourism
(Duffy, 2008b).
On the other hand, the mine has been severely criticized by Friends of the
Earth who argue that the project was threatening unique forest resources and
leaving local people struggling to survive in the area affected by the mine. Other
NATURE UNBOUND 5
researchers note that the case for the mine’s proposed protected areas was based
in part on the belief that forests needed protection from local people who were
cutting down too many trees. However, satellite data analysis of these forests
suggests that this may be a simplistic rendering of environmental change (Ingram,
2004; Ingram et al, 2005). Local communities have complained that the
compensation payments are not sufficient since land prices have risen in that area
and promises of employment have not materialized.7
These cases are stark examples of conservation and capitalism re-categorizing
the landscape together. In many other cases the links and continuities between
the two are more subtle – and also more pervasive. They are about changing
attitudes to wildlife and landscapes, about introducing markets and
commodifying nature, about adapting tourists’ expectations, and tourists’ hosts,
and about modifying the societies and communities that live close to valuable
nature, about the role models and inspirations that make us conservationists in
the first place.
Sklair (2001) has examined the convergence of environmentalism and
capitalism in his analysis of the ‘transnational capitalist class’. According to Sklair,
this class is composed of corporate executives, bureaucrats and politicians,
professionals, merchants and the media who collectively act to promote global
economic growth based on the ‘cultural-ideology of consumerism’. He argues
that this class is effectively in charge of globalization but also has to resolve crises
that arise from its global growth strategy. With respect to environmental
problems, he argues, following Gramsci, that corporations and what we call
‘mainstream conservation’ have colluded to form a ‘sustainable development
historical bloc’ (Sklair, 2001, p8). The historical bloc offers solutions to the
environmental crises that are inherent to global consumer capitalism, while all the
time maintaining and strengthening an accompanying ‘consumerist ideology’.
Indeed, increased consumption becomes central to the solutions (p216). In this
book we extend this perspective to argue that the global proliferation of protected
areas and related conservation strategies reflect the emergence of this historical
bloc. We argue that although these strategies may limit the growth of industry in
some contexts, they simultaneously offer solutions to crises of the global growth
strategy that makes the spread of industrial enterprise possible in the first place.
Protected areas create new types of value that are essential to the global consumer
economy.
In sum, conservation is not merely about resisting capitalism, or about
reaching necessary compromises with it. Conservation and capitalism are shaping
nature and society, and often in partnership. In the name of conservation, rural
communities will reorganize themselves, and change their use and management
of wildlife and landscapes. They ally with safari hunters and tourist companies to
sell the experience of new tourist products on the international market. In the
name of conservation, mining companies, governments, international financial
institutions and some conservation organizations work together to achieve
6 NATURE UNBOUND
common goals that suit the interests of conservation and capitalism. This set of
relationships can be counter-intuitive, yet it is clear that they are forming
powerful alliances, and can overcome local objections and protest.
As these types of interventions spread and become more sophisticated, it
becomes increasingly difficult to determine if we are describing conservation with
capitalism as its instrument or capitalism with conservation as its instrument.
The lines between conservation and capitalism blur. While it is debatable whether
this alliance of conservation and capitalism is capable of saving the world, there
is no doubt that it is most capable of remaking and recreating it. One of the
central premises of this book, therefore, is that dealing with the types of problems
conservationists face will become easier if we recognize the dynamics of
capitalism of which they are part. Similarly, understanding the problems
conservation causes, how protected areas distribute fortune and misfortune,
requires an analysis of the bigger picture of how they are incorporated into the
broader economy.
In this book we will be describing, analysing and documenting these changes.
We will be considering who wins and who loses from these processes, and what
their consequences are for conservationists’ own goals. The book is based on two
questions, and structured by two tasks. The questions are:
1 In what ways do conservation policies and conservation interventions

make wild nature more valuable to capitalist economies?
2 With what consequences is this value realized?
The tasks are first, to examine existing knowledge that social scientists have been
creating in recent years about conservation policy and practice. A great deal has
been written, and an overview is important. Our substantive chapters address the
role of conservation NGOs and the international apparatus of conservation,
indigenous people and local knowledge, fortress conservation, community
conservation, ecotourism, and market-based conservation. We examine the
different debates in each, summarizing existing knowledge and outlining
unanswered questions. Second, at the end of the book, we integrate these into a
broader argument, exploring the connections between these disparate processes,
their contradictions and their future implications.
Conservation and conservation strategies

Can we talk about all forms of conservation thus, and all conservation strategies?
The movement is diverse and referring to ‘conservationists’ or ‘the conservation
community’ implies a unity of thought, values and practice that is simply not
found. Conservation is an incredibly broad church and one that is riven with
conflict. Within journals and meetings and in individual campaigns there are
sharp disagreements about ethics, morals, practices and compromises.
NATURE UNBOUND 7
There are conservationists who find solace in wild places without human
presence, and those who love peopled landscapes. There are conservationists for
whom landscape is irrelevant and only species matter, and conservationists whose
concern is strictly their love of particular places and for whom global
considerations are not particularly relevant. There are ardent conservationists
whose experience of conservation needs and conserved places is virtual and
vicarious, enjoyed through books, films, the internet and the celebrities who
endorse them, there are those who live for their fieldwork, those who protest and
campaign, those who educate and those who push policy. There are conservation
bureaucrats who sacrifice family and field time to trawl a circuit of international
meetings, and those who flourish in such environments.
There are particularly deep divisions about some issues. Consider for example
the debate about trade in live animals or their products. The World Parrot Trust
insists that the trade in wild birds is repugnant, resulting in many deaths for each
live animal moved, and fuels the loss of species (Gilardi, 2006). Others suggest
that it can raise funds for conservation, and bans merely drive illegal trades
underground where it is harder to monitor (Cooney and Jepson, 2006; Roe,
2006). The fight about the ivory trade causes deep divisions in the conservation
movement. The proliferation of elephants in southern Africa has resulted in over-
crowding in some reserves and culls in others. There are powerful calls to make
ivory trade legal in order to raise more money for conservation. Whereas in East
Africa, especially Kenya, a strong stance against the ivory trade has itself been a
powerful fund-raising tool.
There is also disagreement about the use of violence or compromise for
conservation causes. The Sea Shepherds are most effective in their use of limpet
mines to combat whaling. They and Greenpeace fight regular battles with whalers
on the high seas. Earth First! produced a field guide to monkey-wrenching
(named after Edward Abbey’s book The Monkey Wrench Gang) with instructions
on salting dirt air strips (to attract wildlife to stir up the ground and make the
strip unusable) and spiking trees with lumps of metal to injure, or deter
lumberjacks. Major conservation organizations are cooperating with many large
corporations to generate revenues, else win control over lands that, for example,
extractive industries control from their concessions but which they do not require
for the purposes of their mining. They are opposed by a radical fringe who insist
that they have sold out and that true conservation should be about resisting
resource use and high-consumption lifestyles.
It is important to distinguish conservation causes from concern for animal
rights and individual animals. For example, animal rights campaigners will insist
that killing animals for their skins or food is wrong, regardless of the funds any
business can generate. Hence researchers combating the bushmeat trade in West
Africa who recognize that people will need to eat wild meat and wish to control
its supply and production more effectively are at odds with animal rights activists
who wish to stop the trade entirely. In Kenya safari hunting has been banned,
8 NATURE UNBOUND
whereas in the rest of East Africa and in southern Africa it sustains a multi-
million dollar business (Lindsey et al, 2007), with much opportunity for revenues
to reach local communities (Novelli et al, 2006). The fox hunting ban in the UK
is condemned by many country residents as an imposition by urbanites who do
not understand how they relate to nature. Animal rights campaigners have also
prevented the eradication of a grey squirrel population that had established itself
in northern Italy. The grey squirrel is native to North America, but is larger and
more competitive than the European red squirrel and tends to replace it where
the two come into contact. It is the dominant species of squirrel in most of the
UK. The resultant spread of the grey squirrel from their foothold in Italy will
cause suffering to red squirrels on the continent, and other species on which the
grey squirrels feed (Perry, 2004).
For conservationists combating the extinction crisis, the resources and political
clout these causes enjoy can be frustrating. If scarce resources are directed at
species that are relatively secure, or worse still, at individuals rather than species,
the broader cause can suffer. The most recent case that best captures the feelings,
and expense, at work arose in 2003 on South Uist, an island off the west coast of
Scotland. The island is the home to breeding colonies of endangered birds, such
as snipe, redshank, lapwing, dunlin and ringer plover which were threatened by
a hedgehog population introduced in the 1970s by an individual seeking to
control garden slugs. With no natural predators and light vehicle traffic, the
hedgehog population grew to approximately 5000 by 2003.8 Scottish Natural
Heritage took the decision that hedgehogs had to be removed from the island, so
they ordered a cull. However, the decision was highly unpopular with some
sections of the community who formed Uist Hedgehog Rescue, which argued
that the hedgehogs had a right to exist and that the cull was cruel. Their
campaign attracted donations of over £30,000 from the public and attention
from the New York Times and a Toronto radio station.9 ‘Operation Tiggywinkle’
was launched, encouraging local residents to hand in hedgehogs for £5 per animal
so that they could be flown to mainland Scotland and released in the wild there.
(Representatives of Operation Tiggywinkle had negotiated a special 50 pence
airfare for each animal with Highland Airways.) It is not at all clear how the
moved animals, or the hedgehogs already resident in the recipient areas, fared as
a result of the move.
It is also important to recognize the difference between conservation causes and
broader environmental issues. Dowie (1996) observes that early conservation
organizations and conservationists (who would have called themselves
preservationists) were not concerned with ‘environmental issues’. These come to
the fore in the US in the latter half of the 20th century when concern about
pollution, pesticides and energy become prominent, particularly after Rachel
Carson published Silent Spring (Dowie, 1996, pp23–28). In practice there is
often a good deal of overlap between broader environmental issues and more
specific concerns about wildlife conservation. Chemicals like DDT concentrate
NATURE UNBOUND 9
up the food chain and damage the eggs of raptors, dirty rivers are lifeless, and
carbon offset policies have profound implications for tropical forest conservation.
Dowie notes that the major conservation organizations in the US have become
environmental organizations too. Nonetheless it is important not to conflate
conservation issues with more general environmental concerns.
We realize therefore that we are generalizing horribly when we talk about
‘conservation’ and ‘conservationists’. We are especially concerned in this book
with a particular historical and institutional strain of western conservation, not
because we believe that it represents the full diversity of people who call
themselves conservationists, but because it dominates the field of conservation in
terms of ideology, practice and resources brought to bear in conservation
interventions. The ideas and values of this dominant strain of conservation are
perhaps most clearly represented in the larger conservation organizations which
dominate conservation funding. Because of its powerful position, we refer to this
historical/institutional strain as ‘mainstream conservation’.
Mainstream conservation is best recognized by its distinctive collaborative
legacy: cooperation and network building between specific groups and interests
that became strengthened and institutionalized over time. The collaborative legacy
of mainstream conservation has its roots in the American conservation movement
and the creation of national parks in the American West at the end of the 19th
century. As Tsing (2004, p100) explains, early American conservationists, like
John Muir, pursued strategies that revolved around the enrolment of urban elites
in nature conservation and corporate sponsorship. This was easier and more
effective than gaining the support of local people, who often saw exclusionary
approaches to conservation as inimical to their interests, and who tended to be
viewed as culturally backwards despoilers of nature (see also Bonner, 1993;
Neumann, 1998; Burnham, 2000; Jacoby, 2001; Igoe, 2004b). The global
network of conservation institutions that emerged from this process, and in the
context of European colonialism, bore much stronger affinity to the views and
interests of a narrow group of western elites than to those of people living in or
near to the places conserved. This situation is starkly visible in two ways: 1) the
displacement of people by protected areas globally; and 2) the oft decried
cultural/political divide between predominantly urban-based conservation
organizations and rural communities (Saberwal et al, 2001).
Another important element of mainstream conservation’s collaborative legacy
is the continuous presence of business interests (the exploration that led to the
creation of Yellowstone National Park was sponsored by a railroad company) and
the consistent intertwining of states, private enterprise and philanthropy. This
can be seen in the early involvement of Laurence Rockefeller in buying up land
for the creation of national parks in Wyoming (Muchnick, 2007) and the US
Virgin Islands (Fortwangler, 2007), and the continued involvement of Ted Turner
in buying up land for national forests in the American West (Mutchler, 2007). In
fact, protected areas and other types of conservation interventions in many parts
10 NATURE UNBOUND
of the world could not exist without private support (Fortwangler, 2007; Igoe
and Brockington, 2007). From this perspective, it is not surprising that
mainstream conservation, and all that it influences and implies, has allied with
capitalism. It stands to reason, therefore, that the recent proliferation of protected
areas described above is directly linked to an intensification of this collaborative
legacy.
But notwithstanding the power of mainstream conservation there is still a wide
diversity of conservation activity, strategy and intervention. One of the better
mappings of the varieties of activities available is found in Nick Salafasky and
colleague’s work (2002), a modified version of which we show in Table 1. These
authors divide conservation activities into protection and management, law and
policy, education and incentives. Note that the divisions within the conservation
movement do not map easily onto particular strategies. There are sharp divisions
within the mainstream as to which strategy might work best in different
situations. In this book we will write least in the coming pages about education
and most about protection in parks, and the diverse alternatives to protection in
parks generally called ‘community conservation’. Salafsky and colleagues’
typology is helpful, but note that economic aspects and incentives are restricted
to the last column only. We, however, see all forms of conservation policy and
intervention as changing the relationships between people and nature and people
and each other in similar ways to these ‘incentivizing’ behaviours. Moreover in
the laws, policies, educational ideas and mechanisms of protection there will be
countless interactions with the economy and markets. Neoliberal conservation is
not restricted to raw market forces alone.
Monique Borgerhoff Mulder and Pete Coppolillo (2005) have also offered a
useful typology of conservation strategies (Figure 1.2). They find two axes
differentiating most conservation projects. First there are projects which
differentiate between use and preservation, second those which distinguish
between centralized state control and devolved local control. They map many of
the conservation strategies Salafsky and others describe onto this matrix.
Both typologies are helpful because they emphasise that parks and protected
areas, while being an important part of conservation strategies, are but one aspect
of them. Likewise community conservation measures are but one part of
conservation strategies. There are many others and a conserved world will be
increasingly transformed in all its aspects. We think protected areas are important
because of the area of land that they cover and because of the consistencies in
protected area policy that exist internationally. They deserve special attention.
Similarly, diverse forms of community-based conservation will be geographically
important simply because of the sheer number of people living in rural areas
where natural resource management will be important and an important part of
their livelihoods. More than 50 per cent of the world’s population is rural and
most of these people are found in the developing world. These also deserve special
attention. But they are just two of many possible conservation initiatives.
NATURE UNBOUND 11
Table 1.1 A taxonomy of biodiversity conservation approaches and strategies

Protection & Law & Policy Education & Changing
Management Awareness Incentives
Strictly Protected Legislation Formal Education Conservation
Areas & Treaties developing Enterprises
reserves & parks developing school linked: e.g.
private parks international curricula ecotourism
treaties teaching unlinked: e.g.
lobbying graduate jobs for
governments students poachers
Managed Compliance Non-Formal Using Market

Landscapes & Watchdog Education Pressure
conservation developing media training certification:
easements legal standards for scientists positive
community- monitoring public outreach incentives
based compliance via museums boycotts:
management w/standards negative
incentives
Protected & Litigation Informal Economic

Managed criminal Education Alternatives
Species prosecution media sustainable
bans on killing civil suits campaigns agriculture/
specific community aquaculture
species awareness promoting
management raising alternative
of habitat products
for species
Species & Policy Moral Conservation

Habitat Development Confrontation Payments
Restoration & Reform civil quid-pro-quo
reintroducing research on disobedience performance
predators policy options monkeywrenching/ payments
recreating devolution ecoterrorism debt-for-nature
wetlands of control swaps
Ex-Situ Non-Monetary
Protection Values
captive spiritual, cultural,
breeding existence
gene banking values links to
human health
Source: Adapted from Salafsky et al (2002). This table categorizes the types of tools available to
conservation practitioners. Columns contain broad categories of tools. Each cell contains a broad
approach (bold font) and then two examples of more specific strategies (italic font) under this
approach. Reproduced with permission
12 NATURE UNBOUND
Centralised
National
Timber Park
Certification
Extractive
Reserves
Buffer
Zones Preservation
Use
Indigenous
Protected Areas
Community
wildlife Private
management areas Reserves
Village forest
reserves Decentralised
Figure 1.2 A typology of conservation practice
Source: Borgerhoff Mulder and Coppolillo (2005). Reproduced with permission
But just as important as the types of conservation strategy presented by these

typologies are the processes and dynamics that produce the different strategies.
Consider for example the relationships between conservation organizations and
rural groups. There are many instances where conservation organizations provide
valuable funds sought after by local groups (e.g. Murphree, 2005), which were well
used and congruent with local objectives. There are other cases where they have
fought with local groups against unjust regimes in defence of threatened
environments (Hafild, 2005). Conversely Chapin (2004) and Dowie (2005,
2006) have alleged that large conservation NGOs are combining with corporate
interests to the detriment of local landholders. Romero and Andrade (2004) have
also criticized deals between conservation NGOs and timber companies, in which
logging concessions are turned into conservation lands after timber extraction,
because both land uses can deny resource use and exclude local groups.
To understand these alliances, conflicts and outcomes we must recognize that
quite different conditions of government and civil society operate now compared
to those that drove protected area formation in a pre-neoliberal era. Instead of
discreet government departments, private enterprises, NGOs and communities,
NATURE UNBOUND 13
there are global networks that interpenetrate and elide these categories (Sklair,
2001; Igoe and Fortwangler, 2007). Such networks include people from the
community level to the global headquarters of major corporations, multilateral
agencies, and transnational conservation NGOs. Sunseri (2005) and Dzingirai
(2003) have shown how these networks facilitate the exclusion and eviction of
people from new conservation areas in Tanzania and Zimbabwe respectively.
Mbembe (2001) has argued that these networks are forged in conditions of
fragmented state control. They are effectively bargains in which outsiders, such as
conservation NGOs, bring money and other external resources, on which
officials from impoverished states are highly dependent. The officials in turn
bring the legitimacy and power of sovereignty – the means of coercion that make
it possible to gain advantage in struggles over resources traditionally the exclusive
purview of the state (Mbembe, 2001, p78). Mbembe called these arrangements
‘private indirect government’.
Private indirect government is particularly significant to our argument because
the data in Figure 1.1 may well be a substantial underestimate of the extent of
conservation’s territorial gains. These data omit private and community-based
protected areas. Yet these are precisely the means by which the reach of
conservation is extended in neoliberal regimes. Where conservation’s neoliberalism
is rolled out, new types of ‘territorialization’ emerge – demarcation of spaces
within states for the purposes of controlling people and resources (Vandergeest and
Peluso, 1995). This may be achieved through privatization (such as the extensive
private protected areas in South Africa, Scotland and Patagonia). It may also be
achieved by presenting collective legal titles to rural communities, allowing them
to enter into business ventures with outside investors (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006,
p310). Finally, it may be achieved through state-controlled territories that are
made available to investors through rents and concessions. In all these processes
elite global networks of government agents, NGOs, communities and their
representatives and private enterprises can be strongly involved and profit from
their involvement.
Finally a note about terminology and some things we will not be considering
in such detail. Whole books have been written about trade and conservation, and
the role of conservation conventions and international agreements, including for
example Sara Oldfield (2002) The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation
and Jon Hutton and Barnabas Dickson (eds) (2000) Endangered Species,
Threatened Convention: The past, present and future of CITES. We will be
examining these, but not in as much detail as other sources. Attempts to reconcile
conservation concerns with the development needs of the poorest are sometimes
called Integrated Development with Conservation Projects (IDCPs) or Integrated
Conservation with Development (ICD) (Wells et al, 1992; Barrett and Arcese,
1995; Wells et al, 1999). However, this terminology can be used in a confusing
way. It can refer to donor-driven projects that try and support both the
conservation sector and related development concerns in that geographical area.
14 NATURE UNBOUND
These have experienced ample and justified criticism for being insufficiently
integrated and failing to deliver on conservation (and often development
objectives) (Wells et al, 1992; Wells et al, 1999). Sometimes the same
terminology can refer to any scheme that advances both development and
conservation objectives, be they donor driven or not. We eschew the term below.
We prefer ‘community conservation’ referring to conservation initiatives that
place some power in the hands of rural groups who live close to the resources in
question – but can include all sorts of donor input into policy and its application.
The outline of the book

We will be covering a number of key issues in this book affecting conservation
debates. Here we summarize chapter by chapter what they are and what we will
be examining in each case.
We turn first to an account of the growth of protected areas historically and
geographically, describing the main patterns in different regions of the world.
Here we examine the power of the idea of protected areas. We note that there are
historical and conceptual limitations of current notions of protected areas, and
the difficulties of listing them in databases and categorizing them. But, with these
limitations firmly in mind, we then offer a short history of the spread and growth
of protected areas since the creation of Yellowstone in the USA and draw out a
number of common themes from recent developments.
In Chapter 3 we consider the changing prerogatives for conservation, considering
the desire to conserve wilderness and the crisis of biodiversity decline – ‘nature’s
end’ – afflicting diverse ecosystems and species. We argue that the value of
wilderness in defining conservation goals is limited, but that there is clear evidence
of a substantial increase in extinction and endangerment rates. We also discuss the
limits of science to give conservation a mandate to act.
Chapter 4 examines the effectiveness and consequence of parks. Here we have
found a confused literature that has often failed to ask the right questions, else
involved debates that have talked across each other. We examine how well parks
have conserved vegetation and wildlife and find that they generally do work well,
but that it is much harder to tell if or where they are better strategies than more
community-based initiatives. We then examine the consequences of protected
areas noting that they can distribute diverse forms of good and ill fortune to
different sectors of society. We consider two confused debates that have arisen
with respect to the role of conservation in causing and reducing poverty and the
role of local people in supporting conservation.
Chapter 5 looks at the operation of community conservation initiatives in
more detail. We look at four things: the complexities of ‘community’ and how to
understand what might be hidden by the term; the politics of devolution; the
operations and requirements of common property resource management; and a
detailed discussion on the complexities of co-management. The chapter is
NATURE UNBOUND 15
predicated on our insistence that community conservation will, like ‘fortress

conservation’, necessarily distribute fortune and misfortune to different groups.
We argue that it is helpful to interpret these changes as part of the ways in which
rural groups become more legible and accessible to capitalism.
Chapter 6 takes a careful look at the nature and politics of collaborations
between indigenous people and conservation causes. We note the ways in which
indigenous groups have been disadvantaged by protected areas, we consider how
they and conservationists have found common cause. These alliances are often
built on built on paradoxes and ironies as indigenous leaders and groups
negotiate the structured institutions of neoliberal capitalism. We examine at the
end of the chapter some of the problems and exclusions that arise.
In Chapter 7 we examine one of the key debates in conservation: the role of
tourism. Tourism has become a major argument in justifying the maintenance of
protected areas; and in particular conservation organizations, national
governments and the private sector amongst others have argued that through the
development of tourism protected areas can become major revenue earners,
especially for developing countries. In this chapter we analyse how tourism is one
mechanism through which the twin objectives of conservation and capitalist
development can be pursued.
Chapter 8 considers in more detail a number themes that have frequently
surfaced in the preceding chapters – namely the role of the international
conservation apparatus. We focus on international agreements governing trade,
conservation NGOs and Transfrontier Conservation Areas. These are some of the
arenas where the cutting edge of conservation practice is most clearly visible and
the interconnections between conservation and capitalism can be most clearly
seen.
In Chapter 9 we explore a number of developments in conservation practice
that well illustrate our thesis that conservation and capitalism are remaking the
world in partnership. We look at conservation and carbon markets, the work of
certification and the growth of private parks. We end with a detailed discussion
on spectacles of consumption as one of the key means by which conservation
imagines what it would like the world to be like and one of the key mechanisms
by which it attempts to achieve that vision. Finally we draw these arguments
together by considering how our ideas about conservation and capitalism fit with
broader analyses of the power and transformations of capitalism. Here we draw
on the work of Marx, Debord and Baudrillard to discuss what the changes we see
in conservation might portend for capitalism more generally.
Notes
1 Caution is required because of the gaps in, and incompleteness of, the data on
which see Chapter 2, also Chape, S. et al (2005) ‘Measuring the extent and
effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity
16 NATURE UNBOUND
targets’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 443–455; Lemos, M. C.

and Agrawal, A. (2006) ‘Environmental governance’. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 31: 297–325; West, P., Igoe J. and Brockington, D.
(2006) ‘Parks and people: The social impacts of protected areas. Annual Review of
Anthropology 35: 251–277.
2 http://arctic.fws.gov/purposes.htm (accessed 12 November 2007).
3 www.anwr.org/ (accessed 12 November 2007).
4 www.riotintomadagascar.com/ (accessed 10 November 2007).
5 www.riotintomadagascar.com/development/ecotourism/index.html (accessed
10 November 2007).
6 www.riotintomadagascar.com/overview/impact/index.html (accessed 10 November
2007).
7 www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/rio_tintos_madagascar_mini_22102007.html
(accessed 10 November 2007).
8 ‘Operation Tiggywinkle’, The Guardian (UK) 7 April 2003, at
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0, 3604, 931040, 00.html#article_continue
(accessed 12 November 2007); for more information on the Scottish Natural
Heritage Uist Waders Project see www.snh.org.uk/scottish/wisles/waders/ (accessed
12 November 2007).
9 ‘In for the Quill’, The Scotsman (UK) 3 April 2003, at news.scotsman.com/topics.
cfm?tid=372&id=393372003 (accessed 12 November 2007).
2
Histories and Geographies of Protected
Areas
Until the lions have their praise singers, the tales of the hunt will
always glorify the hunter
(African proverb)
Strong protected areas have been a rallying cry for the conservation movement for
a long time. John Terborgh, in Requiem for Nature (1999), insisted that strong
parks are fundamental for the future of conservation. He argued they need
defending with an international conservation fund and policing force, with the
authority to carry arms (and presumably use them) and make arrests. For
Terborgh parks provide a final defence, a bottom line, some last vestiges of the
world before people damaged it, a denial that people should, through ‘sustainable
use’, continue to modify the planet. They are ‘a line in the sand’ (p199) drawn
against the incoming tide of humanity.
Adams, in Against Extinction (2004), criticized this view as ‘ecofascism’, a recipe
for unjust violence meted out by people who do not understand the ways
environments are socially constructed, or the political and economic forces
driving the destruction of nature. Such strategies are akin to hiding your head in
the ground, perversely refusing to face up to realities. ‘Juggernauts [such as the
world economy]’ says Adams ‘do not respect lines in the sand’ (p224). Lines will
not stop the ever-growing demand for natural resources, land and wealth. If
parks’ boundaries are to be effective they will require a far more effective
engagement with the forces threatening their destruction. Moreover, insistence
on strong parks has been accompanied by a pervasive dismissal of the ecological
value of nature outside parks, which can lead to its neglect for conservation
purposes. As Cronon has argued (1995), and others have shown, neglect of
unprotected lands is profoundly harmful to conservations interests (Proctor and
Pincetl, 1996; Rosenweig, 2003).
An excessive emphasis on strong parks may facilitate, perversely, the creation
of polarized landscapes that are predominantly hostile to the sort of nature
Terborgh and others wish to preserve. Adams (1996) has argued elsewhere that
there is a tension between what is considered ‘wild’ and what is defined as
‘human-made’ that forms a fundamental dynamic of conservation. For Adams,
conservation of ‘nature’ cannot be carried out in a vacuum, such that
conservation becomes about protecting nature in specific places while destroying
18 NATURE UNBOUND
it in others (Adams, 1996, pp4–5). Instead he suggests that conservation should

be developed to embrace the whole landscape because of the problems associated
with fragmentation of nature represented by isolated protected areas (Adams,
1996, p170).
But in other respects a line in the sand, or on the map, or just in someone’s
head, is all that is required. We need to think carefully about the nature of the
world economic juggernaut, and the lines it threatens. The juggernaut is not just
a consumer and transformer of resources. It is the latest stage of modernity, and
modernity is a line-drawing machine. It separates, categorizes, divides and
encloses. There will be many occasions when the lines parks provide are precisely
those that can be easily incorporated into the plans and requirements of advanced
capitalism. In some contexts parks have become shot through with the very forces
from which they seek to protect the landscapes they enclose. In the current world
economy parks often become synonymous with consumptive and touristic
experiences that are of questionable conservation value. As Anderson points out
in Siberia: ‘Parks do not protect what exist but instead create new barriers to
which people must adapt’ (Anderson, 2001, p21). Protected areas are spaces –
virtual or real – that offer opportunities to the extension of capitalist and state
interests as well as opportunities for resistance to this extension (cf. Tsing, 2004,
ch 1).
This chapter examines the power of the idea of protected areas and their
geographic spread. This is not quite the same thing as examining the power of
protected areas proper. What they actually do is the subject of Chapter 4. But the
idea of what something is can be more important than its actual consequences.
Redford and colleagues (2006) have observed that conflicting ideas about parks
are producing a brittle, confrontational debate with conflicting versions of what
parks were being deployed unconstructively by their critics and defenders.
In this chapter we explore some of the manifestations of the power of the idea
of protected areas. We examine how protected areas as a way of categorizing and
viewing the world has developed and flourished as part of the growth of
mainstream conservation. We then look at some of the actual details of their
growth and spread, which is a more complicated pattern than might first appear.
Finally, we draw out some general themes that emerge from these histories.
The idea of protected areas

One of the ways of exploring the power of an idea is to examine the myths that
persist around it. These myths can be false, else have only a weak historical basis,
but they serve to reinforce the ideas they are associated with, despite these flaws.
Protected areas, for example, have an origin myth. Traditionally histories of
protected areas begin with Yellowstone, the first national park in the USA,
established in 1872.1 According to this story the origins of national parks are
popularly traced to an early vision of the painter George Catlin who travelled
HISTORIES AND GEOGRAPHIES OF PROTECTED AREAS 19
through the American West in the 1830s, visiting over 50 tribes, and inspiring
the first use of the term ‘national park’. Catlin advocated that:
…some great protecting policy of government preserve a large expanse

of land in all its pristine beauty and wildness … where the world
could see for ages to come, the native Indian in his classic attire,
galloping his horse … amid the fleeting herds of elks and buffalos
[this could become a] nation’s Park containing man and beast, in all
the wild freshness of their nature’s beauty. (Spence, 1999, p10)
Later visionaries put Catlin’s plan into action, setting aside tracts of land that were
fitting monuments to America’s growing greatness. Subsequently this policy, the
USA’s greatest idea according to Nash (2001), has been applied by an increasingly
enlightened world.
Accounts of protected areas must pay careful attention to Yellowstone because
this is the place and date when the protected area movement imagines itself to
begin, and because the influence of this movement’s ‘Yellowstone model’ for
protecting nature has had such a profound influence all over the world. The
World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA) takes Yellowstone as its starting
point.
But this story is problematic for three reasons. First, as we shall examine in
Chapter 6, the people that Catlin imagined would be part of the landscape were
systematically purged from the newly created national parks. Moreover, the fact
of their removal was then forgotten until only recently (Spence, 1999; Burnham,
2000; Jacoby, 2001).2
Second, although Yellowstone may be the start of US national parks, the
history of protected areas simply does not begin there. Mongolia established an
earlier national park, setting aside the sacred Bogd Khan Mountain in 1778
(Milner-Gulland, 2004), with evidence of further protection dating back to 1294
(Verschuuren et al, 2007). Indian princes established personal game reserves and
massive personal tallies on shoots. They replenished diminishing stock, even
importing lions from Africa for the purpose (Rangarajan, 2001). Earlier than that
Indian elephants were protected after their domestication in the 4th to 3rd
century BC (Rangarajan, 2001) and the Emperor Ashoka (268–233 BC) is now
celebrated for his environmental edicts. In England in the 11th century the
invading King William I declared, much to the resentment of his new subjects,
hunting reserves over 30 per cent of his new domain in which he alone, or those
whom he permitted, could hunt royal game (deer, boar and hares) and in which
cultivation was restricted. The first nature reserve in Indonesia was established in
684 AD by the king of Srivijaya (Mishra, 1994). The Qin Dynasty in China set
up imperial hunting reserves in mountainous areas in the 3rd century BC (Xu
and Melick, 2007). The Roman Empire established a system of forest protection
and set aside areas for wildlife. The Emperor Hadrian set aside half of
20 NATURE UNBOUND
Mt Lebanon to protect its cedars in the 2nd century AD (Sulayem et al, 1994).
The ancient empires of Babylon, Assyria and Persia also set up hunting reserves.
There have long been powerful and wealthy rulers with the means to set aside
lands, wildlife or forests they wanted protected.
Third, the official history of protected areas is only a record of what large
powerful societies (states) have done, and only a memory of those that have left
written records. There are many examples of smaller scale societies conserving
places or resources in order to ensure their food supplies, else as sacred sites
(Berkes, 1999). Pastoral groups in East Africa establish grazing reserves to
conserve fodder in the dry season close to water in order that small stock, calves
and sick animals can survive the long dry season (de Souza and de Leeuw, 1984;
Peacock, 1987; Potkanski, 1997; Brockington, 2002). The Huna Tinglit in
Alaska regulated their harvest of seabird eggs in accordance with clutch size
(Hunn et al, 2003), caribou hunters controlled their killings, insisting on respect
for prey (Berkes, 1999). Indigenous fishing communities in the western USA and
sub-arctic controlled their fish takes (Gomez-Pompa and Kaus, 1992; Berkes,
1999; Sarkar, 1999). Maori practise sustainable mutton bird harvesting in
New Zealand (Kitson, 2002) as part of a broader array of kaitiakitangi (roughly
meaning guardianship) over natural resource use (Roberts et al, 1995; Taiepa
et al, 1997). In diverse African societies sacred groves, often valued as burial sites,
have high biodiversity, comparing favourably with protected forests (Mgumia
and Oba, 2003; Sheridan and Nyamweru, 2008). The vegetation of temple
groves in many villages in India is left completely untouched, and there are many
cases of individual villages and groups protecting particular species (Saberwal
et al, 2001). Mountain farmers in Switzerland have monitored use of their land
and resources for centuries (Netting, 1981), and in the Himalaya farmers have
been known to trigger landslides on farmed slopes, and then re-terrace them to
improve the quality of the soil (Ives and Messerli, 1989). Ashish Kothari, Neema
Pathak and their colleagues have devoted much time and resources to providing
careful and rigorous assessments of the potential and extent of such locally based
conservation initiatives (Kothari et al, 1998; Kothari et al, 2000; Pathak et al,
2004).
We cannot tell the long-term history of these practices in this book. However,
Berkes (1999) insists that these are learned behaviours, often built on periods of
misuse and over exploitation. Conservation ethics result from people learning
from their mistakes (although as Berkes points out, they may fail to learn and
have to suffer the consequences). It is thus reasonable to assume that forms of
resource management will have been practised for a long time, and that their
histories will be troubled. There will be cases of management practices cracking
under stress and conflict, of sacred values and sites waning, of cultivated
landscapes going wild, of local forms of protection causing inequality and
inequity. But the larger point is that the history of protecting places from human
influence has a far longer history than can be appreciated by perusing official state
records. The present geography of protection too is far greater and more complex
than these same records suggest.
Clearly histories of protected areas that begin at Yellowstone are flawed. But
when mistakes of this kind are made the flaws are not the most interesting thing.
It is more important to consider how and why this mistake was made, why it
persists, and what interests it serves (Ferguson, 1990). We see the dominance of the
Yellowstone creation myth as reflecting the power of mainstream conservation,
and particularly the northern, and particularly US-based conservation
organizations and conservation thinking. Mainstream conservation has long
promoted national parks similar to the Yellowstone model all over the world. A
history of parks that begins with Yellowstone fits this model of progress.
But it is also interesting to explore the tensions and disagreements within
powerful positions. Just as Yellowstone is a powerful model, it is also a disputed
one by many conservationists and, increasingly, many within the mainstream. In
some respects the conservation movement recognized the limitations of equating
protected areas with national parks a long time ago. The International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) set up a system of categories that recognized the
diversity of protected areas as early as the mid-1970s, and has adapted them since
then (Box 2.1). The vision is broadening. When the World Parks Congress set
itself the goal of setting aside 10 per cent of the land surface of the planet in 1992
it included all categories of protection in that goal. Nonetheless, strictly protected
areas remain the principal goal for a substantial community of conservationists
(Locke and Dearden, 2005). For these thinkers the category system just allows
some types of protected areas to be discounted.
Box 2.1 Classifying protected areas: The evolution of the

IUCN categorization system
The number of protected areas have grown dramatically in number and diversity. They
contain a myriad objectives, from protecting places, landscapes and features, to saving
species, habitat and ecosystems, to conserving wilderness and anthropogenic
landscapes, and almost as many management goals, from touching nothing but
restricting access, to intensive and active restoration including the eradication of
unwanted life to the importing of lost or endangered species. To facilitate comparison of
achievements and planning the IUCN has sought to categorize protected areas with
increasing rigour. Initially the IUCN, conflating protection with pristineness, was
principally concerned with areas where people were limited (Kalamandeen and Gillson,
2007). Its 1966 list divided protected areas into into three categories – national parks,
scientific reserves and national monuments. In the early 1970s expanded categories
were proposed, which recognized the role of people in the landscape and in
conservation goals (Kalamandeen and Gillson, 2007). These categories were formalized
in 1978 into ten groups (see below), with the top five becoming part of the UN list of
protected areas. These formed the basis for the 1994 categorization, which added a
sixth category of area for places managed mainly for sustainable resource use.
22 NATURE UNBOUND
Table 2.1 The protected area category system

1978 1994
Group Category Definition Category Definition
A I Scientific Ia Strict Nature Reserve:

Reserve Protected area managed
mainly for science.
Ib Wilderness Area:
Protected area managed
mainly for wilderness
protection.
II National Park II National Park:

Protected area managed
mainly for ecosystem
protection and recreation.
III Natural III National Monument:

Monument/ Protected area managed
National mainly for conservation of
Landmark specific natural features.
IV Nature IV Habitat/Species
Conservation Management Area:
Reserve Protected area managed
mainly for conservation
through management
intervention.
V Protected V Protected Landscape/

Landscape Seascape: Protected
area managed mainly for
landscape/seascape
conservation and
recreation.
B VI Resource VI Managed Resource

Reserve Protected Area: Protected
VII Anthropological area managed mainly for
Reserve the sustainable use of
VIII Multiple Use natural resources.
Management
Area
C IX Biosphere
Reserve
X World Heritage
Site
There are problems in applying these categories to real life situations. What
exactly, for example, does category 4 (management for conservation through
management intervention) exclude? Surely the management of the most famous
category 2 protected area, Yellowstone National Park, intervenes to control tourists for
conservation purposes. It is also difficult to tell the precise difference between
categories 5 and 6.
In general the categories are thought to protect a gradation in human influence
with the first most protected and showing least human influence. But they cannot be
taken to be accurate predictors of human presence. Eighty-five per cent of national
parks in Latin America are occupied by people, as are 52 per cent of Indian national
parks. Conversely in Australia the national park designation has been used to justify
calls to exclude human resource use on the grounds that ‘Cattle grazing is not
compatible with the national and international standards for a national park’ (Taskforce,
2005, p71). In fact the debates over the categorization system neatly capture the
deeply ambivalent and divided feelings within the conservation community to the role
and presence of people in valued nature, with some groups wanting the role of people
recognized and affirmed, and others recognized but restricted with primary objectives
being restricted to biodiversity conservation objectives. There are cogent calls not to
recognize the categories 5 and 6 as being too weak or general to contribute to
biodiversity conservation (Locke and Dearden, 2005).
Before the 2003 World Parks Congress the IUCN initiated the ‘Speaking a
Common Language’ Project to examine how the categories were being applied. This
found that the system was facilitating some planning, advocacy and data collection
work but that confusions still existed as to the application of the categories in some
instances. They also noted new and unexpected use of the categories. In some
instances they were being used to determine the appropriateness of proposed or
existing human activities in some areas, and in others they were being used to evaluate
management effectiveness.
More importantly for our argument here, the category system’s success in
expanding perceptions of what ‘parks’ and protection mean has just added to the
power of the idea of protected areas. An expanded idea of what protected areas
are just becomes another aspect of the power of mainstream conservation to
define what constitutes protection. It is a totalizing vision, meaning that it is
all-encompassing in ambition, internally coherent and consistent. But it remains
an imperfect one.
This point is most easily understood by considering the growth and
development of the WDPA, housed and maintained by the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (WCMC) in Cambridge, in conjunction with the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and informed by a coalition of
powerful conservation NGOs. It was first formed in 1962 (as a list of ‘National
Parks and Equivalent Reserves’ (Adams, 2004, p97)); it has been gradually revised
and updated since. It can now include information on the size and establishment
date of each protected area, whether it is a terrestrial or marine, GIS shape-files
24 NATURE UNBOUND
of its boundaries and a variety of other information. Often the updating has
taken place in bursts of activity.
There are many gaps in the WDPA – there are parks and reserves that are
missing entirely, or others missing data (such as their establishment date, area or
GIS files of their boundaries). The updating process has involved filling in these
gaps: the 2005 version records over 4 million km2 of protected areas that existed
in 1990 but which the 1992 version of the WDPA did not report. But there have
been some remarkably large holes. For example, in 2005 72 per cent of entries for
the USA lack any establishment date, and 20 per cent have no size data. There is
also a problem with the simple terrestrial/marine classification system. Many
marine protected areas include substantial amounts of land, leading to an
exaggeration of conserved marine areas (which are already woefully small) and an
underestimate of terrestrial protected areas by about 2 million km2 (West and
Brockington, 2006). Rather amusingly when we used some simple extrapolations
to fill in the missing size and date data for different regions it seemed highly likely
that the 10 per cent target which the World Parks Congress set itself in 1992 had
in fact already been achieved in the late 1980s. The conservation community
was already doing rather well, at least by its own standards; it just did not know
about it.
Even if the database was a perfect tool on its own terms, it would still be blind
to the existence of all sorts of other types of protected areas that it cannot
recognize. The WDPA is only a list of official state activities. It omits private
protected areas, even if they contribute a substantial amount to the conservation
estate. For example, South Africa conserves about 6 per cent of its land mass in
government parks and reserves, but 13 per cent in private game reserves (Cook,
2002). That figure is growing as more land owners try to profit from the growing
hunting and game capture markets that private game reserves can provide for,
with varied and sometimes problematic consequences for the farm labourers who
lose their livelihoods (Luck, 2003; Connor, 2006; Langholz and Kerley, 2006).
Other nations with an extensive area of private wildlife estate, also accompanied
by similar, if more distant, histories of displacement and exclusions are Scotland
and, to a lesser extent, the USA. The WDPA also omits community conserved
areas – the sacred groves, community woodlots, grazing areas or local nature
reserves that are recognized and enforced locally, but are not part of the official
state portfolio (Pathak et al, 2004). Yet one estimate suggests that unofficial
community conservation conserves about 3.7 million km2 of forests and forested
landscapes (how well is not clear) in Asia, Africa and Latin and North America,
as much as set aside in formal protected areas (Molnar et al, 2004a; 2004b).
There are also all sorts of vital information not included in the database. For
example, the presence of a park on a statute book does not mean that it exists on
the ground. All these statistics about increased conservation estate cannot be
assumed to be gains for conservation goals unless we also know that these
protected areas are being effectively managed. Conversely, if you are interested
Chapter02.qxd
Box 2.2 Setting global conservation priorities

Conservation priority models try to determine the best way to allocate funding given to global conservation NGOs, which are free to spend their
resources anywhere around the world. There are three broad types: prioritizing vulnerable biodiversity (where current human transformations
9/30/2008
are greatest), irreplaceable biodiversity (where rarity and endemism are greatest) and regions least influenced by people (Brooks et al, 2006).
The table below summarizes nine global models and their degree of overlap.
To the extent that they prioritize different goals these models are meant to be complementary. The fact that they identify different areas is
not so important. But these models are not just means of prioritizing expenditure, they are also fund-raising tools. There can therefore be
2:08 PM
considerable competition between rival NGOs to come up with the neatest, sexiest plan that best fires donors’ imagination. The clear winner in
terms of its catchiness and fund-raising power is Norman Myers’ idea of ‘biodiversity hotspots’, which identifies the regions with the most
endemism and habitat loss (for variations, see Myers et al, 2000; Brummitt and Lughadha, 2003; Myers and Mittermeier, 2003; Ovadia, 2003;
Page 25
Shi et al, 2005). When hotspots were criticized Myers defended them for their fund-raising power. He noted that E. O. Wilson has called hotspots
‘the most important contribution to conservation biology of the last century’ (quoted in Myers, 2003, p917) and it has generated about $750
million in funding (Myers, 2003).
When the hotspots idea was published in the prestigious journal Nature there was an instant response from a large number of concerned
conservationists who noted with alarm the duplication of efforts and waste of resources by competing global conservation organizations in their
rival attempts to come up with the best prioritizing model (Mace et al, 2000). Redford and colleagues found 21 different approaches at work
among 13 different conservation organizations and, while noting the fundamental importance of systematic collaboration, noted that this far it
was ‘sporadic at best’ (Redford et al, 2003, p127).
One way of reconciling the different models is to examine the costs and difficulties of implementing them. Conservation plans have, in the
real world, to cope with the fact that they cannot be implemented instantly, and that implementing them gradually may mean different plans are
more appropriate (Meir et al, 2004). Perhaps most importantly they have explicitly to recognize the costs of implementing them (Balmford et al,
2003b). Globally the costs of conservation strategies vary by at least an order of magnitude more than measures of biodiversity and threat.
When implementation costs are incorporated explicitly into conservation planning quite different conservation plans result that can bring much
more effective returns on investment (Meir et al, 2004; Wilson et al, 2006; Murdoch et al, 2007; Wilson et al, 2007). This work can equate
conservation investment to mean purchasing land for protected areas but current research emphasizes the importance of considering a
diversity of strategies that include, but are not limited to protected areas (Meir et al, 2004; Murdoch et al, 2007).
Table 2.2 The different prioritizing mechanisms
Chapter02.qxd
Priority Name Definition No of sites % of planet’s Overlap with Source

land surface similar models,
identified expressed as
a % of planet’s
9/30/2008
land surface
High vulnerability Crisis ecoregions ≥ 20% habitat conversion where 305 30 10% (Hoekstra
conversion rate is ≥ 2 times et al, 2005)
proportion of protected area
2:08 PM
coverage
High vulnerability Biodiversity ≥ 0.5% of world’s endemic 34 16 10% (High Vuln) (Myers et al,
and irreplaceability hotspots plants where ≥ 70% of primary 0–12% (Irrep) 2000)
Page 26
habitat is already lost.
Irreplaceability Endemic bird ≥ bird species with ranges of 218 10 0.7–6.8% (Stattersfield
areas < 50,000km2 and with more et al, 1998)
of these endemic than shared
with adjacent regions
Irreplaceability Centres of > 1000 plants of which ≥ 10% 234 9 2–6% (WWF and
plant diversity are endemic to the site or region; IUCN, 1997)
else islands with ≥ 50 endemic
species or ≥ flora endemic
Irreplaceability Megadiversity Countries with ≥ 1% of world’s 17 35 4–19% (Mittermeier

countries plants endemic et al, 1997)
Chapter02.qxd
Table 2.2 The different prioritizing mechanisms (cont’d)

Priority Name Definition No of sites % of planet’s Overlap with Source
land surface similar models,
9/30/2008
identified expressed as
a % of planet’s
land surface
Irreplaceability Global 200 Biomes characterized by high 142 37 6–18% (Olson and
2:08 PM
ecoregions species richness, endemism, Dinerstein,

taxonomic uniqueness, unusual 2002)
phenomena or global habitat
type rarity
Page 27
Irreplaceability High-biodiversity ≥ 0.5% of world’s plants 5 8 0–6% (Irrep) (Mittermeier

and low wilderness areas endemic, ≥ 70% of primary 3–4% (Low Vuln) et al, 2003)
vulnerability habitat remaining and 5
people per km2
Low vulnerability Frontier forests Forested regions large enough NA 9 3–7% (Bryant et al,
to support viable populations of 1997)
all native species, dominated
by native species and with
structure and composition
driven by natural events
Low vulnerability Last of the wild 10% of wildest 1km2 grid NA 24 4–7% (Sanderson
cells per biome et al, 2002)
Source: Adapted from Table S1 (Brooks et al, 2006).

28 NATURE UNBOUND
in the impact of parks on people then the WDPA will not tell you whether a park
is occupied, or whether it was occupied, or what forms of resource use are allowed
within it.
Finally, the WDPA is no mere list of things that exist; it actually changes how
conservation is practised. Its publication ‘demanded standardisation of
increasingly diverse practices of governments around the world’ (Adams, 2004,
p97). This is particularly true with respect to the application of the IUCN
category system, which is being used to rewrite and modify protected area
legislation in an increasing number of countries (Bishop et al, 2004). The
WDPA, then, is no simple tool. As we wrote elsewhere, it ‘is not just a record of
practice, it is also a way of seeing the world with blind spots and blurred vision
not easily perceived by its operators, but these blindspots become darker and
fuzzier as the machine becomes better’ (West et al, 2006, p254). It is not just a
way of seeing the world; it is also a vehicle for remaking it.
This then is the final aspect of the power of the idea of protected areas, they
provide a means of categorizing and surveilling the work of conservation, for
documenting progress and defining new challenges and tasks. Protected area
networks and databases, combined with geographical information systems and
remote sensing data, which map habitat, threats, species ranges and human
activities, make the world legible to the powerful regimes of mainstream
conservation as never before. These efforts have been lead by the larger NGOs,
which attempt to prioritize their spending, and fund-raising, using different
means of assessing conservation need (Box 2.2). The specific areas identified as
high priority vary according to the exact criteria chosen to establish them, and
although collectively they ‘target’ an astonishing 79 per cent of the world’s land
surface, there is more overlap within some criteria (Brooks et al, 2006). These
GIS models are one of the main driving forces behind the further expansion of
the protected area estate globally. Other more specific models identify where the
protected area network fails to cover areas of endemism (Rodrigues et al, 2004),
or where particularly threatened and limit-range species require protection
(Ricketts et al, 2005).
A short global history of protected areas

While it is a problematic starting point, it is still useful to consider how protected
areas spread after Yellowstone. The US national parks inspired others abroad
(Adams, 2004). Canada, Australia and New Zealand set up national parks in the
late 1800s, the latter following a gift of land from the Maori leader Te Heu Heu
to Queen Victoria in order to protect sacred mountains. New Zealand rapidly
became one of the most protected countries in the world, in terms of area set
aside, once it had set aside the massive and dramatic Fjordland in South Island.
But it retained a strongly productivist outlook, and as in Canada and the US,
much of its protected land was worthless for farming, and valuable only for
tourism (Runte, 1979). Only in recent decades has New Zealand’s green
movement set aside significant areas of more lowland ecosystems. Notably it
ceased state timber operations in the west coast and established national parks
there, much to the resentment of local groups who resented the interference of
urban electorates (Scott, 1989; Pawson, 2002; Norton, 2004; Wilson and
Memon, 2005).
In the Soviet Union a different story unfolded. Here the initial effort,
supported by the Bolshevik state, focused on the establishment of zapodevniki –
pristine strict nature reserves without tourism or resource use, which were set
aside as reference ecosystems for the purposes of scientific research. Russian
scientists, grappling with massive social and ecological change, were the first to
propose setting aside land to study whole ecological communities, and the
Russian government at first heeded their calls (Weiner, 1988). It is not known
how many people were moved when creating these places, but it would be
surprising if none were; population movements under Stalin were massive and
brutal enough for development purposes. Weiner notes that the zapodevniki
became precious exceptions to the wholesale transformation of Soviet nature, ‘an
archipelago of freedom’ (Weiner, 1988, p38) that biologists fought to defend. But
after World War II many zapodevniki were liquidated to make way for the
demands of the Soviet Union’s grand plans, and because their presence and
advocates facilitated opposition to the state’s decisions (Weiner, 1999). On
29 August 1951, 88 out of 128 reserves were abolished, and those that survived
were reduced in area. 1.26 million km2 of protected land (0.06 per cent of the
country’s area) was reduced to just 13,840km2 (Weiner, 1999, p129).
But the repression did not mean that zapodevniki lost their appeal or
supporters, despite the obvious dangers of opposing the state in the USSR. They
revived under later regimes, growing rapidly in area and extent in the 1970s
(Nikol’skii, 1994); in 1983 there were 145. At the same time scientists were
realizing the difficulty of identifying discrete pristine portions of nature that
comprised zapodevniki, and other forms of protection grew in importance, with
the first national parks in Russia gazetted in 1983. Protected areas of diverse kinds
now account for 8 per cent of the land in the former Soviet Union. Since its
recent economic reforms new space for protected areas has been opened up as
state-run farms have collapsed, removing people and resource use. Anderson
reports an ironic situation developing in the far north where feral reindeer from
abandoned state reindeer farms have joined herds of wild reindeer in large scale
migrations. This has led to efforts by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
to save ‘Europe’s last great wild reindeer herd’, which will involve establishing
new national parks in the far north (Anderson, 2001).
Formal protected areas may have begun in the New World, but they did not
initially prosper there (aside from New Zealand). For the briefest glance at the
distribution of protected areas in 1960 shows that they had been most liberally
established in sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 2.1).
30 NATURE UNBOUND
The average proportion of each country set aside in each region in 1960
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
d ifi
c ia si
a
si
a ia e st ric
a a a a n il
an c As as op Ea ric er
ic
er
ic ea az
l
Pa st
A
st
A r
Eu
r Af lA
f
rri
b Br
ea th a Eu dl
e
rn Am m
Z
So
u
he Ea th id he tra th lA C
a
an
d
ew t or M t en or nt
ra
N ou N ou C ric
a
d S
a nd S d N
C
e
e
an a d an Am
c an n
al
ia fri n er h
r A er es
t ut
st th st So
Au N
or Ea W
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
n
fic
ia
ia
ca
a
a
pe
il
st
d
ea
ric
ic
ic
az
si
si
As
As
an
Ea
ci
fri
ro
tA
ra
er
er
rib
Br
Af
Pa
lA
al
Eu
Eu
h
st
Am
m
e
as
Ze
ut
ar
rn
d
Ea
dl
lA
tra
an
he
So
th
C
he
id
th
ew
tra
en
or
M
ut
or
ut
a
N
en
N
ic
So
So
N
d
er
d
an
d
C
an
an
Am
d
an
a
ric
rn
lia
h
n
te
Af
ra
ut
er
es
So
st
st
th
Au
W
Ea
or
N
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
ia
a
c
ia
an
a
ia
nd
st
il
ric
ric
ifi
op
ric
ic
si
az
As
as
As
Ea
e
c
er
tA
a
Af
e
f
rib
Br
r
Pa
r
al
lA
u
h
m
Eu
Am
st
e
as
E
Ze
ut
ar
dl
lA
d
Ea
tra
er
So
an
th
he
C
id
th
ew
tra
th
en
or
M
ut
or
a
ou
en
N
C
N
ic
So
N
d
er
n
d
d
C
a
an
an
Am
an
Ea rica
rn
lia
h
n
te
ra
Af
ut
er
es
st
So
st
th
Au
W
or
N
Figure 2.1 The geography of protected area growth over time

Chapter02.qxd
Au Au
Au st
s tra
st
ra ra
lia lia
lia an
an an d
d d N
N N ew
ew
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
ew
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Ze
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
9/30/2008
Ze Ze al
al al an
an an d
d d
Pa Pa Pa
ci ci ci
fic So fic So fic
So
ut ut ut
h h So h
2:08 PM
So So As
ut As ut As ut
he ia he ia he ia
as as as
tA tA tA
si si
si
a Ea a Ea a
Ea
N s tA N
st
N
st
Page 31
As As
N or
th si
a N or
th ia N or
th ia
or or or
th Eu th Eu th Eu
Af ra Af ra Af ra
si si ric si
Ea rica a Ea ric
a a Ea a a
st an Eu st an Eu st an Eu
er d er d d
n M
ro
pe n M
ro er
n M
ro
pe
an an pe id
W d id W d id
dl W
an
d dl
es
te
So dle es
te
So e es So e
rn ut Ea rn ut Ea te ut Ea
he st he st rn he st
an rn an rn an rn
d d d A
C Af
ric C Af
ric C fri
en en
tra a tra a en
tra
ca
N l A lA
or fri N fri N
lA
th c or
th ca or
th
fri
ca
C Am a
C Am
C Am
en er en er en
tra ic ic er
lA a tra
lA a tra ic
a
So m lA
ut e So m So m
h er
Figure 2.1 The geography of protected area growth over time (cont’d)
ric ut er
Am C a h C
ic
a
ut
h ic
ar Am ar Am C a
er
ic ri be er rib ar
a an ic
a ea er
ic
rib
an n a ea
n
d an
d an
d
HISTORIES AND GEOGRAPHIES OF PROTECTED AREAS
Br Br
az az Br
il
il az
The average proportion of each country set aside in each region (all data)
il
Note: The final graph includes protected areas for which no establishment dates have been given.
31
32 NATURE UNBOUND
Again the movement there was inspired by the US model, which influenced
powerful hunters in Britain who were part of the aristocratic Society for the
Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (Adams, 2004). They lobbied for
game reserves to ensure good hunting specimens but also national parks that
would be free from any use (and additional reservoirs of good specimens for
nearby hunting runs). Their first success was to support James Stevenson-
Hamilton’s struggles to set up the Kruger National Park, so named after a
popular, but false, idea that Paul Kruger (the President of the Transvaal Republic
in what was to become South Africa) was a strong conservation supporter
(Carruthers, 1989; 1995).3 But the myth served it well and it became popular for
visitors and an icon of conservation on the continent. The rapid growth of
protected areas prior to 1960 owes something to the anxiety of colonial rulers to
set aside land before they lost power. But the emphasis on conservation has been
maintained since. Not until the 1980s did the global distribution become more
equal.
In India, British rule continued the previous rulers’ traditions of hunting reserves
in places, but its main impact was to place a large part of the country under the
control of the Forest Department. In the 1920s hunting was restricted in some
forest reserves, and in 1936 the first national park was established. But the first real
boost for protected areas and wildlife sanctuaries came with Indira Gandhi’s
support for Project Tiger, which saw national parks and wildlife sanctuaries grow in
the 1970s and 1980s. It remains one of the few countries that have rigorously
surveyed the number of people living in its protected areas: over 70 per cent of
wildlife sanctuaries and 50 per cent of national parks were occupied (Kothari et al,
1989). It is also the only country rigorously to survey eviction from protected areas
(Rangarajan and Shahabuddin, 2006).
In Indonesia the Netherlands Indies government established the Ujung Kulon
nature reserve to protect the Javan rhino in 1921 as part of a complicated system
of game reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, national parks and strict nature reserves
(Jepson and Whittaker, 2002). Many now support diverse forms of human
settlement and activity (Jepson et al, 2002). Elsewhere in the region Korean and
Cambodian parks tend to be in the lower IUCN categories. In Thailand the
network has expanded rapidly in recent years, and includes strictly protected
areas. A vigorous national debate and diverse local environmentalisms, and
environmentalist Buddhisms, flourish in Thailand as lowland irrigators insist that
highland farmers are threatening the integrity of their watersheds (Darlington,
1998; Laungaramsri, 1999). Calls for eviction from parks here are locally driven
(Ghimire, 1994; Buergin and Kessler, 2000; Sato, 2000, 2002; Buergin, 2003).
China long had virtually no strictly protected areas, the 2006 WDPA lists just
two category 4 protected areas. Otherwise its nature reserves are category V.
These reserves are now expanding rapidly, increasing by 50 per cent since 1999,
although actual levels of protection vary considerably (Xu and Melick, 2007).
Protection is further reinforced by a blanket ban on timber extraction in many
forests, which has served massively to increase demand for wood from the wider
region.
North of the Sahara, and in the Middle East, protected area coverage has long
been patchy and thin (Sulayem et al, 1994). Protected area establishment tends to
come in bursts of intense activity. Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman and Saudi Arabia
all effectively began their current protected area systems in the 1980s. Others
(Morocco, Yemen, Iraq) are yet to begin.
In Central America and the Caribbean the growth of national parks and
protected areas has been most prominent in the 1980s. One of the popular
success stories is Costa Rica. Boza (1993) has enthusiastically described the
history of the country’s gradual growth in environmental awareness and activism,
from minimal levels in the 1970s, to sustain protected areas over 25 per cent of
its landmass. Sarkar, however, offers a warning note, reporting that there was a
concomitant increase in deforestation in the country as land clearance intensified
outside protected areas (Sarkar, 1999). It is not clear whether protected areas
saved forests from destruction or augmented the rate of clearance beyond their
borders.
Protected areas were first set up in South America in Chile and Argentina at
the beginning of the last century. They have flourished particularly since 1980
(they doubled in size between 1980 and 1994). Their expansion was partly in
reaction to the new agricultural frontiers created by national development plans
and land hunger (especially in the Amazon) (Pardo, 1994). The region has also
come under increasingly close attention from all four of the major international
NGOs (WWF, Conservation International (CI), Wildlife Conservation Society
(WCS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC)). NGO expansion was facilitated
by the opening up of the region’s many military governments to more democratic
rule and by donors’ investment in strengthening civil society. There have been
several protests about the actions of conservation NGOs in the region, some
quite polemical (Chapin, 2004; Romero and Andrade, 2004; Rodriguez et al,
2007). But the region is remarkable for the high proportion of national parks that
contain people (85 per cent; see Amend and Amend, 1995), and the general lack
of cases of eviction due to conservation in the area, although there is discontent
about other forms of marginalization and insecurity (Gray et al, 1998). There
appears to be more eviction cases in Central America (Brockington and Igoe,
2006).
Britain, despite its admiration for the Yellowstone model in its colonies, used a
different sort of national parks model (Adams, 1986; Adams, 2004). In England
they were established from 1951, all in hilly districts popular among walkers and
holiday goers. Scotland did not establish national parks proper until 2002. In
both nations these national parks are an oddity compared to others
internationally. Land on them is privately owned, and access for many years
restricted to footpaths and rights of way. ‘Access lands’ on which the ‘right to
roam’ has been granted date from only 2000. Their landscapes are heavily
34 NATURE UNBOUND
influenced by people, with heather moors deforested in Neolithic times and now
managed for grouse shooting and (in Scotland) deer; one of the main land uses
is sheep farming. They also contain significant industrial developments including
quarries and sizeable towns. The role of the park boards governing them is to
control and restrict development to maintain the character of their landscapes. In
England, parallel to the national parks is the system of National Nature Reserves
and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Growing from a suggested list of 73, there
are now over 200 National Nature Reserves, some owned by the government,
others leased else managed in agreement with the land owners. Sites of Special
Scientific Interest are more numerous, numbering over 6500 and covering over
26,000km2. Their creation does not bring in restrictions on land use; rather
owners are expected voluntarily to consult the relevant conservation bodies over
appropriate management.
Britain generally reflects to some extent broader European trends. Most
protected areas (as a proportion of the size of the protected area estate) were set
aside for their scenic value, and often for the benefits of urban populations. Many
of these parks rarely provide strict protection, and are mainly found in
mountains. More recently there has been a trend to set up protected areas in
lowlands, even, given that the region has a surfeit of agricultural land, to re-wild
landscapes, flooding fens and reintroducing herbivore guilds into the Netherlands
(Taylor, 2005). Within Europe, Scandanavia has particularly exemplary
systematic conservation planning but significant gaps and weaknesses remain in
the most biodiverse environments, particularly in the Mediterranean (Pardo,
1994).
Finally there is the special case of Antarctica. As a continent over which no
state presides it has no protected areas, although there are a few on outlying
islands owned by individual states. Instead the continent is protected by its
climate, its isolation, and by the agreement of all the states who have signed up
to the Antarctic Treaty (signed in 1959). The Madrid Protocol to this treaty
(adopted in 1991) concerns specific environmental matters, and notably bans
mineral extraction. The protocol made provision for states to police their own
activities and impacts in an environment where human impacts endure for many
years. Each party to the treaty assesses the impacts of their proposed activities
and provides guidance as to how to minimize impact. If the party decides that
activities that it is proposing are deemed to have more than a ‘minor or
transitory impact’ then they are reviewed by an international Committee for
Environmental Protection. The protection then is as strong as the vigilance of
each country that is party to the treaty. In general it has worked well with
research activities being moderated and bases being cleaned up and rubbish
better handled. However, the USA recently began building a ‘traverse’ – an ice
highway – to the South Pole in order to experiment with supplying its base there
overland rather than by air.
Box 2.3: Famous and less famous protected areas from

around the world
There is an incredible variety of protected areas on the planet. We list here some of the
more well known, and less well known in different parts of the world.
The Better Known...

1. Bogd Khan Mountain National Park
In Mongolia and possbly the world’s oldest. A 2122m mountain first officially protected
in 1778.
2. North East Greenland National Park

The world’s largest national park at 972,000km2. Officially a marine protected area, but
contains almost half of Greenland.
3. Tassili N’Ajjer National Park

The world’s largest terrestrial park at 720,000km2, occupying a large portion of the
Sahara Desert in Algeria.
4. Kruger National Park

In South Africa and probably one of the most famous in the continent. Significant
portions are claimed back by former (evicted) residents.
5. Uluru National Park

Once known as Ayers Rock, this is one of the iconic Australian tourist destinations and
one of the first national parks in the world given back to indigenous groups to manage
in cooperation with the state.
6. Tongariro National Park

New Zealand’s first, and gifted to the Crown by the Maori leader Te Heu Heu. Whether
it was his to give is disputed and the focus of current co-management negotiations.
7. Manu National Park

Over 15,000km2, in Peru, and one of the most significant in South America. Favoured
habitat of John Terborgh, author of Requiem for Nature.
8. Wolong Nature Reserve

Focal point of China’s Giant Panda populations. Populations have expanded to over
1500 following breeding success and improved counting techniques.
9. Samriska Tiger Reserve

Despite being a flagship of India’s campaign to Save the Tiger all tigers were lost from
Samriska by 2005, fuelling demands for stronger protection.
10. Serengeti National Park

With Kruger, one of the most renowned on the continent. It was set up in the 1950s in
Tanzania and is one of the better studied, and better filmed.
36 NATURE UNBOUND
11. Virunga National Park

In the troubled Democratic Republic of Congo this park conserves nearly 8000km2 of
land on the border with Uganda and Rwanda and contiguous with other protected
areas. Famous for the rare mountain gorillas, it has recently been the scene of a
number of gorilla massacres.
12. Yellowstone National Park (USA)

Popularly revered as the world’s first national park. Contains spectacular scenery,
wildlife and geothermal formations in about 9000km2.
13. Yosemite National Park (USA)

Once home to John Muir Yosemite; receives millions of visitors each year and boast
spectacular glaciated scenery. Just over 3000km2.
14. The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor

This is not strictly a protected area but it deserves attention. The corridor is an
ambitious plan to link protected habitats from Mexico to Panama with controlled
land use and conservation with development projects. Many projects are
part of its framework; a key donor is the Global Environmental Facility of the
World Bank.
15. The Great Barrier Reef

Covers over 344,000km2 and is the largest protected area in Australia. It comprises
many different zones, of which 33 per cent are ‘no-take’ zones.
16. Peak District National Park

Established in 1951 in the UK it protects 1400km2 of farms and grouse moors and also
contains the odd quarry. Surrounded by urban areas, criss-crossed with roads, and is
one of the most visited parks in the world. Before the park was established its highest
peak was the scene of a famous mass trespass by socialist ramblers protesting their
exclusion in 1932.
17. The Galapagos National Park

A 7700km2 marine park, belonging to Ecuador, and found 1000km off the South
American coast in the Pacific Ocean. It protects islands whose endemics are
famous for inspiring Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. The park covers
97 per cent of the islands and has to cope with discontented neighbours and many
tourists.
18. Sagarmatha National Park

Established in 1976 in Nepal and contains Mt Everest. Initially locally unpopular with
Sherpa villagers but more recent moves to empower traditional resource management
has improved relations.
19. Angkor Wat National Park

Cambodia’s first, set up in 1925 to protect the astonishing remains of the 12th century
city and Hindu temple.
Some less well known and surprising cases …

20. Cayman Brac East Grouper Spawning Site
Covers over 17km2; established in 2002 to protect the Nassau grouper from over-
exploitation at its spawning sites.
21. Dr Carlos Spegazzini Mycological Reserve

A 60-hectare site preserving rare fungi and named after a great South American fungi
explorer and discoverer.
22. St Katherine National Park

In the Sinai peninsula in Egypt this park houses an ancient monastery, marginalized
Bedouin herders and the world’s smallest butterfly, the Sinai Baton Blue, whose habitat
comprises a single species of thyme found only at high altitude.
23. Lapiosuon-Ison Äijönsuon soidensuojelualue Protected Mire

One of four in Finland. Set up in 1988 and covers 26,000 hectares.
24. Fort Ross Underwater Park

An extension of the Fort Ross Historic State Park in California, the underwater park
includes shipwrecks and relicts of the shipping industry.
25. Tyrendarra Indigenous Protected Area

Owned and managed by the Winda-Mara Aboriginal Corporation this site protects a
portion of an ancient lava flow and unusual sites of permanent Aboriginal settlement
including stone houses and eel aquaculture.
26. Kanevskiy Nature Zapodevnik

One of the earliest of the Soviet Regime, set up in 1923. A 2000-hectare site preserving
broad-leafed forest in the middle of the Ukraine.
27. Altmatt – Biberbrugg

One of 512 ‘Raised and Protected Bogs of National Importance’ designated in
Switzerland in 1991.
28. Waikaka Willow Bank Stewardship Area

One of the smallest protected areas in the WDPA, this along with a few other
stewardship areas in New Zealand is reported to be just 0.05ha in size.
29. Dryodasos Mongostou Korinthias Aesthetic Forest Protects

520 hectares of evergreen sclerophyllous forest on the Greek mainland.
30. Lyapinskaya Ethnic Territory

Found in eastern Russia, of unknown size and establishment date.
31. Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve

Covers nearly 10,000km2 in the far west of Brazil. It is named for Chico Mendes who
defended rubber tappers against cattle barons. Mendes was killed but extractive
reserves continue for rubber tappers to pursue their livelihoods, although some now
are escaping the poverty that had rendered their impact on the forests slight.
38 NATURE UNBOUND
32. Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve

This 100km2 private reserve in Costa Rica was once home to the endemic golden toad,
which had a range of just 4km2. This species is emblematic of the collapse of
amphibian populations. It was present in normal numbers in 1987, but only eight were
found in 1988, with one male seen in 1989. None have been found since.
33. Al-Haram al-Makki Inviolable Sanctuary

Located in Saudi Arabia; sometimes called Mecca by English speakers. The sanctuary
contains the holiest site in Islam.
34. Twentynine Palms Marine Corp Military Reservation

Found in California, USA, this is the world’s largest marine corp base and the corp’s
premier live fire exercise site. Overlaps with the Amboy Crater Wilderness Study Area
and close to the Joshua Tree National Park, which receives nearly a million visitors a year.
35. Monocacy National Battlefield

The site of the ‘battle that saved Washington’ between Confederates and the Union in
the American Civil War in 1864. This protected area was established in 1934.
36. Rota Commonwealth Forest Primeval Reserve

One of eight Primeval Reserves in the Pacific US Dependency of Northern Mariana
Island, this reserve protects 500ha of forest.
37. Tsurugisan Quasi National Park

One of 55 such parks in Japan. National parks are controlled by central government,
quasi national parks by regional governments. Tsurugisan is a popular destination for
mountain climbers.
38. El Palmar y Alfredo Rural Development Area

1437km2 in size and found in Venezuela where seven rural development areas were
established in the 1970s and 1980s.
39. Isla de la Estados Touristic, Historic, Ecological Provincial Reserve

Conserves 100,000 hectares of Patagonian forest in Argentina.
40. Port Meadow with Wolvercote Common and Green

The largest piece of common land in England, Port Meadow is a large open space near
the river Thames in north Oxford, which floods seasonally. Select houses nearby still
carry stints (grazing rights for specified numbers of stock).
Themes
The result of this remarkable expansion is a tremendous variety in places enjoying
some form of state protection, which can be called protected areas. There are more
than 100,000 and they cover nearly 12 per cent of the world’s land surface. That
total continues to grow (Table 2.3). The spread of protection is highly uneven, the
largest ten parks collectively account for more than 10 per cent of the protected
area estate. Each of these larger protected areas is individually bigger than the
65,000 smallest protected areas put together. It is also important to note the
relative proportions of land set aside in IUCN categories 1–4, which are generally
more strictly protected, and categories 5–6, which are often not. Finally, observe
the sheer diversity in protected areas across the world and the extraordinary variety
of their pasts and politics. The diverse forces that promote the establishment of
protected areas in different countries have produced an odd constellation of places,
each set aside for different causes. Sometimes protected area estate can resemble a
street in an old town, filled with buildings from a kaleidoscope of styles and
different architectural eras. The diversity is so great that the current difficulty of
the conservation movement is how to provide some order and commensurability
to a roll call of protected areas. We have compiled a sample of well known and less
well known protected areas in Box 2.3 to provide a flavour.
There are several important trends visible in the expansions of recent years.
First, there are a growing number of cases where large additions to the protected
area network are made all in one go in one country. Noticeable examples include
Gabon, which recently announced the establishment of 13 new national parks,
comprising 11 per cent of the area of the country in 2002. As we saw above, the
Peoples Democratic Republic of Laos has a programme to set up a large number
of new reserves in association with the damming of the Mekong River.
Madagascar has also made a commitment to triple the amount of land under
protected areas through the Durban Vision Initiative, which is discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 8 (Horning, 2005; Duffy, 2006a). In these cases the
growth was facilitated by the influence of powerful NGOs – the WCS in Gabon
and the WWF and IUCN in Laos. CI and TNC have been powerfully influential
in the Americas. Elsewhere in Africa, the Peace Parks Foundation is promoting
the spread of Transfrontier Conservation Areas involving large tracts of
land in sub-Saharan Africa (Van-Amerom and Büscher, 2005; Duffy, 2006b;
Ramutsindela, 2007).
Second, most protected areas were established before any of the current
concerns about extinction and habitat loss were well formulated. Many
conservation lobbies are now playing catch up, trying to identify the areas most
needed for effective protection, using the GIS models we identified earlier. These
types of analysis can be extremely effective. Where data, funds and political will
are available, complex GIS models can now determine where different sorts of
protected areas are most needed (Margules and Pressey, 2000; Sarkar et al, 2006;
Wilson et al, 2007). Australia and South Africa lead the work in systematic
planning (Mace, 2004). In Australia all the different habitat types in the country
have been mapped, and the country is now endeavouring to ensure
comprehensive, adequate, representative (CAR) protection. Tasmania was the
first place to use and apply systematic planning to identify protected area
development (Sarkar et al, 2006).
Table 2.3 Distribution of marine and terrestrial protected areas in different IUCN regions
Chapter02.qxd
Terrestrial Marine Total Proportion of land protected2
IUCN Region1 Count Area km2 Count Area km2 Count Area km2 Cat3 Cat3 Uncat’d Total
1–4 5–6
Antarctica 67 2265 59 68,054 126 70,318 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02%

9/30/2008
A’lia and N. Z’d 9085 798,684 467 702,165 9552 1,500,849 6.88% 3.11% 0.04% 10.04%
Pacific 199 55,311 288 33,451 487 88,762 0.80% 1.23% 7.98% 10.01%
2:08 PM
South Asia 1076 327,247 184 28,832 1260 356,079 5.41% 0.30% 1.59% 7.30%
Southeast Asia 2238 656,193 420 213,546 2658 869,740 5.11% 4.50% 4.99% 14.60%
East Asia 2986 1,921,762 295 64,675 3281 1,986,437 1.92% 14.12% 0.26% 16.30%
Page 40
North Eurasia 17,642 1,610,320 82 430,708 17,724 2,041,027 5.24% 0.48% 1.56% 7.29%
Europe 43,159 662,995 745 162,969 43,904 825,964 3.13% 6.30% 3.28% 12.70%
N. Af. and M. East 1230 1,204,928 141 161,356 1371 1,366,284 2.11% 6.85% 0.41% 9.37%
E’n and S’n Africa 3924 1,789,578 152 116,942 4076 1,906,520 5.92% 4.63% 4.90% 15.46%
W’n and Cen. Africa 2554 1,290,420 43 60,908 2597 1,351,328 5.46% 0.77% 3.86% 10.09%
North America 12,863 3,147,172 760 2,189,346 13,623 5,336,519 6.07% 5.09% 3.08% 14.23%
Central America 548 117,954 129 38,317 677 156,271 6.90% 8.01% 7.64% 22.55%
Caribbean 494 18,836 473 69,309 967 88,145 5.22% 1.55% 1.25% 8.02%
S. Am. And Brazil 2500 3,206,623 202 369,987 2702 3,576,609 4.65% 4.48% 8.87% 18.01%
Total 100,565 16,810,289 4,440 4,710,564 105,005 21,520,853 4.35% 4.09% 2.91% 11.34%
Chapter02.qxd
Table 2.3 Distribution of marine and terrestrial protected areas in different IUCN regions (cont’d)
Count of all protected areas in each size class
≥ 1 km2 ≥ 10 km2 ≥ 100 km2 ≥ 1000 km2 ≥ 10k km2 ≥ 100k km2
9/30/2008
< 1 km2 < 10 km2 < 100 km2 < 1000 km2 < 10,000 km2 < 100k km2 < 1000k km2
Antarctica 40 40 14 8 2 1 0
A’lia and N. Z’d 5242 2559 1165 425 123 20 2

2:08 PM
Pacific 83 101 93 43 23 1 0
South Asia 161 236 370 384 63 5 0

Page 41
Southeast Asia 230 509 831 786 166 12 0
East Asia 259 413 1542 812 181 20 2
North Eurasia 7166 3083 1507 1158 289 33 1
Europe 26,885 7678 2908 1137 141 2 0
N. Af. and M. East 223 217 303 239 57 13 2
E’n and S’n Africa 527 926 1,290 831 300 31 0
W’n and Cen. Africa 90 629 875 643 179 28 0
North America 3118 3568 3069 1553 525 69 2
Central America 66 157 225 162 32 1 0
Caribbean 373 236 140 55 14 1 0
S. Am. And Brazil 285 418 716 623 410 82 1

Table 2.3 Distribution of marine and terrestrial protected areas in different IUCN regions (cont’d)
Chapter02.qxd
Count of all protected areas in each size class

≥ 1 km2 ≥ 10 km2 ≥ 100 km2 ≥ 1000 km2 ≥ 10k km2 ≥ 100k km2
< 1 km2 < 10 km2 < 100 km2 < 1000 km2 < 10,000 km2 < 100k km2 < 1000k km2
9/30/2008
Total 44,748 20,770 15,048 8859 2505 319 10
Area (km2) 10,612 75,767 539,300 2,895,756 7,591,812 6,960,583 3,447,024

1
The countries that make up each region are available at http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/ (accessed 23 September 2005). We have modified these categories
2:08 PM
slightly in the following ways. The IUCN classify Comoros, Djibouti, Madagascar and Mauritius as part of as Western and Central Africa. We have assigned them to
Eastern and Southern Africa. Brazil forms an entire IUCN region on its own, but we have grouped it with South America. Sao Tome and Principe, Anguilla and the
British Indian Ocean Territories have not been allotted regions by the IUCN and we placed them in Western and Central Africa, the Caribbean and South Asia
respectively.
Page 42
2
Only terrestrial protected areas are included as we only have data for the size of land areas within each country, and therefore cannot express marine protected
areas as a proportion of country size.
3
The IUCN Protected Area Categories are explained in Box 2.1.
Third, while much effort in systematic conservation planning goes into

identifying new protected areas and prioritizing investment in existing
protection, it is important to note that the most complete plans now extend far
beyond traditional models of saving places by setting them aside in state-
governed protected areas. The driving force here is to search for conservation
arrangements at the large landscape level that will allow broader ecosystems to
persist, not just the smaller protected parts of it. The classic study that
contributed to this was in East Africa where the large migrations of wildlife
following rainfall are simply not contained within national parks (Western,
1994). The wildlife depended on rural people’s lands, prompting conservationists
to find ways of making wildlife valuable to these people’s decision making. In
general the results have not been satisfying, with wildlife numbers of most species
declining outside and inside protected areas as their effective space contracts.
Some observers are pessimistic as to the outcome. Tim Caro and Paul Scholte
recently advised African conservationists that:
We may have to get used to faunal relaxation [i.e. fewer animals] in

Africa’s network of famous reserves … leaving a continent containing
isolated pockets of large mammal diversity living at low population
sizes. Just like Europe.
(Caro and Scholte, 2007, p234)
We are not convinced that it is reasonable to argue that if Africa cannot be as

conservationists hoped that therefore it will be like Europe. But nevertheless,
even if the success of sustaining wildlife in the larger landscape has been
unsatisfactory thus far, the imperative remains. Studies of primates in Kenya
have found that a matrix of agricultural land and natural woodland can both
be important for sustaining primate populations (Anderson et al, 2007). Many
species of birds in Central America do better in shade-grown coffee plantations
than where modern sun-tolerant coffee is found, although unfarmed forest is
better still (Greenberg et al, 1997; Rappole et al, 2002a, 2002b; Philpott and
Dietsch, 2003). Models of tigers in India suggest that a few reserves (21) could
sustain ‘stand-alone’ populations, but that 129 would depend upon the
surrounding matrix of land use, and that conservation policies accordingly have
to engage with the unprotected lands and their occupants (Ranganathan et al,
2008). In the UK brownfield sites (wastelands and derelict ground) are
recognized as being important habitat for biodiversity, often free of the
pressures of agricultural intensification or inappropriate land management that
plagues the British countryside (Benton, 2006). Studies of forestry in both the
US and the UK have argued that more effective protection for more
biodiversity will be achieved by working at the landscape scale and by including
privately owned, as well as public forests (Proctor and Pincetl, 1996; McAlpine
et al, 2007).
44 NATURE UNBOUND
Some observers insist that there are tremendous opportunities for saving
wildlife in niches outside protected areas. Rozenweig advocates ‘reconciliation
ecology’ – land use compatible with wildlife (Rosenweig, 2003). Leader-Williams
and Hutton observe that much more space for nature, and by implication species,
could be found beyond protected area boundaries. Instead of preserving
10–30 per cent of tropical biodiversity in 1–2 per cent of its land they want to
preserve 80–90 per cent on 5–15 per cent of the land (Hutton and Leader-
Williams, 2003). There is a powerful truth in these arguments – few of us would
want to live in a world where all the interesting nature was only found inside
special protected areas. Part of the purpose of this book explores how these ideas
might become real, and what happens when they do.
But Balmford, Green and colleagues have sounded a note of caution (Balmford
et al, 2005b; Green et al, 2005a, 2005b). They note that, overall, we are more
likely to conserve more species in undisturbed habitat, and therefore that
intensive agriculture, which minimizes the area impact on the land, is potentially
better than extensive agriculture, which sprawls over the landscape. Therefore
there may be circumstances where it is preferable to minimize human influence
by concentrating its effects, rather than by diluting it as reconciliation ecology
proposes. No one way (intensive or extensive) will always be preferable. Answers
will depend on the ecologies at work. Donald’s review of the consequences of
intensification of important agricultural systems found, not surprisingly, that we
needed to understand the consequences of the expansion and intensification of
the production of these commodities better (Donald, 2004).
Finally we should note that, in addition to setting up new protected areas and
integrating land use outside them with objectives within, conservationists are also
actively seeking to restore degraded ecosystems to their former glory. This is
perhaps more common in the developed parts of the world, which enjoys surplus
agricultural capacity. They vary in their scale. Agricultural land of 265ha near
Wicken Fen in Cambridgeshire, UK, has been purchased since 2000 and its
drainage removed to restore the fenland (Taylor, 2005). More ambitious is the
recreation of extensive new ‘primordial landscapes’ in the Osstvaardersplassen, a
5400ha site in Holland. This seeks to restore entire communities of free-ranging
herbivores that once roamed Europe in the Neolithic period. They have
introduced ancient species of horse and cattle (‘reconstituted aurochs’). Wild
boars will follow once they can find a means of reducing the risk of swine fever,
which might threaten the country’s piggeries. Unfortunately predators able to
take on the larger herbivores have yet to be introduced and as a result herds have
multiplied freely, lost condition and suffered high mortality. The proliferating
carcasses, however, saw the spontaneous reappearance of the Black Vulture
(Aegyptus monachus) in the region for the first time in 200 years (Onneweer,
2005). In South Africa, where private game ranches are one of the fastest growing
forms of land use, recreating wildlands is a routine business and there is a vibrant
trade in wildlife and continual transformation of former grazing land into wildlife
rich hunting grounds or national parks. Davies (2000) describes the process in
the Madikwe Game Reserve in South Africa, which saw in the introduction of
23 new species (over 8000 individuals) in the mid-1990s at the cost of $3
million.4 The more enterprising South African wildlife farmers make money
rounding up their stock for sale by selling the right to participate in game capture
safaris. Perhaps the grandest of all is in the USA where the Wildlands Project
seeks to set aside 50 per cent of the North American continent in new networks
of protected areas over the next 100 years or more (Mann, 1993).5
Conclusion
In this chapter we have shown that the power of parks is derived not only from their
ability to protect specific landscapes, but the ideals and ideas that define and inform
this protection. These ideas and ideals have value beyond the actual effects of
protected areas. Ideals of pristine wilderness are used in NGO fund-raising appeals,
to sell products from Disney Vacations to gas guzzling SUVs. Parks also provide a
green public enhancement to countries with poor human rights records, like Gabon
and Bolivia, to large-scale economic interventions, and to companies who claim to
care about people and the environment. Parks embody these ideals and seek to
impose them on specific landscapes. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they
fail, but this does not change the fact that they are at the centre of the ways in which
most westerners imagine nature. Whether they ever visit Yellowstone or Serengeti,
many westerners are aware of the ideas and ideals that they represent and experience
an emotional response to these ideas and ideals.
But these ideas and ideals, especially as they are promoted by parks, conceal a
great deal. In fact, part of their value is that they may conceal the types of social
and ecological change that parks create or contribute to. It also conceals the
diversity of landscapes and practices that fall under the rubric of parks. The data
that we have presented in this chapter represents a small fragment of this
diversity. In subsequent chapters we explore how the idea and ideals of parks
intersect with the imperatives of mainstream conservation in different times and
places, how they interact with the cultures, values and livelihood practices of
indigenous peoples, and how they become free floating commodities of
significant value in a globalized world economy that revolves increasingly around
ideas and images and the marketing of specific types of experiences through
digitized media. But our first task, in the next chapter, is to examine more closely
the imperatives that have driven the conservation trends whose history we have
briefly described.
Notes
1 Yosemite was the first state park, established in California, USA in 1864. For good
histories see Adams, W. M. (2004) Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation.
46 NATURE UNBOUND
London: Earthscan; Jepson, P, and R. J. Whittaker, R. J. (2002) ‘Histories of

protected areas: Internationalisation of conservationist values and their adoption
in the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia)’. Environment and History 8: 129–172;
Kalamandeen, M., and Gillson, L. (2007) ‘Demything “wilderness”: Implications
for protected area designation and management’. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:
165–182.
2 Not all early conservationists thought like that. Sarkar notes that John Muir
himself recognized that Indians trod lightly on the landscape and that their
burning played an important role in it. Sarkar, S. (1999) ‘Wilderness preservation
and biodiversity conservation: keeping divergent goals distinct’. Bioscience 49(5):
405–412. But a report written by anthropologists for the Service in the 1990s was
suppressed by the Superintendent of Yellowstone for its title: Restoring a Presence
(Nabakov and Lawrence, 2004).
3 Stevenson-Hamilton was nick-named ‘Skukuza’ meaning the one who drives out
because he insisted that African residents would have to leave the national park.
One of the most popular camps in the park is named Skukuza after him.
4 One game ranch in South Africa even houses three species of South China Tiger
sent there to breed and learn hunting skills while waiting for their own habitat to
be conserved.
5 www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org/htm/summary.htm (accessed 22 August 2007).
3
The Imperatives for Conservation
Conservation is not a scientific activity

Lawton, 1997
Before we explore the consequences of different types of conservation strategies it

is well to dwell on the different imperatives under which conservation measures
have been advanced. These have varied over the years. Whereas protected areas
were once set up in unusable lands, now they are established in fertile lowlands
to conserve representative habitat therein. In this chapter we explore the different
imperatives that have justified conservation, we focus in particular on two – the
wilderness lobby and the extinction crisis. Both have been critiqued in recent
years and it is important to clarify our position on them. We argue below that
justifications based on ideals of wilderness are problematic but that it is foolish to
ignore the dramatic changes in rarity and extinction that people have caused.
Wilderness and the wild

The reasons for establishing protected areas have been diverse, but there have
been a number of persistent concerns driving their establishment. One of the
oldest imperatives for conservation has been to preserve animals for hunting.
Conservation has long been advocated and led by the rich and powerful in order
that they might enjoy good hunting. The birth of the international conservation
movement as we recognize it today was due to the influence of powerful
aristocratic hunters who wished to preserve suitable specimens for their sport
from the alleged depredations of Africans (Mackenzie, 1988). The international
hunting fraternity remains a powerful force behind conservation today. Countries
that prohibit hunting (Kenya and India) are unusual for doing so.
Landscape preservation has been another powerful force. The scenery, wildlife and
people of the American West provoked the first idea of a ‘national park’ by the painter
Caitlin. The majesty of landscapes also inspired John Muir. Note that these ideas
have political power not just because of the landscapes themselves, but also because
they intersected with powerful nation-building forces within America, and that
country’s own search for features adequate to portray its greatness (Runte, 1979).
Britain’s first national parks set aside highly anthropogenic hilly pastoral landscapes
such as the Lake District made popular by Romantic poets such as Wordsworth.
But one of the most powerful forces behind protected area establishment has
been the desire to protect wilderness from encroachment and human interference.
48 NATURE UNBOUND
The drive to ensure that there is a ‘Big Out There’ other to ourselves inspires some
of the most radical conservation thinkers and activists. It is a particularly strong
component of the conservation movements in Australia, New Zealand and the
US. Its advocates insist that wilderness heals society and people; that we need
these places to provide a counterpoint to the destruction and management of the
rest of our lives; that here, where the human touch is weak, and nature’s voice
strong, we can get a more measured sense of our place in the world. They draw
inspiration from Thoreau’s words on wildness (Box 3.1).
Box 3.1 Extracts from ‘Walking’ by Henry David Thoreau

I wish to speak a word for Nature, for absolute freedom and wildness, as contrasted
with a freedom and culture merely civil – to regard man as an inhabitant, or a part and
parcel of Nature, rather than a member of society … When I go out of the house for a
walk, uncertain as yet whither I will bend my steps, and submit myself to my instinct to
decide for me, I find, strange and whimsical as it may seem, that I finally and inevitably
settle southwest, toward some particular wood or meadow or deserted pasture or hill
in that direction … Eastward I go only by force; but westward I go free. Thither no
business leads me. It is hard for me to believe that I shall find fair landscapes or
sufficient wildness and freedom behind the eastern horizon. I am not excited by the
prospect of a walk thither; but I believe that the forest which I see in the western horizon
stretches uninterruptedly toward the setting sun, and there are no towns nor cities in it
of enough consequence to disturb me … The West of which I speak is but another
name for the Wild; and what I have been preparing to say is, that in Wildness is the
preservation of the World. Every tree sends its fibers forth in search of the Wild. The
cities import it at any price. Men plow and sail for it. From the forest and wilderness
come the tonics and barks which brace mankind … I believe in the forest, and in the
meadow, and in the night in which the corn grows. We require an infusion of hemlock,
spruce or arbor vitae in our tea … Life consists with wildness. The most alive is the
wildest. Not yet subdued to man, its presence refreshes him. One who pressed forward
incessantly and never rested from his labors, who grew fast and made infinite demands
on life, would always find himself in a new country or wilderness, and surrounded by
the raw material of life. He would be climbing over the prostrate stems of primitive
forest-trees … Here is this vast, savage, hovering mother of ours, Nature, lying all
around, with such beauty, and such affection for her children, as the leopard; and yet
we are so early weaned from her breast to society, to that culture which is exclusively
an interaction of man on man – a sort of breeding in and in, which produces at most a
merely English nobility, a civilization destined to have a speedy limit.
However, the power and suitability of wilderness as a guiding light for conservation
has come under scrutiny in the last 15 years (Sarkar, 1999; Kalamandeen and
Gillson, 2007). Wilderness alone is inadequate for nature’s conservation. Some of
the largest wildernesses identified as conservation priorities are not speciose
(Mittermeier et al, 2003). Most protected areas are too small, individually and
THE IMPERATIVES FOR CONSERVATION 49
collectively, to preserve species that have large ranges, or migration routes. These
depend upon lands inhabited by people outside protected areas to survive
(Homewood and Rodgers, 1991; Western, 1994). Many of the thorny problems of
conservation practice revolve around how to cope with areas where high
biodiversity and people’s numbers coincide (Luck et al, 2004; Myers et al, 2000).
Pursuit of wilderness has often brought conservation into conflict with people
that may not have been necessary for conservation goals (other than wilderness
creation) to be achieved. Ideas, and practice, of wilderness can often negate long
histories of association between people and places and thus also excludes them
historically (Adams and McShane, 1992; Denevan, 1992; Gomez-Pompa and
Kaus, 1992; Rose, 1996; Saberwal et al, 2001). Indeed it may be positively
counter productive in that human disturbance and land use may be instrumental
in preserving biodiversity (Sarkar, 1999; Willis et al, 2004; Igoe, 2004b; Willis
and Birks, 2006; Kalamandeen and Gillson, 2007). The classic cases here are the
Keoladeo National Park (Bharatpur) in India and the swallowtail butterfly in the
UK. At the Keoladeo National Park grazing was banned to protect wetland bird
habitat, but the grazing checked vegetation succession that was essential for the
birds and the Park suffered substantial habitat degradation after the livestock were
removed (Middleton, 2003). Early attempts to set up reserves for the swallowtail
butterfly excluded the reed and sedge cutters whose work allowed milk parsley to
grow, on which swallowtail caterpillars feed.
Most fundamentally wilderness limits conservation’s theatre of operations. As
William Cronon famously observed, the trouble with wilderness is that it gives
no room for people in nature (Cronon, 1995). They have to be excluded, both
physically and conceptually. The pursuit of wilderness makes all that is beautiful
and wild in anthropogenic landscapes somehow tainted, spoilt and less worth
fighting for. Undue attention to wilderness risks blinding people to the value of
used and modified lands. It also promotes an ethic in which the only landscapes
worth saving are those that are distant and exotic, while landscapes that are
proximate and mundane appear unworthy of our concern. In such a context it
becomes increasingly difficult for people to reflect on the economic impacts of
their daily lives. From this perspective it appears clear that wilderness and efforts
to create and save it can impede conservation’s vision.
A practical illustration of that problem is provided by a fascinating analysis of
the spotted owl debate in California (Proctor and Pincetl, 1996). These authors
noted that while the nesting habitat of the owl was restricted to old growth forest,
younger growth, which had been logged, could provide useful feeding habitat and
corridors between nesting sites. The value of these logged sites was greater since
they tended to be at lower altitude with more productive ecosystems than the
higher, colder old growth stands. However, the campaign to save the old growth
habitat from the loggers paid little attention to these timber concession areas,
even though modifications to their harvesting strategy could have improved their
management to enhance spotted owl populations.
50 NATURE UNBOUND
A number of authors observe that it is not so much wilderness that is important

but wildness and people’s relationship with it (Adams, 2004). This means looking
for it in the mundane and ordinary and everyday nature most people encounter.
It also means that conservationists will have to wrestle with the pigeon paradox
(Dunn et al, 2006). That is, as most people will live in cities, they are more likely
personally to come into contact with nature through interacting with
unremarkable biodiversity (pigeons) than they are with the species most
conservationists value. The task therefore is to value and celebrate these
interactions the better to inculcate conservationist sentiment (Adams, 1996).
Ironically, celebrating wildness has been central in the foundations of the
mythology of wilderness in the US. Simon Schama’s close reading of Thoreau’s
work suggests that while he remained a lifelong advocate of wilderness, he was
thoroughly excited by wildness. His love for the former derived from the latter. It
was Thoreau’s ability to find wildness in the small scale and intimate that enabled
him to ‘travel widely in Concorde’ (Schama, 1996, pp571–578). He famously
said that ‘in wildness is the preservation of the world’ (and this is often misquoted
as ‘wilderness’) but he also recognized that ‘It is in vain to dream of a wildness
distant from ourselves. There is none such. It is the bog in our brain and bowels,
the primitive vigour of Nature in us, that inspires that dream’ (quoted in Schama,
1996, p578). If wilderness celebration requires a way of imagining and
categorizing the world it just needs a slightly broader mind to celebrate wildness.
Moreover doing so is hardly inimical to the conservation movement. The logic of
our argument is that conservation’s remit will grow, not diminish, if the
importance of wilderness lessens.
The extinction crisis

By far the most urgent imperative voiced by conservationists is the need to
preserve biodiversity and combat the extinction crisis.1 Extinction is an uncertain
science. Counting the number of species that have gone extinct is hard. While we
can be sure that extinction is the destiny of every species, proving it has happened
recently is difficult. We have to prove that an organism is not there any more.
This is hard if the species is small, or its habitat hard to search, and many years
(usually 50) have to elapse before it can be declared extinct. The sighting or
resurrection of apparently lost species, such the Ivory Billed Wood Pecker, or the
Black-footed Ferret, demonstrates the problem.
It is even more difficult to state extinction rates as a proportion of existing
species, simply because we do not know how many species there are in the
world. We currently know of 1.5–1.75 million, but estimates for the total
number vary between 7 and 15 million (Stork, 1997; Dirzo and Raven, 2003;
Mace, 2004), with upper limits of 30 million still repeated (Baillie et al, 2004).2
This makes it an exciting time to be a taxonomist, with 15–20,000 new species
being described annually, as two reviewers recently enthused – ‘we live in an age
of discovery’ (Dirzo and Raven, 2003, p148). But it is important to know the
total number of species because a high rate of loss (the normal rate is about one
species lost per million species per year; see Pimm et al, 1995) represents an
extinction event, or mass extinction. There have been five such events in
geological history, the most recent of which resulted in the demise of the
dinosaurs (Pimm and Brooks, 1997). Rates of loss are now so high that most
conservationists believe that we are beginning a sixth extinction spasm, caused
by human activity.
The current high rates of extinction began about 40,000 years ago with the loss
of large mammals from the Americas, Europe and Australia (there is evidence of
losses of smaller species in other habitat elsewhere – Balmford, 1996). This was
due to a mixture of the effects of human hunting combining with climate change
(Barnosky et al, 2004; Koch and Barnosky, 2006), although the relative
importance of each is hotly disputed (Grayson and Meltzer, 2003, 2004; Fiedel
and Haynes, 2004; Wroe and Field, 2006, 2007; Brook et al, 2007). The impact
of human hunting, habitat clearance and introduction of predators in Pacific
islands over the last 12,000 years is more severe and less debated: each of the 800
islands has lost an average of ten species or populations of birds. An estimated
2000 species of rail alone are thought to have gone extinct due to human activity
(Steadman, 1995).
Since 1500 the rate of extinction globally has increased, driven in part by the
wave of losses of vulnerable endemics, particularly birds, on islands following
European colonization (Balmford, 1996). The dodo is the most famous victim
but perhaps the most drastic case is New Zealand. These islands used to be
entirely populated by birds with no mammals (save bats). Polynesians hunted
eight species of moa, then the world’s largest bird, to extinction a few hundred
years after their arrival in ca 1000–1200 AD and introduced dogs and Pacific rats.
Pakeha (European) immigrants killed off and thoroughly endangered many other
species of birds through hunting, habitat change and especially the introduction
of aggressive Norwegian rats, as well as cats, deer, tar (a mountain sheep), rabbits,
mice, wasps, possums and mustelids (Young, 2004).
Much of the more recent concern is driven by ‘ecology’s oldest generalisation’
(Simberloff, 1986, p166): the species–area relationship. Since larger areas support
more species, as habitat is lost so the number of species declines (Rosenweig,
2003). The general rule of thumb is that a loss of 90 per cent of habitat will
reduce species by 50 per cent (Heywood et al, 1994). The influence of habitat loss
in recent extinctions and the occurrence of threatened species is clear. Habitat
clearance in many biomes is closely correlated with threats to species, except
where introduced predators and hunting increase the dangers (Pimm and Askins,
1995; Brooks and Balmford, 1996; Brooks et al, 1997; Pimm and Raven, 2000;
Brooks et al, 2002). Many biomes carry an ‘extinction debt’ – that is, they have
lost habitat but not yet all the species that one would expect to find in these
smaller areas (Tilman et al, 1994; Cowlishaw, 1999).
52 NATURE UNBOUND
The magnitude and scale of humanity’s impact on the world then presents
conservation biologists with three pressing questions:
1 Which species have gone and which are most threatened?

2 How long have the remainder got?
3 What is the current rate of extinction?
The first question is most authoritatively dealt with in the IUCN Red List. It
records that altogether 360 vertebrates, 373 invertebrates (of which 303 are
mollusks) and 110 plants are listed as having gone extinct or extinct in the wild
since 1500 (Baillie et al, 2004). It also assesses the status of living species, on the
basis of assessments produced by panels of experts who examine the numbers and
viability of as many of the world’s organisms as they can, categorizing them using
the criteria in Table 3.1.3 Species classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered
or Vulnerable are collectively grouped as threatened species. Table 3.2 shows that,
while some taxa are yet to be well evaluated, a high proportion of known groups
are threatened. But this is clearly also only a first approximation. Some of the
most numerous groups (especially insects) are poorly known, others are virtually
untouched. At current rates it will take another 600 years to list the planet’s life
(Woodruff, 2001, p5474, and cf. Stork, 1997).
It is important to note that there is not a simple relationship between population
numbers and level of threat. Mace notes that more details of population
characteristic are required than simple numbers accurately to predict extinction risk
(Mace, 1994). Many species have been able to persist for millennia, and we can
expect their populations to go into periods of decline as part of normal variations
(Simberloff, 1998). Conversely, apparently secure species can disappear rapidly
(Pimm et al, 1995). Pimm (1991, pp340–341) reports the example of at least seven
species of birds on Guam following the introduction of the brown tree snake. (Now,
12 species are reported lost, with declines of over 90 per cent in all species; see Wiles
et al (2003)). There are other examples: when rats invaded Big South Cape Island
off New Zealand they rapidly eradicated two bird and one bat species. (One of the
bird species was saved from extinction by removing it from the island (Young,
2004, pp156–157). Simberloff reports the loss of five bird species from Hawaii in
1992 when Hurricane Iniki struck the island of Kauai (Simberloff, 1998, p119).
Brown (1995) reports eight small but persistent species and 14 once abundant but
now extinct or endangered in North America (p212).
The fate of small populations has generated two responses from conservation
biologists. Caughley (1994) calls these the ‘small population paradigm’, and the
‘declining population paradigm’ respectively. The former examines population
and extinction dynamics of small, capped groups. It is generally concerned with
persistence in the absence of disturbance and determining what is a minimum
viable population. It provides much more specific predictions about the fate of
particular species whose numbers are low than the generalities of species – area
relationships, but on its own it is of limited use to conservationists because ‘it

treats an effect (smallness) as if it were a cause’ (p215). More relevant for our
purposes is the declining population paradigm, which tackles the causes of
decline, and for whom a minimum viable population is one pregnant female. But
Caughley notes that this paradigm is weak on theory, and this is visible when we
tackle the second question – how long have we got before more species go extinct
as species reduce in proportion to the habitat available?
Some findings from studies of plants suggest that even after habitat is lost species
can persist for many decades (Turner et al, 1994), but the common assumption in
the literature is that species decline decreases exponentially. Ecologists then calculate
the extinction half-life, which is the time taken for half the species destined for
extinction to go extinct. Half-life lengths vary according to the taxa examined and
the means of habitat loss and nature of isolation resulting. Current estimates can be
divided into two sets that differ by two orders of magnitude. Terborgh (1972)
predicted that Barro Colorado Island in Panama (formed in 1914) would lose 20
per cent of its species in 100 years, but estimated that rates of loss had been much
slower on Trinidad, which he estimated had lost 0.6 per cent of its birds in the first
100 years and 6.6 per cent in the first 1000. Diamond (1972) calculated a half-life
of 10,000 years for Pacific Islands. Cowlishaw (1999) calculated extinction half-
lives of about 5000 years for primates on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea (off West
Africa), which he noted was similar to the 10,000 years calculated for terrestrial
mammals by Heaney’s (1986) study in Malaysia. Brooks and colleagues (1999),
examining bird declines in forest fragments in and around Kakamega in Kenya,
calculated that it would take about 50 years (with a range of 23–80) for half the
species destined for extinction to disappear, and 100 years for 75 per cent to go.
Pimm and Brooks (1997) noted these differences in reported half-life and suggested
that on larger islands the relaxation effects (i.e. species loss) may be scale dependent,
and that they may have experienced fewer disruptive processes than the Kenyan
forest fragments. The longer relaxation times were also on islands caused by
processes of sea-level rise not anthropogenic change. The shorter half-lives are most
commonly used when estimating extinction rates of threatened species.
Estimates of species numbers, half-lives and probabilities of extinction are used to
estimate the current rate of loss per year. Given the levels of ignorance surrounding
precisely how many species there actually are, it is widely feared that far more species
have disappeared, or are threatened than we actually know about. Estimates of
species lost per year have varied by several orders of magnitude according to how
many unknown species they consider. The extreme initial estimates are less
commonly repeated but estimates remain three orders of magnitude above
background rates. The highest is E. O. Wilson’s who is reported to have said that we
are losing hundreds of thousands of species a year (Mann, 1991). His own written
estimate was lower – in the same year Ehrlich and Wilson suggested that the loss of
tropical forests alone was removing 4000 species a year, as a very conservative
estimate, and possibly 40,000 (Ehrlich and Wilson, 1991). A decade later, Dirzo and
54 NATURE UNBOUND
Table 3.1 The IUCN Red List categories from Baillie et al 2004
Extinct Species for which extensive surveys show there is no reasonable
doubt that the last individual has died
Extinct in Species that survive only in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalised
the wild population(s) well outside the past range
Critically Species that are facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild
endangered according to any one of the criteria below
A1: Population A2–4: Population B1: Small Range
Reduction reduction < 100km2 extent of
≥ 90% decline ≥ 80% decline in occurrence, plus two
population size in 10 population size of severe fragmentation
years/3 generations 10 years/3 (1 locality); continuing
where causes are generations in past decline or extreme
reversible, understood present or future fluctuations in
and ceased. where causes are occurrence, habitat
less well understood. or mature individuals.
Endangered Species that are facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild according
to any one of the criteria below
Reduction reduction < 5000km2 extent of
≥ 70% decline ≥ 50% decline in occurrence, plus two
population size population size of severe fragmentation
in 10 years/3 10 years/3 (≤ 5 localities);
generations where generations in past continuing decline or
causes are reversible, present or future extreme fluctuations
understood and where causes are in occurrence, habitat
ceased. less well understood. or mature individuals.
Vulnerable Species that are facing a high risk of extinction in the wild according
to any one of the criteria below
Reduction reduction < 20,000km2
≥ 50% decline ≥ 30% decline in extent of occurrence,
population size in population size plus two of severe
10 years/3 10 years/3 fragmentation (≤ 10
generations where generations in past localities); continuing
causes are reversible, present or future decline or extreme
understood and where causes are fluctuations in
ceased. less well understood. occurrence, habitat
or mature individuals.
Near Species that do not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered or
Threatened Vulnerable, but are close to qualifying, else likely to qualify in the near future.
Least Species that do not qualify as extinct, threatened or near threatened.
Concern Widespread and abundant species are included in this category
Data Species for which there is inadequate information to make a direct or
Deficient indirect assessment of extinction risk
Not evaluated Not assessed.
B2: Small Range C: Small and D1: Small E: Probability

< 10km2 area of declining population Population of extinction
occupancy, plus two < 250 mature individuals and and Range ≥ 50% in 10
of severe fragmentation estimated continuing decline < 50 mature years or 3
(1 locality), continuing of 25% in 3 years /1 generation individuals generations
decline or extreme and either 90% of mature (no extra
fluctuations in individuals in one subpopulation range
occurrence, habitat or ≤ 50 mature individuals in criterion).
or mature individuals. each subpopulation.
B2: Small Range C: Small and D1: Small E: Probability

< 500km2 area of declining population Population of extinction
occupancy, plus two < 2,500 mature individuals and and Range ≥ 20% in
of severe fragmentation estimated continuing decline < 250 mature 20 years or 5
(≤ 5 localities), of 20% in 5 years /2 generations individuals generations
continuing decline and either 95% of mature (no extra
or extreme fluctuations individuals in one subpopulation range
in occurrence, habitat or ≤ 250 mature individuals criterion).
or mature individuals. in each subpopulation.
B2: Small Range C: Small and declining D1: Small E: Probability

< 2000km2 area of population Population of extinction
occupancy, plus < 10,000 mature individuals and Range ≥ 10% in 100
two of severe and estimated continuing < 1000 mature years
fragmentation decline of 10% in 10 years/3 individuals
(≤ 10 localities), generations and either 100% of and/or area of
continuing decline mature individuals in one occupancy,
or extreme fluctuations subpopulation or ≤ 1000 mature 20km2 or
in occurrence, habitat individuals in each number of
or mature individuals. subpopulation. locations ≤ 5.
Table 3.2 The IUCN Red List
Chapter03.qxd
Grouping Class No. of sp. No. sp. % sp. eval No. of sp. Sp. threat’d No. of. No. of. No. of
eval. 2006 threatened as % of sp. crit end. sp. end. sp. vuln. sp.
described
Vertebrates Mammals 5416 4856 89.7 1093 20.18 162 348 583
9/30/2008
Birds 9934 9934 100.0 1206 12.14 181 351 674
Reptiles 8240 664 8.1 341 4.14 73 101 167

2:09 PM
Amphibians 5918 5918 100.0 1811 30.60 442 738 631
Fishes 29,300 2914 9.9 1173 4.00 253 238 682

Page 56
Subtotal 58,808 24,284 41.3 5624 9.56 1111 1776 2737
Invertebrates Insects 950,000 1192 0.1 623 0.07 68 129 426
Molluscs 70,000 2163 3.1 975 1.39 265 222 488
Crustaceans 40,000 537 1.3 459 1.15 78 87 294
Others 130,200 86 0.1 44 0.03 6 9 29
Subtotal 1,190,200 3978 0.3 2101 0.18 417 447 1237

Chapter03.qxd
Plants Mosses 15,000 93 0.6 80 0.53 22 32 26
Ferns and allies 13,025 212 1.6 139 1.07 32 39 68
Gymnosperms 980 908 92.7 306 31.22 63 85 158

9/30/2008
Dicotyledons 199,350 9538 4.8 7086 3.55 1277 1836 3973
Monocotyledons 59,300 1150 1.9 779 1.31 147 266 366

2:09 PM
Subtotal 287,655 11,901 4.1 8390 2.92 1541 2258 4591
Others Lichens 10,000 2 0.0 2 0.02 1 1 0

Page 57
Mushrooms 16,000 1 0.0 1 0.01 1 0 0
Subtotal 26,000 3 3 2 1 0
Total 1,562,663 40,166 16,118 10.3 3071 4482 8565

58 NATURE UNBOUND
Raven, following Pimm and Brooks (1997) and using half-lives of 50 years, predicted
that 500 of the threatened birds and 565 the 1130 threatened animals will go extinct
in the next 50 years (Dirzo and Raven, 2003, p162). This gives a figure of well over
1000 extinctions per million species per year, over a 1000 times the background rate.
Alternatively, using the actual predicted probability of species in each category going
extinct (Criteria E of Table 3.1), we calculate that the extinction rate is just over 200
species per year, which is about 130 species per million species per year. This assumes
that all small populations are subject to the same levels of threat and includes none
of the species that have not been evaluated. Finally Myers and Lanting (1999)
predicted that between 50 and 150 species a year are going extinct.
These high predicted yearly losses, however, are yet to begin. If we just use
known species listed as threatened in 1996 (animals) and 1998 (plants), and
predict yearly extinction rates based on the probability of extinction estimated for
each category, and assuming that each species in each category is subject to the
same likelihood of going extinct, we should have seen over 1000 extinctions by
2006 (Table 3.3). Actual known extinctions from 1990s to the present were 11
(Baillie et al, 2004, pp47–48), plus the Yangtze River Dolphin (lost since Baillie
et al went to press), although up to 122 further species of amphibian are listed as
possibly extinct with the decline occurring since 1980 (Stuart et al, 2004, 2005;
Pimenta et al, 2005; Mendelson et al, 2006).
The relative lack of actual extinction has prompted some observers to criticize
the validity of extinction concerns (Lomborg, 2001). That is not our position
(Brockington, 2003). For us the discrepancy illustrates the widely recognized
difficulties of using extinction rates as a measure of human impact (Balmford
et al, 2003a; Heywood et al, 1994). Some commentators believe that it is best to
consider the more threatened species to be ‘committed to extinction’ (Heywood
et al, 1994). That means that there is no longer the habitat to sustain them and
they will die out in the normal course of events without constant interventions
to maintain them. The discrepancies have also helped to fuel a debate on the
utility of red lists of themselves, in part because of the instability of the definition
of species on which the list depends (Cuaron, 1993; Smith et al, 1993; Burgman,
2002; Possingham et al, 2002; Lamoreux et al, 2003; Mace, 2004). Mace,
observing that the number of primate species has virtually doubled to over 350
in two decades, largely due to taxonomic revisions, concluded that:
Because we know that the rules for delimiting species have changed
over time, we cannot judge the real severity of the recent increase in
the number of endangered primates nor … can we compare this
trend with other taxa within and outside the mammals.
(Mace, 2004, p714)
Others warn against using high extinction rates for known taxa as a basis for
predicting other losses. Balmford and colleagues insist that:
Chapter03.qxd
Table 3.3 Comparing predicted and actual extinctions

Group Crit. End. End. Vuln. Crit. End. Sp. End. Sp. Vuln. Sp. Predicted Actual extinctions
1996/98 1996/98 1996/98 lost per decade lost per decade lost per decade extinctions and extinctions
assuming 50% assuming 20% assuming 10% 1996/8 to 2006/08 in the wild
9/30/2008
loss in 10 loss in 20 loss in 100

years years years
Mammals 169 315 612 85 32 6 123 1

2:09 PM
Birds 168 235 704 84 24 7 115 1
Reptiles 41 59 153 21 6 2 29 0
Page 59
Amphibians 18 31 75 9 3 1 13 1
Fishes 157 134 443 78 13 4 95 0
Insects 44 116 377 22 12 4 38 0
Molluscs 257 212 451 129 21 5 155 0
Plants 909 1197 3222 364 96 26 486 8
Total 1763 2299 6037 791 206 54 1051 11
2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded 31 July 2007 (Baillie et al, 2004, p47)
60 NATURE UNBOUND
…any extrapolation from extinction rates for well-known groups to

estimates of the total number of extinctions per year across all groups
is impossible.
(Bamford et al, 2003a, p326)
They observe that there are plenty of other estimates of habitat decline and
population loss, and other indices of deleterious human influence on diverse
ecosystems need to be examined, and could be expanded (Balmford et al, 2003a;
Jenkins et al, 2003; Balmford et al, 2005a). Nevertheless the continued efforts to
refine the red lists now allow for measures of trends in the threat status of birds
(the best known taxon), which only consider in status based on real changes to
bird numbers (Butchart et al, 2004, 2005, 2006a). These deal with many
previous criticisms and show a persistent decline (Figure 3.1).
Whether or not threatened species are going extinct now, the decline in their
abundance poses considerable costs to conservation, both in terms of determining
where to invest resources and in trying to protect marginal populations and
habitats. Occasionally (expensive) species rescue can be dramatically successful
(Butchart et al, 2006b). Following intensive efforts the Chatham Island Black
Robin recovered from one breeding pair, the Mauritius kestrel from four
1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

100
Better
RLI (set to 100 in 1988)
99
98
97
96
95
94
Worse
93
92
1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

100
Better
RLI (set to 100 in 1988)
96
92
88
Worse
84
80
Figure 3.1 Red List indices for birds
Source: Butchart et al, 2004. Reproduced with permission

individuals (Butchart et al, 2006b; Rodrigues, 2006). But it is often expensive to

breed and ‘re-wild/release’. A number of conservation NGOs have questioned
whether the money would not be better spent on in-situ conservation. Note this
cautionary tale of captive breeding. Caughley (1994) reports that a meeting of
experts decided that the only way to save the Sumatran rhinoceros was through
captive breeding. But they did not adequately consider the expense of capturing the
animals, the dangers of doing so, or the breeding success in captivity. Caughley
reports Leader-William’s analysis of the programme did not make happy reading.
He found that nine animals died during or after capture, that only one was born in
captivity, and that to a female pregnant when caught and that the expense of doing
this to the species was US$2.5 million. The same funds could have been used to
protect 700km2 of rhino habitat (holding 70 adults) for 20 years. This is a critical
debate between zoos and other forms of conservation organizations: that the
amount of money spent on maintaining the species ex-situ and building/sustaining
enclosures in zoos could be more effectively used to protect the species in their
natural habitats. Even if captive breeding can save species from extinction it is
expensive for the conservation movement to have to mount such rescue missions.
Conclusion
What are the implications for conservation of these declines in abundance and
increase in extinction? The simple take home message is that more and stronger
conservation measures are required, including protected areas. There are two
complications.
First, while the impending extinction crisis is real, it is used by scientists to gain
political leverage. Myers himself admitted to providing high estimates of
extinction in order to put them onto ‘scientific and political agendas’.4 Mace notes
that one of the factors driving taxonomic revision is the kudos and bargaining
power that new, threatened species provide scientists (Mace, 2004). She warns that
the listing of species as threatened should prompt local action sensitive to local
circumstances, and that some species not listed may also deserve attention.
An aspect of this lobbying is the practice of conservation biologists to
frequently speak of imminent extinction, or commitments to extinction, but not
always define their timescales. For example the Alliance for Zero Extinction has
produced a list of endangered and critically endangered species with restricted
ranges that are highly likely to disappear if their habitat goes (Ricketts et al,
2005). The extinction of each is thought to be ‘imminent’. But the meaning of
imminent is undefined. Which for example might last ten years unaided, and
which 20? Is the probability of extinction the same for all these species?
Second, as our understanding of the causes of extinction has grown so has
recognition of the importance of a diversity of strategies. There have been some
remarkable cases of species snatched from extinction. But these require far more
than mere setting aside land in protected areas. Intensive management is
62 NATURE UNBOUND
required, including vigorous poisoning and trapping campaigns of introduced

predators, and removal of introduced vegetation (Saunders and Norton, 2001;
Gillies et al, 2003). Managing these areas is more akin to gardening than
traditional notions of protected area management. Caughley (1994) notes the
importance of pragmatically uniting the knowledge of the small population
paradigm and the declining population paradigm in order that the ultimate and
proximate causes of extinction can be adequately dealt with. He cites the recovery
of the Lord Howe Woodhen as a successful instance of this cooperation and the
attempt to save the Californian Condor as a failure.
Finally we should note that conservation cannot claim a scientific mandate from
species loss for its work. The crisis is real, but the mandate is not scientific. It is
much stronger than that. The science of biodiversity can tell us what is happening,
but not why we should want to conserve things in the first place, how and where
and with what consequences. These questions are the product of social and political
debates. As Lawton observed, in the statement with which we began this chapter:
Science may help inform the process of (protected area)

establishment, but the decisions are ultimately political, ethical,
aesthetic, even religious, and embrace much more than just scientific
information. At its heart conservation is not a scientific activity.
(Lawton, 1997, p4)
Notes
1 Biodiversity refers to diversity at all scales – genes, species, habitat and ecosystems –
but is often equated with species numbers.
2 These figures are for eukaryotic species, which exclude bacteria.
3 This is not always an easy process. The disagreements that have arisen over the
state of Brazilian amphibians make it clear that when evaluators insist on a ‘strongly
evidentiary viewpoint’ 95 fewer species were identified as threatened compared to
evaluators who use a ‘precautionary but realistic approach’ (Stuart, et al, 2005).
Reading between the lines we infer that there are strong reasons for experts to
expect these species are in trouble, but inadequate field evidence for one group of
empirically driven scientists to declare them so (Pimenta, et al, 2005).
4 www.gristmagazine.com/grist/books/myers121201.asp (accessed 20 January 2003).
4
The Power of Parks
The scientific mind does not so much provide the

right answers as ask the right questions.
Claude Levi-Strauss (1969 (1964), p7)
The last two decades have seen the crystallization of fears by conservationists that
there is a substantial extinction crisis looming, if not already unfolding. They
have witnessed the growth of a substantial network of protected areas whose
development is becoming increasingly driven by, and responsive to, the
geography of rarity, endemism and land-use change. But the same period has also
seen substantial critiques of conservation practice, both in terms of its impact on
nature, and its consequences for society. The result has been a vigorous
examination of protected areas (often euphemized as ‘parks’). The discussion has
often been confusing according to the questions that different protagonists were
asking. We attempt to provide some clarity here.
First, we consider how well parks work. More precisely, we ask: is strong
protection from human influence by states the best way to protect valuable
nature, or would conservation objectives be advanced by encouraging other
mechanisms that allowed more human use, development objectives or local
control? We argue that there are good data demonstrating that parks protect
vegetation and wildlife well from human transformation, but poor data as to their
relative performance against other conservation mechanisms such as community
conservation or village governed forest reserves, or other such schemes. In other
words we do not understand the circumstances that might make formal protected
areas the best means of achieving conservation objectives.
Second we examine the impacts of parks on people. We consider how they have
distributed different types of fortune and misfortune to their neighbours and
stakeholders at different spatial scales. We examine the state of knowledge about
eviction from protected areas. We argue that there are clear, sometimes
widespread benefits arising from parks, many of which are hard to value in dismal
economic terms, and that these have often been accompanied by varying degrees
of local disempowerment, dispossession and marginalization. We argue that
enquiries into eviction alone can risk displacing more important issues. We note
that it is difficult to gain any comprehensive idea of the general social impacts of
parks for want of any systematic data collection.
In recent years these questions have become embroiled in two other confusing
conflicts. First, there is the poverty and conservation debate, which concerns
64 NATURE UNBOUND
conservation’s role in causing and reducing poverty. Second there is the principle
of local support, which states that parks without local support are bound to fail.
We examine both, arguing that each is often founded on misunderstandings or
confusions and that there is much more room for agreement between each side
than is first apparent.
This chapter does not develop the central thesis of the book about how
conservation and capitalism are combining. But the issues we examine here have
dominated discussions in conservation circles for many years and it is important
that we outline our position and thinking on them. This chapter does review in
detail how protected areas change nature and society. Given that our argument is
that conservation and capitalism are combining to reshape the world we need to
consider more carefully precisely what changes protected areas, the central
conservation strategy, bring.
How well do protected areas work?

Protected areas play a vital role in conservation strategies and have been vigorously
defended (Kramer et al, 1997; Brandon et al, 1998; Oates, 1999; Terborgh, 1999).
These arguments are partly based on the obvious successes of the more strictly
protected areas, generally termed ‘parks’ in protecting nature, and partly on diverse
failures and uncertainties associated with alternative strategies.
With respect to protecting vegetation, there are strong debates in Canada,
New Zealand and Australia about the place of grazing on public lands and the best
way of protecting grasslands from unwanted change, but these are not debates
about the effectiveness of parks per se. On the contrary, opponents of parks know
that they will be effective in excluding grazing if established; that is why they
oppose them. The disputes here are about the ecological necessity of protecting the
land from livestock, with farmers disputing the findings of ecologists and the
ability of the latter to know the land as they do. In New Zealand and Australia any
land protected from livestock has also to be protected from introduced herbivores,
carnivores and plant species (Mark, 1989; Gillies et al, 2003).
There is much more dispute about the most effective means of conserving
tropical forest. With respect to tropical forests’ protection, the importance of
parks is strongly supported by a number of studies. Bruner and colleagues
(2001a) found, on the basis of questionnaire evidence of managers and experts of
a sample of 93 tropical parks in populated areas, that 40 per cent had experienced
improvement of vegetation cover, 43 per cent had shown no further forest
clearance since establishment. Naughton-Treves and colleagues (2005) compared
36 deforestation rates inside and outside protected areas. In 32 cases the
deforestation rate was between 0.1 and 14 per cent faster outside protected areas’
boundaries. DeFries and colleagues (2005) examined the increasing isolation of
198 highly protected tropical forests using coarse resolution satellite data and
THE POWER OF PARKS 65
found that two thirds experienced significant deforestation within 50km of their
borders, but only a quarter had such within their boundaries.
There are problems with these studies. For example, it is not normally
appropriate to use questionnaire data to assess vegetation change. It is simply not
accurate, and prone to bias. In the case of Bruner and colleagues’ work many of
the respondents had a vested interest in showing that the parks were working
because they were on the staff. Naughton-Treves et al are handicapped by the
methodological problems of quantitatively comparing the rates of deforestation
across different studies. They also do not say what proportion of the deforestation
rates were 0.1 per cent and which 14 per cent lower. Nor do they, or DeFries and
her colleagues, mention the possibility that in some cases gazettement may hasten
land-use change beyond protected area boundaries. Nevertheless the trend in
these findings is clear. There are clear suggestions that in some, if not many,
circumstances, protecting a place by designating it as a park can much reduce
unwanted vegetation change.
But does this mean that parks are better than other forms of protection? If we
wish to protect a coastal forest in Madagascar, or a rainforest in New Zealand, is
it necessary to impose state enforced regulations? Government conservation
departments can be far removed from local realities, else simply absent and
unable to enforce their rules. There are all sorts of situations where some form of
local control may be better than distant state controls. None of the studies above,
however, address that question (Bruner et al, 2001b; Vanclay, 2002). They are
only concerned with how parks do compared to their surroundings, not with how
they perform compared with other means of protection. Ostrom and Nagendra’s
review of this literature concluded that the ‘debate over the effectiveness of strictly
protected areas needs to be extended to a much larger landscape of tenure
regimes’ (2006, p19225).
This is an important issue, but has been tackled with surprisingly few rigorous
studies. There are some relatively small-scale studies based on satellite data and aerial
photographs. Nepstad and colleagues have compared the relative efficiency of large
uninhabited parks and inhabited extractive and indigenous reserves in preventing
fire and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon using satellite data between 1997
and 2000 (for deforestation), and 1998 (for fires). They found that both forms were
effective against preventing fire and deforestation, with no significant differences
between either. They noted that the good performance of occupied reserves was
achieved despite their being at the frontier of deforestation pressure, whereas parks
benefited from their relative lack of proximate habitat change (Nepstad et al, 2006).
Ostrom and Nagendra report poor performance of selected parks in South Asia that
excluded local management, and better performance of community managed
forests nearby (Ostrom and Nagendra, 2006).
The most ambitious attempt to test the relative efficacy of protected areas is
work by Tanya Hayes and Elinor Ostrom, who have considered the relative
66 NATURE UNBOUND
Table 4.1 A comparison of the distribution of parks in Hayes’ sample and others
Country Hayes, 2006; Naughton- DeFries Bruner
Hayes and Ostrom, 2005 Treves et al, et al,
et al, 2005 2005 2001a
Non- Parks not Parks in

parks in WDPA WDPA
Argentina – – – – 5 –
Bolivia 3 6 – – 2 –
Brazil 2 1 – – 32 7
Columbia – – – – 9 8
Equador 1 – – 4 2 7
Paraguay – – – 3 3 1
Peru – – – 5 4 6
Venezuela – – – – 11 –
Belize – – – – 2 1
Costa Rica – – – 12 2 –
Guatemala 6 1 – 2 4 –
Honduras 1 – – 1 2 4
Mexico 2 4 – 2 – 1
Nicaragua – – – – 1 –
Panama – – – – 2 –
USA 7 – – – 1 –
Jamaica – – – 1 – –
Cambodia – – – – 4 1
China – – – 1 3 –
India 28 11 1 – 10 –
Indonesia – – – 3 29 8
Japan – – – – 1 –
Laos – – – – – 10
Malaysia – – – – 3 –
Table 4.1 A comparison of the distribution of parks in Hayes’ sample and others (cont’d)
Country Hayes, 2006; Naughton- DeFries Bruner
Hayes and Ostrom, 2005 Treves et al, et al,
et al, 2005 2005 2001
Non- Parks not Parks in

parks in WDPA WDPA
Myanmar – – – – 1 –
Nepal 22 23 2 – 1 –
Philippines – – – – 1 7
Sri Lanka – – – – 4 –
Taiwan – – – – 4 –
Thailand – – – – 29 3
Vietnam – – – 1 2 3
Brunei D’m – – – – 1 –
CAR – – – – 1 –
Congo – – – – 2 –
Cote d’Ivoire – – – – 2 4
DRC – – – – 4 –
Ghana – – – – – 10
Kenya – 1 4 1 1 –
Liberia – – – – 1 1
Madagascar 4 4 – – 5 5
Malawi – – – – 1 –
Senegal – – – – – 2
Tanzania 1 1 1 – – 6
Togo – – – – – 2
Uganda 10 3 13 8 – 6
Australia – – – – 2 –
Total 87 55 21 44 198 93
68 NATURE UNBOUND
effectiveness of parks compared to community controls in two recent papers

(Hayes and Ostrom, 2005; Hayes, 2006). They looked at data collected by the
International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) network on 163 forests,
of which 76 were ‘parks’ and 87 ‘non-parks’, where park was defined as falling in
one of the six IUCN categories (Table 4.1). All forests in the IFRI database
provide relatively standardized data about institutions governing their use,
ownership, user communities and forest products used. To compare forest
condition Hayes and Ostrom used assessments of vegetation density made by
independent professional foresters who compared the vegetation density of IFRI
forests to other forests in the same ecological zone.
Hayes and Ostrom report no difference in the vegetation density of parks and
non-parks. But they found evidence that might make parks imposed and policed
by government a less robust form of conservation than protection rooted in local
institutions. For instance, they found that density of vegetation was higher where
more forest products had rules governing use, and lower where there were no
rules. They found vegetation density was more abundant where more user groups
could define the rules and sparser where fewer could. Thus what makes for more
effective protection (denser vegetation relative to similar forests) is not the official
designation, but rather the role of residents in defining rules for forest products.
But there are several problems with this analysis. There were no data about the
size of these forests, and so it is impossible to assess the relative significance of the
contribution of parks and non-parks to protected area networks. There are also
problems with how the term ‘park’ was defined. Few of the parks in the analysis
were included in the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA) (Table 4.1).
This could reflect its incompletenesses, but it could also mean that there is simply
inadequate overlap between this sample of parks and those other authors have
used. The WDPA lists nearly 4700 other protected areas in the countries Hayes
and Ostrom examined, including nearly 1700 forest reserves, which are not part
of their analyses. The WDPA is not the ultimate authority as to what constitutes
a park. But it has formed the basis for other studies (Rodrigues et al, 2004;
DeFries et al, 2005; Naughton-Treves et al, 2005). Rigorous methodologies need
not be based on the WDPA, but it would be useful for comparative purposes to
know how samples of parks relate to the WDPA.
It is perhaps unfortunate that Hayes and Ostrom tied their work so tightly to
parks. The term is a shibboleth (Redford et al, 2006, p1); it is widely used, but in
ways that reinforce prejudice, obscuring more than it reveals. One could argue that
parks are in fact irrelevant to their argument. They are in fact concerned with the
importance for conservation of locally derived rules of resource-use control. There
is a risk that the value of their findings will be lost by the confusion over the term
‘park’.
But this work also shows us that Hayes’ question, ‘Are parks effective?’, is just
a little too blunt. Effective for whom, for what nature? And if Bruner and his
colleagues show that 40 per cent of (large tropical forest) parks ‘have seen an
improvement in vegetation cover’, they also show that 17 per cent were not
‘holding their borders’ against agricultural expansion and a further 43 per cent
merely had no further net clearing (cf. Roe et al, 2003). The question to ask in
these circumstances is not whether they are failing or succeeding, but rather
under what circumstances were they strong, and when were they weak? As we will
argue later, it is not adequate simply to assert that they will be weak without local
support.
With respect to wildlife the value of parks is again clear, but the relative
effectiveness of parks compared to other strategies, and the impact of different
levels of hunting on conservation objectives is less so. We know that the answer
to the question ‘Do parks reduce mortality from hunting?’ is ‘Yes’, but given that,
several other questions become important:
● Precisely what impacts does hunting have on animal populations?

● How many and how large do parks need to be to protect wildlife?
● How will the impact of parks vary for different taxa according to their size
and distribution across the landscape?
● What mosaic of parks and other strategies are required to advance
conservation objectives?
● What hunting or other types of resource use could be allowed in parks?
We can sketch some broad geographical patterns dividing the world into
temperate and tropical regions and the latter into forests and grassland. In
temperate countries strong well-organized local sports hunting lobbies have
campaigned vigorously and effectively for good hunting habitat. This form of
hunting is often highly compatible with conservation objectives, as it means more
land where wildlife can thrive. Parks are routinely hunted in the UK, and in many
other countries that forbid hunting in protected areas, wildlife habitat extends far
beyond park boundaries on private lands because of the lucrative revenues
hunting on them can command.
There are some important exceptions to this rule. In Australia hunters want
sustained populations of Sambar deer, and Brumbie runners want wild horses,
both of which are large introduced species with problematic impacts on the
ecosystem. In New Zealand large populations of deer, chamois, thar, goat and pig
cause severe damage to vegetation (Mark, 1989). Hunting of these species is
freely allowed in national parks, and again hunting lobbies desire sustained
populations that other conservationists wish removed. Nor is this just a New
World problem. In Scotland large deer populations inhibit the regrowth of forest
(Toogood, 2003).
Hunting by indigenous people of indigenous fauna in temperate areas can be
viewed with suspicion by some conservationists. Use within or near protected
areas is often resented. In New Zealand Maori harvesting of mutton birds is a
bone of contention with conservationists (Taiepa et al, 1997), as are Maori desires
70 NATURE UNBOUND
to hunt wildlife, such as the rare kereru (native pigeon) for traditional purposes
(Galbreath, 2002; Young, 2004). Similar disputes are visible in Australia over
hunting dugong (albeit not temperate) and the harvest of marine resources inside
national parks, and in North America over indigenous whaling and seal kills.
In the tropics, the importance of parks for protecting wildlife is not disputed,
but again the relative importance of parks to other strategies is not clear. In
grasslands and open habitat, especially in Africa, parks are often inadequate to
support many large species that migrate long distances and which depend on land
outside their borders (Borner, 1985; Western, 1994). There are many attempts to
sustain wildlife populations beyond park borders, which we will review in the
next chapter. Improvements in village forest management have seen
improvements in populations of many species, including large, slow breeding
ones (Monela et al, 2004; Blomely and Ramadhani, 2006).
Commercial hunting operations outside national parks, and sometimes of
village land can provide substantial sources of revenue, which if well distributed
locally can make wildlife valuable (Novelli et al, 2006). In Africa it is a valuable
industry and estimated to generate about $200 million a year, with half of that
spent in South Africa (Lindsey et al, 2007). Sport and trophy hunting has
increasingly become part of conservation argument and policies, and is promoted
as a low-impact sustainable use approach, adding value to natural resources
(Hofer, 2002; Novelli and Humavindu, 2005; Novelli et al, 2006). The studies
show the central importance of sport hunting for wildlife to Namibian tourism
economy. The ecological impact varies with the quality of control exerted over
adherence to trophy quotas (Loveridge et al, 2007). Interestingly Novelli and
colleagues argue that sport hunting should be defined as a form of ecotourism
because although it depends on killing individual animals it has a lower overall
impact on the environment and brings in a greater level of revenue than regular
photographic tourism. Sport hunters do not require the levels of infrastructure in
the form of hotels, restaurants, bars and roads that non-consumptive tourism
depends on (Smith and Duffy, 2003; Novelli et al, 2006).
Such ‘consumptive’ forms of wildlife tourism are highly controversial, either
because they can kill charismatic animals such as elephants (Fortmann, 2005), or
because they can restrict local access to valued resources (Dzingirai, 2003; Robbins
and Luginbuhl, 2005). As a result community-based conservation and tourism
programmes that are reliant on sport hunting have also been criticized; for example,
Communal Areas Management Plan for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in
Zimbabwe was highly dependent on trophy hunting as a source of revenue and as
such attracted criticism from the Humane Society of the US and International
Fund for Animal Welfare, amongst others (Smith and Duffy, 2003, pp145–158).
As to the relative importance of parks and commercial hunting operations for
conservation, it is in fact often not realistic to compare the two. For viable
commercial hunting often depends on nearby parks as a source of wildlife. Both
are seen as complementary but the mosaics of land use resulting tend to reflect
the willpower of governments, locals and donors rather than much systematic
planning.
Hunting in tropical forests is particularly worrying for conservationists.
Productivity of wild meat is an order of magnitude less than more open habitats
(Milner-Gulland et al, 2003), and there is also often fewer domestic livestock to
provide local needs for meat. Demands for protein (Brashares et al, 2004) and an
urban preference for wild meat is driving substantial hunting. The impacts of
changing animal abundance cascade through the ecosystem (affecting animal-
dispersed seeds) and society (affecting income and diet, Stoner et al, 2007). Again
there are clear geographical patterns in the consequences driven by population
density (figures below are from Milner-Gulland et al, 2003). In Asia, where high
population densities in forest (522/km2) combine with strong demands from
prosperous urban areas, the effects are considerable, with numerous local and
regional extirpations. One review suggested that ‘commercially important species
have disappeared or exist at low densities (Corlett, 2007). Bennett (2002) notes
that diets have changed in order to cope with the lack of wild meat due to the
combined effects of habitat loss and hunting.
In West Africa (population density 99/km2) substantial defaunation has already
taken place with only resilient fast-breeding species remaining (Bennett et al,
2007) and offtake rates of many species are unsustainable in many parts of
Central Africa. Wilkie and Carpenter (1999) report that hunting reduced species
density by 43–100 per cent, with the greatest effects on large slow-breeding
animals. Oates documents empty forests in Ghana with hunters reduced to
killing birds (Oates, 1999). Hunting combined with disease has resulted in the
catastrophic decline of apes in western equatorial Africa (Walsh et al, 2003).
These problems are present but less severe in Latin American forests
(population density 46/km2). Hunting has a noticeable impact on population
abundances and structure (Bodmer et al, 1997; Bodmer and Lozano, 2001). Kent
Redford coined the term ‘empty forest’ to describe hunted forests in the
neotropics (Redford, 1992). Indigenous hunters in the Amazon do not appear to
hunt in order to conserve their prey populations, instead taking animals
opportunistically, regardless of their gender and attempting to maximize return
for effort rather than the long-term viability of prey populations (Alvard, 1993,
1995; Alvard et al, 1997). But people’s impact is relatively slight because their
numbers are few (Smith and Wishnie, 2000). In the Amazon there are large areas
of land that are largely unhunted (Fa et al, 2002). These authors suggest that
60 per cent of taxa in the Congo are exploited unsustainably but none in the
Amazon.
What are the consequences of these patterns for the parks debate? In the
Amazon, as in Australia and New Zealand, conservation concerns reflect desires
to preserve fauna that do not reflect the presence of people. Wildlife is not
generally threatened by hunting, but inhabited forest is simply less interesting to
conservationists. Conservationists also fear repeating patterns of wildlife loss seen
72 NATURE UNBOUND
in Asia and Africa. As Redford and Sanderson observed of forest peoples and their
representatives:
They may speak for their version of a forest, but they do not speak
for the forest we want to conserve.
(Redford and Sanderson, 2000 p1364)
In West and Central Africa large areas free from hunting (parks) are indispensable
to conservation objectives. But observers also recognize that a cornucopia of
strategies to reduce hunting generally (more protein from other sources), changing
the species taken (education campaigns, taxes, enforcement), and local
conservation initiatives (no-take areas) will be necessary (Milner-Gulland et al,
2003; Bennett et al, 2007). The latter is particularly important for rural prosperity
also. The decline in bushmeat availability due to sales to urban markets presents
many problems to rural residents who then lose an important source of income
and protein, especially in lean seasons (de Merode et al, 2004; Nielsen, 2006).
Research by de Merode has shown that village chiefs have actively prevented the
sale in local markets of slow-breeding species taken with heavy weaponry in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) even during the civil war. Urban
markets in contrast showed a massive increase in wild meat availability in that
period as controls broke down and hunting and weapons proliferated (de Merode
and Cowlishaw, 2006).
The constant call in the literature is for a broader vision of a mosaic of land
management – parks, no-take areas and diverse community-based strategies that
will allow for larger healthier wildlife populations. What we lack are the data on
the distribution and density of many hunted species that would allow us to
predict the consequences for wildlife of different mosaics (Milner-Gulland et al,
2003). Beyond securing a basic minimum of sites that might prevent extinction
the appropriate configuration of parks and other strategies for effective wildlife
conservation is far from clear.
What do parks do to people?

It is not as easy as it might seem to catalogue the way that parks distribute fortune
and misfortune among different groups in society. In many cases a benefit to one
group is a disadvantage to another. The loss of grazing for transhumant
pastoralists and their removal elsewhere might result fewer cattle thefts for more
sedentary neighbours. Lost income for women selling traditional medicines
gathered in protected areas may be achieved through employment opportunities
given to young men to act as forest guards. Prohibitions on hunting by elderly
skilled hunters may be accompanied by distributions of cash or payments for
local services by hunting revenues from wealthy tourists. Healthy forests on
watersheds may benefit lowland irrigators, but could be accompanied by
restrictions to the livelihoods of forest dwellers. When the Mkomazi Game

Reserve in Tanzania was cleared of its pastoral occupants the cattle keepers lost
prime grazing land, and a local cattle market collapsed. Nearby farmers in one
village, however, benefited from new investments into schools and other
infrastructure, which pastoralists were less able to enjoy because some had moved
away and others were now earning less money and so could not send their
children to school so easily (Brockington, 2002).
In spite of the difficulties in measuring the costs and benefits of conservation,
and the lack of good data about them, debates about parks’ impact on people are
still often cast in terms of their costs and benefits. Studies have tended to focus
either on simply the benefits, or on just the costs. Balanced evaluations of
individual protected areas are rare, and on networks of protected areas even fewer.
We will discuss each separately.
The benefits that advocates of parks list are legion. Parks safeguard ecosystem
services. They act as water catchments, providing vegetation cover that aids
infiltration of water into the ground and preventing soil erosion that would
otherwise fill dams. They are sources of genetic diversity for food crops. They
could house species that could be useful to medical science in its search for cures
to human disease. Parks provide recreation and release for tired city dwellers;
more than that, they focus tourists into a relatively few places, creating more
space elsewhere. The tourist industries they sustain can make valuable
contributions to the economy. They provide aesthetic pleasure, both to actual
visitors, and through the industries of image making (film, painting, pictures and
poetry), which they house. Parks are a focus of research activities, either on
species only found easily within them, or because researchers wish to explore
dynamics in ecosystems with relatively little human impact. Parks have become a
focus of nation building and a focal point of development strategies. By providing
people with the types of contact with nature that they lack in their daily lives they
inspire them to become conservationists.
But the costs, which critics of parks decry, are also many. They cause eviction
and physical displacement; they cause economic displacement, denying people
access to fuelwood, thatching grass, water, lumber, meat and diverse other
resources. The fact that they often do this to poor and weak rural groups, the
better to create relaxing holidays and pleasing vistas for the world’s wealthy is
unpleasant, and often unjust. Parks also displace people symbolically. They write
them out of landscape’s history, proclaiming that they do not belong. Parks are a
means by which states extend their bureaucratic powers over land use and lives.
They can marginalize and disempower local resource management and
fundamentally alter the livelihoods from which people derive their identities.
Parks rarely, if ever, do only one of these things, however. Instead they distribute
fortune and misfortune at the same time. It is rarely meaningful to speak of
benefits offsetting costs, or vice versa. In many cases the groups benefiting and
those suffering are different. The benefits to one are a cost to another. ‘Net’ gain
74 NATURE UNBOUND
or loss is experienced only at the broad scale and rarely within the lives of those
affected. Where individuals do experience both gains and costs they are often not
particularly commensurable – it is simply a change, a new set of circumstances in
which they now live. Quite often, however, costs are experienced in terms of access
to natural resources, while benefits usually come in the form of training, technical
development projects, and opportunities in the market economy (Igoe, 2006b).
This basic pattern has two important implications for people living in and around
protected areas: 1) technical development projects and trainings may indeed be
benefits but they are not usually as direct and immediate as benefits from the
environment – an especially important distinction in communities where many
people are poor and food insecure; and 2) because the concept of development is
premised on the idea that people will move to market-based livelihoods. In many
cases, however, people displaced are not well absorbed by the market economy.
This can be a common outcome whenever natural resources are appropriated from
local people at the behest of more distant interests and agendas, whether this
appropriation is for a park, a mine or a hydroelectric dam.
As we observed in the Preface, criticisms of parks, however well founded, can
still cause resentment among conservationists. One of us (Brockington) has
attended high-level meetings to consider the social impacts of protected areas in
which senior conservationists have said that conservationists simply need to
communicate better the fact that parks are good things and win the argument
again. But a more reasonable position is that there is a basic lack of data to make
the assertion that parks are good. We have no comprehensive surveys of the social
impacts of protected areas. There is still a considerable reluctance on behalf of
some conservationists to collect basic data on, for example, evictions from
protected areas or tourist revenues generated by them. Calls for systematic studies
of the social impacts of protected areas (Brockington and Schmidt-Soltau, 2004)
have largely gone unanswered (but see Wilkie et al, 2006 for an exception).
One of the more fundamental gaps in our current knowledge is that we do not
even know how many people live in different types of protected area. The WDPA
does not record whether not people are found inside protected areas, or whether
they would be allowed to live in them. We have to consult individual country case
studies to examine this, and the best work is becoming increasingly dated. Work
in India in the late 1980s found that 56 per cent of national parks and 72 per cent
of sanctuaries had resident peoples (Kothari et al, 1989).1 A survey of 70 per cent
of national parks in South America in 1991 found that 85 per cent had people
living inside them (Amend and Amend, 1995).2 More recent studies also suggest
that protected areas are characterized by high rates of occupancy. A study of 91
protected areas in well populated tropical areas found that 70 per cent were
occupied by people (Bruner et al, 2001a). Individual studies in Mongolia, East
Kalimantan, Myanmar and the Central African Sub-region indicate use rates of
70–100 per cent (Jepson et al, 2002; Rao et al, 2002; Bedunah and Schmidt,
2004; Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, 2006).
Analyses of satellite data of agricultural activity within protected areas provide

little extra guidance. The only global survey concluded that it is practised in
29 per cent of the known area of protected areas (McNeely and Scherr, 2003;
Molnar et al, 2004a). Unfortunately this research used an old version of the
WDPA in which only 44,000 protected areas with adequate geographical
information systems (GIS) data were available (Sebastian, pers. comm. 2005).
Polygons or centre points are now available for more than 75,000 sites (Chape
et al, 2005). However, there are also problems with the quality of the data. First,
it is unable to detect agro-forestry, such as shade-grown coffee. It could also not
distinguish between fallowed land growing trees, and unused land. Moreover
since agricultural activity was defined as areas with at least 30 per cent of land
under crops it thus omits less intensive cultivation. It gives no indication of
pastoral use of rangelands (present in 100 per cent of Mongolia’s protected areas).
Finally the global 29 per cent is a bald statistic. We do not have a breakdown of
the extent of agricultural activity by geographic region, category of protected area
or ecological potential.3 It is difficult to say, therefore, how many protected areas
are not cultivated because they are cold and inhospitable, or how much of the
cultivation is an integral part of the conserved landscape (as in many British
protected areas).
It is worth dwelling on one of the most contentious aspects of protected areas:
their role in causing eviction of people (Brockington and Igoe, 2006; Redford
and Fearn, 2007). Opinions about the natures and scale of this problem are
divided. Borgerhoff Mulder and Coppolillo stated that the literature on evictions
from protected areas offers ‘a massive cataloguing of past, recent and ongoing
abuses’ (Borgerhoff Mulder and Coppolillo, 2005, p36). David Wilkie and his
colleagues asserted, that ‘to date little empirical evidence exists to substantiate the
contention that parks are bad for local people’ (Wilkie et al, 2006, p247). We
believe that the truth lies somewhere between these two positions. There are
many cases of displacement that Wilkie and colleagues are ignoring. But
Borgerhoff Mulder and Coppolillo are exaggerating the quality, extent and order
of knowledge. Our grasp of the subject is simply not as good as they claim.
Brockington and Igoe (2006) carried out a global review of protected area
evictions. The reports collected covered only 184 protected areas with many
giving no details as to their actual impacts. It is highly likely that much has gone
unreported. But we can get some inkling of the geography of evictions from these
studies. Evictions have been most common in Africa, South and Southeast Asia
and North America; relatively few are reported in this literature from South and
Central America, Australia, Europe, the former Soviet Union and most of the
Caribbean and Pacific.
We also learnt something of the history of eviction. Most protected areas from
which evictions have been reported were set up before 1980 (Table 4.2). This is
not a global trend, but the consequence of the strong patterns in North America
and sub-Saharan Africa that are well represented in the cases we have studied. In
76 NATURE UNBOUND
Table 4.2 Establishment decades of protected area for which evictions have been
reported
Pre- 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1940
S.E. Asia – – – 1 3 3 3 –
South Asia 1 – – 1 6 7 2 –
W. & C. Africa 2 – 4 6 2 2 3 7
E. & S. Africa 6 5 8 17 19 4 3 –
North Amer. 6 1 – – 8 2 1 –
Cen. Amer. – – – – 5 3 2 –
some regions (Central America, South and Southeast Asia) the opposite trend is
apparent, with more protected areas for which evictions are reported established
after 1980. Regardless of the trends in establishment, we should not infer the
timing of evictions from the date of establishment. In many cases laws providing
for the removal of people from a protected area were not established until long
after it was set up.
But there are remarkably few studies published on eviction before 1990, and a
surge of publications thereafter (Table 4.3). The surge does not appear to have
been driven by a spate of recent evictions. Rather they were mainly the result of
a spate of historical investigations (Table 4.4). This has characterized research on
protected areas in southern African (Carruthers, 1995; Koch, 1997; Ranger,
1999; Palmer et al, 2002; Bolaane, 2004a, b, 2005; Brooks, 2005) and eastern
Africa (Neumann, 1998; Brockington, 2002). It has been a particularly strong
feature of scholarship emerging from North America (Catton, 1997; Keller and
Turek, 1998; Spence, 1999; Burnham, 2000; Jacoby, 2001; Igoe, 2004b;
Nabakov and Lawrence, 2004). In other regions (such as South America) the
relative lack of historical re-examination and the general paucity of eviction cases
suggest that the practice has been relatively rare of late.
Where eviction is still prevalent it is often bound up with other debates about
environmental change or degradation (Tanzania – Usangu Game Reserve),
ecosystem services (Thailand – the Karen people in the highlands)
Table 4.3 The history of publication of eviction

Decade beginning 1970 1980 1990 2000
Number of studies 8 24 109 104

Table 4.4 Timing of removals reported in papers published after 1990

Protected area established
Timing of removals Up to 1990 1990 to present Total

Pre-1990 97 – 97
Post-1990 14 24 38
Unspec’d 16 1 17
(Laungaramsri, 1999; Buergin and Kessler, 2000; Sato, 2000, 2002; Buergin,
2003), or the appropriate development strategy for undeveloped people who live
in parks and who need to be moved out so that they can become proper citizens
(Botswana) (Ikeya, 2001). Eviction is one of the techniques conservation requires
to achieve its goals. The issue is how it is carried out, and with what consequences
to local people (Schmidt-Soltau and Brockington, 2007). Unfortunately many of
the important players in conservation circles are yet to come up with a coherent
response over how to handle evictions (Winer et al, 2007). There are cases of
relocation for conservation both increasing and intensifying inequality (McLean
and Straede, 2003), and redressing it, providing once landless evictees with good
land (Karanth, 2007).
But more importantly our review also showed that there were far more
important things going on than just eviction. It remains the most dramatic and
devastating impact, the most violent thing a state can do to its law-abiding
citizens. But it is not the most prevalent problem that many people face and there
is a real danger that a focus on eviction will divert attention away from more
pressing issues.
One such pressing issue is the problem of empowerment and marginalization
(which we examine in the following chapters). Another is the impacts of anti-
poaching policies. Wildlife poaching is often identified as a key threat to the
survival of some of the most high-profile species, including tigers, rhinos and
elephants (Neumann, 2004). Poaching can range from subsistence hunting with
snares and traps (for antelope, birds etc. for food) and commercial scale hunting
for lucrative wildlife products (birds eggs, ivory and rhino horn etc.). But what is
poaching exactly? In sub-Saharan Africa, the arrival of colonial rule was also
accompanied by new stipulations on hunting. As Mackenzie’s (1988) detailed
study points out, ‘hunting for the pot’ by Africans was criminalized through laws
banning the use of traps and snares. However, the newly declared reserves and
parks were opened up for recreational hunting by Europeans. The colonial legal
framework set the boundaries for defining poaching versus acceptable hunting,
and also legitimated the ways that colonial authorities often used hunting for
game to underpin and subsidize the costs of imperial expansion across Africa
(Mackenzie, 1988; Mutwira, 1989).
78 NATURE UNBOUND
In a sense this way of thinking about poachers versus hunters is present in

current NGO campaigns about the need to prevent poaching. The view of
commercial poachers in Africa that has been presented by NGOs and
governments is that they are black, poverty-stricken and usually cross
international borders to engage in commercial poaching. In the late 1980s the
high-profile international campaigns about ivory poaching blamed illegal
hunting in Kenya on Somali shifta crossing the border to hunt and then sell ivory
on the lucrative international black market. However, later analyses of poaching
in East and southern Africa pointed the finger at government-level corruption
and the role of national armies such as the South African Defence Force, which
indicated that poaching was highly organized and interlinked with transnational
organized criminal networks that traded ivory, rhino horn, drugs, stolen cars and
engaged in people trafficking (Bonner, 1993; Ellis, 1994; Reeve and Ellis, 1995).
Following these high-profile campaigns, the issue of poaching has not gone
away, although its profile is slightly different. In general, there have been two
different types of response from authorities engaged in conservation including
national governments and conservation NGOs. The first is related to the
community conservation debates, and revolves around giving local communities
a stake in conservation efforts. For example, programmes referred to as turning
‘poachers into game guards’ are focused on giving paid employment to former
poachers as rangers for protected areas. These kinds of initiatives are discussed
more fully in Chapter 5. The second kind of response is coercion. Peluso argues
that a state’s capacity to control and extract resources is a function of relations
between state and society, but that the state’s ability to enforce policy varies
widely (Peluso, 1993). Extraction of resources has included allocation of land for
tourism and rights of access to wildlife and this has led to the state and local
people holding competing claims over national parks and wildlife. As a result, the
state has used conservation as a means of coercing local people (Neumann, 1997,
1998). Successive governments have excluded local people from national parks
and outlawed the use of wildlife in order to preserve a national asset for tourism,
sport hunting and game viewing, which are mostly the realm of the wealthy.
Poachers cannot all be considered in the same way because there are different
motivating reasons for poaching. But in a number of NGO campaigns in the
1980s all poachers were treated as equally culpable. The reasons for poaching
were not generally explored since the fact that animals were being poached
formed the basis of the campaigns (Peluso, 1993, pp205–209). In NGO
campaigns poachers are often vilified as criminals or characterized as poverty
stricken individuals driven to make money through illegal activity.
Coercive anti-poaching efforts are often reliant on an alliance between the
state, donors and international green NGOs. For example, Bonner (1993)
documents the use of a helicopter donated by Prince Phillip to the World
Wildlife Fund for nature (WWF) for national government anti-poaching
operations in Zimbabwe. After it was found that the helicopter had been
authorized to engage in shoot-to-kill campaigns in the Zambezi Valley, WWF

International withdrew the helicopter amidst claims by Amnesty International
that the ‘wildlife wars’ in sub-Saharan Africa were responsible for massive human
rights abuses (Bonner, 1993; Duffy, 2000). The use of various coercive methods,
including violence and shoot-to-kill, raises questions about who gives
authorization for the use of coercion and violence. These questions are all the
more pertinent with the development of privately owned reserves and the use of
private companies employed to carry out anti-poaching strategies.
Ferguson (2006) suggests that the commitment to privatized violence is visible
in the realm of environmental politics because of the apparent ‘need’ to secure
protected areas for internationally valuable ecotourism. States and international
environmental NGOs have carved out spatial enclaves to protect biodiverse
hotspots. In the zeal for protecting species, NGOs and states have presided over an
expansion of use of mercenary forces to carry out anti-poaching patrols. Ferguson
highlights the scheme by African Rainforest and River Conservation (cf. Shanahan,
2005) operating in Central African Republic where the sale of diamonds dug up
in the area they control are used to fund the reserve; management of the reserve
includes hiring ex-South African and Rhodesian mercenaries to organize anti-
poaching patrols that attack groups of poachers operating from Sudan. As
Ferguson suggests, these might seem like extreme measures but unfortunately they
are not uncommon in conservation practice (Ferguson, 2006, pp42–47).
These schemes may begin with genuine goals of conserving species, but the
commitment to the ‘global good’ of conservation can result not just in misfortune
for certain groups and individuals, but can in fact end up legitimizing and justifying
serious human rights abuses. This in turn reinforces the negative view (especially in
Africa) that wildlife simply matters more than people. The development of private
armies to protect reserves and species also raise complex ethical questions
(Neumann, 2004): On whose authority do such private entities engage in violence
against suspected poachers? Who legitimizes their use of shoot-to-kill policies? It is
important not to forget that these private conservation armies generally deal with
people who are only suspected of, and not convicted of, illegal hunting.
Poverty, conservation and local support

The poverty and conservation debate is hotly contested between those who feel
that conservation policy should address poverty issues, and those who do not.
Among the latter a common theme is that conservation is not about reducing
poverty but about saving habitat, wildness and biodiversity. Advocates of this
position argue that conservation is not responsible for the high levels of inequality
and poverty visible globally, and the conservation movement should not try to
become responsible for addressing these ills. Many of the places that
conservationists are interested in for biodiversity reasons just happen also to be
poor, and conservationists should not seek to become responsible for tackling the
80 NATURE UNBOUND
thorny issues that cause this poverty. Rather they should recognize that
development and poverty reduction is a hard and complex task, and they should
accept the limitations to their expertise and restrict themselves to saving species
and habitat (Sanderson and Redford, 2003).
This position was strengthened by the widely recognized problems with so-called
‘Integrated Conservation with Development’ Projects, which had tried to combine
conservation with development goals. This idea had won widespread support among
donor circles. Many projects had been attempted at the cost of millions of dollars,
but few could show any tangible gains for conservation objectives; in many cases
they may have disrupted them (Wels et al, 1999). Consequently many observers felt
that it was better to ‘decouple’ the objectives of development and conservation,
pursuing both separately (Barrett and Arcese, 1995).
In response critics of that proposed separation of duties observed that there
were many cases where conservation, as we have seen above, was responsible for
the impoverishment of rural people. It was quite wrong, they argued, to ignore
the poverty for which conservation policies were responsible. Moreover it was
self-defeating as poverty drove the environmentally damaging behaviour with
which conservationists were struggling. Ignoring development, and ‘decoupling’
conservation from it denied the possibility of ‘win–win’ scenarios where
conservation and development gains could both be realized. The failure of IDCPs
was real, but these were large donor-driven initiatives that were unsustainable
without aid. More locally driven community conservation initiatives, while
complex and difficult, have already demonstrated that conservation and
development goals can be realized together.
The poverty–conservation debate is fraught and often confused. It gets
particularly heated because the centres of biodiversity conservationists value most
are often also located in the poorest parts of the world where development needs
are greatest. Bill Adams, with minor assistance from his colleagues, made a
valuable contribution in Science, which distinguished two normative stances and
two empirical arguments in the debate (Adams et al, 2004).
The normative stances were:
1 Conservation and poverty reduction are separate policy realms

Conservation policy should not consider development goals directly. Any
incidental benefits such as improved ecosystem services, or the
development of local tourism industries could be welcomed but should
not made explicit goals. Rather conservation policy should be evaluated
according to its impact on species or landscape conservation.
2 Conservation should not compromise poverty reduction
The success of conservation policy is measured by its impact on species
and landscapes, but in the process it ought not to impoverish people.
Where it causes local hardship this needs to be compensated, even if it is
not strictly necessary to achieve conservation’s goals.
The empirical claims were:
1 Poverty impedes conservation

Poaching and environmental degradation is often pursued by the poor in
short-sighted ways. When people become richer they are more amenable
to accepting conservation policies. Addressing poverty is therefore a means
of directly and indirectly promoting conservation.
2 Poverty reduction depends on sustainable resource use
Where livelihoods depend on living resources their sustainable use will
promote both the resource and the livelihood associated with it.
It is worth noting another position in this debate, specifically adopted with

respect to protected areas, which is sometimes adopted in verbal debates, but
which we have rarely seen in print. This holds that parks are just good things and
generate wealth. This is implied in works that only examine the benefits of
protected areas and not their cost. It is also implied in the performance indicators
of the Millennium Development Goals. One of the indicators used to evaluate
performance of goal 7 (ensure environmental sustainability) is the proportion of
land held in protected areas (target 9). The implication is that more protected
areas will result in less poverty.
As noted above, this has been a central premise of international development
since the 1950s and the idea of growth poles, which are large-scale generators of
wealth that are assumed to have amplifier effects to the local economy. From this
perspective, then, parks are seen as a kind of growth pole. But the empirical basis
for this claim is weak.
Conversely other observers have argued that poverty increases with protected
area growth. Geisler and de Sousa (2001) have argued that in Africa the poorest
countries had the largest protected area estate. Geisler (2003) also observed that
between 1985 and 1997 poorer African countries gazetted many more protected
areas than richer African countries. But this position too does not withstand close
scrutiny. Upton and colleagues examined the relationship between diverse indices
of poverty and compared them to more recent editions of the WDPA. They
found no relationship between them at the national scale, concluding that the
local impacts of protected areas are just that – local (Upton et al, 2008).
If we parse practical conservation problems according to the scheme Adams
and colleagues outline we suspect much more constructive disagreements become
possible. Few people will dispute that, if conservation objectives are about
preventing extinction and reducing the threat of extinction, then its success and
priorities are best measured in terms of relative abundance of rare species. In this
respect its distinctness from poverty reduction policies are important. Equally few
conservationists believe that it is acceptable for biodiversity reduction to cause or
enhance poverty, particularly where the people affected are already disadvantaged.
In terms of empirical positions, where it can be shown that conservation
82 NATURE UNBOUND
objectives are being threatened by poverty, or where they can be enhanced by

diverse strategies of pursuing local prosperity, then few conservationists would
object to strategies that reduce the one and promote the other.
This parsing does not necessarily make the decision making easy. For example,
how can we determine how much poverty is caused by conservation? How closely
do schemes to promote prosperity have to be tied to conservation outcomes for
them to be valuable to conservation’s remit? For example consider one of the first
experiments in community-based conservation and ecotourism development in
southern Belize: the Cockscomb Basin Jaguar Preserve. The preserve was initially
designated as a forest reserve in 1984, and was later expanded and converted into
the world’s first jaguar sanctuary, supported by WWF International and Jaguar
cars. In 2000 the EU agreed to a €1.28 million grant to support co-management
of the Cockscomb Basin Jaguar Preserve and other protected areas by the Belize
Audubon Society, in conjunction with local communities.4
Like many other protected areas the creation of the Jaguar Preserve required
relocation of local communities to a new site: the Maya Centre Village. The
initial rationale was that Cockscomb would be a community-managed
conservation area, and that the people of Maya Centre Village would directly
benefit from the ecotourism revenues generated by the scheme. These revenues
would then be used to compensate them for loss of access to areas they had
historically used for subsistence agriculture and hunting. This was intended to
ensure that the local communities did not have to live with all the costs of
creating and enforcing protected areas without any of the benefits.
The creation of Cockscomb meant that agriculture and hunting became illegal
in the preserve, even though they were vital subsistence activities for local people.
As a result, the establishment of the jaguar sanctuary led directly to a significant
reduction in access to resources contained within the reserve, including locally
important spiritual and religious sites. The preserve was managed by the Belize
Audubon Society, while the community was supposed to develop the
institutional capacity to take over running the preserve. This led to criticisms that
the jaguar sanctuary merely replicated the traditional relationship between
communities and state-run conservation agencies. Despite the promises that
Cockscomb would constitute a significant departure in conservation policy local
communities have failed to gain substantial economic benefits or genuine
participation in the management of the preserve (Duffy, 2002, pp105–107).
Such complex situations as these demonstrate how difficult it can be to see
clearly with respect to the problems of conservation and poverty. Has the scheme
made people poorer, or just failed to make them richer? Has it caused them any
material harm, or has it marginalized them more, or has it merely failed to
address, or worse intensified, existing inequalities of power? It might bring more
economic benefit at some point in the future; else its market-guided alterations
might not be associated with any meaningful changes.
A second area of confusion has arisen from the strongly held beliefs among
advocates of community conservation that parks cannot survive without local
support. This belief, called ‘the principle of local support’ (Brockington, 2004) is
reiterated constantly in the conservation literature. It is one of the main reasons
why strong approaches to conservation that impose protection laws (often called
‘fortress conservation’) have been criticized in recent years. David Western, once
head of the Kenyan Wildlife Service, wrote that ‘a fallacy of protectionism is that
we can ignore costs locally’ (Western, 2001, p202). The President of IUCN,
opening the fourth World Parks Congress in Caracas, stated the importance in
bald terms, claiming that ‘quite simply, if local people do not support protected
areas, then protected areas cannot last’ (Ramphal, 1993, p57). Ed Barrow and
Christo Fabricius, prominent conservationists in East and South Africa, stated
that ‘[u]ltimately, conservation and protected areas in contemporary Africa must
either contribute to national and local livelihoods, or fail in their biodiversity
goals’ (Barrow and Fabricius, 2002). Adrian Phillips, a leading figure in the
IUCN, when asked to name one key lesson to be gleaned out of interactions
between protected areas and their neighbours, found the answer ‘very simple’; it
was ‘the iron rule that no protected area can succeed for long in the teeth of local
opposition’ (Borrini-Feyerabend et al, 2002).
Conservation undoubtedly becomes easier with the support of a sympathetic
local population. There are many occasions when wildlife, vegetation and
landscape have suffered because their conservation is unpopular locally. David
Western recorded several instances when Maasai pastoralists expressed their
antipathy to conservation policy by killing animals in and around the Amboseli
National Park (Western, 1994). Saberwal and colleagues note that the heavy
handed and exclusionist enforcing of conservation policy in India has created
many local enemies of protected areas (Saberwal et al, 2001). The problems that
conservation causes people have meant that, ironically, there are even a number
of cases where parks have, unwittingly, initiated or enhanced nature’s destruction.
Fearing interference from governments and restrictions on resource use, villagers
have killed chimpanzees in Tanzania, diverse wildlife in Uganda and felled trees
and forests in Nicaragua, Nepal, Norway and China (Walsh, 1997; Brandon,
1998; Harkness, 1998; Nygren, 2000; Murray, 1992, cited in Hulme and Infield,
2001).5 Analysts of sustainable forestry have observed forest reserve creation can
be made possible by increasing the intensity of production on other forest lands,
with adverse results for biodiversity conservation (McAlpine et al, 2007).
But it is not true that parks will always fail in the face of local opposition. The
principle of local support can, oddly, ignore the politics of protected areas. It fails
to recognize that protected areas distribute fortune as well as misfortune, that
they make allies as well as enemies. Often the local communities who oppose the
existence and policies of their neighbouring protected areas tend to be politically
weak rural groups. They can be opposed to powerful alliances of central and local
government and other rural groups, the police, park guards and paramilitary
84 NATURE UNBOUND
units, and national and international NGOs raising money and awareness for the
cause of the protected areas. These are contests that the rural groups may be ill-
equipped to win, especially when (as is often the case) the most powerful and
educated members of a particular community are positioned to take advantage of
economic opportunities presented by conservation and/or are being recruited as
‘community representatives’ by the powerful groups that other local people are
resisting. Asserting the necessity of local cooperation, therefore, ignores the
realities of power.
The principle of local support fails to recognize the power of the international
biodiversity conservation movement and the important local power relations that
sustain it. It can be, paradoxically, inimical to effective promotion of conservation
policies that are fairer locally because it fails to recognize where the real power lies.
If we are to understand the local impacts of conservation policy we require a much
better grasp of its politics. If we want conservation practice that is more just then
we have to understand what sustains injustice. Each local situation will have a
different set of factors sustaining particular conservation policies.
To put it another way: there are countless examples throughout history of
inequalities and injustices being perpetrated and perpetuated despite resistance to
them, and despite the opposition and hatred they generated. The Roman Empire
was not brought down by its slaves, enclosure in England and highland clearances
in Scotland were not prevented by the people who lost their rights to the
commons, nor were the iniquities of England’s factory system overturned by a
workers’ revolt.6 Indigenous peoples in Latin America, North America and
Australia have been removed from their lands and violently treated for hundreds
of years. Why should the injustices perpetrated by conservation be any different?
Conclusion
Protected areas have expanded rapidly in recent decades. They continue to
proliferate. Many more are needed and will be needed in diverse regions and
habitats that are not well protected. And as they spread they will have all sorts
of consequences, both expected and surprising. As the reach of conservation
areas expands, and the influence of parks grows we can expect these changes to
become more common. The issues we have examined above will become more
pervasive.
But to understand their importance properly we must recognize, first, that
protected areas are also just one type of conservation strategy. The reach of
conservation policy is extending far beyond protected areas boundaries. It has to
if its objectives are to be achieved. We must therefore examine more carefully
what happens when rural groups become involved in implementing conservation
policy. Second, we must realize that protected areas are being incorporated into
new networks of international governance, and new development strategies and
programmes, such as the growth of ecotourism. To these issues we now turn.
Notes
1 This work is dated because over 120 protected areas of some 600 protected areas
in India were established since that work was carried out. More are proposed
(see Bhomia and Brockington, forthcoming).
2 This work too is dated as the extent of category 1 and 2 protected areas on the
continent has increased by more than 10 per cent since its publication.
3 Since that original analysis has also been lost (Sebastian, pers. comm. 2005), it
will be impossible to improve on that statistic.
4 Belize Audubon Society Newsletter, January–April 2000, vol 32, p1.
5 Although in the Norwegian case, when a landowner felled his forest on receipt of
a letter announcing it was to become protected, it later emerged that the letter was
in fact a practical joke sent by a neighbour (Svarstad, pers. comm. 13 October
2004).
6 Polanyi states ‘The labouring people themselves were hardly a factor in this great
movement [of social reform] the effect of which was, figuratively speaking, to
allow them to survive the great Middle Passage. They had almost as little to say in
the determination of their own fate as the black cargo of Hawkin’s ships’ (Polanyi,
2001 (1944)). Their demands were relatively easily ignored. In the UK when
millions of Chartists demanded the vote in the 1840s, they were refused by a
parliament representing only a few hundred thousand.
5
Local Management of Natural Resources
It [does not appear] feasible to achieve 50% coverage of exclusive

protected areas, at least not without imposing considerable state-led
coercion, and disenfranchising rural people from traditional practices
and losing their co-operation, as so often happens (with) such areas...
Given these circumstances, it … appears more pragmatic to
recognize that most conservation will have to be achieved through
cooperation in human social space... The clear objective is a much
more biodiversity-friendly mosaic of land uses driven by the
livelihoods that are derived from the sustainable use of wild living
resources instead of landscapes with small islands of biodiversity in a
sea of agriculture … In the tropics, for example, could 80–90% of
tropical terrestrial biodiversity be conserved on 5–15% of the land,
compared with 10–30% on 1–2% as at present?
Hutton and Leader-Williams (2003, pp219–220)
A great deal of hope and expectation can be placed in the ability of rural
communities to conserve wild nature. Conservation by local communities is
often claimed to be a more equitable and/or effective alternative to many types of
protected areas, particularly to the misfortunes of fortress conservation. It is also
widely perceived to be a means of expanding the conservation estate, ensuring
land is managed for conservation purposes beyond the boundaries of protected
areas. Advocates insist that it will result in more support for conservation values
and more prosperous and/or empowered people.
While these ideas are appealing on many levels, it is important to understand
the complexities of the relationships involved. For example, what happens when
the idea of local people as natural environmental stewards meets the reality of the
impoverished condition in which these people live? Consequently, advocacy of
local natural resource management has been decried as trying to ‘dress
environmental problems up in Indian blankets’ (Igoe, 2008) or using a false ideal
of an ‘ecologically noble savage’ (Redford, 1990) to further their cause. Else
consider the simultaneous emphasis on equity and market-driven approaches to
conservation, which will encourage local people to ‘value their surroundings’. As
this chapter will show, there are many contexts in which small groups of people
at the community level are positioned to take advantage of conservation-oriented
market opportunities, while many others bear the cost of conservation while not
realizing significant benefits.
88 NATURE UNBOUND
In this chapter we consider four sets of ideas and related policies and actions
that are essential to local management of natural resources:
1 The concept of ‘community’.

2 Devolution of rights and responsibilities over natural resource
management.
3 Common pool resources and common property resource management.
4 Co-management of protected areas.
We also examine how these ideas and policies relate to the realities that they are
meant to describe and improve, and also how they relate to each other. The
concept of community is obviously important, since all community-based
interventions must have a target that is called a community. As we shall show
below, however, such a target is difficult to define and depends a great deal on the
specific intervention that is being proposed. The concept of devolution is closely
related to the concept of community, since if communities are going actually to
manage natural resources then they will need to have the rights and responsibilities
necessary to do so. And if power is devolved how might management actually
work? Debates about commons are vital in the realm of community conservation
for these examine how groups (communities) can collectively take effective action
sustainably to manage natural resources. Finally co-management of protected areas
deserves special attention both as an increasingly popular trend in conservation,
and as a form of local natural resource management that combines all the issues in
this chapter.
Throughout this chapter and the next our argument is simple: just as fortress
conservation arrangements distribute fortune and misfortune unequally to
different groups within society, so also does conservation by communities and
indigenous people. Community conservation merely introduces a different set of
inequities to protected areas. It also introduces a different set of interactions with
capitalism and market forces. The analyst’s task is first to examine who these
winners and losers are; and second, to consider how the distributions are shaped
by globalization, the economy and demarcations of identity.
Community
Community conservation interventions often revolve around collective
agreement and decision making as necessary steps in doing conservation. Its
imperatives are reflected in often unstated assumptions that rural communities
are harmonious and homogenous. They draw on the romantic tradition of the
Noble Savage, which views rural communities as the ideal stewards of ‘their
nature’. This perspective has long been abandoned by field workers studying rural
communities. To quote anthropologist Keith Hart:
LOCAL MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 89
Social life organised through kinship ... is fundamentally disunited,

and it is in response to this disunity that participants stress the
opposite in their ideological pronouncements, emphasizing the idea
of community and pretending that kinship ties express only
solidarity. We, who retain in our language and sentiments the
ideology without the substance of a society organized through
kinship, project our own romantic nostalgia onto the faction-ridden
and anxiety-prone family life of African villages.
(Hart, 1982, p40)
In fact, the many and diverse things that members of rural communities share in
common are often most obviously visible through conflicts between them. Their
common geography can be seen in disputes between neighbours over land and
access to resources. Their common ethnic identity can be seen in disputes over
who is actually an ‘authentic’ member of a particular group and who behaves (or
not) according to the prescribed standards of that group. Common livelihoods
entail disputes over how resources should be used, what kinds of outside
enterprises should be welcome to a community, and how the benefits from those
enterprises should be distributed. Common kinship can be seen in family
disputes. Of course these fights can also reveal the heterogeneity of particular
communities, as they frequently – though by no means always – occur along lines
of ethnicity, kinship, length of residence, livelihood practices, educational status,
age, gender, social class, affinities to political parties and NGOs, and in perennial
disputes between ‘cultural traditionalists’ and ‘modernizing elites’. Accordingly, it
is often much more interesting to find issues on which communities appear to
unite and to ask what motivated people to set aside their differences in this
particular case? From this perspective communities are produced, brought
together, and divided by particular sets of historical circumstances.
This perspective on communities has been most popularly expressed in Agrawal
and Gibson’s seminal article, ‘enchantment and disenchantment’ (1999) (cited
over 150 times). The article heralded an explosion of literature, which Fay (2007)
describes as a ‘now familiar litany of critiques’ concerning the normative and
prescriptive ideas of communities prevalent in conservation projects and
practices. Agrawal and Gibson’s paper made the usual points that communities
are diverse and heterogeneous, and are as likely to be fraught with conflict as
they are to be harmonious. They took this argument further, however, pointing
out that communities are not clearly bounded entities. Rather, they are shot
through with networks that are often transnational in scope:
The local and the external, they are linked together in ways
that it might be difficult to identify the precise line where local
90 NATURE UNBOUND
conservation begins and the external – that helps construct the local –
ends.
(Agrawal and Gibson, 1999, p640)
This is particularly true with the case of community conservation, as it is

increasingly taken up and promoted by global networks of NGOs, donors and
International financial institution (IFIs). Rural groups engaged in community
conservation are increasingly incorporated into new networks of actors, including
NGOs, IFIs, international organizations, bilateral donors and private companies.
Can these types of transnational institutions develop genuine partnerships with
local communities involved in conservation schemes? Agrawal and Gibson
confidently wrote that proponents of community conservation viewed markets
and states as central obstacles to conservation success. Today the suspicion of
states remains, but the question of markets has become much more ambiguous.
With the neoliberalization of conservation, private enterprise and profit motives
have become widely accepted features of conservation, whether such conservation
strategies engage communities or exclude them. Increasingly, rural people are
targeted as potential partners in conservation-oriented business ventures.
Conservation NGOs, for their part, now openly broker these types of ventures,
such that conservation-business partnerships are becoming as common as
conservation-community partnerships.
All of these issues and developments have profound implications for the role of
rural communities as units of environmental governance. To begin with, taking
Agrawal and Gibson’s arguments to their logical conclusion, what constitutes a
community depends on specific historical encounters of local people with states,
NGOs and private enterprise, and the types of interventions that these external
actors and institutions have sponsored over the years. For instance, powerful local
elites who have benefited historically from extractive industries are unlikely to
cooperate with conservation interventions that threaten these industries, though
they may be interested in profits from things like ecotourism. In cases where
economic opportunities are scarce, government agencies, conservation NGOs
and private enterprise are often in a position to handpick groups of local people
to represent the communities with whom they ‘partner’. Finally, local people may
organize themselves to do conservation, but lack access to the external networks
that control the resources they need to make their efforts viable. This is especially
the case with neoliberal conservation, since rural communities frequently do not
control the types of resources that make them attractive to private investors.
What constitutes ‘community’, in any particular situation, therefore, is often
based on these interventions, how different local people have been positioned to
respond to them, and how these interactions have continued into the present.
While the boundaries that define communities may be difficult to draw, the
realities of bureaucratic interventions, and for-profit investments, demand they
be drawn somewhere. Even the most flexible and enlightened intervention must
have a visible target of intervention. Defining these targets will depend on who is
seeking to define a community and for what purposes.
The processes by which these lines get drawn (or erased as the case may be)
around communities, necessarily entails exclusion. Mosse (2004, p654)
highlights the fundamental contradiction between the need for messy
participatory processes and the simultaneous need for vertical control over
programme outcomes in order to ensure quantifiable success indicators. (With
the increased involvement of private enterprise, he could also add profit as a
special type of quantifiable success indicator.) He argues that the types of
communities that really count in this context are what he calls interpretive
communities. These are networks of people spanning the village level to the
transnational level. Their function, he argues, is to work together to make specific
interventions appear as successes according to prevailing policy paradigms. At the
grassroots level, members of these interpretive communities are usually chosen for
their ‘capacity to aspire’ (Appadurai, 2004) and their ability to mobilize a critical
mass of local people in support of a particular intervention.
One of the inherent dangers of this arrangement is the possibility of corporatist
agreements: private negotiations between state agencies and selected private
interests (Young, 1990; Bianco and Alder, 2001; Lane, 2003; Fortwangler, 2007),
which have significant potential to undermine public deliberation. In developing
countries, where weak states have been further weakened by structural adjustment,
networks of governance are in some cases replacing more traditional types of states
in the management and control of people and natural resources (see also Fortmann,
1997). In such contexts, networks of powerful actors spanning states, NGOs,
private enterprise and local communities frequently operate according to hidden
transcripts and extra-legal arrangements that are not readily visible to outsiders
(Mbembe, 2001; Ferguson, 2006). They often operate at the expense of local
people and even circumvent their legal rights. They may also be predatory towards
communities in cases where they need to claim ‘partnerships’.
For example, donors and environmental NGOs have been involved in directly
running state-owned national parks in Madagascar, which is again an unusual
level of involvement in the state sector by external actors. In particular,
Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées (ANGAP), the
national agency responsible for managing protected areas in Madagascar, is run
and funded by a group of international NGOs and donors in conjunction with
Malagasy state agencies. This has resulted in a complex public–private network
that effectively manages ANGAP and has received funding from Conservation
International (CI), the World Bank, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF),
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the German
development agency (GTZ), and the French and British governments. The Board
of Directors is drawn from government ministries, such as the Ministry of
Tourism and the Ministry of the Environment, but donors including the World
Bank and WWF also have seats on the board. Ordinarily, Parks Departments
92 NATURE UNBOUND
have been the preserve of the state sector, but the semi-private status of ANGAP
reflects the growing global pressure for privatizing public utilities. (The powers
and challenges associated with public–private networks are more fully discussed
in Chapters 8 and 9 (and see Duffy, 2006a, c)).
Communities, then, need to be understood in terms of networks. It is not
enough, however, simply to argue that networks infiltrate communities and
sometimes provide opportunities for local people. We need to move beyond
asking how to maintain the smooth functioning of networks that solve a specific
set of predefined problems; instead we need to understand the complex politics
and inherent inequities of transnational networks of people that play a prominent
role in defining both communities and the success of interventions designed to
benefit those communities, especially as members of these networks are most
likely to benefit from the interventions they define. These dynamics have
significant implications for our second set of issues: the devolution of rights and
responsibilities.
Devolution
Devolution is ‘the transfer of power to elected local authorities’ (Ribot, 2004, p8).
It is sometimes called ‘democratic decentralization’. It should not be confused with
‘deconcentration’, or ‘administrative decentralization’, which transfers powers to
local government agencies who are not downwardly accountable to local electorates,
but who remain upwardly accountable, to government officials in higher office.
Effective devolved management of natural resources by rural communities is in
many ways the Holy Grail of effective community-based conservation. In theory
devolution has much to offer, and is potentially a useful alternative to the
inefficiencies and inequities of central state control. Indeed devolution might not
just enhance natural resource management, it may be a vehicle for promoting
stronger democracies (Wily, 2002). However, it is also important to note that
devolution of decision making is often conflated with the types of deregulation
associated with the promotion of free market development models. While both
ostensibly involve the reduction of centralized state control, devolution also
ideally entails the decentralization of decision-making responsibility to local
people. If actually given these responsibilities local people may make decisions
that are not in line with the spread of free market development models, or
mainstream conservation interventions for that matter.
If done well, however, the potential benefits of decentralization for local
communities, and healthy democracies, and the environment, are great. Ribot
(2004, 2006) states:
It can promote equitable distributions of benefits from resource use,

because allocation of benefits is determined by local democratic
decision making.
It is likely to be more efficient. It can bring more local knowledge to

bear on management decisions, it can mean decision-makers more
aware of the needs of local people, it can reduce the transaction costs
of administering the resource, improve co-ordination and facilitate
growing environmental consciousness in the local electorate whose
decisions now help govern the resources.
Ribot’s major review of the experience of devolution in forests internationally

concluded that there were numerous incidences of local authorities and people
increasing revenue from forests, sustaining strong management, protecting them
from commercial depredation and improving their management capacity (2004,
2006).
There are, accordingly, advocates of strong devolution policies because they are
perceived to bring diverse benefits to local communities’ economies and because
of the potential benefits to be gained from effective management of local
resources. Liz Wily, who has been a strong advocate of local control of forest
resources in many parts of Africa, enthuses that:
…once customary/informal rights are made state law interests, not

only individual customary rights but also those held in common by
communities gain new legal respect. Communal forests and
woodlands move virtually overnight from policy perception as un-
owned open access resources into recognition as the private property
of communities …The incentive to communities to really start
managing these resources is enormous.
(Wily, 2002, pp5–6)
Empowering local groups, however, may not help local authorities achieve
national, or international biodiversity priorities, which, by definition, cannot be
seen in parochial terms (Borgerhoff Mulder and Coppolillo, 2005). Global
conservation priorities are premised on their over-riding local values. Devolution
can only serve conservation objectives to the extent that it empowers people who
hold those values dear.
On the other hand such values are not cultural givens. They are learnt,
encouraged and induced. They can change. Many rural people’s antipathy to
wildlife and conservation policy derives from their experience over many decades
of being marginalized, impoverished or disempowered by conservation policies.
For many African villagers wildlife was (and is) a forbidden resource. Hunting
licences were prohibitively expensive, or the revenue from their sale disappeared
into state coffers. Wildlife was therefore just a cost to rural residents, eating their
crops, livestock, occasionally their friends and family. Forests and other wildlife
habitat merely gave the miscreants a good home and denied people good
agricultural land. The challenge of devolution is to provide not just power and
94 NATURE UNBOUND
responsibilities to local people over wildlife and its habitat, but also to provide
effective revenues from them that are locally enjoyed in order that wildlife and its
habitat can be seen as a benefit not a cost. As Child put it:
if wildlife is permitted to contribute meaningfully to their welfare,

people will not be able to afford to lose it in their battle for survival.
If wildlife does not contribute significantly to their well-being,
people will not be able to afford to preserve it except as a tourist
curiosity on a few protected areas.
(Child, 1995, p235. Quoted in Murphree, 1996, p177)
Unfortunately, however, despite all the talk about devolution, there are few cases
where it has really been tried. We lack sufficient material about what happens to
global priorities when they are put in local hands. One of the main findings of
Ribot’s work was that devolution has often been incomplete and has rarely
actually been tried properly. Often the key obstacle is the state itself, or agencies
within it, which are reluctant to relinquish the power, and revenues that they
command. Local powers are captured by local elites, or by national elites working
in particular localities, none of whom are properly accountable to electorates
(Oyono, 2004a, b, c). Else power can be devolved to unaccountable local
institutions such as customary authorities or NGOs (cf. Igoe and Kelsall, 2005).
The outcomes of these failures are often highly unsatisfactory. They can be
detrimental to local livelihoods, facilitate commercial exploitation by large-scale
corporations that receive permission to enter from the new gatekeepers and
increase exclusion, and disempowerment generally.
One of the most extensive experiments in empowering local control of natural
resource management has been Joint Forest Management in India. This scheme
arose out of initiatives by forest officers in West Bengal in the 1970s and was
promulgated nationally with the National Forest Policy of 1988, and formally
adopted in 1990 (Sundar, 2000).1 It allows for the Forest Department to enter
into agreements with specially formed forest management groups (often called
Forest Protection Committees) from particular village communities. The
protection committees help manage the forest to prevent village illegal use, while
the villagers in return are allowed access to non-timber forest products and receive
a proportion of the profits of timber sales. Sundar describes three types of local
forest management arrangements – there are those initiated by the communities,
those promoted by the forest department and those begun by the NGOs. She
notes that power is rarely shared, with much influence remaining with the
forestry department.
Estimates vary of the number of committees in existence, from 10,000 to over
60,000.2 They manage about 150,000km2 land (this compares to a protected area
estate of about 170,000km2 land). The results of the programme vary enormously.
In many cases it is a substantial improvement on the poor relations between
villagers and forestry department officials that pervade rural India (Gadgil and
Guha, 1993). Saberwal and colleagues describe it as broadly a success (Saberwal
et al, 2001); Agrawal and Ostrom find it difficult to generalize (2001). They note
that forest cover has improved in many cases, but it is difficult to attribute this to
Joint Forest Management. Positive impacts on rural livelihoods are clearer,
although Kumar cautions that the rural non-poor gain most (Kumar, 2002).
There are close parallels between the work of Joint Forest Management and
new village forest reserves in Tanzania. These originated at the village of Duru-
Haitemba, where villagers there faced the imminent gazettement of their local
forest by the District Council to form a forest reserve but resented that prospect.
District control of woodland was associated with exclusion and corrupt
management. Instead, with the help of enlightened District Forestry Officers
they demarcated their village boundaries within the forest and established a forest
management committee that sanctioned some uses and excluded others. These
were enforced by village bye-laws passed by the district councils. The consultant
who facilitated this process, Liz Wily, has been effusive at the consequences,
insisting that local democracy has been revived by the empowering experience of
controlling local resources, that local livelihoods have benefited and that forest
condition has improved (Sjoholm and Wily, 1995; Wily and Haule, 1995; Wily,
2001; Wily and Dewees, 2001).
It was not clear, however, from Wily’s work how these changes were really
possible. She attributes it to the empowering of people for whom the resource
mattered. But the same sorts of people throughout rural Tanzania regularly
participate in electing village and district governments and chairmen generally
renowned for their poor performance and corruption (Fjeldstad and Semboja,
2000, 2001; Fjeldstad, 2001; Brockington, 2006). It is not clear why village
forest reserve should be any different (Brockington, 2007).
On the other hand it is clear that the similar experiment to revive the Ngitili
(private and village grazing reserves, a traditional institution of the Sukuma
people) in central Tanzania, which hinges on strong institutions protecting poor
villages against the depredations of powerful livestock owners, is having an effect
on the ground, with improvements in diverse forms of biodiversity (Monela et al,
2004). Something is clearly changing in institutions of village government, and
quite possibly in local expectations of how they are meant to perform. There are
some encouraging signs in some places, and in some types of environments, but
we cannot yet report any rigorous comparison (Petersen and Sandhovel, 2001;
Lund and Nielsen, 2006; Topp-Jorgensen et al, 2005; Blomely and Ramadhani,
2006).
One of the earliest examples of devolved natural resource management was the
Communal Areas Management Plan for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in
Zimbabwe, and arguably it provided a model for conservation and development
practice that was used as a template in sub-Saharan Africa and beyond (Hutton et al,
2005, p345). Consequently it attracted international attention as a programme
96 NATURE UNBOUND
that was at the forefront of what seemed to be an innovative and workable

approach to negotiating the potential conflicts between people and wildlife and
between sustainability and development. For donors, NGOs and national
governments alike, community-based natural resource management presented a
more socially and politically acceptable rationale for conservation in the context of
the creation of new ‘democracies’ in Africa in the post-Cold War 1990s (Hutton
et al, 2005, p344). Traditionally, wildlife conservation and rural development have
been considered as conflicting goals (Brockington, 2002; Wolmer, 2007). This is
because there was an assumption that conservation required existing areas of land
for wildlife to be maintained, if not expanded, whereas development meant
industrialization or the expansion of land available for crops and livestock. This
conflict between conservation and rural development was most sharply
demonstrated by the national parks systems of sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore
community-based natural resource management, and CAMPFIRE in particular,
appeared to offer a workable solution to this conflict. Furthermore, it had the
added advantage in that it seemed to ‘pay its way’ through careful development of
sustainable use of wildlife (through production of meat, skins and ivory, or the sale
of wildlife as sport hunting trophies and for photographic/cultural tourism). As a
result it was attractive precisely because, in financial terms, it was not ‘donor
dependent’ unlike some other forms of wildlife conservation in sub-Saharan
Africa. It resonated with the new-found faith in local communities and individuals
as ‘rational’ resource managers, which neatly fitted with the fashion for
decentralization and participatory development.
During the 1990s CAMPFIRE became internationally renowned for its efforts
to reconcile the needs of conservation and development. Begun in 1986, it aimed
to ensure that the rural communities living in Zimbabwe’s semi-arid and
marginal Communal Areas were able to capture the benefits from wildlife
utilization, in all its forms. This was to be achieved by devolving responsibility for
wildlife management to the smallest possible unit through investing new powers
in the Rural District Council; the local CAMPFIRE representatives would then
decide how to use wildlife in their area to generate revenue For example, the
CAMPFIRE Committees would work with the Parks Department to determine
the ‘sustainable offtake’ level for local elephant populations and then sell the
rights to hunt the animals to safari/trophy hunting companies, which oversees
hunters. Given that safari hunters will pay between $10,000 and $20,000 (in
2000, see Hurt and Ravan, 2000) to hunt elephants, as well as thousands of
dollars to shoot lions and leopards, not to mention a string of other animals as
part of a three-week package, the returns can be lucrative.
It is often suggested that CAMPFIRE began as an idea hatched by a group of
white liberals in the Zimbabwean Parks Department, which Murphree referred to
as the ‘khaki shorts brigade’ of wildlife enthusiasts; in developing CAMPFIRE,
this group rapidly found themselves at the forefront of debates about rural
development (Murphree, 1995). Despite this perception and its association with
the Parks Department, it was quickly embraced by a number of rural districts. The
legislative changes in the post-independence period provided the context for the
development of community-based natural resource management in Zimbabwe.
Once Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, the 1975 Parks and Wildlife
Act looked discriminatory and colonial, therefore the 1982 Parks and Wildlife Act
allowed district councils in the communal areas to be designated as an appropriate
authority to manage wildlife. This legislative change allowed the concept of
CAMPFIRE to be further developed during the 1980s, but the first CAMPFIRE
areas were only established in 1989 in Guruve and Nyaminyami. CAMPFIRE was
intended to strike a workable and ethical balance between wildlife conservation
and meeting the basic needs of rural people. Furthermore, during the 1990s
CAMPFIRE provided the key argument for the Parks Department in Zimbabwe
for its controversial approach to wildlife based on sustainable utilization
(particularly the commitment to sport hunting); and it was especially important
on the international stage as the major justification for Zimbabwe’s stance on
reopening a limited ivory trade in order to capture the full economic value of
elephants through sales of ivory produced by natural death, culls and Problem
Elephant Control (PEC) programmes (see Duffy, 2000).
The problem was the distribution of the resulting revenue. Spread out over a
whole district the benefits were hard to see, because they were shared among too
many people, including those who did not have to live with wildlife on their
lands. However, if returns were spent locally, at the ward level, and if village
populations were small, then the value of wildlife could be remarkable and make
a significant difference to people’s lives. In two villages in particular, Mahenye
and Masoka, Murphree has documented substantial improvements (Murphree
2001, 2005).
But there are many discontented voices. In some places these derive from the
failure of district councils to pass on revenues to the wards where the wildlife
lives. But sometimes it is because rural Zimbabweans simply do not want to live
with the animals. They see the rural backwaters in which buffalo and elephant
thrive as out of the way places, with few services and not enjoying the
development provisions that they fought so hard to win (Alexander and
McGregor, 2000). In other cases benefits are being distributed, but there are local
politics of exclusion and dispossession at work and traditional uses of wildlife are
being displaced (Dzingirai, 2003). Else it can simply be awkward and unpleasant
dealing with safari hunting operators who are steeped in racist values that define
some white cultures in southern Africa. These are not people many African
villagers want to choose to do business with (Murombedzi, 2001, 2003).
The ways that the CAMPFIRE model has been taken up and expanded to
numerous contexts by multiple organizations means that in some ways it has been
the victim of its own success. Over the last 20 years the concepts and practices of
community-based natural resource management have been picked up and
expanded so that they have become the depoliticized ‘catch-all’ justification for
98 NATURE UNBOUND
conservation schemes. In this way community-based natural resource

management has shifted from being an approach to conservation to being a
component of conservation schemes. Community-based natural resource
management can be used to legitimize conservation initiatives in ways that mask
potential problems, dynamics and challenges. Therefore, while many projects are
criticized for engaging in ‘green-washing’ to satisfy environmental concerns, it
could be argued that many projects run the danger of ‘participation-washing’ to
answer concerns for local communities (Swatuk, 2005).
The model of transferring powers and revenues to the village and ward level is
proliferating in southern and eastern Africa (Swatuk, 2005). The debate about it
is often cast in terms of whether it ‘works’, or whether it is a ‘success’ or ‘failure’.
As before, we do not see it in those terms, but rather want to consider how they
distribute cost and benefits to different groups, and affect relationships between
them, and how they alter relationships and interactions with nature. Child and
Jones’ enthusiastic advocacy of using safari hunting revenues to fuel community-
based conservation initiatives in Zambia and Namibia hinges on the valuable
revenues they generate to rural villagers (Child, 2000a, b; Child and Dalal-
Clayton, 2001; Jones and Murphree, 2001). Child also notes that the revenues
facilitated the introduction of more transparent village government and better
accountability over the use of village revenues (Child and Dalal-Clayton, 2001).
The revenues of elite photographic safari hunting in Tanzania have similarly
fuelled local development in the village of Ololosokwan, close to the Serengeti,
and strengthened village institutions, including an independent quarterly audit of
village accounts (Nelson and Makko, 2003; Nelson, 2004).
More money is often a good thing for many people in these places but note the
consequences here. In Zambia selling the right to hunt wildlife means prohibiting
local hunters from doing so, many of whom’s prestige and identity arose from
their position in village society as hunters. Ken MacDonald has observed a similar
process in Pakistan where tourist hunting of ibex removes control over their meat
and value from one group of villagers and gives a different sort of reward (money)
to another. This project took place in the absence of any decent data
documenting trends in ibex populations (MacDonald, 2004, 2005). Sullivan has
shown in Namibia that conservancy operations value hunting and wildlife over
other natural resources and can reinforce and perpetuate discrimination against
women’s resources and participation in resource management (Sullivan, 2000).
She also notes that these schemes are based on commodifying and selling, or
distributing, previously hunted meat. All the joy and complexity, the experience
of the hunt with its smells, sights and memories are lost to local experience as a
result (Sullivan, 2006). There is a curious echoing of deep ecology here –
reducing our interactions with nature to dismal dollars is a poor way to cultivate
lasting conservationist sentiment.
Community-based conservation will not be effective if it does not account for
actually existing resource management systems and how these have changed over
time. Devolving management for natural resources to local people becomes a

hollow exercise if this devolution is already oriented to specific types of outcomes
and assumes that existing resource management practices are irrelevant, or
perhaps even inimical to conservation goals. However, unless local resource
management practices are understood, then their relationship to conservation
goals remains an unresolved question. This can be seen in the existing debates
surrounding common pool resources.
The commons
Local attempts to manage resources and promote conservation outside private
land and state-protected areas will require the cooperation of groups of resource
users. To understand the likely success of these initiatives we must know more
about the circumstances in which groups are able to cooperate successfully and
those which make successful cooperation less likely. There is a substantial and
systematic body of research that has examined precisely this question.
We must clear up two confusions at the start. Cooperative management
practices that govern resource use of resources not owned by the state or
individuals are generally called common property regimes, abbreviated to ‘CPRs’.
Resources that are not easily privatized, like fish in an ocean, or small pockets of
rangelands in trackless wastes, and whose use is subtractable (i.e. what I use, you
cannot), are called common pool resources, also abbreviated to CPRs.
There is an obvious overlap between the two, in that common pool resources
are good candidates for common property management regimes, but this is not a
necessary relationship. Some common pool resources will be not be managed at
all – these are called ‘open access regimes’. Others will be managed, at least
nominally, by the state. Nor are common property regimes restricted to common
pool resources. Individuals can agree to share the management of resources that
they could cope with on their own; communes (or married couples) can share
ownership of a house. The literature uses ‘CPR’ freely for both terms, despite
their obvious differences. Sometimes authors fail to specify which they are
referring to. For clarity we eschew abbreviations below.
The second source of confusion is the late Garett Hardin. Most people’s
understanding of common pool resources and common property management
regimes begins with his infamous essay ‘The tragedy of the commons’ (Hardin,
1968). Published in Science this essay (which is superbly written) is about the
perils of overpopulation and the need to control reproduction. It is founded on a
well known analogy. ‘Picture a pasture’, Hardin begins ‘open to all’. On this
‘commons’ are a number of livestock owners. Now imagine what will happen as
the livestock owners using that pasture try to get wealthier. Each will want to
increase their herds, and so each will add more stock to the pasture. They enjoy
the benefits of each extra animal completely, they do not have to share its
revenue, meat or milk. The costs of declining condition of the rangeland are
100 NATURE UNBOUND
shared by all the other herders. And therefore the pasture will inevitably degrade,
because it is in each herder’s interests to become more prosperous and none has
to pay the full costs of their decision. Thus the rangeland will fill up with animals
even as it degrades into nothing.
Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his
own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the
commons. Freedom in the commons brings ruin to all.
(Hardin, 1968, p1244)
It is a dilemma that has long fascinated many observers (Hardin himself noted
that he was making popular an old idea first written up in 1833). For it suggests
that people, acting rationally and reasonably but individually, can collectively
cause disaster. Our own individual intellects and desire for preservation and
prosperity that have kept us alive, and helped us evolve into such a competitive
species, could become our undoing.
The essay has been enormously influential (it has been cited over 3300 times,
and ever more so each year recently, although later use is also an indication of
disapproval). And although its topic was really the dangers of overpopulation its
analogy about resource management has been particularly well disseminated. But
although this analogy is a good place to begin in order to understand the
literature on common property, it is a bad place to begin if you want to
understand common property regimes themselves.
Hardin was not actually writing about common property regimes at all. His
‘commons’ was nothing of the kind because it was open to all. There were no rules
governing who could use it or when, which is one of the defining attributes of a
commons. He was describing the inevitable degradation of open access resources.
Hardin was also not using an empirical example; it was a thought experiment,
a model. And as a model it had some unusual features. For example the herders
did not appear to talk to each other much. They did not appear to have the
capacity to observe the condition of the rangeland and act on it to prevent its
degradation. They were slaves to their own desires for more wealth. These are
simplifications that do not apply to all societies.
Fortunately Hardin’s model produced clear predictions that we can use to test
his ideas. If ‘freedom in the commons’ brings ruin then it will be impossible for
open access resources to become well managed. Either they must be controlled by
the state, which would have the oversight to govern and restrict use according to
the ecological limits of the pasture, or the land would have to be privatized, so that
any overstocking would damage each herder’s property individually.
And on this point Hardin has been refuted. There have been cases where
common pool resources have become managed by common property regimes,
where the resource users have agreed to restrain their own use for the good of the
resource. The author who has done most to challenge Hardin’s model is Elinor
Ostrom (Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom et al, 1999, 2002; Ostrom and Nagendra,
2006). She began her work in California examining the evolution of groundwater
management. Complicated rules had rendered groundwater extraction virtually
unmanageable but fears that the resource was diminishing, and being invaded by
seawater near the coast, facilitated the introduction of a common property
management regime. Ostrom described how agencies fighting over an open
access resource came, in this instance, to cooperate and regulate their use of a
managed resource (Ostrom, 1990).
Now the research task is to establish what conditions make for effective
common property management regimes, and under what circumstances they
are likely to perform poorly or fail. Since then there has been a prominent
collaborative research effort to document diverse cases of common pool resource
management governing irrigation, fisheries, grazing and forestry (Wade, 1988;
Berkes, 1989; Bromely and Cernea, 1989; Feeny et al, 1990; Ostrom, 1990;
Baland and Platteau, 1996). The Digital Library of the Commons has a
bibliography of over 50,000 references and a digital library with over 1000 papers
from conferences and published literatures.3 This work has found that robust
common property management regimes are typically characterized by clear rules
of who is allowed to use the resource and often when they are allowed to use it.
They will exclude some uses and some users. In practice this means clear social
and spatial boundaries with respect to use. Use is monitored to ensure that there
are no infringements and that infringements are punished, generally with a
gradation of punishments.
The research has identified a number of traits with respect to the communities
involved, the nature of the resource, the political context, the type of use and
other factors that have been synthesized by Arun Agrawal (Agrawal 2001, 2003).
He examined work by Wade (1988), Ostrom (1990) and Baland and Platteau
(1996) to draw up a list of factors that facilitated effective and durable common
property regimes, and supplemented it with his own suggestions
(Table 5.1). He notes that the abundance of factors makes it difficult
quantitatively to analyse the fortunes of common property management regimes
because it is hard to undertake studies that control some variables and observe
variation on others. However, he also observed that many of these variables are
causally related. Group interdependence for example, was likely to be a function
of group size, and mobility, market pressure and resource size. He argued for
analysis of the large collections of case studies to understand how causality works
and to reduce the number of variables in the analysis. It is precisely this
undertaking that the International Forestry Resources and Institutions Program
is undertaking, some of whose work we reported in the previous chapter (Hayes,
2006).4
There is, however, an important complication in that conceptual framework. The
assumption of this research programme is that the strength of the common property
management regime is the dependent variable, and that other aspects – community
102 NATURE UNBOUND
Table 5.1 Conditions facilitating common property management regimes

1 The characteristic of the resource
– small size
– well-defined boundaries
– low levels of mobility
– possibility of storing benefits from the resource
– predictability
2 The nature of the user group

– small size
– clearly defined boundaries
– shared norms
– past successful experiences
– appropriate leadership
– the group is internally interdependent
– heterogeneity of endowment; homogeneity of identities and interests
– low levels of poverty
3 Relationship between characteristics of the resource and the group

– overlap between the group’s residence and the location of the resource
– high levels of dependence by the group on the resource
– equitable allocation of benefits from common resources
– low levels of user demand
– gradual change in levels of demand
4 Institutional arrangements
– rules are simple and easy to understand
– access and management rules are locally devised
– rules are easily enforced
– graduated sanctions
– adjudication cheap
– monitors and other officials accountable to users
5 Relationship between resources system and institutional arrangements

– match restrictions on harvests to resource regeneration
6 The wider social and political environment

– exclusion technology is low cost
– adaptation time of technology suited to resource’s dynamics
– low levels of articulation with external markets
– gradual change in articulation with external markets
– the State:
central government does not undermine local authority
external sanctions supportive
aid supports conservation activities
nested appropriation, provision, enforcement and governance
Source: Agrawal, 2001, p1659 (Table 2)

homogeneity, government support, the nature of the resource and so on – are the
independent variables. In other words, that the nature of the management regime
is explained by these other factors. That is not always the case. It is quite possible
for the birth and development of common property management regimes to affect
the nature of other variables, sometimes quite fundamentally.
For example Johnson’s work on fisheries in Thailand has shown that quite diverse
and heterogenous communities have united and overlooked their differences in
order to exclude outsiders. This involved setting up common property management
regimes of fisheries that advantaged the wealthier members of the community. In
other words, community homogeneity was a product of the success of the
establishment of the regime, not a condition of success (Johnson, 2001). There are
other cases. In Tanzania, village forest reserves, and wildlife management areas, have
been set up in anticipation of the central government legislation allowing their
creation, and long before many central government actors have been sympathetic
to their existence (Nelson and Makko, 2003; Brockington, 2008).
We must also avoid a common error with respect to the benefits of common
property management regimes. It is often assumed that, because common pool
resources are difficult to privatize, they are vital for the livelihoods of the poorest
rural groups. These are resources that it is difficult for the wealthiest to dominate
or exclude others from. This can be true of the resource but we must also note
that common property management regimes depend upon establishing clear rules
of inclusion and exclusion and monitoring and enforcement of infringement of
the rules. Thus common property management regimes that exclude the poor
and which enforce those rules will not be ‘pro-poor’ – quite the opposite. Equally,
common property regimes that exclude the poor in theory (according to their
rules) but not in practice (because the rules are not enforced), could be quite
beneficial to the rural poor because they do not prevent resource use by those
whose need drives them to break local laws.
For example Klooster has studied the community forestry regimes in Mexico
(Klooster, 2000). He found that there were high levels of resistance to timber
control in community-managed forests. Tree poachers would fell valuable trees in
the forest, cut them into planks on the spot with a chainsaw and sell them
privately. This was curious because these problems had characterized precious
state management of the forests. Why did community control not result in a
more popular forest management regime and more rural obedience? Klooster’s
analysis of the politics of community control of the collectives that managed the
community forests showed that the benefits were being enjoyed and distributed
by a few village elites, who had also been able to control the distribution of
revenues during the previous management regime. Significant groups within the
communities managing the forests were still excluded. To put it another way,
community control had been ‘captured’ by elites. Community control had
slightly altered the distribution of fortune and misfortune that characterized
previous regimes, but not in ways that appeased disgruntled factions.
104 NATURE UNBOUND
It is also important to realize how fraught common property resource

management can be. The water management whose emergence Ostrom recorded
in Los Angeles was born out of conflict and litigation. Successful regimes are
characterized by high levels of surveillance and monitoring, of people checking
up on others and disciplining themselves; they are characterized by the
punishment of infringements, formally and informally. These are not necessarily
pleasant places to live and work. They can deliver effective resource management,
but they do so by managing and mitigating conflict, not by removing it.
Campbell and colleagues have claimed that reading the literature left an
impression of optimism and that ‘CPR (sic) management is a relatively easy task’
(Campbell et al, 2001, p590). Compared to Hardin’s doom it is optimistic; most
things would be. Some authors may also be guilty of a romantic approach
(as Wily’s work demonstrates). But we cannot recognize this characterization of
common property management regimes as ‘easy’.
Finally we must also note that just as the impact of common property
management regimes on poverty varies, so will the impact on conservation
objectives. Few common property management regimes are set up with wildlife
conservation objectives in mind, although some common property management
regimes manage wildlife resources. The outcomes of common property
management regimes can nonetheless be most valuable to conservation objectives.
The second largest population of the endangered Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis)
lives outside a formal protected area on communal grasslands in Guassa, where
they appear to cope with the presence of people and livestock (Ashenafi et al,
2005). Similarly the critically endangered Bengal florican bustard (Houbaropsis
bengalensisi) are thriving on grasslands in Cambodia that are subject to periodic
and patchy burning by local groups (Gray et al, 2007).5 Lekking males seek out
relatively open areas and the low levels of disturbance people cause may actually
be conducive to their needs.
However, such beneficial consequences for wildlife conservation are not a
necessary property of the management regime’s success. They are serendipitous.
In an extensive review of the role of customary resource management in marine
conservation Cinner and Aswani (2007) concluded that the two were compatible,
and that customary resource management could further conservation objectives,
but that attempts to hybridize the two had explicitly to recognize the differences
between them, if they were to be successful in marrying their contrasting goals.
Co-management of protected areas

The label ‘co-management’ is problematic. It implies equality between the
participants. It also conceals a considerable diversity of practice, and a variety
of specific historical and political circumstances that have given rise to the
arrangements. Many cases of de facto co-management are often not recognized as
such either because the resident people have historically been seen as a special
kind of endangered species (as is the case in Brazil), a perennial problem (as is the
case in Tanzania); or no legal category for co-management exists and so such
arrangements must be made on a case-by-case basis and so will not officially be
called co-management (as is the case in the continental United States).
The Xingu National Park in Brazil was in fact created in part to protect the
Kayapo people living there as another type of endangered species (Villa Boas and
Villa Boas, 1968). In a move that could only be construed as collaborative from
the most ironic perspective, they even kidnapped the director of Xingu National
Park, demanding that the Brazilian government continue to protect the
boundaries of the park, and therefore their traditional homeland, as sacrosanct.
More typically co-management arrangements occur in wealthier developed
countries like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the US, where the state
is trying to redress historical grievances. In the US a variety of arrangements exist
between the National Parks Service and indigenous communities (for a full
discussion see Burnham, 2000). The Badlands National Park, for instance,
overlaps with the Pine Ridge Reservation of the Oglala Sioux in South Dakota.
Through a memorandum of agreement between the Oglala and the Park Service
this part of the park is jointly managed with benefits (gate receipts) going directly
to the tribal government (Igoe, 2004b).
In South Africa, as part of the post-apartheid land restitution process, portions
of the country’s protected area estate are now ‘under claim’ from evicted
communities. This includes a large portion of the Kruger National Park and
80 per cent of the protected areas of Mpumulanga Province in the north-centre
of the country. Some conservationists in the country are alarmed at the extent and
implications of these claims. However, the history of claims thus far shows that
the loss of conservation estate that was feared has not been realized (Fabricius and
de Wet, 2002). In almost all cases thus far, people moved from protected areas,
who have won back their land, have chosen not to return to the protected areas.
Reasons for this are diverse. In part it is because these are now urban-orientated
people. Often many years have passed since they were moved, and the current
more numerous generation call their new place home. The remote unserviced
rural locations that they win back are not their preferred place to live. Else they
have become part of broader societies, often composed of people displaced from
diverse areas, in which identity and place are not well connected.
The other reason for the persistence of protected area estate are the innovative
and beneficial co-management arrangements that the South African government
has initiated in order to maintain the integrity of its protected areas (Reid et al,
2004; Reid, 2006). The most famous incident is the 20,000ha Makuleke claim
at Pafuri in the northern end of the Kruger National Park. This community was
moved off their land in 1969 and to claim it back formed a Common Property
Association of about 15,000 people. They negotiated the return of their land, but
agreed instantly to lease it back to the government for 50 years (cancellable after
25). A joint management board of three community representatives and three
106 NATURE UNBOUND
South African National Parks representatives manages the land. This portion of
the Kruger National Park has been reclassified as a ‘contractual park’.
It is important to note that the Makuleke community receive no rent from
their lease. The agreement instead gives them control over tourist income,
including hunting. They have built a lodge aimed at the luxury market. Most are
in a much better position now than they once were with respect to their land.
But, as always, what matters is the distribution of cost and benefit. Many of the
older generation did not want to sign away their rights to the land, but return to
it (Reid, 2001). The current arrangement still results in their exclusion, and in
the strange commodification of their knowledge and interaction with the
landscape into something tourists will pay to watch. The lodge has the potential
to generate significant revenues for other families.
It is all very well setting up a joint management board, but what matters is how
well it functions. These can be mixes of unequal capacity, with experienced
national parks officials, for whom management boards are their natural habitat,
and long-marginalized rural communities who lack the capacity and experience
to flourish in these institutional environments. According to Reid the South
African experience of these sorts of imbalances is mixed. In Makuleke, the
community representatives have grown rapidly to fit their roles, and they are
increasingly dominant in joint management board meetings; in the Richtersveld
the experience is much less satisfactory (Reid and Turner, 2004). Other
arrangements have resulted in sustained conflict. The handback of the Dwesa-
Cwebe forest reserve in the former Transkei has also resulted in the land
continuing as a protected area leased back from its new owners by the South
African government. But there is a continued conflict within the affected
communities that has left many aggrieved (C. Fabricius, pers. comm. 2005).
Co-management will be hard. It makes possible all sorts of local and small-scale
conflict, which simple exclusion obviated. But it could also increase the local
legitimacy of conservation activities, a more just distribution of resources (Reid
and Turner, 2004). It also makes possible one great potential dividend.
Throughout the African continent national parks and game reserves have been set
up on lands in which people used to live. Tourists will walk through and drive past
former homesteads or ancient burial grounds in complete ignorance of the social
history of the landscape, and of the violence necessary to render it empty for them
to enjoy. But awareness of the role of eviction in creating protected areas is
growing. Discerning tourists tend not to enjoy holidays that depend on these
processes. South Africa is unique in the continent in addressing the violence in the
history of conservation. Tourists can not only go there with a clean conscience,
they can be more certain that their fees are being put to good local use.
Australia too has sought to address the troubled relationship between the state
and Aboriginal peoples through more inclusive conservation policies. Few, if any,
protected areas in Australia were established by removing indigenous inhabitants
(Poirier and Ostergren, 2002). This was because in many regions the damage had
already been done, with entire groups killed off and others split up and forcefully
assimilated into white society. Rather the impetus for co-management here has
come from the enormous social dislocation which Aboriginal communities face
following decades of marginalization and discrimination. Following an enquiry
into the high rates of Aboriginal death in custody, the central government, and
federal states, recognized that more efforts must be made to strengthen
Aboriginal communities and their associations with country (the land) that
colonization had so brutally severed. Co-management of state protected areas is
one means by which this can be achieved, for it could restore contact and
connection with the nourishing terrains so central to identity and belonging
(Rose, 1996).
As a federal country the fortunes and practice of co-management vary according
to the state in which it occurs. The Northern Territory was the first to act
establishing co-management arrangements over the Gurig National Park in 1981
(Smyth, 2001). The Commonwealth government (central state) co-manages three
protected areas – Uluru-Kata Tjuta (often known as Ayers Rock), and Kakadu and
Booderee National Parks. In all cases the land was managed for conservation by
the Australian government before co-management began. Title to the land was
then granted inalienably to land trusts that hold it on behalf of traditional owners,
and, as in South Africa, at the moment title was granted the Commonwealth
simultaneously began to lease the lands back from the Aboriginal owners. Each
lease lasts for 99 years, and each involves substantial annual payments: A$235,000
plus park management contracts (Booderee); A$150,000 and 25 per cent of
tourism income (Uluru); and lease money plus 39 per cent tourism revenues,
worth A$1.3 million in 2000 (Kakadu).
Aboriginal representatives constitute the majority on the boards. But the key
question here is not numbers, but, as in South Africa, the capacity to make the
boards work for the community. The establishment and development of
co-management arrangements are scenes of perpetual conflict. This is inherent to
such arrangements. In Kakadu they are further complicated by the presence of a
large uranium mine, and the diversity of traditional groups who reside in
different parts of the park (Lawrence, 2000). In all parks various forms of
traditional use of natural resources by Aboriginal groups continue, specifically
hunting and fishing. But, as Smyth observes, these arrangements hinge on their
ability to promote the development and community aspirations of the groups
whose opportunities can be argued to have been curtailed by conservation
restrictions (Smyth, 2001). The story is mixed here. In Kakadu tourism
enterprises employ considerable numbers of residents, but jointly owned tourism
companies are still in their infancy. For many traditional owners tourism remains
an alien activity, and catering to the needs of tourists is not a straightforward
operation (Lawrence, pers. comm. 2006). At Uluru despite the majority the
traditional owners enjoy on the board they have not been able to restrict the
practice of climbing on the rock (which they dislike because every year people die
108 NATURE UNBOUND
and are injured on it) and are only able to advise tourists against it. The economy
of the local area is highly dependent on the income the park and its lease
provides, but as yet the income has done little to address the chronic pathologies
of alcohol and drug abuse and community dislocation that plague the local
Aboriginal settlement. Nevertheless Reid and colleagues felt that, in general,
compared to South Africa, the Australian parks service were investing much more
in promoting local employment and training (Reid et al, 2004).
Australian co-management is characterized by greater openness to local cultural
uses of natural resources and interpretations of the landscape. South African
national parks are subject to a much more stringent interpretation of the
legislation even in co-managed areas. However, in Australia this can generate a
further set of interesting ecological questions. Aboriginal groups interpret value
in biodiversity differently from western scientists (Reid et al, 2004). Some feral
introduced species (buffalo, rabbits) are ‘good tucker’ (food), so why try to
exterminate them?
Fortunes in the different states of Australia vary. In New South Wales
legislation allows a schedule of state parks to be returned to Aboriginal
ownership. The benefits of this process are numerous. The state pays a substantial
lease (often over one hundred thousand Australian dollars) to the owners, who
comprise a majority on the management board. The cultural heritage in the
landscape is managed by those whose heritage it is and people are reconnected to
country in new powerful ways. For example the handback of Biamanga and
Gulaga National Park followed years of wrangling and disputes in which local
Aboriginal groups had fought the logging and desecration of sacred sites on
Mumballa Mountain and Mt Dromedary respectively (Egloff, 1979, 2004). Staff
managing the parks and local traditional leaders enjoy a productive and close
relationship.
But note these problems with co-management. In order to be considered as an
owner claimants have to subject themselves to a rigorous invasive inspection of
their past and social links in order to establish their significant cultural
associations with the place. This can be disturbing and generates conflict, as
people who feel they have strong associations are omitted. Waters’ study of
co-management and well-being noted that:
it could also be argued that the processes of co-management have

been detrimental to wellbeing as a result of the social conflict
produced by the processes determining the issues of the
identification of who can ‘speak for country’.
(Waters, 2006, p10)
Furthermore, the NSW legislation stipulates that the lease be compulsorily

renewed and that funds must be spent on the upkeep of the park. The
committees are still exploring the latitude allowed in determining what can be
included in park expenditure.
Still, the situation is better than Queensland, where there is a more recent and
active history of exclusion and dispossession. The worst case was that of the
former residents of the Archer River Pastoral Station who raised the funds
necessary to buy the pastoral lease from its owners and thus win back land taken
by European settlers. The government of Queensland, however, which normally
rubber stamps all such sales, decreed that they were not allowed to own it because
it was not their government’s policy to allow Aboriginal ownership of ranches.
The Aborigines successfully contested the government’s decision, saying that it
was racist discrimination. When they lost the case the government promptly
compulsorily purchased the land and turned it into the Ben Archer National Park
(now Mungkan National Park). But then the story gets worse. Upon the
introduction of legislation allowing joint management of national parks the same
mob applied to have that park leased back to them and then jointly manage it
with the government. They went through the same invasive and exhausting
process of establishing significant historical and cultural ties to the land – and,
having been identified as the rightful owners, were told by the Queensland
government that their terms for leasing the park were that it would be given back
to the government for free, and in perpetuity. The traditional owners have
declined to pursue the issue.
In the face of this sort of hostility from the state there are still concrete ways,
however, that conservation can become more meaningful to Aborginal groups,
and can value their connections to the land. This depends on the informal
associations and friendships between park staff and local groups on which also
hinge the success of the formal co-management arrangements (Smyth, pers.
comm. 2006). Renaming of sites within the park using local vernacular terms and
the informal granting of collecting activities can be more valuable given the
general desire of the state to deny and restrict such associations (Smyth, pers.
comm. 2006). Similarly, in New South Wales even if the legal process can be
obstructive and impeding, it cannot block people’s claims on and belonging to
country. One of the more moving interviews Brockington conducted in Australia
was near Biamanga and Gulaga National Parks, with an Aboriginal councillor.
The councillor’s husband was present, a man whose personal history
demonstrated some of the violent extremes of Aboriginal life in Australia, and he
frequently joined in the discussion. He described how he had been taken from his
family as a child on the night his mother died and was raised in a boys’ home. He
spent 30 years of his life as an alcoholic, with no self-respect. He did not know
who he was until he took a course in Aboriginal studies. Now he does, he knows
where he belongs, and although not a recognized traditional owner or an elder,
and although he was not intending to seek formal recognition, he said repeatedly
of Biamanga, gesturing towards the mountain with satisfaction and certainty, that
‘I own that place’; nourishing terrains indeed.
110 NATURE UNBOUND
Co-management therefore is a complicated tool. It can be a means by which

states empower marginalized and disadvantaged groups. But it is also a means by
which state control is extended and confirmed. It can restore relations to country
and to lands indigenous people value, but rarely on terms they determine. In New
Zealand Coombes and Hill have shown that moves to ‘co-manage’ the Te
Urewera National Park in the northwest of the country are being met with
hostility because residents fear that it will weaken the unresolved land claims that
the Maori residents of the area have already made against the Crown (Coombes
and Hill, 2005). Similarly Tofa (2007) has brilliantly examined co-management
arrangements at Taranaki National Park in the northeast of New Zealand. This
region experienced some of the worst injustices of suppression and land
alienation prior to the park’s establishment (Waitangi Tribunal, 1996). The
settlements that have followed the Crown’s recognition of its mistake involve
giving Maori iwi control over some conservation land and eventually some say in
the management of Taranaki National Park itself.6 Tofa argues that these
arrangements are themselves further impositions as they have required the
construction of governance entities that have reshaped iwi into forms that the
government can negotiate with, and in the act of giving control over sites to
particular iwi the settlements are at the same time closing off other areas.
Nevertheless she observed that Maori were willing to cooperate with these
arrangements because they offered a stepping stone to more satisfactory relations.
Purists (and some Department of Conservation staff in New Zealand) insist,
however, that co-management should only be applied to the country’s national
parks if the land is being handed back to Maori ownership.
Many co-management arrangements are pursued specifically with indigenous
peoples in particular countries. It is important to note these groups typically enter
these arrangements from positions of weakness. Handback is often made
conditional on protected area status continuing, with leases being renewable in
perpetuity. Moreover, entering into these types of arrangements often has divisive
effects on the groups of concerned communities, accentuating existing divisions
and creating new ones. In the case of Badlands, the memorandum of agreement
was signed during the period of civil unrest described above. It was signed by a
pro-Goon (a pro-government faction) tribal president and still strongly resisted
by traditionalist factions who have occupied the reservation side of the park since
2002 (Igoe, 2004b). To understand these dynamics properly requires a more
detailed examination of the politics of indigeneity. This we explore in the
following chapter.
Conclusion
All of this discussion suggests the need for much more complex and empirical
approaches for doing conservation with local communities. Approaches to working
with communities often begin with certain types of assumptions about communities
and certain desired outcomes that are essentially non-negotiable. Such a way of
looking at communities presents two problems. The first is that it results in a sort of
reverse engineering when it comes to working with communities. This approach
begins with assumed outcomes and asks how can we get communities to perform in
ways that will bring about these outcomes. In many cases this results either in
disappointment when communities do not perform in ways that the desired
outcomes require, or in the need for handpicked interpretive communities that will
be predictable enough to bring about desired outcomes or at least be able to create
and talk about interventions in ways that present the appearance of realizing the
desired outcomes. The second problem is the assumptions themselves. They can
involve odd ideas about what constitutes a community. They often include notions
of synergies between decentralized resource management and free market
economies. Closely related is the assumption that people will only conserve natural
resources if they value them, and they will only value them if they have a cash value.
Perhaps the biggest problem with this approach to community-based
conservation is that it systematically filters out those problems and challenges that
do not meet its criteria. A more open ended, empirical approach is much more
likely to help us find approaches that are effective, equitable and more in line
with local needs and values. This type of approach can also allow us to ask much
more productive questions, about which types of approaches seem to work best
in which contexts, and how are costs and benefits distributed in the process?
What kinds of patterns emerge in terms of how community-based conservation
actually interacts with the environment and local livelihoods? And how can
understanding these patterns help us to improve the ways in which conservation
gets done? This may not be so effective at mobilizing resources for large-scale
interventions. However it will allow a far more nuanced and flexible approach to
community conservation. It also sets the stage for the types of learning that are
essential to improved design and practice over time.
Notes
1 Sundar also notes that it is not entirely new and lists several precedents before the
1970s.
2 Sundar (2000) gives 10–15,000, citing a source published in 1996;
www.rupfor.org/jfm.asp gives 63,000 (accessed 19 December 2007).
3 www.sristi.org/cpr/display.php3 (accessed 15 December 2007).
4 www.indiana.edu/~ifri/ (accessed 15 December 2007).
5 It is not clear whether these grasslands are subject to a common property
management regime. The authors describe them as ‘open access’ and ‘community-
managed’. They describe practices of management and burning but do not describe
the decision-making processes that result in this management being carried out.
6 An iwi is approximately equivalent to a tribe in English. It is a named, distinct
sub-group of the Maori people.
6
Conservation and Indigenous Peoples
We Eskimos would like to join the Sierra Club Inuit Activist

William Wiloya, 1969 in Catton, 1997, p4
In 1970 a group of Inuit activists joined forces with conservationists to protect

the Alaskan Wilderness from oil exploration and the construction of oil pipelines
that were threatening both the environment and the Inuit way of life. This
alliance ultimately led to the creation of Gates of the Arctic National Park in
1980. Gates of the Arctic was the first park within the US National Parks system
that allowed for human habitation (Catton, 1997, p2). Throughout the 1970s
and 1980s, alliances based on the common interests of indigenous peoples and
conservationists grew but remained limited in geographic scope. By the 1990s,
however, the protection of biodiversity was becoming discursively and
institutionally linked to cultural diversity and indigenous rights (WWF, 1997;
Stepp et al, 2004). Conservation interventions targeting indigenous peoples
proliferated (Chapin, 2004). Indigenous peoples and indigenous issues became
increasingly common at international conservation events. In 2000, IUCN
established a theme on indigenous and local communities, equity, and protected
areas (see Igoe, 2008 for a detailed discussion).1
These discursive and institutional transformations coincided with the
emergence and growing success of the global Indigenous Peoples’ Movement
following the Soviet collapse in the late 1980s. During this period the global
spread of NGOs and funding for initiatives that were clearly beyond the purview
of states, created new opportunities for transnational activism by indigenous
peoples. It also created new opportunities for ‘space making’ inside transnational
institutions like the UN and the World Bank (Li, 2000; Muehlebach, 2001;
Hodgson, 2002a; Niezen, 2003; Igoe, 2005, 2006a; Dove, 2006). These
developments were accompanied by the rise of what Niezen (2003, pp4–5) calls
the rise of ‘global indigenism’: a nascent global ideology that the experiences of the
world’s ‘first peoples – those who are strongly attached to the world’s “last wild
places” and who share a claim to have survived on their land through the upheavals
of colonialism and corporate exploitation’. The association of ‘the world’s first
peoples’ with the ‘world’s last wild places’ suggested opportunities for ‘space
making’ within the institutional structures of transnational conservation, such as
the IUCN and large conservation NGOs.
114 NATURE UNBOUND
These events and processes appeared to portend a convergence of global

indigenism and global environmentalism. Indeed, at the turn of the millennium
encounters between conservationists and indigenous peoples were intensifying in
unprecedented ways, thereby creating unprecedented opportunities for more
effective alliances and collaborations (Tsing, 2004). Even the World Bank began
to support indigenous environmental knowledge, declaring itself ‘the knowledge
bank’ (Dove, 2006, p195).
Unfortunately, these encounters also revealed that conservation interventions
targeting indigenous peoples were often failing (Chapin, 2004). They also
revealed that indigenous ways of valuing and using natural resources were
frequently out of step with those of conservationists (Niezen, 2003), a revelation
that contributed to a backlash known as the ‘back to the barriers movement’ (Roe
et al, 2003; Hutton et al, 2005); for examples, see Leakey (2003) and Sanderson
(2004). At the same time, indigenous peoples in many parts of the world have
become suspicious and disdainful of anything called conservation (Dowie,
forthcoming).
This chapter will lay out some of the institutional and historical context of
these encounters and the types of effects they have had in different times and
places. Indigenous peoples play a significant and active role in conversations
about indigenous people and conservation, which we will examine. However, for
the most part these are not conversations among equals. Inuit people who worked
to create Gates of the Arctic National Park have found themselves increasingly
excluded from that park (Catton, 1997); Aboriginal groups in Australia found
themselves being used as pawns between mining companies and conservationists
(Allen, 1981). Transnational conservation NGOs aggressively pursued alliances
with indigenous peoples in Latin America, but then wound up with the lion’s
share of the funding (Chapin, 2004). From ‘the local’ to ‘the global’ the putative
link between biodiversity has put tremendous pressure on indigenous leaders to
cultivate certain images that are exceedingly difficult to live up to in practice.
From a historical perspective protected areas have two starkly different, and at
times paradoxical, consequences for indigenous peoples. On the one hand, they
have been instrumental in dispossessing people of land and resources. Viewed
from below there is little difference between protected area establishment and
other large-scale development projects (Brockington, 2002; Dowie, 2005). Both
are planning exercises carried out by states that require significant changes in the
way that rural peoples live their lives. On the other hand protected areas can be
the instruments by which indigenous people win control over land and resources
and defend themselves against the transformations of modernity. Indigenous
leaders must negotiate this precarious paradox as best they can.
In this chapter we explore the paradoxical relationships of indigenous people
and protected areas in the context of conservation encounters. We look at
protected areas as a literal ‘common ground’ for these encounters. We examine
the consequences for people and nature of the alliances that have developed. We
CONSERVATION AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 115
then turn a more critical eye upon the concept of indigeneity itself, especially the
ways in which ideas of indigenous and ideas of nature can become mutually
constituting in the context of transnational biodiversity conservation. We
consider the problems of the category ‘indigenous’, the types of pitfalls it can
create both for conservation and indigenous activism and the exclusions it can
entail and the politics of its application.
Initial encounters
As we noted in Chapter 2, mainstream conservation traces its roots to the
creation of national parks in the 19th century in the United States, especially
Yosemite and Yellowstone. We further noted that while this particular ‘creation
tale’ is problematic, it is nevertheless powerful. Moreover, it focuses on a historical
moment when the ‘collaborative legacy’ of mainstream conservation was being
established in the context of westward expansion in the US. This was a process of
contact and displacement, and parks were integral to this process.
This history does not begin in the US, but in western Europe, where changes
in rural capitalism and land tenure laws led to the emergence of elite landscape
ideals in which human beings or any evidence of their activities did not belong,
and were therefore actively excluded. These ideals were imprinted on landscapes
throughout Great Britain and other parts of western Europe through the creation
of a stark divide between landscapes of production – set aside for the production
of wealth – and landscapes of consumption – set aside for the viewing pleasure of
rural elites. Landscapes of consumption were most commonly created as part of
country estates, which revolved around the idea of a ‘pleasing prospect’
(Williams, 1973; Olwig and Olwig, 1979; Cosgrove, 1984). Through these
transformations, enjoyment of nature and outdoor leisure activities became part
of aristocratic distinction. Contemplation of nature and scenery in the West, and
therefore mainstream western conservation values, is intimately related to the
changing rules and circumstances by which land was controlled and its proceeds
distributed (Daniels and Cosgrove, 1988; Pringle, 1988; Daniels, 1993;
Neumann, 1998; Igoe, 2004b).
The creation of parks in the US was instigated by urban elites from the eastern
part of the country, who were strongly influenced by European ideals of the
‘pleasing prospect’. As we have seen, the original call for parks is commonly
attributed to George Catlin who, during his trips along the Missouri River in the
1830s, was taken by the beauty of the American prairie and its native American
inhabitants. He correctly feared that these landscapes and people would become
decimated by westward expansion and therefore proposed national parks for the
landscape and its residents (see page 19, Chapter 2). Catlin’s vision of a landscape
for people and nature never came to fruition. By 1865 a new champion of the
conservation in the West emerged – Samuel Bowles. Bowles celebrated the
magnificent beauty of what he called the Switzerland of America, a land of:
116 NATURE UNBOUND
wide elevated Parks, lying among her double and treble folds of the
continental range … surrounded by mountains that rise from …
plains green with grass, dark with groves, bright with flowers.
(Spence, 1999, p23)
Unlike Catlin, however, Bowles wanted this to be a land from which Native
Americans were restricted and contained. He met many on his travels but
supported the new and treacherous system of reservations that the government
was proposing as they looked to the west and to the Indian lands therein for
expansion. He wrote:
We know that they are not our equals … we know that our right to
the soil, as a race capable of its superior improvement, is above theirs
… Let us say [to them] you are our ward, our child, the victim of
our destiny, ours to displace, ours to protect. We want your hunting
grounds to dig gold from, to raise grain on, and you must move on.
(Spence, 1999, p25)
Reservations would be awarded, but if:
the march … of empire demands this reservation of yours, we will

assign you another; but so long as we choose, this is your home, your
prison, your playground. (Spence, 1999, p27)
This language was accompanied by a new sense of nationhood and purpose

summed up in the belief in America’s manifest destiny. After the conquest of
northern Mexico, and the ceding of territory from the British in Oregon,
America came to celebrate in the 1840s ‘its manifest destiny to overspread and
possess the whole of the continent for our yearly multiplying millions’. At the
same time as it was seeing a great future for itself, Americans were also seeking
out suitable symbols for their increasingly auspicious nation – and it was this that
in part inspired Bowles. He saw in the magnificence of the mountains, in the
scenery of Yosemite and in the ancient big trees suitable symbols with which to
celebrate America as the exclusive domain of the white man.
The result was that national parks in the US became instruments of dispossession
at the same time as they were conserving landscapes from developments by settlers
and as they were also promoting nascent tourism industries. Yellowstone was
created on lands that had been allotted as hunting grounds to neighbouring Indian
groups four years earlier. Rights to hunt there were revoked, and the first task the
government faced was to clear the hunters out. The first park headquarters was a
heavily fortified blockhouse, located on an isolated hill that offered a good defensive
position. Hundreds of people died in efforts by the US Cavalry to establish the park
and clear Indians from the area.
The Glacier National Park was established in 1910, when there was less
active conflict with native American groups and more nostalgia for their
vanishing world. The park featured opportunities to see traditional dances and
to have Indian-dressed golf caddies. But at the same time there was fierce
opposition to Indian interference and hunting in the eastern edge of the park
where it adjoined their reservation because it was perceived to be unnatural.
Ironically this was also a time when park staff were witnessing an explosion of
elk and other wild grazers in the park resulting in problems of overgrazing
because the park staff were killing off unwanted predators like wolf, coyote and
mountain lion.
In fact there are no major protected areas in the American West that have not
had significant conflicts with native American communities. This aspect of the
early history of national parks was marginalizing at best, and violent and
traumatic at worst. But it is one that is simply erased from the popular history of
Yellowstone. A recent volume on the topic was sub-titled The Hidden History of
American Conservation (Jacoby, 2001). It is not a story that is widely known and
is absent from Nash and Runte’s popular histories. Moreover, as Spence (1999)
argues, wilderness preservation based on the Yellowstone model spread
throughout the world in the 20th century, thereby becoming ‘a model for native
dispossessing the world over’ (p85).
Neumann (2005, pp134–135) takes this argument further, asserting that
protected areas are linked to the expansion of state control. Parks are certainly
often associated with the control and containment of indigenous communities.
However, they are also frequently spaces uniquely beyond state control. Parks in
Africa and Latin America have become staging grounds for guerrilla movements
(Dunn, 2003; Tapia, 2005), as well as for drug trafficking (Stepp, 2005; Tapia,
2005). Protected areas in the US shelter marijuana plantations and
methamphetamine labs, as well as people seeking to enter the country illegally.
They have also sometimes enabled indigenous people to elude state control and
other forms of incursion. The Ute Mountain Tribal Park in Colorado was created
by the Ute Mountain tribe in part to protect their land from being taken over by
the Mesa Verde National Park (Igoe, 2004b). The Xingu National Park in Brazil
was essential to Kayapo resistance to commercial mining and hydroelectric dams
on the Xingu River (Turner, 1993). The Kuna Park in Panama was instrumental
for the Kuna in protecting their homeland from colonization by formerly urban
settlers and cattle ranchers (Chapin, 2000).
As contested spaces, sometimes beyond the reach of states and global
capitalism, parks have brought together indigenous peoples and western
conservationists in landscapes around the world since at least the 19th century. In
an effort to protect these landscapes, sometimes from each other, both groups
have sought support and resources from distant but powerful institutions. Over
time, their externally oriented strategies have engendered transnational
institutional structures like the IUCN and the UN Forum on Indigenous Issues.
118 NATURE UNBOUND
Relationships that began in the context of protected area encounters have been
reproduced in these structures, with the added complexity of distance,
institutional survival and funding cycles.
The rise of global indigenism: Problems of definition,

identity and articulation
The global Indigenous Peoples’ Movement emerged at a time of transformation
in the global environmental movement. Conservation NGOs have become more
numerous, with funds concentrated onto a powerful few (Chapin, 2004; Khare
and Bray, 2004; Dorsey, 2005). Their growth was achieved through a
diversification of funding strategies to include funding from corporate, bilateral
and multilateral sources. This has also been the period, as we examine in the final
three chapters, when conservation has turned increasingly to neoliberal rhetoric
to justify its policies. These developments have increased possibilities for
encounters between conservationists and indigenous peoples, while
simultaneously defining the contexts in which these encounters will take place.
Especially since, as Chernlea (2005) argues, there is an increasing trend in some
parts of the world of environmental NGOs moving away from ‘facilitation to
domination’ and from ‘local partnering’ to ‘local production’ (cf. Chapin, 2004;
Dove, 2006; Igoe and Croucher, 2007).
Transnational indigenous activism has been going on for as long as transnational
environmental activism. As with environmental activism, the transnational
structures of indigenous activism have their roots in colonialism and European
expansion (for a detailed discussion see Niezen (2003) and Igoe (2008)). In 1974,
indigenous leaders from North America, Latin America and Australia established
the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, the first of 11 indigenous NGOs with
official UN consultative status (Sanders, 1980). However, it was not until
participation in ‘international consultations and standard setting was extended to
self-identifying indigenous peoples from Africa and Asia in the 1990s, that the
indigenous peoples’ movement became more fully global’ (Niezen, 2003, p26).
The reasons for the initial exclusion of people from Africa and Asia, as well as their
later inclusion, in the global Indigenous People’s Movement are complex and
controversial (Li, 2000; Sylvaine, 2002; Kuper, 2003; Niezen, 2003; Igoe, 2005).
However, they are closely tied to the global spread of NGOs during this same
period, which presented activists in Africa and Asia with unprecedented
opportunities for gaining access to international forums (Niezen, 2003; Igoe,
2008).
These developments have clearly increased the political clout of indigenous
activists. Not only this, they have contributed to the creation of a new
international legal category, which indigenous activists can use to bolster their
claims to cultural autonomy, political sovereignty and natural resources. Most
recently this has resulted in the ratification of the UN Declaration of the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples in September of 2007.2 They are also the basis of increased
and intensified encounters between indigenous activists and conservationists.
This convergence has in turn resulted in both conflicts and collaborations
between conservationists and indigenous activists, a matter that will be addressed
in detail below.
Before turning to the issue of conflict and collaboration and correspondence,
it is important to note an inherent paradox in the global Indigenous People’s
Movement, which Niezen (2003, p3) succinctly describes as follows:
The clearest expression of human diversity can now be found in a

category now widely referred to as ‘indigenous peoples’; yet the very
creation of this category involves common origin, is predicated on a
global sameness of experience, and is expressed through mechanisms
of law and bureaucracy, the culprits most commonly associated with
gains in cultural uniformity.
This paradox has presented a fundamental challenge to indigenous activists,

while sparking intense debates between anthropologists and other social
scientists. As Dove (2006) explains, most anthropologists agree that the concept
of indigeneity is fraught with problems and contradictions, but disagree on the
implications of those problems and contradictions. In his article ‘Return of the
native’, Adam Kuper (2003) argued that the term ‘indigenous’ is little more than
a euphemism for the term ‘primitive’, and that it fosters ‘essentialist ideas of
culture and identity that may have dangerous political consequences’. He further
asks, ‘should we ignore history for fear of undermining myths of autochthony’
(p400)? By contrast, David Maybury-Lewis, founder of the organization Cultural
Survival, has admonished that anthropologists should ‘know better’ than to write
critically about the appropriateness of indigenous status for people in Africa and
Asia.3 Governments might use their works to justify policies that adversely affect
disadvantaged ethnic minorities in their countries (cf. Colchester, 2002). Much
of the anthropological writing on this topic, especially critiques of Kuper, revolves
around ‘the politics of Science’ (Dove, 2006, p193). These critiques question the
ethics of interfering in the efforts of indigenous activists to strategically invoke
specific categories, identities and histories in their struggles against the forces of
globalization. These writings highlight ‘place-making’ by indigenous activists in
transnational institutional structures like the UN, the World Bank, and the
IUCN (Muehlebach, 2001; Colchester, 2002; Hodgson, 2002b; Niezen, 2003;
Igoe, 2004a).
As Dove (2006) also points out, indigenous activists engaged in ‘place making’
usually do not have the luxury or the inclination of this type of analysis. Rather,
they must develop the necessary skills and language to negotiate the paradoxes
and contradictions of indigeneity in a global context. They must be
simultaneously ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’. In her excellent book Methodology of
120 NATURE UNBOUND
the Oppressed, Chela Sandoval (2000) argues that effective activism by all
previously colonized peoples requires what she calls ‘differential consciousness’;
this is a kind of mental mobility, the ability to move between different contexts
and audiences, and even contradictory ideas, in ways that achieve specific
purposes. She argues that many colonized peoples have already achieved
differential consciousness as a matter of survival in response to the contradictions
forced upon them over generations by European colonialism. She argues that
westerners also need to develop differential consciousness in order to learn how
to operate effectively in our convoluted and contradictory globalized world. She
warns, however, that differential consciousness must be accompanied by a
democratic ethic, in which differential consciousness is used to bring about
egalitarian social justice. Differential consciousness without a democratic ethic
leads to what philosopher Roland Barthes (2000 (1957)) called ‘cynical
consciousness’, which begins with ‘a concept wedded to power (value) and then
seeks a form to represent it’ (Sandoval, 2000, p94). This is the approach that
marketing professionals use to sell a product or idea.
From this perspective the job of anthropologists is not exactly to critique
definitions of indigenous per se, but to understand how they are created in
different contexts and how different groups of people and individuals struggle to
articulate with them in order to advocate on behalf of their communities or to
further other sorts of causes. Tania Li (2000, p169) conceptualizes an ‘indigenous
slot’ with which some groups are able to articulate. Certain preconditions are
necessary for this articulation, three of which are apropos of international ‘space
making’: outsiders interested in finding and helping indigenous groups, a
capacity to make local cultural identity intelligible to outsiders, and individuals
mandated to speak on behalf of the group.
Understanding how different groups of people manage to articulate with this
‘indigenous slot’, will give us a much more solid understanding of the different
types of encounters that are likely to occur between indigenous activists and
conservationists, and which shape the outcomes of those encounters are likely to
look like, as well as how they get reported. Anthropologists, policy makers and
indigenous activists have struggled to create definition of indigenous that is broad
enough to include people from a broad diversity of contexts, while being narrow
enough to still be meaningful. Colchester (2003, p18) claims to have resolved the
paradoxes of this exercise in category making by defining indigenous peoples as a
‘self-ascribed polythetic class’ that is global in scope (see also Burger, 1987; Khan
and Talal, 1987; UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1989).4 According
to this type of analysis, this class has emerged through the interaction of indigenous
activists at transnational forums promoting indigenous sovereignty. They attend
these forums with ‘little doubt about their own status of indigenous, and few open
doubts about the claims of others’ (Niezen, 2003, pp18–23).
This way of looking at indigenous identity apparently alleviates the need for
pedantic scholarly discussions about which groups are indigenous and which
groups are not. Unfortunately, it can only achieve this by conflating indigenous
place making at the transnational level with the dynamics of actual indigenous
communities, such that ‘indigenous cultural politics are always also the politics of
land … and all struggles for and about land are also struggles about identity and
culture’ (Muehlebach, 2001, p425). International indigenous activism is
irrefutably tied to local land struggles, though not always and not always in the
ways that these pundits imagine. The main problem with these types of narrative,
however, is that they ignore the exclusivity of the international forums in which
‘space making’ by indigenous activists takes place. The idea of indigenous peoples
as a global self-ascribed polythetic class is only unproblematic as long as it also
ignores the inherent exclusivity of these forums.
When this exclusivity is ignored, whether or not a group of people becomes
indigenous appears as a matter of choice. Colchester’s (2002, p2) discussion of
this issue smacks surprisingly of Sartrean free will:
Not all marginalized ethnic groups choose to consider themselves

indigenous. Some apparently see greater advantage in assimilating
into the national mainstream. Others, like many Kurds, apparently
feel that the indigenous struggle is too parochial and claim rights to
full nationality by other means.
As Li (2000, p151) demonstrates, however, not every marginal ethnic group can
‘choose’ to be indigenous:
A group’s self-identification as indigenous is not natural or

inevitable, but neither is it simply invented, adopted, or imposed. It
is a positioning, which draws upon historically sedimented practices,
landscapes, and repertoires of meaning, and emerges through
particular patterns of engagement and struggle.
Before these preconditions can come into play, however, more fundamental
preconditions must be met: knowledge of the Forum for Indigenous Issues, money
for travel expenses and the courage to travel to unknown places, not to mention
passports, visas, the possibility of foregoing opportunity costs and a group of
outsiders with the will and resources to support a specific indigenous cause.
Ironically, this means that some people are too marginal to claim indigenous status
(Beteille, 1998; Jackson, 1999; Fisher et al, 2005; Dove, 2006; Igoe, 2006a).
It is also important not to underestimate the extent to which indigeneity
represents an important form of symbolic capital, which indigenous leaders use
to make alliances with, and leverage resources from, international actors – not the
least of whom are representatives of international conservation organizations.
Arguments about ‘indigenous self-identity’ notwithstanding, effective use of this
symbolic capital often depends upon meeting externally defined criteria of
122 NATURE UNBOUND
indigenous legitimacy, which may be quite different from local ideas of what this
might mean (Conklin and Graham, 1995; Hodgson, 2002a; Niezen, 2003; Igoe,
2005, 2006a).
These dynamics are complicated by the fact that indigenous struggles are not
always about land (cf. Sylvaine, 2002, p1076). Most notably, they are also about
monetary resources associated with interventions targeting indigenous peoples.
These external resources are crucially important to communities that have been
impoverished by the historical alienation of their natural resource base. Tribal
governments and indigenous NGOs are not only vehicles for indigenous
advocacy, but also one of the few (if not only) opportunities for gainful
employment in many indigenous communities.
Struggles over issues of identity and representation, which are frequently tied to
access to outside resources, are source of frequent allegations that indigenous leaders
are not operating according to the type of democratic ethic that Sandoval advocates.
An organization called ‘the Accountability Coalition’ has documented corruption
and rights abuses by tribal government throughout Canada (Niezen, 2003). At the
Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, US, conficts over representation resulted
in a period of bloody civil unrest, in which when a pro-government faction known
as the Goons fought violently with Oglala traditionalists who had joined the
American Indian Movement. These conflicts became visible again when Oglala
traditionalists occupied the tribal offices in 2000, as well as by their current
occupation of the Badlands National Park (Burnham, 2000; Igoe, 2004b; Igoe and
Kelsall, 2005). In southeast Alaska, a coalition of landless communities struggled
against native leaders who had cut them out of their ‘village corporations’. Members
of this coalition rejected the indigenous label, identifying instead with the
Pentocostal Church (Dombrowski, 2002). In Brazil, some Kayapo leaders stand
accused of selling out their communities to benefit their factions, to the extent that
they are no longer welcome in their own villages (Turner, 1993; Nugent, 1994;
Conklin and Graham, 1995). Struggles over identity and external resources also
resulted in the near breakdown of Tanzania’s indigenous NGOs movement in the
late 1990s (Igoe, 2003a, 2004b).
There are two systematic inequities inherent in current arrangements: 1)
inequities between indigenous groups; and 2) inequities between indigenous
groups and other marginal groups, who for one reason or another cannot choose
to define themselves as indigenous. The first type of inequity is best summed up
as ‘some indigenous people are more indigenous than others’. San groups in
Namibia, for instance, have become a permanent underclass of agricultural
workers. Members of this group are unable to articulate the same claims to
indigeneity as San groups in neighbouring Botswana (Sylvaine, 2002). In
Tanzania, Barabaig NGOs leaders complain that Maasai NGOs dominate the
Tanzanian indigenous peoples’ movement. The Maasai enjoy global recognition,
while the Barabaig are barely known outside of Tanzania. As a result, Barabaig
leaders claim, Maasai leaders command more than their fair share of NGO
resources (Igoe, 2000, 2004c; Hodgson, 2002b). San leaders in Botswana have
made similar allegations against Maasai NGOs (Suzman, 2002/3, p8). Maasai
opposition to the evictions from the Mkomazi Game Reserve excluded and
alienated local groups that had been in the area longer than the Maasai (Kiwasila,
1997). In Colorado, over 600,000 tourists a year flock to the Mesa Verde to visit
ruins of ancient Anasazi peoples, who were the ancestors of contemporary Hopi
groups. What most of these tourists don’t know, and which they will never find
out at the Mesa Verde visitor centre, is that the park was excised from the
reservation of the Ute Mountain Ute, who are in no way related to the ancient
Anasazi and benefit very little from the areas booming tourist economy
(Burnham, 2000; Igoe 2004b).
Next, indigenous people are not always the most marginal people displaced and
impoverished by protected areas. While the impoverishment of Native Americans
by national parks is a little known story, the impoverishment of Appalachian
communities is an even lesser known one (Horning, 2004). Members of these
poor white communities, derisively referred to as hillbillies by many Americans,
have been forcefully displaced by the establishment of the Shenandoah National
Park (Jacoby, 2001) and the Blue Ridge Parkway (Wilson, 1992).
The situation is more complicated in contexts where poverty takes a more
‘equal opportunity approach’ and where the line between indigenous and non-
indigenous is more directly influenced by the perceptions of western
conservationists, human rights activists and eco-cultural tourists. Nugent’s
account of conservation in Amazonia poignantly captures this dilemma:
In its attempts to make the world over in its own image, Europe’s
portrayals of society at the fringes have frequently betrayed a kind of
stereo tunnel vision: in one eye is presented that which typifies the
legacy of civilization, the other observes primitivism. Out of focus, if
not out of view, is the nether world, that vast region of social and
historical marginality where images are less pristine and for which
more explanation is required than can be summed up in a flattering
archetype. Ragged urban infants selling ices are neither gratefully
European nor charmingly primordial. The canoe paddling fisherman
wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with ‘Miss Nudity Concourse U.S.A’ is
on the wrong set. (These) out of focus Amazonians … appear when
needed as guides, they are present when laundry needs to be done;
they drive cabs and serve up beer, but they are almost incidental,
populating the transitional zone between the airport and the
Amazonian Indian theme park.
(Nugent, 1994, pp17–18)
Because it is so unpleasant and so complicated, residents of Nugent’s ‘nether

world’ are frequently overlooked by conservationists and conservation
124 NATURE UNBOUND
interventions. They are also overlooked by social scientists as people who have
‘chosen to assimilate’. The problem with this perspective is that being assimilated
into poverty only means that you are poor with nothing to distinguish yourself
in the eyes of outsiders who may bring resources to your communities. Studies
from Indonesia (Li, 2000), South Africa (Kuper, 2003), and Tanzania (Igoe,
2003a) illustrate that people descended from displaced groups frequently make
up significant minorities of the rural populations in developing countries. These
groups are also frequently the most marginal and least ethnically distinct. In fact,
Gupta goes so far as to suggest that these ‘out of focus people’ represent the
majority of the world’s poor.
We wish to emphasize here that this discussion is not meant to let anyone off
the hook when it comes to working with indigenous peoples. Redford (1990) is
certainly correct that advocates of indigenous rights frequently construct
indigenous peoples as ‘ecologically noble savages’. It does not follow, however,
that indigenous peoples should not have rights to land and natural resources and
that their well-being should not be the concern of conservation. Rather, we are
arguing here that the global project of nature conservation is inextricably
intertwined with the global project of cultural conservation to which Gupta refers
above. Just as effective nature conservation must engage with the full complexity
of living ecosytems, which include the people who live within them, cultural
conservation must engage with the full complexity of the experiences of formerly
colonized peoples, whether or not these people are able to lay claim to indigenous
status. Conservation interventions, by definition, have and will continue to
encounter people living in landscapes. The discussion that follows, therefore, is
designed to present a more complex understanding of the dynamics of these
encounters, and whether they are likely to result in collaboration or conflict.
Conservationists and indigenous activists in the ‘shifting

middle ground’
Understandings of encounters between indigenous activists and western
conservationists must begin with the ways in which both groups market their
activities through appeals to external supporters (for a detailed discussion see
Niezen, 2003, pp187–190). This situation is made doubly difficult by the fact
that, in many parts of the world, indigenous activists depend on conservation
organizations for funding. This means in effect that conservation organizations are
marketing themselves to their funders and the general public often in
oversimplified ways that conceal many of the complex problems that we are
addressing in this book, and indigenous activists must in turn market what they
are doing with reference to the marketing discourses of conservation organizations.
These concerns reflect more fundamental problems with convergence between
the global indigenous peoples’ movement and international conservation, which is
perhaps best described as an ‘encounter of strangers predicated upon assumptions
of vaguely similar values: environmental preservation, appreciation of “different”

cultures, and rejection of poverty, misery, and illegitimate death’ (Niezen, 2003,
p191). The problem with the ‘vagueness’ of this overlap, is that it frequently
obscures pressing local concerns (Hodgson, 2002b; Sylvaine, 2002; Kuper, 2003;
Igoe, 2004a). By treating indigenous communities as just another ‘stakeholder
group’ community conservation discounts their primary goal of self-determination
and gaining control of the natural resources on which their livelihoods depends
(Conklin and Graham, 1995).
Landscape preservation is also frequently at odds with indigenous pursuits of
prosperity and economic development (Redford, 1990; Niezen, 2003).
Conservation has taken peoples’ land, imposed changes to culture and custom,
and marginalizes them politically (Colchester, 1997; Gray et al, 1998; Colchester
and Erni, 1999; Chatty and Colchester, 2002; Nelson and Hossack, 2003). It is
one of the means by which states exert control over them. In Botswana, Ethiopia
and Thailand ongoing evictions or attempts at eviction are continuing to disrupt
the lives of indigenous people (Buergin and Kessler, 2000; Ikeya, 2001; Sato,
2002; Buergin, 2003; Pearce, 2005a, b). Mac Chapin and Mark Dowie have
controversially alleged that major conservation organizations are substantially
implicated in the marginalizations affecting indigenous peoples (Chapin, 2004;
Dowie 2005, 2006).
Conklin and Graham (1995, p695) describe the context in which indigenous
activists and western conservationists encounter one another as a ‘shifting middle
ground’ through which indigenous peoples and western conservationists
construct a ‘mutually comprehensible world’ characterized by new systems of
meaning and exchange. ‘Middle grounds are forged on the basis of assumptions
about the Other and what (they) can contribute to specific goals’ (p696; also cf.
Rangan, 1992). This middle ground represents a paradox of the convergence of
conservation and the indigenous peoples. Indigenous activists around the world
invoke the idea that their relationships to the environment are consistent with
conservation principles in their efforts to enter into alliances with western
conservationists (Alcorn, 1993; Redford and Stearman, 1993a, b; Turner, 1993;
Catton, 1997; Li, 2000). Such strategies are often essential in their bids to
maintain control of their natural homelands. However, they also carry an implicit
premise that indigenous communities are only worthy of remaining on a
landscape as long as they remain ‘ecologically noble’ (Li, 2000, p170 and Niezen,
2003, p197). In this context, Dove (2006, p194) argues that indigenous identity
is ‘a narrow target that is too easily overshot or undershot’. People always run the
risk of being too modern or too primitive.
In her ethnography Friction (2004), Anna Tsing documents the ways in which
networks between activists in Indonesia’s Merapus Mountains were able to use
transnational standards to critique national policies in ways that allowed them to
enter into alliances with international conservationists to protect their homeland
from deforestation. In the process they were able to define a community by social
126 NATURE UNBOUND
relationships inscribed in the forests where they live. She hastens to add, however,
that this fortuitous outcome is not the result of a particular formula that was
successfully applied to doing conservation with indigenous communities.
In fact, she describes in detail how attempts to export successful collaborations
can spell disaster in other contexts. Specifically she describes the ways in which
experiences of collaborations between Brazilian rubber tappers and North
American human rights groups to stop deforestation in the Amazon basin were
exported to Malaysia with disastrous results. Where environmentalists and local
people were successful in making deforestation an Indonesian cause, collaborations
in Malaysia were treated as interference by outsiders, ultimately ending with the
disappearance of a Swiss adventurer named Bruno Manser who championed the
cause of the Penan people whose rainforest was threatened. Tsing’s conclusion is
that effective collaborations between indigenous communities and conservationists
will only occur in specific configurations of circumstances in which both groups are
able to use globally circulating universal ideas – like biodiversity, democracy and
human rights – to work towards goals that they are able to identify in common. It
is also important to note that these configurations of conditions will not remain
static, but inevitably change over time.
From this perspective, there appear to be three main contexts in which effective
collaborations do occur. First, there are collaborations in which indigenous
communities cooperate with conservationists to co-manage protected areas on
their traditional homelands, which we discussed in the previous chapter. Second,
are cases when conservationists and indigenous people have a common cause and
a common enemy, as with the case that Tsing has documented for Indonesia. This
is what prompted Inuit activist William Willoya’s assertion that the Eskimo
wanted to join the Sierra Club to protect the Alaska wilderness from oil
exploration. This type of alliance is especially prevalent in Latin America. The
most famous of these is the case of the Kayapo and their struggles to stop hydro-
electric dams on Brazil’s Xingu River (Turner, 1993). In this context Sting and
Kayapo activist Raoni appeared on national television in both the UK and US,
and Sting released his rainforest CD (Nugent, 1994).
Beyond these types of arrangements, there are also cases in which indigenous
communities establish protected areas of their own accord and on their own land.
Such an arrangement is now recognized by the IUCN under the category of
‘Indigenous Protected Area’ (IPA). Like co-management, however, this category
obscures the particular political, economic and historical circumstances under
which indigenous people establish protected areas. In Australia, indigenous
protected areas account for 19 per cent of the country’s protected area estate
(Langton et al, 2005). Australia’s IPA programme is widely celebrated, but early
assessments indicate that Aboriginal communities have started IPAs in the hopes
of capturing external resources. In the process many have become dependent on
non-aboriginal management experts, as an IPA must meet specific criteria in
order to be officially recognized by the Australian government.5 The Ute
Mountain Tribal Park in Colorado, by contrast, was established explicitly to keep

Ute land from being taken over by the Mesa Verde National Park and to keep
outside conservation experts off of the reservation (Igoe, 2004b). As we outlined
in Chapter 2, indigenous peoples have been creating protected areas for centuries
in the form of sacred groves, vision quest sites, drought reserve and the like. The
extent of these types of protected areas must be substantial on a global scale.
Unfortunately they are poorly documented and not usually recognized as IPAs
according to IUCN criteria. But as we have seen they can be particularly effective:
lands in the Amazon basin are as effective as national parks in preventing fire and
deforestation, and do so in regions that are at the forefront of the advancing wave
of landcover change (Nepstad et al, 2006).
Finally, there are collaborations that occur through benefit sharing of the type
that we examined in the previous chapter. These arrangements most typically
involve people setting aside land for wildlife conservation in exchange for a cash
benefit and/or a private business venture. A notable example of the latter is
Kenya’s award winning Il Ngwesi Group Ranch, where have set up their own
high-end tourist lodge, which they staff themselves. They benefit from bordering
the Lewa Conservancy, another high-end tourist destination, and have imported
a white rhinoceros, which grazes freely (one of very few to do so in the region),
and are curbing their warriors’ tendency to hunt lions.
Whether or not these arrangements can be called collaborations, and the extent
to which they actually benefit local people, is often in the eye of the beholder.
They can easily be portrayed as simple success stories because conservation
organizations and their funders use images of happy communities and
conservation-minded indigenous people as part of marketing what they do as
both good for the environment and good for local people. But, as we concluded
in the previous chapter, it is more likely that they will distribute fortune and
misfortune – even Il Ngwesi distributes its benefits unevenly (Castillo, 2004).
The community that runs it is, of course, a divided and troubled one. The
willingness to believe and portray good news stories means that two essential
questions are rarely asked: 1) do the benefits from these types of enterprises offset
the livelihood costs of protected areas and other conservation interventions,
especially in contexts where people have been displaced; and 2) whether the
people who realize the benefits of these arrangements are the same people who
have borne the livelihood costs (Igoe, 2006b). Beyond this it is important also to
know about levels of transparency and participation. Only with this kind of
information can we begin to say whether such an arrangement is a collaboration,
what kind of collaboration it is, who is benefiting from it and in what ways.
Conclusion
The analysis presented in this chapter is doubtlessly discouraging to practitioners
who are looking to develop and implement specific types of models for doing
128 NATURE UNBOUND
conservation with indigenous peoples and other rural communities. However, a

more nuanced and contextual approach is more likely to present possibilities for
doing conservation with indigenous communities that is both effective and
equitable. Once we recognize that indigenous cultures are dynamic and that
resource management practices can come into existence, and decline, for all
manner of reasons, it is possible to have a much more sophisticated view of how
indigenous people interact with conservation interests, and place indigenous
cultures within a much wider framework. Consider Dombrowski’s extraordinary
study of the politics of indigenous identity and timber in Alaska (2002). He
examined the village and regional corporations set up in Alaska to meet Native
Alaskans’ financial needs while avoiding large welfare payments. Some
corporations, whose lands held oil, were highly profitable, but most were not. To
improve their profitability Congress allowed the corporations to exploit a special
tax loophole previously available only to timber companies. The tax rules allow
companies owning tracts of timber to claim a paper loss on tracts of timber that
are deemed to have decayed and lost value between when they were taken over
and when they were felled. These losses can be offset against tax. The native
corporations had large timber stands, and although they paid little tax, were
allowed to sell these paper losses to other companies who needed them (by virtue
of another tax loophole). Thus millions of dollars could be raised on the free
market, but there was a catch. The losses could only be realized once the timber
stands had been felled. The consequence of the legislation was to initiate large-
scale clear cutting of forests on native Alaskans’ land. Dumbrowski goes onto
analyse the complicated politics of identity these changes brought, for the native
corporations excluded many native Alaskans, and many of those worse affected
by the forest-felling were among the excluded.
This kind of situation is unfortunately far more common than self-promoting
reports are likely to reveal. Understanding the types of variables that come into
play in these complex situations will allow us to begin finding ways of
understanding the types and nature of outcomes that are likely to occur in
different contexts. It will help us understand, for instance, why Kayapo leaders
entered into alliances with transnational conservation organizations, while a
Maasai leader from Tanzania described his people as ‘enemies of conservation’
during a session at the 2004 World Conservation Congress. It can help us
understand why the World Wildlife Fund worked to block hydroelectric dams in
Brazil but became part of a consortium of multilateral institutions promoting
hydroelectric dams in Laos (Goldman, 2001a, b). It explains why conservation
BINGOs (big international NGOs) support the idea of people living in parks in
Latin America, but not in Africa. It explains why the Ute Mountain Tribe was
successful in establishing a tribal park but not the Oglala Sioux or the Maasai.
The type of analysis presented in this chapter can be applied to all of these
questions and many others that have direct relevance for how conservation with
indigenous peoples gets done.
From this perspective, it is impossible to predict specific outcomes. And yet

these outcomes are not random either. They have patterns that are recognizable,
and can be attributed to certain variables that are present in some circumstances
and absent in others. For instance, alliances between conservationists and
indigenous communities appear to be more likely in contexts where indigenous
peoples have legal authority over specific resources; where they have been
historically allowed to live inside protected areas; where indigenous leaders have
good accountability to their constituency; and where indigenous peoples initiated
the relationship with conservationists rather than vice-versa. In situations where
conditions are opposite to those described here antagonisms are more likely to
prevail. Though it may seem obvious, it unfortunately also needs to be said that
in situations where relationships between conservationists and indigenous
communities have been historically antagonistic the reasons for these
antagonisms will need to be addressed before fruitful collaborations can be
expected to occur (Igoe, 2004b).
While understanding these types of historically and geographically contingent
variables will allow conservationists to determine whether or not specific
indigenous communities are likely to be inclined to work with them, and on what
terms. By the same token it would allow them to ask whether a specific
indigenous community is likely to have historical grievances against conservation
that will need to be addressed before effective alliances can occur.
It is also important to be cognizant of the ways in which competing, and
sometimes collaborating, forces and interests might bump encounters between
conservationists and indigenous peoples along certain trajectories. The vast
financial resources of corporations, for instance, have tempted both indigenous
leaders and conservationists, and sometimes both at once. Moreover, as this
chapter has shown, both indigenous and environmental activism has become
increasingly oriented to transnational bureaucracies. In the context of
transnational bureaucracies it is possible to believe that ‘sound science’ supported
by well-funded BINGOs represents the salvation of our planet’s environmental
future. It is also possible, and indeed tempting, to ignore, and indeed conceal,
processes of social and political marginalization that are not easily explained by
‘flattering archetypes’ of ‘ecologically noble savages’. It bears repeating here,
however, that the fact that such archetypes are inaccurate does not let
conservationists off the hook for working with local people. It merely means that
working with local people will be more difficult and complex than originally
presumed.
From a distance, these arrangements make it possible to believe that ‘the
rainforest’ or ‘the Kayapo’ can be saved by the push of virtual button, after typing
one’s credit card information into the funding website of a conservation BINGO.
As we will discuss in detail in our concluding chapter, the belief that only distant
and exotic landscapes and people are worth saving externalizes both the problems
and the solutions. Most fundamentally, it spares people in the global north the
130 NATURE UNBOUND
discomforts of the social and environmental impacts of their most mundane

activities. It also conceals on a day-to-day basis the types of social and
environmental problems that are closest at hand.
This chapter has made it clear that direct and localized engagements with
environmental and social problems will almost certainly be complex and fraught
with difficulty. However, if we continue to ignore these types of complexities and
problems we do so at our peril. Chela Sandoval is certainly correct that in order
to engage with this kind of complexity will require new types of mobile
consciousness combined with a democratic ethic. These two things are more
broadly connected to an ethic that recognizes one’s own connection to social and
environmental problems. In this respect we stand to learn a great deal from the
recent convergence of global environmentalism and global indigenism – most
immediately the ways in which our vertically integrated and electronically
mediated world distorts the most basic relationships of humans to each other and
to the natural world.
Notes
1 www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/TILCEPA/TILCEPA.htm (accessed 30
December 2007).
2 For details please visit the website of the International Working Group for
Indigenous Affairs, www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp (accessed 8 January 2008).
3 In a keynote speech at the meetings of the American Ethnological Society on
Friday 4 May 2001 in Montreal Quebec, entitled ‘The Cultural Survival of
Indigenous Peoples: Theoretical and Practical Dilemmas’.
4 A polythetic class is defined in terms that are neither necessary nor sufficient for
membership. In other words, there may be a number of criteria by which people
identify themselves as indigenous. A group may meet all these criteria and still not
qualify as indigenous, while another group may meet only some and still qualify
as indigenous. As Igoe (2006a) argues, these criteria are frequently reduced to
particular types of ‘cultural distinctiveness’, which resonate with the ways in which
western audiences imagine ‘the primitive’.
5 www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/ipa/index.html (accessed 11 November,
2006).
7
The Spread of Tourist Habitat
Adventure has been an essential part of the A&K experience ever

since Geoffrey Kent started offering his Kenyan safari’s back in 1962.
But adventure ‘Abercrombie & Kent style’ doesn’t mean you have to
live without your creature comforts – like the finest cuisine,
indulgently comfortable beds and that essential chilled glass of
champagne to accompany the sunset.
(Abercrombie and Kent, advertising for adventure safaris in 2007)
This chapter focuses on tourism as one of the most important ways in which
conservation is justified and legitimated. In the last two decades tourism has
become the key rationale used to underpin the maintenance of protected areas
through claims that conservation will ‘pay its way’ via the development of tourism.
It is assumed that nature-based tourism and ecotourism are dependent on the
environment as the ‘core attraction’; they revolve around particular charismatic
species (elephants, tigers, gorillas, whales) and landscapes/seascapes (Himalayas,
Victoria Falls, limestone pinnacles of the South China Sea). Therefore, promoters
of tourism are able to muster a powerful argument: that since ‘nature’ is the
attraction it makes long-term financial sense to protect it. In 2006 the United
Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) reported that world tourism
had seen record growth for the fourth year in a row. The first half of 2007 had a
higher than expected rate of growth. From January through April, international
tourist arrivals worldwide rose by over 6 per cent to 252 million, representing an
additional 15 million arrivals as against the same period in 2006; Asia and the Pacific
(+9 per cent) achieved the strongest growth, followed by Africa (+8 per cent), the
Middle East (+8 per cent), Europe (+6 per cent and the Americas (+4 per cent).1
International tourism receipts totalled US$2 billion per day in 2006; and while
there were 845 million visitor arrivals in 2006, the UNWTO estimates there will
be 1.6 billion visitor arrivals in 2020.2 Therefore, tourism is a significant growth
industry and one which is particularly attractive to the South.
The expansion of ecotourism into one of the fastest growing sectors of the
global tourism industry has provided an additional and strong rationale for
committing resources to conservation on the grounds that such investment will
pay significant dividends. Tourism, and particularly ecotourism, has been a
central driver in the shift in debates about the direction of conservation, so that
it is commonly couched in terms of turning nature into a lucrative resource
instead of being justified in terms of debates about the intrinsic or ecological
132 NATURE UNBOUND
values of wilderness, ecosystems, biodiversity and so on. The ways that

conservation is defined in terms of tourism means that it intersects with
neoliberal and market-oriented understandings of environmental management
and economic development. Tourism resonates with and is a driver of global
neoliberalism, but the extensive claims attached to it as a force for ‘global good’
means that its supporters include (amongst others) grassroots community groups,
conservation scientists, national governments, private companies, the World
Bank and international donors. Its neoliberal appeal means that tourism and
especially ecotourism has emerged as a key policy agenda for international
financial institutions (IFIs), national governments and the private sector. As a
result, ecotourism has been identified as a strategy by which many states
(especially in the South) can diversify their economies and produce
environmentally sustainable development (Harrison, 1992; King and Stewart,
1996; Bramwell and Lane, 2005). This chapter will examine the relationship
between conservation and tourism and how they intersect with the global context
of neoliberalism. We will then provide an analysis of the complexities involved in
using tourism to legitimate specific forms of conservation and protected areas.
We examine first the tourism and development debate; second we explore the
relationships between tourism and sustainability; and finally we explore the
complexities associated with specific forms of tourism, especially ecotourism,
ethnotourism and voluntourism.
Tourism and ‘development’

In order to understand the ways that conservation debates have been reconfigured
and redefined through appeals to tourism, it is useful to examine how tourism
intersects with neoliberalism. The development of tourism has (in part) been
shaped by wider global changes, notably the end of the Cold War and the onset
of globalization.
The expansion of the tourism industry occurred at the time the world was
experiencing a major geopolitical shift as the Cold War ended. This period was
also characterized by the growth in the faith in markets and an increase in the
demands of multilateral institutions on the South (such as economic
liberalization under Structural Adjustment Programmes). From the mid-1980s
the renewed emphasis on outward-oriented growth, the rise of neoliberalism and
expansion of the global tourism industry has meant that tourism has been
identified as a key growth sector; and the UNWTO figures cited above certainly
support this position. Neoliberal understandings of development emphasize
economic diversification, particularly a commitment to non-traditional exports,
such as tourism (Brohman, 1996; see also Reid, 2003). This approach has also
been favoured by the IFIs including the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), and by bilateral donors, which have supported the
development of market-based economies (Harrison, 2004).
THE SPREAD OF TOURIST HABITAT 133
The rise of neoliberalism was also accompanied by the expansion of the

influence and activities of international organizations and the growing
importance of the language of sustainable development (Walley, 2004, p32; West
and Carrier, 2004). At the same time global tourism flows rapidly increased in
response to greater prosperity and social and economic shifts in the industrialized
world, which allowed larger numbers of people to engage in overseas travel; and
this has further developed into markets for ethical/responsible/green travel, which
reflects and draws on the changing holidaying tastes of societies in the North (for
further discussion see Butcher, 2003).
Supporters of tourism as a development strategy point out that it neatly fits in
with neoliberal strategies of basing economies on comparative advantage.
Advocates of this position argue that each state should concentrate on exporting
goods that it is ‘naturally’ best at producing (Amsden, 1990; Porter, 1990). For
example, during the 1980s many governments in the Caribbean were encouraged
by IFIs and donors to diversify their economies away from single cash crops such
as bananas and sugar by developing a tourism industry based on the three S’s: sun,
sea and sand (Pattullo, 1996; Reid, 2003). Countries in the South are portrayed
as having ‘comparative advantage’ in tourism since they attract tourists from the
industrialized North; they are presented as offering a chance to experience a
pristine nature, and at worst they are promoted as ‘primitive Edens’; as such they
are highly attractive to tourists from the industrialized world who seek sunshine,
beaches and other natural and cultural attractions.
Promoting tourism that appeals to international tour operators and visitors can
cut out a whole series of choices about the development of tourism infrastructure
to meet the needs of internal or regional tourists. Azcarate (2007) argues that the
development of the ‘pink package’ to view flamingos in Celestun (Mexico) was
designed to appeal to foreign visitors, who have progressively displaced Mexicans
who used the area for their vacations. In Celestun, local authorities and tour
operators oversaw the development of infrastructure including roads, hotels and
boat moorings to facilitate the speedy transfers of visitors from Cancun and the
Mayan Riviera to visit the flamingos and petrified forest. As a result, the riverside
and beach areas of Celestun have been effectively colonized by international
tourists, leading to the exclusion of internal tourists who can no longer use the
areas. Tourism is clearly a highly political policy choice. Choosing tourism as a
means of producing development and paying for conservation also means that
overt and covert development objectives are pursued at the expense of other
objectives. As Hall (1994) suggests, the selection and implementation of certain
political and economic values will depend on the winners and losers in the
development of tourism.
Since the interest in embracing tourism as a development strategy can be
regarded as part of the global context of neoliberalism, it raises questions about
the conceptual underpinning, purpose and potential impacts of tourism. Tourism
is credited with being a major provider of employment, often in areas where there
134 NATURE UNBOUND
is little other opportunity for waged labour. Tourism provides employment in

direct and indirect ways. Direct employment is provided within the services and
industries that comprise the tourism industry, including hotels, tour operators
and casinos. Indirect employment is provided in sectors that are affected by
tourism, such as local transport, craft production, restaurants and bars used by
locals and visitors alike.
A great deal of direct and indirect employment that is created by tourism is in
the informal sector. In the informal sector, local people provide services to tourists
on a casual basis, such as selling local crafts as souvenirs (Abbott-Cone, 1995;
Pattullo, 1996; Hitchcock and Teague, 2000). The extent of employment
creation in the informal sector is unquantifiable; even so, such opportunities can
make a significant contribution to finances from the individual and household
level to the national budget (Pattullo, 1996).
Bianchi’s critiques of tourism centre on the close relationships between tourism
development and the expansion of capitalism (Bianchi, 2004). Similarly, Reid
(2003, p6) notes that because of the sheer size of tourism as a global industry, any
critique of it must also involve a critique of the system in which it operates. Reid
suggests that tourism is at present a major force in the organization of Barber’s
McWorld, which is marked by corporate globalization; tourism is a worldwide
phenomenon dominated by transnational corporations, which export western
culture to the developing world and which drains the developing world of its
resources. For Reid, tourism is a product of the hegemony of the West and it
starkly highlights the ‘development’ gap between the world’s richest and poorest
nations (Reid, 2003, pp2–3). This critique of tourism is in many ways applicable
when we consider the ways that tourism is promoted as a green or sustainable
form of development.
Tourism and the sustainability debate

In debates about the prospects for sustainable development, tourism is often
identified as a potential solution to the problem of how to achieve national
economic development whilst conserving the environment. As will be made clear
below, the expansion of tourism has driven a process whereby market-based
mechanisms of valuation and management have been extended and deepened. If
we argue that tourism is not necessarily the solution for development, then we
also need to explore whether it can achieve conservation objectives as well.
As we have already stated, one of the challenges facing the nature-based tourism
industry is how to develop and expand without destroying the environment as the
core attraction. Despite the temptation to lump them together, there are
important differences between nature-based tourism and ecotourism. Nature-
based tourism is tourism that uses nature as the main attraction, while ecotourism
encompasses a much wider set of concerns about the environmental impact of
accommodation and the levels of local ownership, amongst other things. In terms
of labelling trips, hotels and activities, the label of ‘eco’ is often misapplied to
nature-based tourism, which is essentially a form of conventional tourism.
The precise definition of ecotourism is still subject of much debate; however,
it is clear that it relies on the idea that places and cultures are pristine, unspoiled
and untouched by westernization, industrialization and even mass tourism
(Fennell, 1999; Ceballos-Lascuráin, 2003; Cater, 2006; Sharpley, 2006). There is
no single definition of ecotourism, but in general, ecotourism should satisfy
conservation and development objectives (Lindberg et al, 1996). It is often
defined as travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves
the welfare of local people. Defining ecotourism is particularly difficult, and in
many ways it has become a loose, catch-all term for tourism that is concerned
with visiting and experiencing some aspect of the environment, be it wildlife,
rainforests, coral reefs or even beaches. One definition of ecotourism is provided
by Boo (1990) who broadly defines it as nature tourism that consists of travelling
to a relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural area with the specific object
of studying, admiring and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals
as well as existing cultural manifestations in the areas (our emphasis) (Bottrill, 1995).
Along similar lines the Ecotourism Society defines it as responsible travel to
natural areas that conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of local
people.3
Furthermore, ecotourists themselves are also a relatively difficult type of global
traveller to categorize. However, in general ecotourists can be described as
vacationers with an interest in outdoor pursuits, they tend to be financially
comfortable, well educated, older people with free time to travel (Ballantine and
Eagles, 1994). Ecotourists are more likely to desire vacations that provide an
opportunity to learn about the host culture, society or environment and they
emphasize visiting wilderness areas and seeing as much as possible in the time
available (Ballantine and Eagles, 1994, pp210–212). The ideas of remote,
untouched, unspoilt and even primitive are used as markers of ecotourist
desirability, and the Other is presented as the antithesis of industrial society,
where local cultures in the ecotourist destination are often portrayed as extensions
of the natural world (Dann, 1996, pp67–71; Edwards, 1996, pp200–204;
Mowforth and Munt, 1998, pp44–83). Ecotourism also relies on the individual
exercising power through choices about consumption rather than acting as a
citizen engaged in collective and organized protest (Duffy, 2002a). Since
ecotourism emphasizes the ways that green forms of consumption can ‘save the
environment’ and contribute to economic development, it does not present any
kind of challenge to the existing neoliberal framework. It clearly operates within
neoliberal understandings of conservation and development.
The UNWTO claims that ecotourism can contribute to conservation of
natural and cultural heritage in natural and rural areas, as well as improving living
standards in those areas.4 2002 was declared the International Year of Ecotourism
by the United Nations, which focused attention on it as a growing niche market.
136 NATURE UNBOUND
Global environmental NGOs, the World Bank, national governments and the
private sector have all made claims about the beneficial effects of ecotourism for
conservation, national development and community development. However,
while it is clear that there are benefits for conservation and for some stakeholders,
the focus on and promotion of these positive outcomes can mask the complexity
of power relations produced by a commitment to ecotourism.
Although ecotourism is often presented as significantly ‘different’ from mass
tourism it is far from unproblematic. This is because it exists in a context of global
neoliberalism that is part of it and entirely compatible with it. Ecotourism suffers
especially from being promoted as a kind of magic bullet that can simultaneously
hit multiple targets. As a result it has been promoted by a range of organizations,
including the United Nations, The World Bank, national governments and
environmental NGOs, as a means of achieving sustainable development for North
and South alike. In terms of debates about the development, tourism is regularly
presented as the answer. At the 2003 World Parks Congress in Durban,
South Africa, IUCN passed a key recommendation that tourism (and especially
ecotourism) was the key to conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of
protected areas (IUCN, 2003). Therefore, the notion that tourism is a means to
produce sustainable development and secure conservation of biodiversity
constitutes the dominant orthodoxy; while there are clear advantages for
conservation in developing tourism initiatives in terms of provision of funding, the
social and political dynamics of following these policy choices is often overlooked
or obscured.
There are numerous case studies that demonstrate the utility of ecotourism,
especially with regard to wildlife conservation (see for example Barnes et al, 2002;
Novelli et al, 2006). In many ways the arguments around conservation are taken
as a given: that ecotourism, which relies on ‘nature’ as the core attraction, will
automatically be ‘good’ for the environment. However, Bramwell and Lane argue,
there is often an implicit assumption that tourism leads to sustainable
development, which is then not subjected to systematic research and criticism
(Bramwell and Lane, 2001, 2005, p54). There are a few examples that trace the
links between ecotourism and environmental damage; for example, Bulbeck
(2005) carried out a detailed study of the negative ecological impact of tourism
at Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort in Sharks Bay, Western Australia. Monkey Mia
states that it is ‘known to be one of the most reliable meeting places for dolphins
in the world. Dolphins have visited everyday in the last five years excluding only
four times. It is the only place in Australia where dolphins visit daily, not
seasonally’.5 It is the case that the dolphins are not captive, they are ‘wild’ in the
sense that they are not fenced in. However, the practice of feeding the dolphins
has created a set of behaviours that means that the dolphins do appear to choose
to visit the resort and interact with tourists every day. However, this raises
questions about what ‘wild’ means and whether such forms of tourism can in fact
be ecologically damaging. According to Bulbeck the practice of dolphin feeding
led to dependence on humans for food, and because of the narrow diet provided
by visitors at Monkey Mia, the local dolphins have a shorter life expectancy and
lower birth rates.
Bulbeck argues that ecotourism increasingly relies on close contact with
specific charismatic species; ecotourists want tactile and emotional forms of
engagement with animals, which can be seen in the proliferation of ‘swim with
dolphins’ experiences at a number of luxury resorts in the Caribbean. One such
resort is Xcaret, on the rapidly developing Mayan Rivera in Mexico; it defines
itself an Eco-Archaeological theme park and offers cultural tours, archaeological
tours and swim with the dolphins experiences.6 The resort claims:
During the Delphinus Interax dolphin swim program at Xcaret, a

group of majestic dolphins will swim freely with you long enough to
allow time for play and time for touching them and to feel that
special connection they have with man… Then, into the water, join
them in their interactive and ‘mime’ games. Find out how dolphins
breathe, eat and sleep. The grand finale is the thrilling experience of
the dolphins leaping over your head!7
Despite the company’s claim to offer an ‘eco’ experience, it has not escaped
without criticism. When the company attempted to open a sister resort in
Belize, named Cangrejo Caye, their claims that they supported conservation of
dolphins and engaged in education through swimming with dolphins were
rejected by the existing tour operators, hotel owners and environmental
organizations in Belize; opponents claimed that the dolphins held in ‘semi
captive’ conditions at Xcaret had a lower life expectancy and suffered from
disease, because they lived in extended pens, so they were not able to cover the
large distances needed to feed themselves properly (see Duffy, 2002, pp84–85).
Nevertheless, the Xcaret model has been expanded on the Mayan Riviera coast
to satisfy tourist imaginings that their holiday engages with ‘nature’ and
contributes to its conservation. For example, Xpu-Ha Palace resort is a curious
combination of being an ‘ecological all inclusive resort’; it offers ‘animal rescue
and treatment programmes’ and ecological ‘jungle tours’ as part of their sports
and entertainment programmes. Xpu-Ha, along with a growing number of large-
scale luxury resorts, offers tours with a qualified ecologist to provide explanations
of the surrounding environments.8
Critics of attractions like Monkey Mia, Xcaret and Xpu-Ha cast doubt on
whether they constitute genuine ‘ecotourism’. Herein lies one of the problems
with ecotourism: the definition of ecotourism has been expanded so far that it
encompasses a wide range of projects, activities, hotels and tours. However, the
argument that any tourist practice with negative impacts does not constitute
genuine ecotourism is in a sense irrelevant. It is clear that any project/initiative,
whether it claims to be hard-core or strict ecotourism or conventional forms of
138 NATURE UNBOUND
nature-based tourism, is filled with complexities, contradictions, costs, benefits,

problems and challenges. The argument that anything that is ‘good’ is genuine
ecotourism and anything that is ‘bad’ is conventional tourism is an easy get out
clause for promoters of ecotourism. Such arguments largely miss the point that
all forms of tourism have costs and benefits: there is no fabled ‘win–win’
situation.
Ecotourism and community empowerment

Apart from the claims made about ecotourism as a force for conservation, one of
the other key claims associated with ‘genuine’ ecotourism is that it brings
empowerment, poverty alleviation and economic opportunity for local
communities. The International Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism as
responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves
the well being of local people; for the International Ecotourism Society, ecotourism
should provide financial benefits and empower local communities (our emphasis).9
However, the extensive claims centring on the benefits of ecotourism to local
communities obscure the complexities and problems associated with it. For
example, ecotourism projects do not appear in a vacuum; rather they intersect
with existing community dynamics. This inevitably means some members of the
community will benefit more than others. However, communities are often
treated as homogenous and static units to be ‘developed’ and ‘intervened in’; this
fundamentally misunderstands the dynamic and complex nature of communities
(Honey, 1999; Scheyvens, 1999; Barrow and Murphree, 2002, p4). For example,
Southgate’s study of Kimana community in southern Kenya clearly indicates the
disgruntlement caused by the decision of Kimana Group Ranch officials to enter
into an agreement to lease land to the African Safari Club for the creation of a
private reserve and luxury eco-lodge. The decision brought significant benefits to
some members of the community, but most felt excluded. According to
Southgate, when the African Safari Club put up signs to designate the area as
‘private property’, they were defaced within days. It is clear that many in the
community resisted the reserve and its eco-lodge through acts of poaching and
vandalism, which were the only means through which they could express their
opposition to the scheme. As Southgate argues, at one level ecotourism can offer
opportunities for economic diversification, but it can also exacerbate existing
resource management conflicts that are rooted in the historical context of local
power relations (see also Mowforth and Munt, 1998; Southgate, 2006).10
The notion that communities can manage natural resources and develop
ecotourism fits well with neoliberal ways of thinking about regulating, organizing
and implementing methods of conservation that include extension of the market
as the most efficient manager of natural resources. In particular, it intersects with
the argument that decentralized networks of ‘stakeholders’ can govern resources
rather than leaving them in state hands (Western and Wright, 1994). This in turn
fits with the agendas of IFIs and NGOs that claim to engage in participatory
methods of development and conservation with local communities. As such, the
notion that ecotourism provides a community-oriented and participatory
approach to producing economic development in a sustainable way results in a
very powerful argument in favour of it, and one that presents a significant
challenge to critics of it. Ultimately, the extensive claims attached to ecotourism
means that, especially for local communities, it is often very hard to resist
schemes to develop it in poorer and more marginalized areas. This is especially
the case when there appears to be no alternative means of generating income,
because their remoteness or seeming ‘lack of economic development’ means it is
difficult to attract in other forms of investment or establish new schemes to
alleviate poverty.
Tourism Concern, a UK-based NGO, has been working since 1989 to raise
awareness of the negative economic, cultural, environment and social impacts of
tourism. It points out that communities often find they have tourism imposed on
them by governments and foreign developers and tourism businesses. There is
little linkage between tourism, especially at a mass scale, and local industry, such
as agriculture. Land and natural resources are frequently co-opted, often illegally,
and cultural traditions are appropriated and commercialized.11 This raises the
question of whether communities have the ability to develop ecotourism ‘on their
own terms’. This is especially acute when the national governments, the donor
community, IFIs, the private sector and international environmental NGOs
constitute the core drivers in developing and marketing new ‘eco destinations’.
Therefore, it is important to interrogate what the term ‘partnership’ means in
practice when such partnerships encompass marginalized local communities as
well as powerful IFIs and transnational advocacy networks engaged in promoting
and implementing wildlife conservation initiatives.
Luxury ecotourism
The debates about the importance of engaging local communities in
participatory management of wildlife and other natural resources through
ecotourism has been enthusiastically taken up by the private sector. This is visible
in the proliferation of new luxury ecotourism resorts that define themselves as
private sector, profit-driven companies, but which also market themselves as
playing a key role in local community development. These new luxury resorts are
intended to tap into a new and growing market for ethical travel that offers a
high-end luxury experience but which promises community participation and
economic development. In general community-based ecotourism has been
associated with basic accommodation and facilities, and it has been marketed at
independent and low-budget travellers who do not expect (or want) high-end
tourism facilities. However, the development of new luxury eco-lodges that blend
community-based conservation initiatives is a significant new departure.
140 NATURE UNBOUND
One interesting example of a privately owned but community-oriented

ecotourism initiative is the resort of Anjajavy, located in north-east Madagascar. Its
combination of luxury ecotourism with community development has attracted the
attentions of the global media, including the BBC. While Anjajavy is owned by
South African business people, all staff that are employed in the resort are from the
neighbouring community, and the income from the resort has been used to build a
clinic and a school in the area.12 The Anjajavy resort offers guests the opportunity to
take a tour of the village of Ambodro Ampasy to see the dispensary and primary
school established by the Ecole du Monde NGO, as well as the craft shop set up by
the Association des Amis d’Anjajavy. Their promotional information reassures
visitors: ‘You can take part in the village’s development and help the local populace
by purchasing Malagasy handicrafts made on site by the villagers.’13 The Anjajavy
project is indicative of new directions in Community Based Natural Resource
Management (CBNRM) and ecotourism (Duffy, 2008b). It is a privately owned and
run luxury lodge that goes one step further in terms of community engagement:
rather than simply offering employment, the lodge is involved in community
development projects and poverty alleviation on a wider scale in the local area. In
terms of marketing, the owners draw attention to the ways that, by choosing the
Anjajavy eco-lodge, ecotourists will be directly contributing to poverty alleviation,
community development and conservation in the surrounding area. This effectively
blends the approach of luxury nature-based tourism with elements of the rationale
for community-based ecotourism that are centred on poverty alleviation and
environmental conservation. This is beneficial for some but raises questions about
the meanings and purposes of partnership in this context. It may well mean that the
development of private luxury eco-lodges that have a community rationale merely
offers communities ‘more of the same’ rather than developing and offering pathways
for them to develop initiatives that operate on their own terms. There is the danger
of replicating the problems associated with mass tourism and conventional forms of
tourism, where operators (often foreign owned) make the greatest level of profit
while local communities benefit in a very minimal way through employment in
menial tasks rather than taking a central role as managers, owners and tour operators
(for further discussion see Pattullo, 1996; Honey, 1999).
In conservation terms, the commitment to luxury eco-lodges has also led in
some cases to very specific forms of wildlife and landscape management to meet
the expectation of tourists from the industrialized North. Botswana has also
developed a National Eco-tourism Strategy (NES) that aims to produce
sustainable use of resources, revenue for reinvestment in conservation, and
engagement of local communities in tourism ventures; this is heavily linked to
community-based tourism (CBT), sport/trophy hunting, photographic tourism
and culture tourism. Currently, tourism is the second largest income earner after
diamond exports and government statistics assume there will be a 10 per cent
per annum increase in tourism arrivals between 2000 and 2020.14 Botswana has
been keen to develop a sector based on luxury/high-end nature-based tourism
and ecotourism; however, it is clear that the luxury eco-lodges actively work to
manage landscapes and wildlife populations in order to satisfy tourist imaginings
of the wild. Wildlife or nature-based ecotourism redefines, presents and can even
create areas of ‘wilderness’, which are, more often than not, based on notions of
people-free landscapes (West and Carrier, 2004). For example, luxury eco-lodges
in Botswana are beginning to engage with ecotourism opportunities that allow
for close encounters with wildlife, particularly elephant-backed safari rides. For
example, Abu Camp Elephant Safaris in the Okavango Delta offer four-day
safaris on elephant back through the delta;15 Abu Camp offers ecotourists a
‘luxury eco-experience’ in a private concession that has links to the national park;
such public–private partnerships are an increasing trend in conservation and in
tourism. In the case of elephant-back safaris in Botswana, operators have been
keen to exploit a specific niche market in emotional and tactile encounters with
animals (see Bulbeck, 2005, for further discussion). These initiatives are
indicative of the ways that ecotourism is increasingly tied to the wider tourist
industry and the capitalist system it inhabits. Ecotourism has gone ‘upscale’ and
luxury, which in turn raises questions about how far it can empower and benefit
some of the world’s poorest communities. This problem is all the more acute in
current forms of ethnotourism as discussed below.
Ethnotourism
Numerous studies on the impacts of conservation point to poor integration of
local communities who live with wildlife and their associated costs (such as crop
damage and bans on hunting for subsistence purposes). These have demonstrated
that external policy frameworks and interventions from states, IFIs and global
NGOs have the potential to negatively impact on community–environment
interactions and damage prospects for conservation in the longer term (see for
example Hulme and Murphree, 1999, 2001; Brockington, 2002; Hutton et al,
2005). For example, where local communities have been allowed to remain
within protected areas or been allowed to continue to use their resources, their
everyday practices (e.g. hunting, grazing livestock, collecting wood) have tended
to be constrained to fit within a particular framework set by the government in
conjunction with tour operators and conservation NGOs. Communities are
often encouraged, or even required, to perform particular roles and dress in
particular ways to act as part of the tourist attraction. Communities can then be
repackaged as part of the landscape, as wild, primitive and pre-modern. Wolmer
(2007, pp151–153) suggests that early colonial framings and understandings
persist in some current forms of ethnotourism in Africa; this is prevalent in
discussions about how communities should behave and dress if they are to be
allowed to continue to live within protected areas in Africa.
Ethnotourism in sub-Saharan Africa perhaps provides the best example of the
ways that cultures are commodified and marketed to appeal to international
142 NATURE UNBOUND
tourists, to such an extent that people are often portrayed as just another
attraction alongside wildlife and landscapes. For example, the ‘Tribes and
Wildlife on the Rift’ overland tour from Addis Ababa to Nairobi, offered by
Dragoman, is promoted using just such language:
This is a thoroughly tribal adventure travel trip. In Southern

Ethiopia, we travel overland into the depths of the Rift Valley,
visiting the amazing lakes, witnessing the wildlife and meeting the
local tribal people… We will travel into one of the most unchanged
tribal regions in Africa and meet peoples who lifestyles have changed
very little in the last two hundred years. At Konzo we will explore
the Konzo tribal culture and villages before heading deep into tribal
southern Ethiopia towards the Omo Valley.16
Destinations and their cultural attractions tend to be homogenized and packaged

in ways that appeal to external tastes. For example, the Caribbean is often ‘sold’
on the international tourism market in ways that evoke very specific images of
colonial plantations, reggae music, laid back cultures and sunshine (Pattullo,
1996). One of the world’s biggest tour operators, Thomson, markets Jamaica in
the following way:
When you think of holidays in Jamaica what do you picture? Sugary

soft, white beaches. Grand plantation houses. And gallons of golden
rum. Well, granted, you can while the days away stretched out on
the sun-bleached sand. Take a river raft ride past the sugar
plantations that are home to those colonial great houses… All to the
mellow background heart-beat of Reggae – it’s the lifeblood of all
holidays in Jamaica.17
One of the most extreme and highly criticized versions of ethnotourism is

so-called ‘first contact’ tourism. This is when tourists are promised a genuine
interaction with communities that the guide claims are ‘uncontacted peoples’:
that is peoples that have decided not to communicate or interact in any way with
the outside world. According to Survival International, an NGO that campaigns
for the rights of indigenous people, estimates that the majority of such
‘uncontacted societies’ are located in West Papua. Stephen Corry, Director of
Survival International, has condemned the development of ‘first contact’ tourism,
and the organization is concerned that uncontacted peoples might be negatively
affected by such practices.18 However, we should not automatically assume that
communities are inert, static and ‘impacted upon’ by this form of visitation. A
BBC documentary, First Contact, shown in February 2007, followed a first
contact tour to West Papua, and argued that the tour was in fact a hoax that was
elaborately staged by communities and the operator to extract revenue from
tourists.19 We should not assume that communities simply passively conform to

what tourists want to see.
Voluntourism
‘Volunteer tourism’ or voluntourism is a rapidly growing niche, and one that is
important in the expansion of new forms of nature-based tourism and
ecotourism. Voluntourism is part of the increased interest in ethical travel, and it
has been fed by the rise in organized ‘gap year’ experiences; furthermore, it
resonates with wider debates about fair trade and corporate social responsibility.
In effect, voluntourism is based on the idea that an individual’s holiday choices
can be used to ‘deliver’ anything from wildlife conservation to economic
development. Cater (1994) suggests that conservation volunteers constitute the
‘hard edge of ecotourism’. A number of conservation organizations are defined as
part of the growing ecotourism market. Munt suggests that this indicates a desire
for holidays that are in keeping with post-modern culture (Mowforth and Munt,
1998). For example, tourism may no longer be about travel per se, but include
other activities such as trekking or mountain biking. Tourism has become
interwoven with education and learning new skills, encapsulated by the
development of special-interest activity tours, such as art courses, wine tasting,
architectural tours, mountain biking and so on (Urry, 1990, p154). As Mowforth
and Munt suggest, the mass tourists’ interest in the three S’s of sea, sun and sand
has been replaced by the independent tourists’ enthusiasm for the three T’s:
trekking, trucking and travelling (Mowforth and Munt, 1998, pp125–155).
Voluntourism can be regarded as part of this wider shift in holidaying practices.
From the relatively well established volunteer organizations such as Earthwatch
Foundation and Raleigh International to the more recently formed Operation
Wallacea, Voluntourism, Greenforce, Frontiers and Coral Cay Conservation,
these organizations are located at the interface between commercial tourism
(specifically ecotourism) and charities or NGOs. However, they are not without
their critics, and their presence is often fraught with local conflicts that intersect
with broader struggles over environment, development, resource exploitation and
the global expansion of tourism. Voluntourism can often replicate the problems
associated with conventional forms of tourism. Indeed, in 2007 the UK-based
Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) has argued that the expansion of ‘gap year’
projects have little real benefit and that ‘gappers’ might just be better off
backpacking rather than paying to join voluntary projects.20 For example, Coral
Cay Conservation operates a marine conservation project in a number of
countries. Its President is a well known environmentalist and broadcaster,
Professor Ian Bellamy. It won the 1993 British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow
Award and was ‘long listed’ for a Virgin Holidays Responsible Tourism Award in
2007. It places volunteers to undertake reef surveys in Papua New Guinea,
Honduras and the Philippines, amongst other locations.21 However, the
144 NATURE UNBOUND
organization has been hit by controversy. In 1998 the Belize government did not
renew its licence to continue working in Belize. This was as a result of a
deteriorating relationship with the University College of Belize. The organization
was accused of recreating colonial patterns of behaviour and exploitation between
host and tourist, of failing to make significant investment in local economies, of
social exclusion of local people and of environmental damage. While the
organization denied this, the problems at the marine research station on Calabash
Caye eventually hit the national newspapers in Belize, and the organization was
no longer allowed to operate (Duffy, 2002, pp64–70).
The case of Coral Cay Conservation is indicative of the potential for conflict at
the local level which can be associated with ‘charities’ operating in the South. In fact,
Tourism Concern22 criticized the expansion of voluntourism and questioned the
claims that these projects were beneficial. Tricia Barnett, Director of Tourism
Concern, has suggested that ill prepared and poorly directed volunteers can do more
harm than good and stated that Tourism Concern had been contacted by numerous
volunteers complaining about the negative aspects of the projects they had joined. In
many ways, then, the projects were criticized as ‘overpriced guilt trips’ that had little
value to the communities and countries they claimed to ‘help’. As a result, Tourism
Concern has begun to develop a code of practice for the voluntourism sector.23
The ecotourism bubble

A final aspect of ecotourism that is important for understanding the
interconnections between international conservation and the ascendancy of global
neoliberalism is what Carrier and Macleod (2005) refer to as the ‘ecotourism
bubble’. They derive this idea from Marx’s notion of commodity fetishism (Marx,
1976 (1867)) from which he argues that commodities within the capitalist economy
circulate in ways that obscure their social and historical context. (Towards the end of
his life Marx also extended this argument to include ecology.) The basic argument
of fetishization is that commodities appear for our consumption in ways that appear
as almost magic. We know nothing of the historical transformations that occurred
so that they could become available (cf. Wolf, 1982; Mintz, 1985). We know
nothing of the people whose labour produced the commodity, or the types of
hardships they may have endured in the process. We know nothing of the loss of
access to natural resources that people may have experienced so that we could
consume this commodity. Finally, we know nothing of the ecological effects of
producing and transporting the commodity we consume or where the waste from
this commodity might go when we are finished with it.
Debord (1995 (1967)) took this argument one step further, arguing that
through mass media it is not only possible to fetishize commodities in the ways
described above, but it is also possible to fetishize their experiences. Through mass
media, he argued, people experience their lives as a collection of spectacles, images
and experiences that appear divorced from their social and historical context.
According to Debord, the logic of the Spectacle is a very simple one: ‘whatever
appears must be good and whatever is good must appear’. Debord believed that
this basic assumption is implicit in the way many people in societies dominated by
mass media and the consumption of commodities tend to see the world.
The ‘ecotourist bubble’, by extension, is the idea that ecotourist experiences are
often packaged thus. From within this bubble, ecotourists see the environment in
simplified (a-social, a-historical and a-ecological) terms, which obscure the socio-
ecological implications of the global infrastructure and economic relationships
that make ecotourism possible in the first place. Carrier and Macleod (2005)
especially emphasize the fact that ecotourism relies very heavily on air travel,
which is strongly implicated in global climate change. The ecological footprints
of ecotourists who fly to different parts of the world on a regular basis, therefore,
is usually several orders of magnitude more significant than the footprints of the
local people who live in the places that ecotourists visit. Because of their
proximity to putative pristine nature, however, these local people are often
ironically seen as a threat to nature, and ecotourists as its saviours.
Other forms of travel also frequently have significant ecological impacts, to the
point that environments in protected areas can actually become threatened by the
very people who visit them. Traffic jams have been a notable problem at
Yellowstone National Park since the 1960s, while animals at Tanzania’s world
famous Ngorongoro Crater and other East African honey pots are exposed to a
daily parade of zebra-striped safari vans (Bonner, 1993). In the Azores, the
zodiacs used for whale watching emit high-pitched underwater sounds, which
disrupt the whales sonar, while tourists arriving at midday interrupt their sleeping
patterns and the breast feeding of their young (Neves-Graca, 2004). The scenario
is repeated in many places where ecotourism concentrates large numbers of
people in close proximity to other species and in fragile ecosystems.
The ecotourist bubble also tends to obscure the broader ecologies of protected
areas, by presenting them as frozen in time. So for instance, Tanzania’s Tarangire
National Park was created around the Tarangire River, because this is a place that
wildlife congregates during the dry season. From the veranda of the Tarangire
Lodge it is possible to see large concentrations of wildlife while having an evening
cocktail and talking to friends about what animals people saw on that day’s game
drive. During the wet season, however, these animals migrate out of the parks to
neighbouring landscapes. These migration patterns are now being disrupted by
increased farming, which has resulted in part by the displacement of Maasai herders
from the park when it was created. As such, ironically, the park has contributed to
conditions that threaten the ecology of the animals that it was created to protected
(Igoe, 2004b). None of this complexity is visible to the average ecotourist.
The ecotourism bubble also selects for certain types of interactions between
tourist and local people. These interactions should be as friendly and positive as
possible, as this reinforces the idea that tourists are doing something good by
coming to a particular country and spending their money there. For these
146 NATURE UNBOUND
interactions to be possible, local people must do a great deal of ‘emotional

labour’, which Bryman (2002, p59) defines as ‘the act of expressing socially
desired emotions during service transactions’. Emotional labour was perfected in
the context of Walt Disney theme parks. As we will discuss in more detail in our
concluding chapter, this is a fact that has significant implications for how
conservation is conceptualized and carried out in the new millennium. Walt
Disney always insisted that his employees, just as Malawi’s former president for
life Dr Kamuzu Banda always insisted that his citizens, should smile and wave at
tourists without exception. Emotional labour is especially important to
voluntourism, because voluntourists are especially concerned that local people
should recognize that they are doing something virtuous and important. When
voluntourism involves home stays this can be an around the clock performance.
In most major ecotourist destinations, people from the customs agent at the
airport to the receptionists at the safari lodge, including the people on the side of
the road where ecotourists pass, are engaged in emotional labour on a daily basis.
One of us (Igoe) recently interviewed a group of Maasai women at a craft
cooperative in Tanzania who were taught by their European donors that they
should begin to sing, dance and smile as soon as they heard a vehicle coming up
the road. Most of these women described the arrangement as good fun, but
emotional labour often takes a negative psychological toll. An especially poignant
presentation of this problem is Denis O’ Rourke’s ethnographic film Cannibal
Tours (1988), which follows a group of western tourists up the Sepik River in
New Guinea. The tourists describe what they are doing in glowing terms, while
local people interviewed in the film express confusion and despair over the
emotional labour they must perform to earn small amounts of money.
The ecotourist bubble, in short, shields tourists from the broader historical,
social and ecological implications of their activities. Ecotourism is only made
possible by global networks of relationships, many of which are highly
exploitative. For the most part, however, tourists are only exposed to interactions
that fulfil their fantasies of what these relationships should be. This is problematic
for the types of social and ecological ethics it promotes. But it is equally
problematic for the fact that the ecotourist bubble is an actual commodity with
a great deal of value. Tourists spend billions of dollars every year for the privilege
of consuming experiences that fit within this bubble (cf. West and Carrier, 2004).
In the context of global neoliberalism, the types of experiences promoted and
preserved in the ecotourist bubble can even come unmoored from particular
people and places and circulate freely in a global economy of images, signs and
virtual commodities. We return to this point in our final chapter.
Conclusion
It is clear that tourism plays a central role in justifying conservation, and especially
the need to demarcate, enforce and maintain protected areas as important ‘tourist
playgrounds’. This in turn means that local communities can often end up being
excluded from protected areas and economically important landscapes used by the
tourism industry; paradoxically tourism also opens up new areas for tourists to
visit while simultaneously excluding other communities. This ensures that
landscapes and wildlife habitats conform to tourist imaginings of what the ‘wild’
looks like (West and Carrier, 2004). Tourists are often unaware of the social,
political and economic processes that have conspired to ‘produce’ the attractions
they want to visit. For example, they are not informed about the ways
communities may have been persuaded (or even forced) to leave areas that are
deemed valuable by the international tourist industry, often in conjunction with
national governments and conservation NGOs. They are also unlikely to be
cognizant of the ways that people and communities are drawn into the tourism
industry, and are persuaded by arguments that the tourist trade provides
employment and income for families that would not otherwise have access to wage
labour. This obscures the ways that the tourism industry generally provides low-
paid work, and does not recognize that other development options have often been
scripted out of the decision-making process. These problems are all the more acute
when we consider the ways that tourism often forms the centrepiece of policies
aimed at producing ‘sustainable development’.
This chapter has demonstrated that the interactions between tourism and
conservation are highly complex. Even new forms of ‘alternative tourism’ such as
ecotourism, ethnotourism and voluntourism need to be approached with caution.
As we have shown, all these so called alternative forms of tourism also distribute
different forms of fortune and misfortune. It is clear that they are interlinked with
the wider tourism industry, which happily co-exists with and is dependent on the
neoliberal global system. This means that even the most alternative forms of
tourism can end up repeating the same problems as other forms of development.
This is clear in the recent moves towards developing luxury eco-lodges that may
not be able to deliver genuine empowerment and development to local
communities. It is visible in the ways ethnotourism can engage in highly
exploitative practices against the world’s poorest and most vulnerable
communities. Even that ecotourism might end up damaging the environment.
Notes
1 UN World Tourism Organisation (2007) ‘Strong World Tourism Growth in
2007’, World Tourism Barometer, available at http://unwto.org/facts/menu.html
(accessed 28 September 2007).
2 www.unwto.org/index.php (accessed 28 September 2007).
3 See www.ecotourism.org/ (accessed 12 August 2003); also see www.ResponsibleTravel.
com (accessed 20 August 2004) and Denman (2001).
4 UNWTO (2003) UNWTO Assessment of the Results Achieved in Realising Aims and
Objectives of the International Year of Ecotourism 2002 (UNWTO: Madrid), p2,
148 NATURE UNBOUND
at www.world-tourism.org/sustainable/IYE/IYE-Rep-UN-GA-2003.pdf (accessed
5 July 2007).
5 www.monkeymia.com.au/site/awdep.asp?depnum=11526&menu=HOME
6 www.xcaret.com/ (accessed 19 September 2007).
7 www.xcaret.com/park-attractions/swim-with-dolphins.php (accessed
19 September 2007).
8 www.xpuha-palace.com/index.html?gclid=CKyb5vTh1I4CFQI_EAodA3fu-g
9 www.ecotourism.org/webmodules/webarticlesnet/templates/eco_template.aspx?
articleid=95&zoneid=2 (accessed 14 August 2007).
10 Similar problems have been observed around the community-based lodge set up
by the Il Ngwesi Maasai in Northern Kenya (see Castillo, 2004).
11 www.tourismconcern.org.uk/index.html (accessed 20 September 2007).
12 www.anjajavy.com (accessed 15 June 2007); also see pers. comm. Nivo
Ravelojaona, Director, Za Tour, Antananarivo, 27 April 2004.
13 www.anjajavy.com (accessed 15 August 2007); also see pers. comm. Nivo
Ravelojaona, Director, Za Tour, Antananarivo, 27 April 2004.
14 www.botswana-tourism.gov.bw/tourism_s/tourism_s.html (accessed
15 August 2007).
15 www.elephant-back-safaris.com (accessed 17 August 2007).
16 www.dragoman.com/destinations/tripdetails.php?cat=TWR (accessed
24 September 2007).
17 www.thomson.co.uk/destinations/caribbean/jamaica/jamaica/holidays-
jamaica.html (accessed 24 September 2007).
18 www.survival-international.org/news/2191 (accessed 23 September 2007).
19 www.survival-international.org/news/2191 (accessed 23 September 2007); and see
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5338876.stm (accessed 23 September 2007).
20 ‘You’re better off backpacking’, The Guardian (UK), 14 August 2007,
www.education.guardian.co.uk/students/gapyear/story/0,,2148122,00.html
21 www.coralcay.org/ (accessed 20 September 2007).
22 www.tourismconcern.org.uk/index.html (accessed 20 September 2007).
23 ‘Vacationing like Branjelina’ by Laura Fitzpatrick, Time Magazine, 26 July 2007.
8
International Conservation
Conservation of biodiversity is one of the most important global

responsibilities mankind has to ensure its survival and this includes
all species of plants, animals and other organisms; the range of
genetic stock within each species, and the variety of ecosystems.
Therefore, biodiversity conservation is a global issue and it must also
be a global responsibility.
Himalayan Biodiversity Conservation Statement,
World Conservation Congress 2004
From the earliest stages of conservation’s history the movement has been
international in its scope and ambition. The name of one of the first major
conservation organizations (the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of
the Empire (SPWFE)) rather gives the game away. The well heeled and travelled
aristocrats who populated that society were principally concerned about wildlife
and habitat in far-off lands. They drew their models of nature conservation from
American practices.
There are strong ecological, economic and political imperatives requiring an
international approach. Many challenges facing conservation simply cannot be dealt
with on parochial national bases. Controlling trade in wildlife, migratory species and
meta-population management all require concerted international efforts.
Yet, as we have seen with respect to conservation and indigenous people, it is
the work of international conservation apparatus that has also generated some of
the most heated debates about what conservation does to people, and the ethics
of conservation policy. Put simply, wildlife conservation is generally funded by
the global north, by individuals, companies and foundations. International
conservation organizations see themselves as vehicles for redistributing wealth to
the poor areas where shortfalls in conservation funding are greatest (James et al,
2001; Balmford and Whitten, 2003; Balmford et al, 2003b). If conservation is
progress, and its spread and influence a progressive force for good, then these
institutions are doing good work. But from other perspectives international
conservation institutions also expose themselves to accusations of imperialistic
interference and neo-colonialism, of meddling in other people’s affairs and
countries. Their values and practices are often inspired by western and northern
models of nature, and introduced where these values are alien and often
unwelcome. In the worst cases this not only results in the imposition of ideas of
150 NATURE UNBOUND
nature and conservation, but also the physical displacement of generally poor
rural people to make way for spaces that are then occupied by the transnational
leisure industry, wealthy tourists, research scientists and conservation NGOs.
The stark inequities of these arrangements can result in a fierce debate. The
situation on the ground, however, is inevitably more complex. Most international
conservation groups decry such practices and insist that they work with people and
spend a great deal of effort and time negotiating their alliances. Many are involved
in a great many activities in addition to supporting protected areas.
In this chapter we first lay out the general terrain of international agreements
and organizations that are important for conservation. We examine the ways that
the international legal framework is defined by broader struggles over definitions
of nature, appropriate management and who has the right to use nature and in
what ways. We analyse how international conventions define conservation issues,
attempt to regulate the environment and how they respond to the challenges of
implementation. We then look at more specific international arrangements in
detail, focusing on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and its role in elephant conservation, NGOs,
Transfrontier Conservation Areas and transnational private–public partnerships.
Our argument throughout is that conservation strategies and policies involve
significant reshaping of society as well as nature. These reshapings are not always
bound up in ways that promote capitalism. In the case of CITES and elephants
the explicit goal of many groups is not to allow a market to develop in ivory. But
in the process these same people deploy arguments about the value of images of
burning ivory, and the potential revenues that photographic tourism could bring.
The regimes of environmental governance under which conservation, and
particularly international conservation, has to work have been forged and
negotiated in an era of neoliberal dominance.
The apparatus of international conservation

The transboundary nature of global environmental change has meant that it has
become a key site for what has been called ‘global environmental governance’.
Oceans, forests, wildlife, the atmosphere and so on all cross human-constructed
national boundaries. Good environmental management has largely been defined
in terms of supranational conventions, policies and agreements. The environment
has clearly become a key area for governance of local resources from the global level
because numerous international regimes are deemed to operate for the ‘global
good’. However, an examination of these global environmental regimes reveals
that they embody multiple and competing interest groups rather than representing
a common global view that can be effectively implemented at the local level.
Global conventions have been established in response to transboundary activities
and problems where domestic legislation has proved inadequate, and so they are
especially significant in the area of environmental management. Young (1989)
INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION 151
argues that international regimes have, in general, been formed by states seeking to
control transboundary activities in order to guarantee benefits to dominant parties.
In the case of international environmental agreements it is clear that certain norms,
usually based in western political ideologies, also have a critical role to play.
Nadelman (1990, p479) suggests that these norms strictly control the conditions
under which states and other actors can participate in and authorize certain activities.
One form of global environmental governance can be found in international
agreements that are intended to regulate a variety of local, national, regional and
global processes. These include the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), CITES,
the International Whaling Commission and the Law of the Sea. The CBD, for
example, arose out of the ‘Rio Summit’ in 1992. The Convention establishes three
main goals: the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its
components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of
genetic resources.1 This final objective is also covered by the CBD Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety, which explicitly states its commitment to the precautionary
principle.2 This is a vitally important position, taken by a number of international
conventions; at its most basic it means we must assume that any use (such as the
trade) of species will be detrimental to its long-term sustainability, we must
therefore take precautions and conserve remaining resources. Apart from this, there
have been international level meetings including the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro, followed up with the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD), in Johannesburg in 2002, as well as conventions to deal with issues such
as climate change, notably the Kyoto Protocol and Inter-Governmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). We cannot cover all of these international agreements and
conferences in any great detail. Here we have concentrated on CITES and on trying
to understand its intersection with conservation at the global to the local scales.
Global environmental regimes raise questions about the contested nature and
status of scientific knowledge. In particular, global regimes rely on ideas of
positivist and uncontested science that can be used to draw up universally
applicable forms of environmental management. The apparent ‘neutrality’ of
scientific forms of management as promoted by international conventions
provides the basis for international cooperation and agreement. These arguments
about scientific neutrality can then be used to justify and legitimate highly
political global interventions at the local level (Litfin, 1994; da Fonseca, 2003).
In the case of CITES the idea of neutral scientific management translates into
the use of prohibition, or the threat of prohibition, as a norm – that is, a standard
rule to regulate the behaviour of parties. The international trade in wildlife
products operates under a global legislative framework that has been created as
part of a broader landscape of conservation ideologies, which are presented as
politically neutral environmental science. The formation of global regimes to
govern the behaviour of state and non-state actors is often at odds with local
norms that govern everyday activities and behaviours. One area where this is
apparent is in the disputes over the global trade ban on ivory sales.
152 NATURE UNBOUND
CITES and elephants

The function of CITES is to regulate the global trade in endangered species. The
basic regulatory tools and principles of CITES are set out in a system of
appendices, where an Appendix I listing constitutes a trade ban, Appendix II
allows controlled and monitored trading, and an Appendix III listing means the
species is subject to regulation and requires the cooperation of other CITES
signatories to ensure that trade does not lead to overexploitation (Hutton and
Dickson, 2000; Wijnstekers, 2001, pp393–421; Reeve, 2002). These appendices
are the centrepiece of CITES’ claims to be engaged in scientifically determined,
politically neutral environmental management.
Appendix I listing is the mechanism that prohibits trade in elephant ivory. This
has led to bitter debates because of southern Africa’s burgeoning elephant
population (Cumming and Jones, 2005). The problems associated with over-
crowding by elephants have a number of implications for the wider environment
and for biodiversity conservation. For example, large elephant populations that
are contained within national parks can mean that they compete with other more
endangered species (such as black rhino) for food and for space. Southern Africa’s
problem is that it has too many elephants rather than too few. Most signatories
to CITES would accept that the debates held at the biennial Conference of the
Parties (COP) meetings are highly politicized. But anti-ivory trade states and
interest groups have maintained that CITES Appendix listings are scientifically
determined (and therefore politically neutral).
This is a position that has changed over time according to context and
circumstances. As investigative journalist Raymond Bonner documents in his
book At the Hand of Man (1993), several prominent conservationists and
conservation NGOs opposed a total ivory ban on scientific grounds – that it
would lead to habitat destruction in southern African countries. However, the
main organization supporting the ban, the African Wildlife Foundation, enjoyed
a massively successful direct mail campaign raising money to save Africa’s
elephants. In fact, it was the most successful direct mail campaign in the history
of American charities. Following the success of the campaign, conservationists
and conservation organizations abruptly changed their position on the ban, such
that when the CITES vote took place there were hardly any conservationists who
were prepared to oppose the ban in public.
Before CITES the favoured method of dealing with overcrowding was culling.
However, international outcry over culling as a cruel process has led a number of
states (notably South Africa, Botswana and Namibia) to consider other options
for fear that such negative publicity will have a detrimental impact on their
tourism industries. Those in favour of culling point out that it solves the problem
of overcrowding and also provides ivory, which is a potentially lucrative source of
revenue that could be ploughed back into protected area management and wider
forms of conservation.
Currently, and put briefly, the overall policy direction of western states, South
Asian states, East African states, and many environmental NGOs has been
informed by preservationist ideas that mean a total ban on the ivory trade is the
only way to ensure the survival of elephants as a species. In contrast, local
management practices of southern African elephant range states, Zimbabwe,
Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and South Africa, have been determined by ideas of
sustainable use, which allows for a limited ivory trade.3 As might be expected,
these vastly different philosophical positions lead to complex ethical debates
about who has the right to use elephants, how they can be used, and for what
purpose. The preservationist stance is informed by the precautionary principle,
requiring parties to demonstrate that trade is non-detrimental to the survival of
the species being traded. If there is any doubt, states are asked to cease all trade
until non-detriment findings are proven (Environmental-Investigation-Agency,
1994, p5; Reeve, 2002, pp27–60). This has led to claims that long-term survival
of elephant species can only be secured through a complete ban on the ivory
trade. Preservationist interest groups have consistently argued that elephant range
states can use elephants to generate funds for communities, private-sector
operators and governments through tourism, especially photographic tourism
and ecotourism. In essence, ‘non-consumptive use’ of elephants means elephants
can be used but only in ways that mean the elephant is not killed. According to
this conservation philosophy they cannot be sport hunted for trophies or used for
meat, hides or ivory products. In general, this strategy requires a commitment to
protected areas in the traditional sense: national parks and wildlife reserves that
are separated from areas used by human populations for agriculture, livestock
production and so on.
Critics of the preservationist approach argue that it effectively means that the
poorest groups in the developing world (especially the rural poor) are expected to
forgo the economic opportunities associated with the ivory trade but still live
with all the costs of being in close proximity to elephants. For example, elephants
in the communal lands of Zimbabwe have raided crops, which constitute the
basic food supply of poor families. Those in favour of a utilizationist approach
suggest it ensures that elephants will be conserved if they contribute to
development and to meeting basic human needs through use of ivory trade,
tourism and sport hunting revenues for community projects.
The pro-ivory trade states and interest groups have linked elephant
management to the debt and aid question. In line with this, southern African
states put forward a proposal for a debt-for-ivory buyout. Southern Africa’s
position has always been that the ivory stockpiles (produced through culling,
natural death, problem animal control and seizures of illegal ivory) constitute an
unacceptable waste of a natural and renewable resource. It was suggested that the
World Bank Global Environmental Facility could provide funding to
environmental organizations to buy ivory stockpiles from African governments
(Duffy, 2008a). The newly purchased stockpiles could then be burnt to prevent
154 NATURE UNBOUND
them from entering a legal or illegal international trade. Those in favour of

disposing of stockpiles in this way argued that the ivory would then have
economic value to the producer states without allowing that ivory onto the
international market where it might increase poaching and the illegal trade in
ivory. In this way, burning stockpiles would neatly satisfy the demands of those
advocating a utilization approach and a preservationist stance. However, very few
offers of aid for ivory have been made, and those that have, have been very low.
In 2002 the Humane Society of the United States offered to buy South Africa’s
stockpile of ivory and burn it. It offered US$250,000 for the 30-ton stockpile;
the Humane Society argued that although the amount offered was low, South
Africa would benefit from a significant increase in aid and donations to
encourage ‘non-consumptive use’ options for elephants, such as photographic
tourism and funding for protected areas. The South African National Parks
Department described the offer as a joke, and pointed out that the ivory would
be worth US$5 million on the open market.4 In addition, CITES documents on
ivory stockpiles have pointed to the failure of donors to fund elephant
conservation plans and indicate that African elephant range states have also been
unable to demonstrate they have adequate controls over the stocks.5
Challenges posed to CITES regulations by the arguments put forward by
southern Africa were eventually successful, and at the 1997 meeting, Zimbabwe,
Namibia and Botswana had their elephant populations down-listed to Appendix II
(Milliken, 2002, p2). This decision came with the proviso that trading was only
to be allowed in 1999 if adequate measures were introduced to ensure that
trading was sustainable and free from illegally hunted ivory. The decision meant
that in 1999 Namibia, Zimbabwe and Botswana reopened a restricted trade with
Japan. The 1997 decisions paved the way for further relaxation of the ivory ban
at the CITES conference in Chile in November 2002 that allowed Zimbabwe,
Namibia, Botswana and South Africa to begin planning sales of ivory stockpiles
for 2004.6 However, a one-time ivory sale to Japan was only to be allowed in mid-
2004 if range states could prove there were sufficient controls in place to ensure
that no illegally hunted ivory entered the system. Although South Africa,
Namibia and Botswana fulfilled these criteria, Zimbabwe did not. Nevertheless,
the decision was immediately met with the concern that it provided a signal to
poachers to restart the levels of commercial poaching witnessed in East Africa in
the 1980s.7 Given the current political situation in Zimbabwe, many were
surprised, even greatly concerned, that the CITES 2007 COP authorized a one-
off sale of ivory stockpiles by that country (as well as by neighbouring Botswana,
South Africa and Namibia) (Duffy, 2008a).
International conservation NGOs

International environmental NGOs have been especially important in the arena
of conservation. Organizations like the World Wildlife Fund and The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) grew rapidly in the 1970s. The 1980s witnessed a growth in
the number and type of NGOs, some of which were especially powerful, not only
in terms of their willingness to criticize governments, private companies and
international institutions for environmental failures, but also because their
unique position as expert ‘knowledge brokers’ or epistemic communities allowed
them to frame and define the terms of the global environmental debate (Litfin,
1994; Princen and Finger, 1994; Keck and Sikkink, 1998).
The influence of environmental NGOs lies partly in their ability to
disseminate environmental information through the media, and campaigning
activity has been used against governments, private companies and international
organizations (Keck and Sikkink, 1998; O’Brien et al, 2000, pp109–123). One
good example of this was the Greenpeace campaign against Shell’s activities in
Ogoniland, Nigeria; this campaign revealed the ‘soft underbelly’ of global
corporations and the ways they had to provide some sort of response to criticisms
from global civil society (see Frynas, 2000, for further discussion). Following this,
we might expect that NGOs such as World Wide Fund for Nature-International
(WWF-International), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and
Conservation International (CI) to operate in contestation with, for example, the
World Bank. Surprisingly, and perhaps ironically, however, they often have a very
close relationship, and can work to achieve common (often neoliberal) goals in
the form of economic liberalization and environmental protection.
Of all international debates about conservation policy and practice, the
controversies about conservation NGOs have probably aroused the most passion.
Conservation NGOs are the means by which millions of people, mainly
westerners, many of whose lives are characterized by day-to-day separation and
alienation from nature, express their support and devotion to conservation causes.
Conservation NGOs are the means by which people can make a difference in a
world that does not seem to care nearly enough about wildlife and the damage we
do to it. Yet conservation NGOs can also be harsh bureaucracies and callous in
their imposition of alien policies. Their allegiances with corporations smacks of
betrayal and dangerous compromise (Dowie, 1996). When Mac Chapin
published his polemical critique of the big three NGOs in World Watch it resulted
in the largest number of letters the publication had ever received on an article
(2004; Seligmann et al, 2005). It was this debate that prompted Kent Redford
(who works for the WCS) to marvel (as we reported in the Preface) at how
conservation had now become equated with the destructive forces of the planet.
However, as Tsing (2004) clearly documents, the relationship between
mainstream conservation NGOs and corporate interests is nothing new. Mainstream
conservation emerged right in the middle of America’s ‘Guilded Age’. It was
supported by the very same railroad companies that opened up the American West
to exploitation and economic development. It was also supported by a broader
diversity of Eastern elites with direct interests in the industrialization of the
American economy. Land for conservation was acquired with support of the
156 NATURE UNBOUND
Rockefeller family, who founded Standard Oil, and contributed significantly to the
ecologies and economies of Latin America in the years following World War II
through its purveying of petroleum-derived fertilizers and hybrid seeds (for a detailed
discussion of these connections see Ross, 1998). In fact, only a myopic view of
conservation could overlook these historical connections, which are mainstream
conservation’s collaborative legacy. A more fitting question from this perspective is
not how conservation came to be equated with the most destructive forces on the
planet, but why it took so long to get around to addressing the associations between
them. A strong argument can be made to show that the roots of mainstream
conservation are linked to destructive corporate interests. Dowie has documented
how in the 1980s and 1990s the conservation mainstream in the US became
increasingly wedded to, and unable to resist corporate capitalism (Dowie, 1996).
Conservation NGOs have been around since the beginning of the movement.
John Muir and other preservationists founded the Sierra Club in 1892; the
National Audobon Society began in 1896 (Dowie, 1996), the SPWFE in 1903
(Adams, 2004, p28). Organizations like TNC (1951) and the World Wide Fund
for Nature (WWF) (1961) are youthful in comparison. However, the nature of
the conservation NGOs has changed in two ways in the last 25 years. First, the
number of NGOs working on conservation has proliferated. This was part of
Table 8.1 The growth of conservation NGOs working in Africa

Decade established Number of organizations
1901–10 3
1911–20 0
1921–30 1
1931–40 0
1941–50 0
1951–60 5
1961–70 8
1971–80 14
1981–90 38
1991–2000 51
2001–present 19
Total 139
Source: Scholfield and Brockington, 2008

a global expansion of the third sector from the 1980s onwards. It is both the
deliberate and unintentional result of neoliberal policies. Deliberate where
finance institutions and donors have sought to strengthen and support civil
society, and unintentional where NGOs have grown to fill the vacuum left by
retreating states. The growth of over 130 conservation NGOs working in Africa
demonstrated this pattern clearly (Table 8.1).
At the same time that NGOs have been proliferating, however, funds available for
conservation have been declining. During the 1990s conservation funding decreased
by 50 per cent, while funding to emerging big international NGOs (BINGOs)
increased dramatically (Chapin, 2004) Moreover they have more recently been
concentrated into the hands of increasingly few NGOs. Chapin names the main
growth organizations as ‘the Big Three’, TNC, the WWF and CI (2004). Dowie,
another critic of conservation practice adds to that list the WCS (Dowie, 2005,
2006). In different regions other organizations become prominent. In sub-Saharan
Africa for example, TNC’s presence is small and the African Wildlife Fund (AWF)
spends nearly as much money as the WCS and CI. These are some of the world’s
biggest NGOs, collectively controlling billions of dollars and employing tens of
thousands of people all over the world, and adopting increasingly corporate
strategies, organization and cultures (Chapin, 2004; Khare and Bray, 2004; Dorsey,
2005). Their growth was achieved through a diversification of funding strategies to
include funding from corporate, bilateral and multilateral sources.
There are two ways to assess the work of conservation NGOs – on their own
terms, and according to a broader critique of their aims, methods and visions. To
assess conservation NGOs on their own terms we have to see the extent to which
they have been able to prioritize their spending to meet their declared priorities.
This is a difficult task as the larger NGOs have only recently begun assessing their
own spending this way. The conservation prioritizing models we examined in
Chapter 2 are as much fund-raising tools as spending guides. They did not
initially appear to have been used by their creators to evaluate conservation
expenditure. Halpern and colleagues compared spending against identified
conservation priorities at the global scale. They examined spending by the World
Bank, the Global Environmental Facility, the WCS, TNC and the IUCN, with
the priority sites identified by three other organizations – CI, Birdlife
International (BI) and the WWF. They found that the presence of priority areas
explained a small proportion of spending but concluded that ‘global priority
models are having little effect on how money is distributed among countries
containing high-priority areas’ (Halpern et al, 2006, p62). Remarkably they were
unable to evaluate the geography of the three priority-setting institutions
themselves because these organizations ‘currently have no way of tracking
spending at the regional or country level’ (p58). The gaps and mismatches they
identified point to substantial problems with existing priority setting exercises: we
simply cannot tell how they are influencing current funding. Halpern and
colleagues were quite critical in the conclusion of their study:
158 NATURE UNBOUND
The credibility of extensive and expensive conservation planning

efforts ... depends on our ability to find and quantify the link
between priorities and effort. At the moment, we lack the data
necessary to understand where on this continuum conservation
actions fall… [C]onservation organisations should first ensure they
have a system in place for evaluating how well spending matches
stated goals and priorities before continuing to spend money
prioritising. Conservation priority systems have the potential to be
powerful and influential in this regard but it is time to balance
enthusiasm for their potential with a thorough analysis of their
actual impact on conservation action.
(2006, p63)
Similarly Castro and Locker’s (2000) preliminary assessment of donor support to

conservation projects in Latin America and the Caribbean found that some high
priority regions were relatively neglected and recommended that the distribution
of funding across regions be reviewed.
Only one review of spending by the conservation sector in a region has been
carried out of which we are aware (Scholfield and Brockington, 2008). This found
that overall spending by about 80 organizations in sub-Saharan Africa by country
did follow the general distribution of biodiversity. However, spending was far from
optimal once the costs of achieving conservation goals were taken into account.
Comprehensive conservation is a long way from being put into practice.
The analysis of the conservation sector in sub-Saharan Africa also makes it
possible to consider how much more money the sector might need in that region.
Estimates of conservation need in the region, measured in terms of the shortfall of
protected area funding alone, vary from about US$450 million to US$800
million. Actual spending was only about US$200 million. These funds supported
only 20 per cent of protected areas on the continent (where support means any
level of help however small), and they were spent on all manner of projects, not
just in protected areas. Given the token levels of support some protected areas are
receiving, given how many are not protected and given that so many other projects
are also funded, it is possible to argue that, analysed on their own terms, African
conservation NGOs need to scale up their activities by an order of magnitude.
But such a claim can only be legitimately made if existing funds are efficiently
spent and deliver conservation objectives effectively. If there is waste then scaling
up would scale up the waste as well. Unfortunately there are very few studies of
which we are aware that examine the effectiveness of conservation NGO
expenditure, or the consequences of recent increases in funding. The studies we
know about are critical of existing use of funds (Austral-Foundation, 2007).
Finally, if efficient and effective means of spending more money can be found it
is also not clear whether a scaled up sector would mean more money to the same
players, else a different configuration of agencies involved, with more large
organizations, or lots more smaller organizations. Both options might introduce

some healthy competition – or might increase the chances of duplication.
However, from another perspective a scaled up conservation sector is not
immediately appealing. Critics of conservation organizations have found that
they have been associated with diverse injustices, with too much proximity to
industry and corporations, and that they are rarely accountable or fair. A scaled
up sector would simply result in more problems and bigger fights. This is a
literature that has tended to be journalistic (Bonner, 1993; Fairhead and Leach,
2000; Chapin, 2004; Goenewald and Macleod, 2004; Dowie, 2005; Pearce,
2005a). But it has strong academic manifestations (Brockington, 2002; Chatty
and Colchester, 2002; Brechin et al, 2003; Fortwangler, 2003; Sullivan, 2003;
Adams, 2004; Igoe, 2004b; Duffy, 2005; Shanahan, 2005; Garland, 2006;
Stephenson and Chaves, 2006; Winer et al, 2007).
Before we examine these viewpoints we need to set them in the context of a
much bigger set of writings about the work of development NGOs, of which
work on conservation ought to be a part. Research on development NGOs has
examined their work as vehicles of planned development and agents in the
process of immanent development (Cowen and Shenton, 1996; Bebbington,
2004). Work here is pegged out by a series of important texts reflecting a variety
of positions on NGOs. These writings variously contain hope and expectation of
NGOs (Edwards and Hulme, 1992; Fisher, 1998); growing worries about its
compromised position in relation to states and donors (Edwards and Hulme,
1995; Fisher, 1997; Hulme and Edwards, 1997); severe doubts as to the long-
term consequences of intervention (de Waal, 1997); and studies of the struggles
and contests inherent in any alternative sector’s attempt to pursue and maintain
distinctiveness and be accountable (Bebbington, 2004; Townsend and Townsend,
2004; Igoe and Kelsall, 2005; Bebbington et al, 2007).
Remarkably, knowledge about development NGOs and conservation NGOs
rarely interacts. Work on conservation NGOs is generally not grounded in the
broader literature on development NGOs. Writings on development NGOs are
generally quiet about the work on, and of, conservation NGOs. The mutual
ignoring is curious, and there is no obvious reason why this should be the case. It
cannot be explained by any difference in their subject matters. There is little
difference between ‘conservation’ and ‘development’, in the South or the North,
and none that would demand separate treatment of their NGOs. Conservationists
have long complained that they are doing too much ‘development’ (Oates, 1999;
Sanderson and Redford, 2003). But more fundamentally, even ‘pure’ conservation
is just a form of development, in both senses of the word – planned development
and immanent development. As development, conservation controls natural
resource use, protected area development and trade in timber and wildlife designed
by states to promote prosperity. Conservation NGOs, which support protected
areas (sometimes established in mitigation for development projects, e.g. Goldman,
2001b), undertake research or environmental education, are perpetrating forms of
160 NATURE UNBOUND
planned development. As development, conservation follows from the growth of

eco-tourists demanding particular products or environments, or from demographic
or market changes that induce changes in natural resource management.
Conservation NGOs that facilitate and respond to eco-tourism, or help local
groups form cooperatives to manufacture and sell curios or produce in new markets
or manage fish stocks are part of the process of immanent development. Analyses
of conservation NGOs logically belong with the analyses of development NGOs.
There is also overlap in the findings of critics of conservation NGOs and those
in mainstream development. As with development NGOs, observers contend
that conservation NGOs have lost their independent critical voice, and become
too close to foundations, donor governments and their corporate influences, and
to corporations themselves, and less accountable to their core constituencies
(Chapin, 2004; Romero and Andrade, 2004; Dorsey, 2005; Stephenson and
Chaves, 2006). Critics fear that they are ignoring local voices, and failing to
support local environmentalisms against the incursions of big businesses. Others
observe that they are implicated in the inadequate greening of large financial
institutions, lending their support to major development projects that deserve
tighter environmental scrutiny (Goldman, 2001b).
Both literatures deal with similar anxieties about the role of NGOs in
promoting democracies. A vibrant civil society can be part of healthy democracies
but many observers find that NGOs can also be associated with democratic
deficits (Luckham et al, 2000). With respect to conservation, studies of the role
of NGOs in devolution of natural resource management have questioned the
democratic nature and functioning of NGOs. Ribot and colleagues’ study of
decentralization trends globally has found that NGOs are not sufficiently
downwardly accountable to local electorates and so can distort effective
devolution (Ribot 2002, 2004, 2006; Logo, 2003; Oyono, 2004a).
In both conservation and development observers note a number of unfortunate
synergies between international NGOs and local civil society. When larger NGOs
work with local counterparts this is no simple empowerment process. Rather they
can transform the activities and structure of local NGOs in ways that re-orient
them to donors and their priorities at the expense of the agendas and needs of the
local communities that are ostensibly their constituents (Igoe, 2003b).
International conservation NGOs can displace local NGOs and compete with
them for funds. Where they register national chapters they then become
competitors for the same sources of money, and tend to be much better at
presenting funding cases (Rodriguez et al, 2007). Local NGOs will not simply
roll over and become spineless clients of wealthier partners, they will pursue their
own agendas. Nonetheless the presence of relatively plentiful dollars will still have
powerful impacts and can distort local agendas separating civil society
organizations from their popular roots (Duffy, 2006c; Igoe, 2003b).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly there have been powerful criticisms about
the impacts of large-scale planned development projects on the livelihoods of the
poor, so also the impacts of large-scale conservation planning has been roundly
castigated for its severe negative impacts on local lives and livelihoods (Colchester,
1997; Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997; Colchester and Erni, 1999; Fairhead and
Leach, 2000; Brockington, 2002; Nelson and Hossack, 2003; Brockington and
Igoe, 2006). In particular, conservation NGOs have tended to be associated with
the harsh treatment of people moved from protected areas. But the survey of
eviction did not find such a pattern (Brockington and Igoe, 2006). Evictions
tended to be driven by strong nationally based environmental movements. Where
NGOs were involved they tended to be the smaller, less sophisticated organizations.
One recent example is the case of African Parks Foundation and Nechasar
National Park in southern Ethiopia (also written as Nechisar and as Nech Sar).
Nechasar draws in a range of interesting themes in current conservation debates:
the role of philanthropic individuals, the powers of national governments and the
costs and benefits to local communities. African Parks Foundation engages in
collaborations with the public and private sector to develop conservation
initiatives in Africa. The Foundation emphasizes the stimulation of responsible
tourism and associated private enterprise as a mechanism for achieving financial
sustainability of parks as well as providing a foundation for sustainable economic
development and poverty reduction.
In the six years since its establishment, African Parks Foundation has taken on
responsibility for the management of seven protected areas in five different
countries, covering a total area in excess of 25,000km2.8 One of those parks is
Nechasar National Park. Refugees International estimated that 2000 families were
removed from Nechasar National Park when external funding was made available
to fence the park and develop tourist facilities. The families were forced to relocate
to areas outside the park boundary, creating problems in the surrounding areas
that were already settled.9 African Parks Foundation made the funding available
to develop the park, but this led to evictions that the Ethiopian government
claimed were undertaken ‘voluntarily’; however, Refugees International reported
that homes were burnt down by government operatives to force people to move.10
African Parks Foundation claimed that the development of tourism in the area
would provide hundreds of jobs for local communities; however, the NGO
Conservation Refugees argued that 10,000 people were displaced in 200411 to
enclose the park and open it up for tourists; but since African Parks Foundation
took over management of the park in 2005 their own figures indicate that only
90 local people have been employed as guides, drivers and so on.12
The late Paul van Vlissigen, the Dutch billionaire who was behind African
Parks Foundation, claimed that:
The government had told us that it was going to resettle the Kore
and Guji tribes (sic) outside the park. It was a political decision, and
there was European Union support for it. We said that we could
work with people in the park, as we do in Zambia, but they said no.
162 NATURE UNBOUND
We didn’t want to be involved in the resettlement, so I put a clause

in the contract that said we wouldn’t take over the park until the
resettlement was completed. (Pearce, 2005b)
African Parks Foundation claims that extensive ecological pressure was caused by
communities living with their cattle in the heart of the protected area and this
was causing serious damage and preventing long-term development and
management of the park. African Parks Foundation states that it ‘has not
participated in discussions between the Government and local communities over
the last two years because this is a matter for the people and their local and
national governments, not for a park management body’.13 However, given that
there is a strained relationship between the Ethiopian government and ethnic
minorities in southern Ethiopia, it seems naive (at best) to assume that the central
government would not use the opportunity of enforcing the park’s boundaries to
further repress potential pockets of opposition in the area. In part as a result of
international concern within the conservation community African Parks
Foundation has withdrawn from Nechasar.
We stress the common ground between work on development and conservation
NGOs partly because it is unsatisfactory to have two groups of scholars saying the
same things, when there is no good reason for them to be merely repeating each
other and when they are unaware of the other’s presence. It is also important to
recognize that the problems that conservation NGOs experience are common to a
broader sector all of whose members are wrestling in different ways with their need
to be effective and deliver objectives, and the need to work fairly, democratically
and in ways that make meaningful, and welcome, differences.
Understanding the work of conservation NGOs is vital if we are to appreciate
how conservation and capitalism are remaking the world. International
conservation organizations are among the groups that are transforming the nature
and meaning of sovereignty. One of the distinguishing features of the way
international organizations (conservation or otherwise) operate is as part of larger
consortiums of actors, with state actors almost always at the forefront and
apparently in charge. Mbembe (2001, p67) writing on African states notes that
they are weak and highly dependent on external support. He argues that
sovereignty and control in such situations is fragmented and highly decentralized –
employed in different ways, by different state actors, in different contexts, with
very little centralized control. Following political and economic liberalization, it
became possible for state actors to enter into strategic alliances with private
investors and international NGOs.
Both state actors and outsiders bring important resources to the table, without
which these alliances could not operate effectively. Outsiders, in this case
conservation NGOs, bring money and other external resources, on which
officials from impoverished states are highly dependent. State actors bring
sovereignty – the means of coercion that make it possible gain advantage in
struggles over resources traditionally the exclusive purview of the state (Mbembe,
2001, p78). Outsiders wishing to directly control, or otherwise define the use of
these resources, are highly dependent on state actors for this commodity.
This does not usually mean that state actors cede sovereignty to these outsiders –
although this does sometimes happen. More often state actors are able to use
sovereignty to leverage resources and other forms of support from their powerful,
and usually foreign, allies. Although Mbembe applied this analysis specifically to
African states, his title – On the Post colony – implies that it can be fruitfully
applied to any post-colonial situation in which weak states and aid dependence
gives external actors extraordinary influence over the policies and actions of state
actors. The relationships that emerge from these dynamics are usually ones of
mutual dependence, characterized by a great deal of strategic negotiation. Such
negotiations are usually difficult to discern, obscured as they are by discourses of
official prerogatives. But note that in these processes sovereignty is transformed
to a type of commodity, which circulates and realizes value in the world of all
commodities.
This situation presents a distinctive – perhaps paradoxical – challenge to
conservation NGOs because privatized sovereignty is useful. It provides plausible
deniability with respect to evictions and other forms of displacement. Consider
again Paul van Vlissingen’s claim that African Parks Foundation would not take
over the park until the resettlement was completed. His statement may constitute
plausible deniability, but with it comes great responsibility. There are now
numerous calls for a conservation code of practice that would encourage a greater
sense of social responsibility among conservation practitioners (Brockington and
Schmidt-Soltau, 2004; Winer et al, 2007).
International conservation NGOs are also at work with a specific vision of
good conservation practice and community-based natural resource management.
Organizations like the WCS, AWF, WWF and CI transmit this vision to the
wider donor community, and ultimately to national governments. For example,
African Wildlife Foundation claims that the core sentiment of its mission
statement is ‘Together with the People of Africa’ and that it engages with
communities in ‘conservation enterprise’ where communities are encouraged to
develop commercially viable enterprises that conserve wildlife while improving
the livelihoods of people.14 WWF-International also readily advertises its
commitment to community conservation as an approach that recognizes the need
to improve rural livelihoods.15 Equally, while CI states that it puts ‘science’ at the
centre of its strategy, it also points to the importance of partnerships with local
communities to make conservation strategies work.16 This apparent commitment
to a community-based approach to conservation has also been taken up by the
World Bank, for example in engaging communities with Fynbos conservation in
South Africa.17
It seems, then, that global organizations are keen to demonstrate their
community-friendly credentials as part of a justification for their support for
164 NATURE UNBOUND
conservation. This results in a counter-intuitive relationship between IFIs,

donors, environmental NGOs and national governments that pushes forward
economic liberalization, political liberalization and good governance agendas
alongside specific forms of environmental conservation. The latter are often
justified as socially acceptable through including a component of community-
based natural resource management (Goldman, 2001b; Zimmerer, 2006). But
while the influence of global environmental NGOs has assisted in expanding
community-based natural resource management, they are also a potential threat
to community-based approaches to conservation. They frame and define the
terms of environmental policy making in ways that can leave little room for local
groups. Global NGOs are vital knowledge brokers and set conservation trends.
CI and WCS are prominent in the resurgence of the ‘fortress conservation’
narrative (Sanderson and Redford, 2003; Brockington and Schmidt-Soltau,
2004; Hutton et al, 2005).
CI developed out of WWF because it wanted to break away from WWF-US
and WWF-International that had clearly embraced community conservation
approaches as the way forward for the South. CI wanted to pursue conservation
programmes that ‘put the science first’ and move away from community
conservation that it regarded as not as effective (see Chapin, 2004, for further
discussion). At bottom, despite years of proclamations to the contrary (Adams
and McShane, 1992; Gomez-Pompa and Kaus, 1992), the vision of a human-free
wilderness remains a powerful one. Consequently, for many donors, saving exotic
environments means that they have to become people free (Kalamandeen and
Gillson, 2007). As a result of this shift in thinking back towards separation of
people and wildlife, justified through appeals to scientific rationality, the
commitment to community-based natural resource management has been
downplayed from being an approach to conservation to becoming a component to
justify and legitimate interventions to create new protected areas or interventions
to conserve specific species (for further discussion see Hutton et al, 2005).
Transnational public–private networks and transfrontier

conservation areas
The role of public–private networks has become increasingly important in the
post-Cold War era. The proliferation of organizations engaged in a range of
conservation activities is indicative of the growing complexity in the arena of
environmental management. National parks and conservation activities may once
have been the responsibility of state agencies but more recently transnational
networks of donors, NGOs and private companies have begun to get engaged in
managing protected areas, defining national conservation policies and
establishing and maintaining private parks (Igoe and Brockington, under review).
This can be related to wider shifts in the global system that has witnessed a move
away from the focus on nation-states towards a system characterized by multiple
sites of power and authority including international institutions, multinational

corporations (MNCs) and NGOs (Rosenau, 1990, pp10–12; McGrew, 1992,
p13). In many ways national governments have become inextricably linked with
transnational networks of actors (Harrison, 2004, pp23–26; 2005).
Public–private networks that operate at a global scale have been heavily
involved in developing ‘transnational ecosystem’ approaches to environmental
management, especially in the field of wildlife conservation. The engagement
between global NGOs, national governments, the private sector and donors have
worked together to produce a powerful force behind the development of
‘ecoregional’ or ‘ecosystem’ approaches to conservation. This ecosystem approach
has prompted a shift in thinking about ‘national parks’ within particular states, to
the development of protected areas that encompass entire ecosystems regardless
of whether they cross international boundaries. Transboundary conservation
schemes can be defined as ‘any process of co-operation across boundaries that
facilitates or improves the management of natural resources to the benefit of all
parties in the area concerned’ (Westing, 1993; Griffen, 1999; Ali, 2007).
Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs), especially those supported by the
South African based NGO, Peace Parks Foundation, are particularly prominent
conservation initiatives. The Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, which draws in
territory from Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa, is the best example of
a ‘working’ TFCA (Duffy, 2006c). The Peace Parks Foundation describes the
Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park as a flagship project that currently covers
35,000km2; however, it is intended to provide the core initiative for the future
development of a protected area that covers 100,000km2.18
TFCAs are presented as following a neutral scientific rationale, which in turn
justifies highly political interventions. However, Chapin (2004) points out that
large conservation schemes demand large conservation organizations with the
capacity to manage them. He argues that the increased prominence of large-scale
approaches to conservation at the turn of the 1990s was directly linked to the
increased control of conservation funding by a few large organizations as outlined
above. Büscher and Dressler (2007) further argue that the growth of transfrontier
conservation organizations is linked to conservation’s growing role in providing
mitigating services to offset the negative economic consequences of economic
growth while ensuring that the benefit of that growth reaches a broader diversity
of constituents. Ironically, in this scenario, the more destructive economic
progress becomes, the larger the protected areas that will be necessary to offset
this destruction.
The idea of TFCAs was introduced as early as the 1920s, with the first
bi-national park, the Waterton-Glacier National Park, established on the
US–Canadian border in 1926. By 1997, there were 136 existing and 85 planned
TFCAs that crossed 112 international borders in 98 nations (Griffen, 1999,
pp11–15). The growing field of conservation biology has provided a clear scientific
rationale for transboundary environmental management, in particular in terms of
166 NATURE UNBOUND
justifying the expansion of conservation to include entire ecosystems rather than

small parts of it in a single national park (Wolmer, 2003). The promoters of TFCAs
have pointed to the biological reasons for large transfrontier protected areas. The
increasing isolation of habitats in national protected areas has reduced the genetic
diversity of key species in certain ecosystems. They argue it is critical to ensure that
the range areas for key species are kept as large as possible, and preferably
transnational, in order to secure their long-term survival (Ali, 2007). Since political
frontiers are not the same as ecological boundaries, ecosystems may be divided
between two or more countries, and be subject to a variety of often contradictory
management and land-use practices (Griffen, 1999; Kliot, 2001).
TFCAs clearly draw together transnational networks that link local
communities with international actors. The moves towards transfrontier
conservation areas can be viewed as part of the broader process of decentralizing
power to multiple stakeholders by shifting responsibility for conservation out of
state hands and into the hands public–private transnational networks. One
specific part of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor is the Mesoamerican
Barrier Reef System Project (MBRS). It is a prime example of the operation of
public–private networks that operate to enclose terrestrial and marine ecosystems
in large-scale transboundary protected areas.
The MBRS extends from the southern half of the Yucatan Peninsula to the Bay
Islands of Honduras, drawing in Belize, Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala, and
it includes the second longest barrier reef in the world. It is an important
ecosystem, providing breeding grounds for manatees amongst other species; the
area is also of socio-economic importance to the people who depend on the
resources contained within it.19 The MBRS project is funded by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) and the governments of Belize, Guatemala,
Honduras and Mexico. MBRS has received US$10 million from the GEF. The
project is implemented by the World Bank and four countries are involved
through the Central American Commission on Environment and Development
(CCAD) of the System for Central American Integration. The MBRS project has
a Project Coordinating Unit that works on behalf of the CCAD, with its
headquarters in Belize City, Belize; and the United Nations Development
Programme has been contracted to provide specific ‘procurement and
disbursement services’ for the project.20 The announcement of World Bank
funding brought further pledges from donors to assist the stakeholders in getting
the transfrontier reef project up and running. For example, the
Netherlands/World Bank Environmental Partnership Fund, the Canadian Trust,
the Food and Agricultural Organization and the CCAD provided funds for a
regional workshop on the MBRS.21
TFCAs are linked in with global rhetoric about devolving management of
protected areas to local communities, as discussed in the chapter about tourism
and conservation. The intention is that communities will constitute the key
actors involved in directly managing transboundary conservation areas. In so
doing, TFCAs represent a departure from conservation, traditionally in state

hands, and is more in line with debates about decentralization of power and
control over policy making and environmental management. The role of NGOs
in particular has been criticized by other actors in the conservation sector. For
example, Gregory Ch’oc of the Kekchi Council of Belize suggested that national
and international environmental NGOs that were involved in shaping the
Sarstoon-Temash transfrontier management plans in Belize did not take account
of the perspectives of the local communities.22 It is clear that on the one hand the
bargaining power of communities can be significantly enhanced through their
relationships with the international NGOs. On the other hand, the needs and
political power of communities can be severely undermined through their
participation in transboundary conservation schemes that incorporate a number
of globally powerful actors.
Critics of TFCAs have also argued that they do not reduce state control over
border areas; rather, TFCAs actually provide an opportunity for national
governments to increase control and surveillance over borderland areas and
communities that live there. Numerous conservation programmes emphasize
neoliberal policy of land tenure reform and land registration as the key to
stimulating conservation-oriented behaviour within local communities. In the
end, the prescriptions for biodiversity conservation in protected areas and their
buffer zones has meant that the state has encroached on local environmental
resources (Neumann, 2000). Neumann suggests that the extension of state control
through environmental policy making constitutes a major new development in the
South. Global conservation organizations have assisted national governments in
obtaining control over border areas through the demarcation of protected areas
and their surrounding buffer zones (Sivaramakrishnan, 1999; Neumann, 2000).
The growth of public–private networks has on the one hand meant a shift in
location of power away from the state, but paradoxically increased the expectations
amongst global actors about the capacities of states to implement globally defined
and approved environmental schemes.
The powers of public–private partnerships in protected areas

Public–private partnerships have been very important in terms of creating new
protected areas. One recent example comes from Madagascar, where a
transnational public–private network has been engaged in lobbying for,
establishing and managing a new network of protected areas. Madagascar has
become a key site for donor and NGO activity, partly because it contains very
high levels of biodiversity and high rates of endemic species and is well known to
have severe environmental problems.23 The idea of an environmental crisis in a
highly biodiverse and extremely poor country means that Madagascar has been
identified by bilateral donors, NGOs, international financial institutions (IFIs)
and others as a place that demands global attention, and, more importantly,
168 NATURE UNBOUND
global action (Kull, 1996). In order to understand the influence of the donor and
NGO community in environmental politics in Madagascar it is important to
outline its main features. The key organizations are global environmental NGOs,
such as the WWF, WCS and CI, as well as IFIs, especially the World Bank, and
Northern governments through their aid and development departments (such as
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Cooperation
Suisse and Cooperation Française). The high profile of international
environmental NGOs as donors in Madagascar is unusual, since in most
developing states bilateral donors and IFIs are the most important donors.
The framework of conditionalities in the economic, political and environmental
arenas in the 1980 and 1990s led to the creation of a series of national structures in
Madagascar that conformed to the prescriptions of external donors. For example,
in 1991 the World Bank provided US$100 million for a National Environmental
Action Plan (NEAP) and The Charter for the Environment. The Charter was
expected to run for 15 years, divided into three five-year programmes called
Environmental Programme Phases I, II and III, to be implemented through the
Office National Pour l’Environnement.24 Whilst the funding for the NEAP and the
Charter was provided by the World Bank, the funding for the central organizations
established to oversee and implement them was provided primarily by WWF.25
The development of the NEAP and the involvement of donors and NGOs
paved the way for the development of co-management schemes between the
public and private sectors. Donors and environmental NGOs have been involved
in directly running state-owned national parks in Madagascar. For example,
Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées (ANGAP), the
national agency responsible for managing protected areas in Madagascar, is run
and funded by a group of international NGOs and donors in conjunction with
Malagasy state agencies. ANGAP is essentially a private organization that runs a
public utility, and has received funding from CI, the World Bank, WWF,
USAID, the German development agency, and the French and British
governments. The board of directors is drawn from government ministries, such
as the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of the Environment, but donors
including the World Bank and WWF also have seats on the board.26
In Madagascar, the powers of public–private partnerships have gone one step
further where a transnational alliance of public and private interest groups are
heavily involved in defining, prescribing and implementing conservation policies,
especially in the form of creating a network of new protected areas. The idea of
the Donor Consortium developed in tandem with the creation of the NEAP and
the Charter for the Environment, and arose from the interactions between
bilateral donors, IFIs, international NGOs and the Malagasy state. The Donor
Consortium is comprised of USAID, the German government, the Japanese
government, the French government (Cooperation Française), the Swiss
government (Cooperation Suisse), CI, the WWF, the WCS (the latter joined in
2004), but the lynchpin is the World Bank.27 The Donor Consortium meets
monthly to review the progress, and determine future funding priorities and
policies for Madagascar. Its composition highlights the unique nature of politics
in Madagascar, since nowhere else are three global environmental organizations
(and specifically wildlife-oriented ones) directing national policy, including the
new national poverty reduction strategy.28
The power of NGOs is especially important in terms of understanding how the
Donor Consortium determines conservation practice. In particular, it is useful to
examine the ways that a group of international NGOs (especially the WCS and
CI) operated within the Donor Consortium to persuade the Malagasy government
to increase the number of protected areas. The result of lobbying by CI and the
WCS was that in 2003 President Ravalomanana committed Madagascar to
tripling the amount of land with protected area status within six years to create a
six million hectare network of terrestrial and marine reserves.29 The commitment
was named the ‘Durban Vision Initiative’, because it was a specific outcome of the
2003 World Parks Congress held in Durban, South Africa (the initiative was very
publicly announced by President Ravlomanana at the Congress). Within
Madagascar, it led to the creation of the ‘Durban Vision Group’, which includes
donors, NGOs and Malagasy government agencies.30 The WCS and CI argued
strongly that the Initiative was agreed in consultation with Malagasy government,
and that Malagasy organizations would be partners or stakeholders it.31
By 2007 CI reported that the new protected areas comprised three large tracts:
the 499,598-hectare (1929-square-mile) Fandriana–Vondrozo Forest Corridor in
the southeast; the 276,836-hectare (1069-square-mile) Mahavavy–Kinkony
Wetlands Complex of lake, river and forest on the northwest coast; and the
Menabe Central Forest, 125,000 hectares (483 square miles) of dry deciduous
forest in the southwest; and a number of other smaller protected areas had been
declared to, for example, create corridors for wildlife between existing national
parks. CI had also set up the Global Conservation Fund (GCF), and thus far
GCF had provided US$2.2 million to support protected area projects in
Madagascar. GCF and the CI-administered Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
have contributed significantly to the planning and design of new protected areas
across the country.
A wide range of organizations is involved in supporting the new initiative either
financially or through provision of training and expertise, including CI, Association
Fanamby, the WCS, WWF, Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Missouri Botanical
Garden, USAID, Agence Française de Développement, Fonds Français pour
l’Environnnement Mondial, Germany’s KfW Development Bank, and the World
Bank.32 As a result it is difficult to determine exactly how much funding has been
made available to implement the Durban Vision Initiative, and to establish which
organizations provided the money in the first place compared with organizations
that have received funds from donors and spent them on the Initiative.
Immediately after the Durban Vision Initiative was announced concerns were
raised that the two wildlife-oriented conservation NGOs had pressured the new
170 NATURE UNBOUND
Malagasy president into agreeing to it when they met with him at the World
Parks Congress in 2003 (see Horning, 2008 for further discussion). Since
Ravalomanana was a new president who was looking towards the US to replace
France as the major external donor, critics suggested that he had felt obliged to
agree because of threats from the NGOs that they could effectively lobby in
Washington to reduce support to the new president; it was clear to their
opponents that the environmental NGOs had a great deal of power in Malagasy
politics, and especially within the Donor Consortium as a transnational
governance mechanism.
However, the case is more complex than external actors ‘producing’ a policy
commitment in consultation with partners in the developing world. The newly
set up Durban Vision Group (which included global and local NGOs, donor and
state agencies) dealt with this policy announcement in a complicated way. The
group rapidly redefined the meaning of ‘protected areas’ in order to create a policy
that was globally and locally acceptable. Under the Durban Vision Initiative, the
new protected areas will now include numerous types of ‘multi-use’ areas rather
than requiring the establishment of national parks; protected areas are costly in
financial and social terms as well as being time-consuming and extremely difficult
to establish and enforce.33 CI and the Critical Ecosystems Project Fund have
identified these Sites de Conservation as a key mechanism through which
conservation can be achieved whilst also delivering benefits to local
communities.34
A number of the other donors were concerned at the growing levels of power
of environmental organizations in the Donor Consortium. In particular,
criticisms levelled at the WCS and CI are particularly problematic. One
representative on the Donor Consortium argued that the commitment of the
WCS and CI to science-based conservation and its use in pushing through the
Durban Vision Initiative had already led to forced evictions of poor communities
from future protected areas. In particular there are concerns that the Durban
Vision Initiative will send a message that wildlife and habitats are more important
than people, and will result in a potentially destructive separation of people and
environments possibly through forced evictions from the newly declared
protected areas.35
Conclusion
The development of what has been called global environmental governance
provides the international context for conservation. Understanding these global
dynamics is vitally important for understanding the complex ways conservation
plays out in particular locations, and especially the ways that international-scale
decisions and networks can bring costs and benefits to particular places and
communities. For example, the power and limitations of the international legal
apparatus is clear in our discussion of CITES and the ivory trade. The
international legal framework provided by such as the Convention on

Biodiversity and CITES aims to deal with transboundary environmental issues
that cannot be tackled at the national or local level. However, through their
regulatory activities international conventions can have a substantial impact on
defining what national governments and local communities can and cannot do.
This in turn intersects with one of the core themes of this book: the ways that
conservation unevenly distributes fortune and misfortune.
This chapter also explored the complexities associated with global
conservation, especially the proliferation of public–private networks and their
active participation in defining and implementing conservation practice at the
local, national and global scales. This is especially important given that
conservation funding has been increasingly funnelled into a narrower range of
conservation NGOs. This in turn increases their powers in the international
arena as fund-raisers and as key organizations for definition of what constitutes
good conservation practice. Furthermore, their financial powers also provide
them with a greater degree of influence over what local communities can and
cannot do and how national governments can define their conservation policies.
This is clear in the case of Madagascar, where the financial and lobbying power
of a small number of conservation NGOs means that they have powers that
extend into countries that are far removed from their fund-raising centres in the
West. Limiting that power will depend upon conservation funders, be they
private companies, donors or individual supporters, adopting a constructively
critical and quizzical stance to the publicity that they receive from grantees. In
our final chapter we will pay closer attention to the difficulties inherent in that
task and the power of the image in conservation.
Notes
1 www.cbd.int/convention/guide.shtml (accessed 19 December 2007).
2 www.cbd.int/biosafety/articles.shtml?a=cpb-01 (accessed 19 December 2007).
3 However, southern African states’ common position on the potential uses of ivory
since the ban in 1989 has begun to break down because Botswana has now begun
to favour a more preservationist stance.
4 ‘Money to Burn’, Mail and Guardian (South Africa), 1 November 2002.
5 www.africanparks-conservation.com/apffoundation/index.php (accessed
16 November 2007).
6 www.cites.org (accessed 10 November 2007); and TRAFFIC Recommendations to
CITES at COP12, Chile 2002, www.traffic.org/cop12/proposal3_14.html#pro6
(accessed 13 May 2004).
7 Species Survival Network (2002), CITES 2002: African Elephant,
www.speciessurvivalnetwork.org (accessed 13 May 2004); ‘Wildlife Officials Brace
for 2004 Ivory Sale’, Mail and Guardian (South Africa), 12 November 2003; ‘All
Clear for Ivory Trade’, Mail and Guardian, 27 June 1997; ‘Ivory Vote Sparks New
Fears for Elephants’, Guardian (UK), 13 November 2002.
172 NATURE UNBOUND
8 www.africanparks-conservation.com/apffoundation/index.php (accessed
16 November 2007).
9 www.refugeesinternational.org/content/photo/detail/4727/ (accessed 16 November
2007).
10 www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/5639?PHPSESSID=5cfliegen
3C (accessed 16 November 2007).
11 http://conservationrefugees.org/NechSar (accessed 16 November 2007).
12 www.african-parks.org/apffoundation/index.php?option=com_content&task=view
&id=61& Itemid=99 (accessed 16 November 2007).
13 www.african-parks.org/apffoundation/index.php?option=com_content&task=view
&id=62&Itemid=100 (accessed 16 November 2007).
14 www.awf.org/section/people (accessed 16 August 2007).
15 www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/africa/what_we_do/cbnrm/index.cfm
(accessed 14 August 2007).
16 http://web.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/strategies/ (accessed 14 August 2007).
17 http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/OPPORTUNITIES/GRANTS/
DEVMARKETPLACE/0,,contentMDK:20215186~menuPK:214469~pagePK:
180691~piPK:174492~theSitePK:205098,00.html (accessed 14 August 2007).
18 www.peaceparks.org/tfca.php?mid=147&pid=1 (accessed 19 October 2007).
19 www.mbrs.org.bz/english/en_index.htm (accessed 18 October 2007).
20 www.mbrs.org.bz/english/project_support.htm (accessed 18 October 2007).
21 Interview with Natalie Rosado, Conservation Division, Forestry Department,
Belmopan, 17 May 2000; Amandala, 17 October 1999, Regional Meso American
Barrier Reef System Project planning workshop complete. http://wbln0018.worldbank.
org/MesoAm/UmbExtLib.nsf/(By+Title+Web)/47269E38BE4742BC8525671A00
4ECDC9?OpenDocument (accessed 18 October 2007). The Mesoamerican
Biological Corridors Project aims to re-establish wildlife migration corridors, and
create unbroken bioregions that cover rainforests, mangroves and coral reefs that
stretch from Mexico, through Belize and Guatemala, to Honduras.
22 Interview with Gregory Ch’oc, Kekchi Council of Belize, Punta Gorda, 23 May
2000.
23 For further discussion of threats to biodiversity in Madagascar see www.bbc.co.uk
‘Madagascar Biodiversity Threatened’, 16 January 2002 (accessed 8 February 2002);
and Financial Times, 15 May 2001, ‘Madagascar’s jewels of nature under threat’.
24 Madagascar is currently in Phase III of the programme, which is running two
years behind schedule because World Bank support was suspended during the
presidential crisis of 2001/02.
25 Interview with Hery Zo Rakotondrainbe, Office National Pour l’Environnement,
Antananarivo, 29 August 2001.
26 Interview with Parfait Randriamampianina, Director of Parks, ANGAP,
Antananarivo, 21 August 2001.
27 Interview with Dr Helen Crowley, Country Director, Madagascar Programme,
Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo, 25 March 2004; and interview with
Bienvenu Rajohnson, Senior Environmental Policy, Adviser, World Bank,
Antananarivo, 26 March 2004. Also see http://wcs.org/sw-around_the_globe/
Africa/Madagascar (accessed 16 November 2004).
28 Interview with Tiana Razarimahatrata, CARE Madagascar, Antananarivo,

21 April 2004.
29 ‘Madagascar to Triple Areas Under Protection’ (16 September 2003)
Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo, 25 March 2004; interview with
Dr Joanna Durbin, Director of the Madagascar Programme, Durrell Wildlife
Conservation Trust, Antananarivo, 31 March 2004; and interview with
Leon M. Rajaobelina, Senior Executive Director, Conservation International
Madagascar, Antananarivo, 23 March 2004; also see www.conservation.org/xp/
CIWEB/regions/africa/madagascar/ (accessed 17 November 2004).
Leon M. Rajaobelina, Senior Executive Director, Conservation International
Madagascar, Antananarivo, 23 March 2004.
32 ‘Madagascar creates 1 million hectares of new protected areas’, http://web.
conservation.org/xp/news/press_releases/2007/043007a.xml (accessed 4 July
2007).
Lantoniaina Antriamampianina, Director of the Terrestrial Programme, Wildlife
Conservation Society, Antananarivo, 24 March 2004.
34 See ‘An Overview of CEPF’s Portfolio in the Madagascar and Indian Ocean
Islands Biodiversity Hotspot: Madagascar’ www.cepf.net/ImageCache/cepf/
content/pdfs/cepf_2emadagascar_2eoverview_5f3_2e05_2epdf/v1/cepf.madagascar.
overview_5f3.05.pdf (accessed 4 July 2007).
35 Anonymous interviewee, Madagascar 2004.
9
Conservation and Capitalism
…the present age … prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to
the original, representation to reality, the appearance to essence …
only illusion is sacred, truth profane. Nay, sacredness is held to be
enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so the
highest degree of illusion comes to the highest degree of sacredness.
Marx, Feuerbach
The spectacle manifests itself as an enormous positivity, out of reach

and beyond dispute. All it says is: Everything that appears is good;
whatever is good will appear. The attitude that is demanded in
principle is the same passive acceptance that it has already secured
by means of its seeming incontrovertibility, and indeed by its
monopolization of the realm of appearances.
Guy Debord, 1995 [1967]
There will always be animal reserves and Indian reservations to hide

the fact that they are dead and that we are all Indians.
Jean Baudrillard, 1993
At the start of this book we argued that a good way to begin to understand the
changes in wildlife and landscape conservation in the last few years is by looking
at trends in the establishment of protected areas. It is clear that the period of most
dramatic growth of protected areas was between 1985 and 1995, which coincides
with the global rise, expansion and deepening of neoliberalism. As we have
shown, conservation and capitalism are intertwining in the spread of some
protected areas and rise of conservation NGOs, the development of international
regulations and conventions, the creation of community and market-based
conservation programmes and the faith in tourism as a driver for sustainability.
For us the pattern is clear: conservation is increasingly compatible with capitalism
and, rather like capitalism itself, it unevenly distributes fortune and misfortune.
It is time now to examine some of the closest relationships that have developed
and their repercussions for different sets of people, in order to highlight the ways
that this compatibility is being expanded through new and increasingly market-
oriented initiatives. We examine three areas – first the emergence of new markets
for carbon credits and their role in conservation policy, second certification, and
third private parks.
176 NATURE UNBOUND
It is also time to provide a conceptual framework that can make adequate sense
of these interactions. Thus far we have presented the issues and problems
associated with neoliberal conservation as an important and interesting puzzle
that needs to be figured out. We have provided some potential explanations for
different aspects of this puzzle, but we now need a comprehensive conceptual
framework that could account for the seemingly paradoxical processes and
relationships that we have described in the body of this book.
Any framework that is going to engage with biodiversity conservation and the
concept of nature will need to deal with the physical environment and especially
the place of people in the physical environment. However, it must also deal with
ideas, images and representations, and these have become increasingly important
with the global spread and increasing sophistication of electronic media. These
media are now playing an increasingly important role in how many people
conceptualize the environment and their place in the environment. It is our belief
that images used in conservation, what we could call ‘the Spectacle of Nature’ is
fast becoming one of the important ways in which capitalism and conservation are
interacting and cooperating. The framework should also examine the conditions
preceding and leading up to our current context. Finally, such a framework should
address potential for fostering an environmental ethic, especially amongst middle
class people in wealthy countries who are likely to support transnational
conservation.
The framework we present begins with the ideas of Karl Marx and his
observations about industrialization and liberal capitalism as a predecessor to our
current context of neoliberal capitalism. Next we turn to the ideas of Jean Baudrillard
and Guy Debord, who were concerned with the central role of images and media in
shaping people’s understandings of reality. Finally, we conclude with the question of
environmental ethics and how these relate to this conceptual framework.
Conservation and carbon

The challenges posed by carbon dioxide increases and climate change to
conservation policies are legion. In the first instance there are the physical
changes of shifting ranges of species and habitat. Iconic centres of biodiversity
such as the Cape Floral Kingdom and numerous isolated mountain habitats are
more threatened as they have little space left to move to (southwards or upwards
respectively) as climate warms. The growth of sugar and oil plantations for
biofuels is becoming a major source of forest conversion and loss of habitat. At
the same time it is widely recognized that measures to combat climate change
such as reafforestation have only limited value because trees, after a certain age,
leak carbon copiously. But the complexities of conservation and policy responses
are fascinating because they demonstrate that concerns about carbon dioxide and
greenhouse gases are becoming yet another means for conservation and capitalism
to work closely together.
CONSERVATION AND CAPITALISM 177
The construction of carbon markets demonstrates clearly the alliances that

Sklair (2001) described, wherein the policies of sustainable development have
been subsumed within a wider set of capitalist policies centred on consumerist
ideologies. The main mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol allow companies
producing greenhouse gases to offset those emissions by investing in projects
that either sequester carbon (typically in forestry) else that result in reduced
greenhouse gas emissions from development projects. The Kyoto Protocol has led
to jointly implemented schemes, in countries that have a commitment to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and which award emission reduction units, and the
Clean Development Mechanism, which allows projects in countries without a
requirement to reduce emissions to qualify for certified emission reductions.
Companies with no requirement to reduce emissions also trade in verified and
non-verified emission reduction schemes. Advocates of these schemes insist that
they are an efficient means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Critics such as
George Monbiot insist that this is just business as usual, that it is not reducing oil
dependence and that ultimately coal and oil are better just left in the ground.
Carbon offsetting is seen as a potential income earner by many conservation
organizations. It is common practice for NGO websites to include carbon
calculators and offset sponsorship schemes on their websites. But the market is
nascent. These schemes vary dramatically according to complicated technical
issues concerning the relative importance of carbon to other climatic changes
planes introduce, and the time period over which afforestation projects were
considered to sequester carbon. Gossling and colleagues have analysed 41
different voluntary carbon offset schemes offered by a mixture of carbon trading
companies and conservation NGOs specifically to compensate for flights. The
amount of carbon produced for a given flight varied by up to a factor of five (0.27
to 1.5 CO2 equivalent). The price offered per ton varied between €2.38 and
€37.13. Overall the cost of offsetting the same flight varied by a factor of nearly
11 (€1.92 and €20.33). Moreover it was not always clear how much of the offset
payments went to the scheme and how much to the administration costs of the
organizations promoting them. They concluded that ‘for individual customers, it
is currently next to impossible to judge the real value of the credits they buy’
(Gossling et al, 2007, p239).
Gossling and colleagues (2007) noted that there was a clear preference in the
offsetting schemes they analysed to invest in forestry projects. Consumers prefer
trees. This could lead to all sorts of benefits for conservation strategies. But there
are clear limits to this policy. Other authors have noted that aviation offsets alone
would fill all the space available for afforestation by 2050 (Boon et al, 2006, cited
in Gossling et al, 2007). Nearly 30,000km2 of new land would have to be
afforested every year to offset the emissions of leisure aviation travel. More forest
could be good for some conservation objectives but monoculture plantations that
can result are not good for biodiversity. There are clear limits to the power of the
business-as-usual scenario to deliver in the long run.
178 NATURE UNBOUND
The Clean Development Mechanism is also not a good means of protecting

forest on unprotected lands owned by rural communities because it does not
currently admit averted deforestation as a valid source of carbon credit. Rural
peoples in poorer parts of the world are thus unable to benefit from the carbon
stored up in the vegetation all around them. This could change, and be a
significant money earner, a means of providing valuable resources to poor
communities, just as we have seen that arrangements with safari companies can
be a lucrative money earner. But we have also seen that the local distribution of
any form of income from forests (or wildlife) will be highly contested. The
welcome income will be accompanied by restrictions on forest use and access that
will be detrimental to some groups (charcoal burners, wood cutters, grazers). It is
not clear that the people who lose most locally are compensated most when the
money comes in. The reverse can be true (Dzingirai, 2003). As Brockington has
argued elsewhere (and we discussed in Chapter 5) ‘Community conservation is
likely to consist of a myriad of marginalisations and inequalities enforced on
smaller and smaller scales’ (Brockington, 2004, p428). We welcome the news that
rural groups can earn carbon credits for forest that remains standing on their land
but also insist that the task of examining how these policies distributed fortune
and misfortune remains as strong as ever.
Although rural communities cannot be incentivized not to cut down their trees
through the current provisions of the Clean Development Mechanism, there is
general recognition that deforestation is a major source of greenhouse gases. Stern
noted that:
Without prompt action emissions from deforestation between 2008

and 2012 are expected to total 40GT CO2, which alone will raise
atmospheric levels of CO2 by –2ppm, greater than the cumulative
total of aviation emissions from the invention of the flying machine
until at least 2025.
(Stern, 2007, p547)
Stern (2007) advocates reducing deforestation as a quick win that would

contribute significantly to reducing the increase in carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. He notes that a programme costing $10–15 billion a year could
halve deforestation.1
Those sorts of sums could make a significant input on conservation strategies.
But we were concerned by the tone of the Stern report, which repeatedly viewed
conservation measures in a simplistic light and did not examine how they
distributed fortune and misfortune to different groups. We have reproduced
Box 25.1 from the Stern report to demonstrate the sort of thing we mean
(Box 9.1). Compare that to the sorts of concerns that we were discussing in
Chapter 5. Jesse Ribot’s extensive review of deforestation did not appear in
Stern’s references.
Box 9.1. Local and Community ownership of forests

Latin America and South Asia have increasingly involved local communities in the
ownership and stewardship of forests, and communities have often opted for more
sustainable long-term programmes as a result. Another example is the Joint Forest
Management Programme in India. This has both improved forest regeneration and had
a positive impact on livelihoods. Similarly in Guatemala 13 community concessions,
almost all certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, have managed to combine
highly profitable mahogany enterprise with deforestation rates lower than in protected
or outside areas.a Other approaches have allowed local communities to benefit from
timber revenues. This helps promote local support. In Cameroon, for example, forest
concessions were allocated through transparent auctions, with 50 per cent of the
royalties going to local communities.a
a
World Bank (2006) ‘At Loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment
in the tropical forests’, Washington DC: World Bank
Source: Stern (2007, p541)
But with the sort of attention Stern advocates, protected areas harbouring tropical
forest are likely to become increasingly valuable, and therefore increasingly
attractive to both private companies and NGOs. They are already seen as a
vehicle by which large companies can privately be offsetting the carbon that they
produce. The environmentally conscious American Electrical Power is perhaps
ahead of the game here, but may well represent the beginning of an increasingly
popular trend. As part of a number of activities of corporate environmental
responsibility it is sponsoring the Noel Kempff Mercado Park in Bolivia and the
17,000 acres of Atlantic Forest in Brazil.2
A similar scheme was supported by the Co-operative Bank in the UK. The
bank’s carbon offset programme included supporting the work of a company
called Climate Care who were investing in a reafforestation in the Kibale
National Park in Uganda as part of a package of measures that include wind
turbines in India, fuel efficient stoves in Madagascar and the promotion of
household energy efficiency in Pakistan. The bank had begun support in 2000 as
a means of offsetting the carbon that was produced in association with its
mortgages. It estimated that it will have offset 250,000 tonnes of carbon at the
cost of $1.25 million by the end of 2007.
The Kibale project formed a substantial component of the bank’s offset
scheme. The bank estimated it will have received £500,000, resulting in the
reforestation of 214 hectares of rainforest, sequestering 80,000 tonnes of carbon
dioxide. However, it was the subject of a critical review by the BBC, which
claimed that the people were being paid poor wages and suffered as a result of
exclusion from the forest.3 They specifically alleged that ‘local people have lost
access to vital resources that the forest once provided, such as firewood and water’.
180 NATURE UNBOUND
We do not think that the low wages paid is such as important problem. Wages
are generally extremely low in this country and the rates cited (£15 a month) are
not particularly unusual. Moreover they are an additional resource in a poor area.
We were more struck by the fact that the social impacts caused by this protected
area on its nearby residents – the lost access to resources – had not seemed to be
an important part of the decision making. When Brockington contacted Paul
Monaghan, who was Head of Ethics and Sustainability at the Co-operative Bank,
he was told that the park had been established 75 years ago, and that there were
agreements with the local communities in place that allowed them to collect
fallen wood, cut invasive species and elephant grass, and keep bees in the park.
Monaghan also noted that ‘this project is not designed to tackle poverty as a
primary objective’ (pers. comm. January 2007). However, we received no
response to our request for more information about the park’s impact on local
livelihoods. The Co-operative Bank portrayed the scheme as beneficial to local
livelihoods. But it is not clear to us whether the nature of the impacts of the
protected area had been properly investigated.
The case is a specific example of a much wider problem – what will the local
social impacts of carbon offset policies be? Currently the main push is to
sequester carbon in forests if possible, and reduce deforestation rates. However,
the implications of these policies for forest residents and the neighbours of
protected areas have simply not been considered. Participants of the
International Community Forestry Workshop of the Canadian Environmental
Network agreed a resolution that lobbied the participants of the United Nations
Climate Change Conference in Bali. This noted that forest dwellers’ rights and
livelihoods were not sufficiently prominent in the discussion. In 2007 the Royal
Society and the Global Biodiversity Sub-Committee of the UK Global
Environmental Change Committee met to examine the associated problems of
biodiversity, climate change and poverty alleviation. But the meeting was
virtually silent on livelihoods, to the consternation of a number of participants
(Willis and Homewood pers. comm. September 2007). The report of the
workshop outlined research priorities that made no mention of the need to
examine the local impacts of policies to cope with climate change. Just as local
rights and livelihoods have been forgotten in past conservation imperatives that
saw the establishment of protected areas, so the new impetus to conserve in order
to cope with carbon and climate change could result in a new set of oversights.
Certification
One of the means by which market mechanisms cope with the confusing barrage
of information that environmentally conscious consumers have to cope with if
they are to make environmentally responsible choices is certification.
Certification is one example of an aspect of neoliberalism: the increasing
standardization and regulation of activities. This form of standardization fits
perfectly with notions of governance as a technical project that seeks to create a

fix that is ‘one size fits all’. As will be made clear below, such forms of governance
involve the creation of rules and standards that will inevitably rely on a process of
inclusion and exclusion. Therefore, certification as a form of governance will
result in the uneven distribution of fortune and misfortune.
Perhaps the best-known certification schemes, however, are the forest
certification schemes that provide easily visible and identifiable labels reassuring
consumers that their products are from environmentally responsible sources.
Certification provides a means of applying consumer pressure to forest
management. A group of 51 NGOs and institutions have pooled their skills to
introduce certification of carbon offset schemes (The Gold Standard).4
Certification has also been mooted for schemes that make payments to rural
villages for hunting or wildlife viewing safaris (Child, pers. comm. 2004). This
could make it possible for clients to know how the extra revenues that they are
contributing towards local development are being spent.
The problem is that there are numerous certification schemes: Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC); Canadian Standard Association’s Sustainable
Forest Management Standard; Sustainable Forestry Initiative; Pan European Forest
Certification (PEFC) (Ozinga, 2001). The value of the system depends entirely on
the standards that it uses and the rigour with which independent observers apply
them. It is entirely possible for certification bodies to be subservient to groups who
wish to gain the security of the label but not apply the rigours of management.
Ozinga (2001) compared the work of several certification schemes (Table 9.1).
He noted substantial differences between them. Consider for example the FSC
and PEFC. The former operates in 40 countries and had certified 221,657km2 in
2001. The latter, set up to provide a certification scheme more appropriate to
Europe, works in five countries and had certified 322,370km2. The FSC was
generally more rigorous in its criteria. It demanded assessment and compliance
based on actual performance and site visits. In contrast he noted that PEFC had
effectively lower standards, and sometimes did not require site visits. Instead
certifiers relied on management plans.
In some ways the FSC represents one of the highest standards of conservation
policy in existence. It has three chambers, environmental, economic and social, who
examine different aspects of forest management plans, all of which have to be
adequate for certification to be awarded. At the same time the transaction costs
required to implement certification are considerable and effectively make the
scheme inaccessible to poorer rural communities. There is also a problem of
consumer awareness. Currently a significant proportion of the market in the UK is
driven by the actions of large purchasers such as department stores such as B&Q –
a do-it-yourself store that sells raw timber and processed products. There is still little
wider public recognition of the brand and its meaning. The complexities of the
supply lines also cause difficulties. Many products (especially things like chipboard)
involve wood from all sorts of sources, some of which are certified and some not.
182 NATURE UNBOUND
Table 9.1 Comparing the FSC and PEFC

Forestry Practice FSC PEFC
Indig. people’s rights Requires respect for Requires dialogue but no

Sami customary grazing respect for Sami customary
rights grazing rights
Set aside areas 5% of productive forest 0–5% of productive forest

land land
Harvesting in mountains Restricted No specific restrictions
Protection of key biotopes Protected Temporarily but not

permanently restricted
Retention of eternity 10 trees per hectare 5–10 trees per hectare trees
Use of fertilisers Restricted Not restricted
Use of chemicals Relatively strict Less strict
Ecological landscape Yes (>5000ha) No requirements

planning required
Private parks
One of the most important developments in conservation in the last two decades
is the growth in privately owned protected areas. These differ from parks and
conservation initiatives that are merely funded (partly or wholly) through
donations from private individuals, foundations and corporations. As we have
discussed elsewhere, philanthropists and corporate investment in state-owned
protected areas have key roles to play in terms of funding and supporting existing
initiatives. However, the growth of ‘private parks’ signifies something quite
different from state-based approaches to parks, and their arrival on the
conservation scene raises a series of very difficult questions about the long-term
future of parks. The debates centre on the capacity for privatized wildlife
conservation to provide a solution to a complex knot of issues: paying for
conservation when the state cannot or will not fund it, securing genuine
community participation and involvement, and ability to deal with issues
surrounding questions about who has the right to own land. They also raise the
ethical issues associated with enforcement and anti-poaching patrols carried out
by private ‘armies’ of rangers, as discussed elsewhere in this book. Finally, private
parks also raise questions about the nature and suitability of private investment
in conservation for long-term conservation of species and habitats.
The debate over whether the state or the private sector is best able to manage
the environment is divided. The market and the state can be characterized as two
different sets of management principles. The state is usually preferred as a wildlife

manager because it is widely perceived as a publicly accountable institution that
can devise management plans and has the capacity to implement them. In
contrast, supporters of private parks argue that individuals seek to promote their
own welfare and so protect the resources on which their welfare depends, and also
because economic values for resources provide the most efficient way of allocating
resources. Nevertheless, private parks have raised some fears and concerns. For
example, if we assume that the private sector will be interested in profit in the
longer term, then we must consider what the implications are for conservation if
a privately owned protected area fails to become financially viable. In the case of
investment by philanthropic individuals and foundations where profit may not
be as important, then the long-term future of conservation through private parks
may still be problematic because foundations can decide to change the focus for
funding, and individual endowments may run out.
Private parks have been enthusiastically taken up in southern Africa. In
Zimbabwe for example, the creation of private conservancies was welcomed as
significant innovation in conservation in the 1990s. From the 1960s wildlife
conservation was increasingly transferred to the private sector through policies
that encouraged the devolution of authority and responsibility for wildlife to
the landholder, coupled with the definition of wildlife as an economic resource.
This approach was further consolidated in the 1975 Parks and Wildlife Act,
which defined the appropriate authority for wildlife management on private
land and commercial farms as the owner or occupier of that land. This trend
arose out of fears that wildlife was rapidly disappearing outside the state-based
national parks and reserves system. Wildlife populations within protected areas
were becoming increasingly isolated, some parks were overpopulated by certain
species because traditional migration routes were cut off between national
parks. The transfer of conservation to the private sector was also intended to
serve two other purposes – to ease pressure on falling budgets for wildlife, and
make wildlife less subject to personal interests and power struggles in the
government (Duffy, 2000). Privatizing wildlife conservation in this way clearly
intersected with viewing wildlife as a commercial resource, or commodity, to be
exploited like any other.
In post-independence Zimbabwe, the notion of privatized wildlife was
politically controversial in terms of domestic politics, given the centrality of the
land question and the continued racial disparity in land ownership. This was
especially acute because the conservancies were developed by grouping together
former cattle ranches, removing fences between them and restocking with
wildlife. The conservancies (or private parks) were to become financially viable
and profitable through the development of wildlife tourism, including sport
hunting. As Wolmer suggests, the notion that the south east lowveld in
Zimbabwe is not suited to arable farming for subsistence or cash crop production
persisted as a powerful vehicle for arguing that the area should be given over to
184 NATURE UNBOUND
wilderness and wildlife ranching (Wolmer, 2007). In addition, the conservancies

became core members of the national strategy for black rhino conservation
through their creation of ‘Intensive Protection Zones’ (IPZs) for rhinos. These
were essentially ‘parks within parks’ – a small area of land in the centre of a
conservancy or national park that had higher levels of security to protect the black
rhino. Therefore, the conservancies could legitimately claim to be engaged in
internationally vital conservation of rare species, as well as ensuring that the land
(which remained in the hands of white farmers) was used in the most
economically productive way possible through servicing the international
tourism industry. One of the most well known was the Save Valley Conservancy
in the south east lowveld, which developed an upscale luxury tourist lodge in the
1990s (Duffy, 2000; Wels, 2003; Wolmer, 2007, pp116–143).
Critics of the conversion of land to this form of ‘wildlife ranching’ (as it is often
called) pointed out that initiative was really about sidestepping the post-
independence government’s stated commitment from 1990 to compulsory
purchase of land that was defined as ‘underutilized’. This meant that the large
white-owned cattle ranches of the midlands and south east lowveld had to
demonstrate that they were using their ranches to full effect, and one way of
doing so was to take advantage of the global growth in wildlife-based tourism.
Furthermore, the conservancies also faced the same problem with boundary
demarcation as national parks. In order for conservancies/game ranches to survive
as wildlife conservation areas they require game fences to prevent the movement
of wildlife onto farmland. For example Wels’ study of private parks in Zimbabwe
effectively demonstrates how the designation of conservancies/game ranches still
relied on fences so that the fence became the ‘white signature on the land’ (Wels,
2003). According to Wels, these fences constituted a barrier to developing
genuine reciprocal relations between communities and conservancies in both
physical and symbolic terms. The demarcation of the boundaries for these private
parks then created a sense amongst local communities that fences had written the
message ‘white land only’ onto the landscape.
These concerns about the development of private parks and their implications for
land redistribution have also arisen in the growth of private reserves in South Africa.
Rather like Zimbabwe, South Africa is still marked by racially unequal land
distribution that was established during the apartheid era, and many former cattle
ranches have been turned over into wildlife ranches to take advantage of
international tourism. The issue has even been the subject of a Sunday evening
‘feel good’ soap/drama on British television (Wild at Heart) that featured a British
family struggling to develop a wildlife ranch. The private parks of South Africa
cover a range of different tourism markets ranging from sport hunting through
to upscale luxury eco-lodges with golf courses and spas. Sabi Sabi Reserve and
Singita private eco-lodge have also been promoted as a means by which the
‘boundaries’ of the Kruger National Park can be extended. Kruger is bordered by
a series of private reserves, which increase the area available for wildlife. Overall
the country has 13 per cent of its land mass inside private protected areas, and
only 6 per cent in state protection. Each reserve offers a slightly different variation
on the wildlife tourism theme. For example, Conservation Corporation Africa
(CC Africa) operates Bongani Mountain Lodge, a mid-range eco-resort in a
private reserve that borders Kruger. Its variation on the product is that, unlike in
the national park, the safari vehicles can drive off-road and get very close to the
animals; and its landscape is more suited to (and attractive to) leopards than
many parts of the state-owned park. CC Africa claims that it has joined forces
with the local communities to establish one of South Africa’s pioneering
conservation initiatives:
Our project develops our vision of sustainable, community-based

ecotourism. Bongani Mountain Lodge is committed to CC Africa’s
core principle: Care of the Land, Care of the Wildlife, Care of the
People.5
Therefore, as this example demonstrates, private parks are able to resonate with
many of the global debates about conservation practice, including community
conservation and commitment to wildlife conservation, rather than articulating
their project in terms of a profit motive. The private parks are clearly part of the
global growth of ‘super luxury’ ecotourism, as discussed earlier in this book. In
line with this, the luxury safari lodges have also linked with the growth of medical
tourism to South Africa to offer ‘surgery and safari’ tours. The ‘Surgeon and
Safari Company’ matches up clients for cosmetic, ophthalmic, orthopaedic and
dental surgery with safaris where they can recuperate from surgery in privacy.6
One of the private reserves recommended by Surgeon and Safari is Tswalu, owned
and operated by the Oppenheimer family.7
However, the growth of private reserves is not without its problems. For
example, in conservation terms a number of private reserves have been criticized
for offering ‘canned hunting’ of big cats, or for converting large areas to golf
courses. This is apart from the wider questions about their implication for land
redistribution in South Africa, the (often dubious) authority used for
enforcement and anti-poaching patrols, and the concerns about the long-term
viability for conservation purposes should the reserves become unprofitable.
Doubts have also been raised about the fate of former farm workers, although
some studies show a dramatic rise in employment demands on game ranches
(Luck, 2003; Connor, 2006; Langholz and Kerley, 2006)
Marx, liberal capitalism and seeing nature from inside the box
To provide a conceptual framework for the sorts of changes we have witnessed we
must return to the writings of Marx. Marx’s concern about industrialization was
that it alienated objects from people, thereby alienating people from themselves
186 NATURE UNBOUND
(Marx, 1976 (1867)). What he meant by this was that in the past, people used
resources from their environment to create objects that would be useful to them.
If a blacksmith made a cooking pot, or a carpenter created a cabinet, the
producers felt innately connected to the objects they produced. Moreover, these
objects were seen as an extension of the person. They were seen this way for two
reasons: 1) social relations between people were mediated through the production
and exchange of those objects; and 2) because there was a close association
between the person’s sense of self and the object, as the object was an expression
of the person’s creativity.
According to Marx (1978 (1865–1870)), this basic relationship between
people and objects changed dramatically with the first industrial revolution,
which occurred in the late 18th century in the UK, from where it quickly spread
to the rest of Europe and North America. This revolution revolved around the
creation of the machine. The machine allowed human beings to: 1) capture fuel
from the environment; 2) use the fuel to do work; and 3) to mass produce objects
that are always the same.
These transformations not only transformed objects, but the social relationships
between people that were mediated by the production and exchange of those
objects. To operate these machines it became necessary to find large numbers of
unskilled labourers. Mass-produced objects could no longer be seen as an extension
of people and their creativity and they no longer circulated according to social
relationships and use value, but according to the demands of the market and
exchange value, which was measured in wholly abstract terms. These
transformations were closely associated with what Marx called ‘commodity
fetishism’. In an industrial context, the exchange value (price) of commodities
became much more important than their use value. In fact, human labour became
just another commodity, and by extension humans became just another
commodity, in that people were now required to work for a wage and then buy the
things that they needed. In this context, it became impossible to know anything
about the origins of commodities. They appeared on the shelves of shops as though
by magic. Commodity fetishism refers to this context, in which people purchase
and consume commodities without any knowledge of their socio-historical context.
The use of certification and private parks for conservation purposes hinges on
the fetishization of commodities. It is only because commodities appear as if by
magic, concealing all the social interactions that produced them, and the
ecological costs and exchanges, that we require certification to reassure us that
some care has been taken in the production of these commodities. But note the
irony here – the certification is itself a form of fetishization, a symbol stamped on
a product guaranteeing its sanctity, but through processes largely invisible and
not understood by most consumers. Similarly, conserving through private parks
attempts to use the security of commodified land to promote conservation. The
land taken from its previous social contexts, alienated and sold. Only it is precisely
these processes that cause tension with former farm workers in South Africa.
Towards the end of his career, Marx also became concerned that commodities
were being taken out of their ecological context as well (Marx, 1971 (1875);
Marx, 1978 (1863–65)). The specific terminology that Marx applied to this
phenomenon was what he called the metabolic rift – a term that he borrowed
from Liebig (Foster, 1999). Marx observed that industrialization and urbanization
were transforming agriculture in Europe and North America by disrupting
nutrient cycles (Liebig, 1859). These problems intensified over time, as fertilizers
came to be derived from petrochemicals, and more industrialized forms of
agriculture not only mined nutrients from the soil but also depleted water tables.
A second aspect of the metabolic rift concerned the growing divide between the
rural and the urban context, as products from the farm increasingly had to be
shipped to urban centres where they could be sold for consumption (Gever et al,
1986). Over time, therefore, the whole systems became increasingly dependent on
fossil fuels and the global infrastructure that supported them (Robbins, 2004).
The metabolic rift suggests an extractive and linear conception of and
relationship to nature. In this conceptualization, everything is measured in terms
of its exchange value, which allows for total fungibility between circulating
objects. In other words, there is assumed to be a single standard of value, whereby
the value of one thing can be objectively and qualitatively measured against the
value of anything else. Figure 9.1 illustrates how this way of thinking about
nature can be conceptualized.
In this paradigm nature is conceived as a factory, or perhaps more accurately a
magic black box. Inputs such as water, fertilizer, pesticides and seeds are put in one
end. Outputs, such as corn, beef, coffee and the like come out the other end. Since
everything is measured in money all that matters in this case is that the value of ‘$2’
is greater than the value of ‘$1’. As long as more dollars come out of the magic black
box than are put into the magic black box, then the system works. Furthermore as
long as the demand for outputs remains high, then there will be an incentive to
find more inputs, be they fossil fuels, water or whatever resource is required.
THE
BLACK
BOX OF
INPUTS
$1 PRODUCTIVE
OUTPUTS
$2
NATURE
THE METABOLIC RIFT AND THE BLACK BOX OF PRODUCTIVE

NATURE
Figure 9.1 The metabolic rift and the black box of productive nature
188 NATURE UNBOUND
This paradigm ignores two aspects of the relationships it describes. First, it does
not account for social or ecological costs. If the process of changing inputs into
outputs should damage people and/or the environment, it will not be registered so
long as this damage does not have to be paid for in dollars. Even when the damage
does has to be paid for in dollars, it is usually devalued to such an extent that it
remains profitable. Hence we see that profit can be derived at a great expense to
people and the environment so long as such expenses are not calculated in dollars
that must be paid by the people and/or firms who are realizing the profit.
Next this paradigm assumes an infinite planet. The idea being that as long as
there is an economic incentive to find more oil, water or whatever, that someone
will be innovative enough to find more of the resource in question. They may
find oil in the tar shale of Alberta, or they may find an innovative way to pump
water from the great lakes to the American south west. If these types of solutions
are not possible then they will find a substitute that can do the same work as the
resource in question (Simon, 1981).
There are two problems here. The first, simply stated, is that the earth does not
take MasterCard®. If there is no oil or water in the ground, it does not matter
how much someone is willing to pay for it, they simply will not be able to have
it. Setting aside resources for which there are no substitutes, like clean air and
water, the argument about substitution is more substantial. We can, for instance,
substitute wind and solar power for fossil fuels. It is questionable, however,
whether profit motive is an appropriate driver for this transition (Robbins, 2004).
The development of alternative fuels and technologies will require an upfront
investment of fossil fuels to get the job done, but so long as it is more profitable
to sell fossil fuels for other types of consumption there will be little incentive to
invest in developing alternative technologies. From this perspective, high demand
for a commodity may actually be the undoing of the global economy.
These problems are part of what Marx called the contradictions of capitalism,
which he believed would lead to an inevitable crisis in capitalism and hence to a
socialist revolution. Ecological Marxists such as O’Connor (1988) hold out hope
that the ecological crisis resulting from capitalist expansion will prompt the types
of social transformations necessary to create an economy that is simultaneously
green and socialist. What this would amount to basically is people becoming
aware of the types of social and ecological exchanges that are occurring in the
black box of nature and the types of damage they cause. More immediately for
many people, another important question becomes, ‘What is it costing me?’
Bringing about this type of awareness is a special kind of challenge since it
requires people not only to see the connections between their consumption and
environmental problems, but also for them to conclude that it is in their own
interest to voluntarily reduce their consumption.
Another area of hope is that people will develop new types of environmental
sensibilities by identifying more strongly with nature and that these sensibilities
will be successfully promoted by the global conservation movement. But we must
appreciate the problems inherent here and the relationship of conservation and
ecotourism to the concepts of fetishization and the metabolic rift. As we saw in
Chapter 6, parks, as landscapes of consumption, operate according to similar
logics as the black box of productive nature. In this case, however, we are dealing
with the green box of consumptive nature (Figure 9.2). Like the black box of
productive nature, the green box of consumptive nature is a magic box. It is also
apparently disconnected from the rest of the world in terms of its social and
ecological costs, as well as its ecology in general. Animals, landscapes and
ecosystemic processes appear as though by magic, with no reference to the
historical ecological processes that allowed them to appear. As opposed to the
black box of productive nature, which is presented as having no ecological costs,
the green box of consumptive nature is presented as being immune from the types
of ecological impacts that capitalism is having on the wider world. As such, it can
be set aside for the purposes of science, to monitor and measure the ways in which
‘undisturbed’ nature works. It is also set aside for profits, since people will pay to
see this undisturbed nature. Increasingly, in doing so, they are led to believe that
they are doing their bit to protect the environment. They are protecting nature
through consumption; here again ecology is often conflated with a particular view.
Like the black box of productive nature, therefore, the green box of consumptive
nature is a for-profit box. Dollars are put in one end, in terms of investment, and
more dollars come out the other. Unlike the black box of productive nature,
however, which forbids people from seeing inside, the green box of consumptive
nature welcomes people in. Tourists enter the green box of nature along with
money, and ‘tourist prime’ come out the other end. ‘Tourist prime’ is an
individual who has been transformed by his or her passage through the green box
of consumptive nature. This transformation depends heavily on what she or he
has seen and experienced, which is in turn limited by the parameters of the box,
what it makes visible, and what it renders invisible.
THE ECOTOURIST BUBBLE

(Following Carrier and Macleod 2005)
THE
GREEN
BOX OF ,
1
TOURIST
$ CONSUMPTIVE
TOURIST
$2
NATURE
Figure 9.2 The ecotourism bubble and the green box of consumptive nature
Source: Following Carrier and Macleod, 2005.

190 NATURE UNBOUND
Carrier and Macleod’s idea of the ecotourism bubble, as outlined in Chapter 7,

is also an essential element of the green box of consumptive nature. As we
explained in Chapter 7, the tourist experience is an especially mediated
experience. Tourists pay to have particular experiences of people and places, and
tour companies and governments work hard to deliver those particular views
and experiences. Therefore, it is not enough to imagine tourism as taking place
inside a green magic box; the micro-management of tourists actually involves the
constant creation and maintenance of these views and experiences. Tourists
often do not connect their consumption of nature with the ecological costs of
burning jet fuel, or if they do the black box of productive nature allows them to
imagine that this problem can be resolved by paying a carbon offset. Tourists
also remain for the most part unaware of the social costs of the views that they
enjoy: what people were displaced to make this view possible and what were the
costs of this displacement to them. People who they meet in ‘cultural villages’ or
handicraft stands appear as though they were unproblematically waiting around for
their culture to be consumed. Ecotourists are also presented with nature in ways
that render invisible the temporal and spatial scopes of ecological processes.
This brief discussion suggests an alarming correspondence between the black
box of productive nature and the green box of consumptive nature: both function
to conceal the ecological connections of people’s daily consumptive practices.
Moreover, the green box of consumptive tourism also apparently absolves people
of responsibility for their consumptive practices. Marxist concepts of alienation,
fetishization and the metabolic rift are all useful for helping us to understand how
conservation in the context of liberal capitalism ironically often contributes to the
very types of relationships and processes that it seeks to mitigate. One of
conservation’s main challenges in this context, therefore, is to find innovative
ways of helping people see the ecology of their consumptive practices through
connections to the environment. This is a task that is rendered doubly difficult
by the transformations that have recently occurred in global capitalism, which we
will call ‘the neoliberal turn’.
Neoliberalism, disaster capitalism and the spectacle of nature

Marxist concepts of fetishization helps us to understand how liberal regimes of
both productive nature and consumptive nature construct a world of circulating
objects that appear divorced from the historical, political and ecological contexts
that produced them. The same is true of landscapes and environments consumed
by ecotourists and ecocapitalists. Recent years, however, have been dominated by
neoliberal capitalism. As the name suggests, neoliberal capitalism carries forward
key elements of liberal capitalism, most notably its emphasis on small states and
free markets. However, neoliberal capitalism also differs from liberal capitalism
quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, neoliberalism revolves around an
acceleration and proliferation of economic activity: a 24–7 business model, more
money in circulation, increased numbers of exchanges and parties to exchanges,

the proliferation of subcontracting and outsourcing, more commodities being
created and destroyed in order to generate increased demand, more consumers
being brought into the world economy, and more types of value being created
and circulated as broadly as possible (Urry and Lash, 1987; Appadurai, 1996;
Klein, 2007). These quantitative changes appear to have occurred, and continue
to be occurring, in spite of the impending crises in liberal capitalism predicted by
Marx and environmental Marxists (Menzies, 1989).
In order for these quantitative changes to be possible, qualitative changes also
had to take place. Some of these were similar to the types of changes that
accompanied the emergence of liberal capitalism in the late 19th century. These
19th-century changes revolved around the ascendancy of corporations and the
deregulation of trade in order to facilitate the spread of free markets. According
to Polanyi (2001 (1944)) the negative socio-economic consequences of these
transformations became so acute with the world depression of the 1930s that they
prompted the enlightened emergence of economic regulation, consumer
protection and the rise of the welfare state. This ‘great transformations’, started to
be ‘rolled back’ in the early 1980s. This is the period most commonly associated
with the rise of neoliberalism.
Peck and Tickell argue that while neoliberalism began with ‘rolling back’ the
welfare state and the regulation of corporations and commerce, it ultimately
advanced to the ‘rolling out’ of new types of states and governance (Peck and
Tickell, 2002). ‘Roll back’ neoliberalism of the 1980s is associated with the
downsizing of state bureaucracies, the deregulation of trade and industry, and the
restructuring of developing world economies by international financial
institutions in order to facilitate the spread of free market capitalism. By the
mid-1990s, however, most of this work had been effectively completed. Roll back
neoliberalism gradually shifted to ‘roll out’ neoliberalism. While roll back
neoliberalism revolved around the concept of deregulation, roll out neoliberalism
revolved around re-regulation – the use of newly emerging forms of ‘neoliberal
states’ to facilitate the transformation of previously untradable things and ideas
into commodities that are visible and tradable in the world capitalist economy
(McAfee, 1999; Castree, 2007a, b). As with liberal capitalism, these commodities
include things like natural resources and labour. As will be addressed in detail
below, however, they increasingly include new types of virtual commodities,
which are far less tangible but no less valuable.
Unfortunately, these transformations appear to mitigate the kinds of social
consciousness predicted by green Marxists like O’Connor by apparently
resolving the contradictions between economic growth and the protection of
nature. As Sklair has argued (2001), the job of resolving these contradictions has
been undertaken by what he labelled ‘the transnational capitalist class’. Members
of this class, he argues, collectively act to promote global economic growth based
on the ‘cultural-ideology of consumerism’, by colluding to offer solutions to the
192 NATURE UNBOUND
environmental crises inherent to global consumer capitalism, while

strengthening an consumerist ideology. The central message that members of
this class promote is that not only is consumption compatible with the
conservation of natural resources, it is actually essential to it. As such, members
of this transnational capitalist class direct the global spread of neoliberal
processes, but they simultaneously work to resolve the types of crises that Marx
and environmental Marxists believe to be inherent to global capitalism. As such,
it thus far appears that neoliberalism has been impervious to the kinds of shocks
and backlashes that plagued liberal capitalism in the mid-20th century.
In fact, Naomi Klein (2007) goes so far as to argue that the very crises created
by neoliberal capitalism themselves become commodities and opportunities for
profit. The political instability that has accompanied the spread of neoliberalism,
along with ‘natural disasters’, allows corporations, NGOs and governments to
pursue new types of revenues and profits. In a tragic contradiction to the
optimistic predictions of environmental Marxists, it appears that the more
politically and environmentally messed up the world becomes, the more that
neoliberalism will continue to thrive. The phenomenon of disaster capitalism can
be seen in both the day-to-day mundane and the more dramatic aspects of our
current environmental crisis.
The mundane aspects can be seen in the increased prominence of the idea of
‘mitigating services’, the idea that conservation can offset the ecological impacts
of economic growth, as we have seen in the discussion above of carbon offsetting.
A dramatic example of disaster capitalism can be seen in the destruction that
Hurricane Katrina wrought on the gulf coast of the US, which has meant boom
times for Home Depot, construction firms and private security companies
(Giroux, 2006). Perhaps most ironically, the suffering and displacement of local
people has been commoditized in the context of New Orleans’ tourist economy, as
‘devastation tours’ have become an increasingly popular part of the tourist
experience (Neves and Igoe, in production).
The value of these types of commodities depends a great deal on sophisticated
and deceptive representations of the world. This is the final major difference
between liberal capitalism and neoliberal capitalism. The hyper acceleration of
the world economy and the rise of disaster capitalism have been accompanied by
what Baudrillard (1981, 1993) calls the emergence of hyperreality. On a most
basic level hyperreality refers to the inability to distinguish imagination from
reality, in fact it involves the possibility of ‘knowing’ experience that one has
never had. In a world dominated by media and images we are presented with
what appears to be a coherent and neatly bound reality. Baudrillard takes this
argument even further, arguing that hyperreality is powerful because of the
resemblances that it bears to actual reality. The essential difference, however, is
that hyperreality presents a simulation of the world that is coherent and bounded
in ways that the real world could never be. People then view the real world
through the filter of these simulations, which has the effect of selectively bringing
forth the things in the real world that fit the logic of these simulations, while
concealing those aspects of the real world that do not fit. From this perspective,
actual reality appears as just another simulation, indistinguishable from all the
other simulations of it. As such, hyperreality begins to remake the world
according to its own logic.
In the realm of conservation, the effects of these hyperreal processes are visible
in new types of virtual consumption that actually transform the material world.
Authors such as Duffy (2002, 2004) and West and Carrier (2004) have shown
how tourists’ desires and expectations change the places they visit, reforming
them according to their visitors’ imaginations. They act, in other words as
virtualisms, which Carrier (1998) defines as models of reality that are ‘prescriptive
not descriptive’. When reality differs from the model, it is reality – not the model –
that is expected to change. More concretely, we can think of virtualisms as
collections of images, ideas, discourses and values that reproduce the material
world according to ways that they imagine it to be. West and Carrier (2004,
p485) observe that the image of natural environments that western ecotourists
expect to see is that of a nature ‘separate from and prior to humanity’, from which
people should be kept separate. Accordingly, meeting tourists’ needs often
requires removing people from nature or at least disciplining their activities
vis-à-vis natural resources and their interactions with tourists.
The power of international tour companies is such that they can effect
transformations in landscapes and the everyday lives of remote communities. As we
discussed previously, beaches are built, wildernesses are produced and wildlife
populations are actively managed to satisfy tourist imaginings of a truly ‘natural’
experience. Some examples of the power of tourism to delimit, define and discipline
everyday life and landscapes are quite extreme. Consider for example an eco-lodge
in the Chiang Mai area of northern Thailand. Lisu Lodge8 runs a profit sharing
scheme with the local Lisu community and has begun a reforestation project,
Himmapaan, which will allow tourists to care for and plant seedlings as part of their
vacation experience. These activities are to be promoted as a means by which
tourists can offset the carbon footprint of their holiday, but will obviously change
the landscape of the area earmarked for reforestation. Furthermore, the power of
the international tour companies in transforming the landscapes and lives of
communities around the lodge came into sharp focus during bird flu scares. The
tour operators needed to respond to queries and concerns of their customers about
what steps would be taken by their hotels and lodges to prevent the spread of bird
flu. The local communities, like many rural communities, had over 2000 chickens
running freely around the village. To satisfy the concerns of the international tour
operators the lodge asked the community to kill all the chickens, which they
(understandably) refused to do. A compromise was reached after discussions
between the lodge and community and the lodge paid to build three chicken coops
one kilometre from the village. All the chickens were caught and placed in the coops
for five months until Thailand was declared safe from bird flu.
194 NATURE UNBOUND
We take this argument further: virtualisms remake the environment even in the
absence of tourists. In turning their expectant gaze on protected areas,
conservation NGOs, donors and their corporate sponsors apply similar virtualisms
of nature to the places they seek to protect, and with similar results. Protected areas
and their associated virtualisms are part of a global economy of images, which
extends far beyond the reach of mere tourist receipts and specific tracts of land.
Sometimes the images are commodities in themselves (Ansel Adams prints,
costing $225 individually) or in coffee table books and postcards.9 But more
pervasively, they are produced or purchased by other organizations as part of
larger projects. Images of conserved nature on credit cards, or company calendars,
in television adverts, in posters and glossy brochures all proclaim individuals’,
companies’ and organizations’ stewardship over nature. This is not a new thing.
Edward Abbey commented on it in his fictional account The Monkey Wrench
Gang (1975):
He watched the news. Same as yesterday’s. The General Crisis

coming along nicely. Nothing new except the commercials full of sly
art and eco-porn. Scenes of the Louisiana bayous, strange birds in
slow-motion flight, cypress trees bearded with Spanish moss. Above
the primeval scene the voice of Power spoke, reeking with sincerity,
in praise of itself, the Exxon Oil Company – its tidiness, its
fastidious care for all things wild, its concern for human needs.
But since Abbey wrote, the economy of images has proliferated through the
multiplication of magazines, cable and satellite television and the growth of the
internet and the emergence and expansion of markets for these media globally.
Protected areas and conservation work therefore are not just consumed when
tourists visit them. Rather, they become part of what Debord (1995 (1967))
referred to as Spectacle. Guy Debord, who in turn influenced Baudrillard, applied
Marx’s ideas of alienation and fetishization to images and imagination. Accordingly,
he argued that Spectacle was alienated experience achieved through the fetishization
of images. Through mass media, people were presented with collections of images
removed from the social and political context of their production, such that they
mistook these imaginary images for the real. Significantly, Debord argued that
Spectacle encouraged the consumption of commodities, but was also a commodity
in and of itself, which people would pay to consume.
The commodification of nature as virtualism and Spectacle has profound
socio-ecological implications. Spectacle, as defined by Debord, is self-referential;
in Gregory Bateson terms, it is a ‘closed dialectic loop’. In such a loop, two ideas
and or processes are in dialogue with little or no reference to external information
(Bateson and Bateson, 1988). In our case, virtualisms of wilderness inform the
creation of protected areas (cf. West and Carrier, 2004). As this occurs, an
iterative process develops. The images and ideas of these landscapes become the
source for the production of more virtualisms. These virtualisms in turn become
the source for the production of more ‘wilderness’ landscapes. The dialogues
occurring between these landscapes and the virtualisms that informed their
production become increasingly impervious to ideas and arguments that are not
derived from the realities they describe and prescribe. In this context, protected
areas become hyperreal spaces, in which the lines between western fantasies about
nature and actual experiences of nature become dangerously blurred (Baudrillard,
1993).10 They simultaneously facilitate the production of a ‘Spectacle of Nature’
that circulates in the global consumer economy.
These processes have effects that are more insidious and potentially devastating
than the black box and green box of liberal capitalism. Increasingly, the
ascendancy of images and virtual consumption has facilitated what Tsing (2004)
calls spectacular accumulation, in which images and ideas are used to mobilize
resources through transnational networks of people, most of whom are not even
aware of each other’s existence. These resources may be mobilized for profit or
other causes. Specifically she shows how the idea of frontiers and rugged
individualism were used to fire the imagination of Canadian investors to invest
in gold prospecting in Indonesia. The mining company was successful in
mobilizing significant investment, though the no gold was ever found.
Spectacular accumulation is also visible in the ways in which mainstream
conservation operates in the context of global neoliberalism by inviting people to
identify with particular environments and to associate those environments with
particular products, experiences and celebrities. For instance, The 2004
newsletter of the African Wildlife Fund (AWF) features a photograph of CEO
Patrick Bergin with Burton Robbins of the popular ‘reality’ show SURVIVOR
Pearl Islands. A banner at the bottom of the same page proclaims: ‘the AWF and
Starbucks Team Up for Africa!’ Text in the box below encourages readers to visit
a website where they can sign up for the Starbucks Duetto Visa Card. With their
first purchase on the card, $5 is donated to the AWF.11 Conversely, consumers can
sign up for an AWF platinum visa card, featuring ‘a magnificent elephant with
ears extended, a giraffe with spectacular Mt. Kilimanjaro as its backdrop, or a
pensive mountain gorilla looking right at you’.12 When the cardholder makes a
purchase – of a Starbuck’s latte for instance – a percentage of that purchase goes
to the AWF. Meanwhile the AWF and Starbucks are ‘blending coffee with
conservation’ in Kenya’s Samburu heartland to help bring small-scale coffee
farmers into the market and out of elephant corridors.13
As the name suggests, spectacular accumulation revolves centrally around
spectacle as both a commodity and a means of selling other commodities. In this
way, as Debord (1995 (1967)) argued, it conditions people to be passive, while
teaching them that the only viable path to action and efficacy is through
consumption. People can consume ‘the Spectacle of Nature’ from a hot air balloon
above the Serengeti, at Disney’s Animal Kingdom Lodge, at the Rainforest Café,
in an IMAX theatre, or sitting in their living room watching ‘Critter Cam’ on Wild
196 NATURE UNBOUND
Chronicles sponsored by National Geographic and the World Wildlife Fund.14 All
of these experiences are commodities in themselves. Through the spread of
ecotourism and protected areas they facilitate an ever widening flow of money,
images and values and bring more and more of the planet’s surface into the ambit
of consumptive experiences and the production of more valuable spectacle. As we
have already seen above, these spectacular commodities can be used to sell lots of
other commodities such as coffee, Disney merchandise, compact discs, SUVs,
gasoline and jet fuel. They can also be used for green public image enhancement
for corporations such as Exxon, following the Valdez oil spill (Dowie, 1996) and
Dow Chemicals, experiencing renewed pressure for the methyl isocyanate spill
that killed over 3000 people in Bhopal India in 1984 (Fortun, 2001).15
The Spectacle of Nature also teaches consumers that their only course of ethical
environmental action is through consumption that supports the work of more
qualified people to save the world. Sting and Mike Fay will save the rainforest.
Oprah and Bono will save the people of Africa. Sean Penn will save the people of
New Orleans. As part of their purchased experience, visitors to Disney’s Animal
Kingdom can enjoy the spectacle of ‘the vet team on stage’. Visitors are able to
watch through glass and ask questions, while Disney vets perform examinations
on exotic animals using high-tech equipment and educating viewers about the
importance of their efforts to the future of global ecosystems (Stevens, 2005,
p16). Animal Kingdom ‘cast members’ also travel to different parts of the world
as part of conservation expeditions.16 When visitors stay at the Animal Kingdom
Lodge, simulacra of luxury lodges in African parks, they are encouraged to make
a contribution to the Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund, which funds expert
wildlife researchers and organizations like the AWF to continue protecting nature
and wildlife on their behalf.17
Helping people and the environment in this context becomes a simple
proposition. The AWF’s ‘engaging you’ web page presents a variety of ways that
individuals can help, all of which involve giving money so experts can fix the
problem. Through images they can connect special people in their lives, living and
deceased, to people and wildlife in Africa who are the putative beneficiaries of their
largesse and who most of them will never see in real life. They can choose between
protecting wild animals, protecting wild lands or empowering African people. At
the ‘adopt an animal’ website they are presented with a gallery of African animals
with names and personalities like the characters in Disney’s Lion King. Auntie
Botha is a lioness who ‘adopted’ two cubs when their parents were killed by poison.
‘Charles, a wise mountain gorilla’ is devoted to the safety of his family. To adopt one
of these virtual animals, a person puts it into her/his virtual shopping cart, enters a
series of numbers representing virtual value into a website, and then s/he presses a
virtual button. A short time later the person receives a certificate of adoption, a fact
sheet about her/his adopted animal, and a plush toy representing the adopted
animal. The donation, minus the value of the plush toy, is tax deductible.18
The problem with this ‘spectacular’ approach to fundraising is that the same
images and distances that make it seem easy to save the world without
compromising one’s standard of living work to conceal the complicated
relationships and problems that are part of global neoliberalism. As Baudrillard
(1993) argues about the first Gulf War, it becomes impossible for the consumer
to evaluate whether the images that s/he sees on the AWF website really
correspond to actual people, places and animals. Even if they do, they present
such a limited representation of those people, places and animals without
reference to the social and ecological complexity in which they exist. Moreover,
it is equally impossible for them to know what happens to their money and
whether or not it actually goes to protect Auntie Botha and her cubs, improve the
lives of Maasai women, preserve a particular landscape. The fantasy of
conservation in this context becomes as much of a commodity as any other, as
the person’s donation or purchase bears no clearly verifiable relationship to the
nature that the consumer believes that she or he is saving.
These emerging forms of commercially mediated relationships and experiences
are exemplary of the ways in which Sklair’s ‘sustainable development historical bloc’
relies on and facilitates the circulation of images, ideas and value. This ideally
unfettered circulation depends on and reproduces a worldview in which
conservation and consumption are not only seen as compatible but mutually
dependent on one another. The global economy of images and signs, of which it is
a part, is essential to both hyper-consumption on a global scale, the consolidation
of mainstream conservation by a handful of mega-conservation NGOs, and the
recent and rapid proliferation of the global protected area estate. This global
economy of images and signs, as it is circulated through the Spectacle of Nature and
the hyperrealities it produces, conceals the production and reproduction of global
inequalities, while failing to address the root causes of the environmental problems
with which the conservation movement is so justifiably concerned. Finally, and
most importantly, this makes it exceedingly difficult to imagine and execute
solutions to these problems that are simultaneously effective and equitable.
Conclusion
We believe that Marx was correct that liberal capitalism alienated people from the
environment in ways that ecological connections were no longer evident to them.
We further agree that these disconnections have been greatly exacerbated and
intensified in the context of neoliberalism. While environmental crises may still
have the potential to spark environmental movements as predicted by ecological
Marxists, in the neoliberal context they have also become commodities and
opportunity for profit. Unfortunately, mainstream conservation is also implicated
in these processes, which has profound implications for the protection of nature
and biodiversity conservation into the future.
198 NATURE UNBOUND
A counter argument to this position is that conservationists did not create these
conditions, but must still contend with them and so creatively engage with
corporations to raise money to protect nature and to help encourage corporations
to be green. The problem with this argument, as we have seen in this conclusion,
is that it assumes a separation that does not really exist. Mainstream conservation
has never stood outside of these processes.
As the anthropologist Gregory Bateson (1979) frequently opined, what really
matters are not objects but relationships between living entities. As all good
ecologists understand, relationships are essential to the functioning of healthy
ecosystems. Furthermore, if we consider humans as part of these systems,
integrated at different spatial and temporal scale (Neves-Graca, 2004), then
debates over the relative primacy of politics versus ecology (Peet and Watts, 1996;
Vayda and Walters, 1999), people versus the environment, poverty alleviation
versus biodiversity conservation, become less compelling if not counterproductive.
In fact the lines between the social sciences and the environmental sciences appear
increasingly artificial (Neves-Graca, 2003).
The intensified circulation of ideas and images over ever greater distances,
which we have described in this article, makes the patterns of our interactions
with nature even more difficult to discern. For example Neves-Graca’s work
(2004, 2006, 2007b) compares the aesthetics of attachment necessary to Bateson’s
holistic ecology with a prevailing aesthetic of detachment. She highlights the
processes that contribute to the ‘iconification’ of ecosystems by presenting them
as things instead of complex flows of information. From this perspective, the
current proliferation of protected areas and their associated virtualisms contribute
to this ‘iconification’ by presenting ecosystems as fragmented snapshots of the
environments at stake. These snapshots are literally created through the physical
enclosures and human displacements that the creation of protected areas entails,
but they are also virtually created by the conceptual enclosures of nature and
natural systems. These enclosures are represented in maps, fund-raising literature,
ecotourist experiences, and all the kinds of spectacular virtualisms outlined in the
previous section. True to the Marxist concept of fetishization, the resulting
knowledge is presented as an object, rather than as a process. It is bracketed in
time and in space and therefore does not account for the temporal and spatial
complexity of living ecosystems (Neves-Graca, 2004, 2007a).
The aesthetic of the Spectacle of Nature dissects reality into autonomous units
such that relationships between cause and effect are lost or at least radically
simplified (Neves-Graca 2007b, 2009). In this mental mapping of the world it is
normal for people to have ‘green sensibilities’ and a strong commitment to social
justice, while consistently doing things that are bad for the environment and that
perpetuate inequality and human suffering on a global scale. Here ‘the patterns
that connect’ are rendered invisible (Neves-Graca, 2006). Individuals may feel
connected to the environment by pushing a virtual button to ‘adopt’ a lion on the
other side of the world, but they will have a much more difficult time seeing the
ways in which their lives are implicated in the problems they are trying to solve
by pushing that button, and the types of patterns and relationships that are
rendered invisible by the positivist spin of mainstream conservation.
We are not arguing that an aesthetic of attachment is more ‘authentic’ than an
aesthetic of detachment. We are mindful of Carrier’s (2003, p20) argument that
people are able to think in creative ways about their place in the world, even the
absence of ‘direct, practical engagement’ with their surroundings, and that a
broad ‘diversity of understandings of and engagements with the surrounding
(can) exist within a single social group and even a single individual’. In spite of
this diversity, however, there is nevertheless a disturbing pattern of socio-
ecological relationships that are emerging in the context of mainstream
conservation’s continued convergence with global neoliberal consumer
capitalism. The pattern revolves around an aesthetic of detachment in which
ecosystems are being fragmented (both literally and figuratively) and consumed
as material and virtual commodities. In these circumstances it is not surprising
that trends of visits to national parks and other activities involving engaging with
nature outdoors shows a steady decline in advanced economies over the last few
years (Pergams and Zaradic, 2008). Nor is it at all surprising that this decline is
well correlated with videophilia, a sedentary lifestyle based on consuming images
(Pergams and Zaradic, 2006; Zaradic and Pergams, 2007).
How we are to realize this vision of more holistic and diverse approaches to
conservation is a challenge to which there is no simple solution. The types of
connections and relationships we are talking about have been disrupted by the
global emergence of liberal capitalism and later neoliberal capitalism. At the same
time, these approaches to running the world have proven themselves harmful to
both the environment and human livelihoods. In short, we are in need of
alternatives, but because of the extent and influence of capitalist systems there are
few alternatives to draw from. Marx’s vision of a world society of utopian
communism is, at best, naive. Even O’Connor’s hope that the ecological crises of
late capitalism will spark social movements leading us to ecological socialism
appears overly optimistic in the context of neoliberalism and disaster capitalism.
Considering these apparently overwhelming difficulties, it may be that
mainstream conservation is the best bet that we have for the future of our planet.
And yet as Dowie (forthcoming) and Adams (2004) point out, our greatest losses
in terms of species extinction and biodiversity are occurring at a time when
mainstream conservation has been making monumental strides in funding,
influence and extending the world’s protected area estate to over 12 per cent of
the planet’s surface, an area roughly equivalent to the continent of Africa. It is not
clear to what extent more resources for the conservation mainstream will help it
to become more effective.
Fortunately, there are many solutions out there. They just need to be discovered,
illuminated and built upon in creative and innovative ways. In writing about the
ongoing positive alliances between Conservation International (CI) and the
200 NATURE UNBOUND
Kayapo Indians of Brazil for instance, Mark Dowie (forthcoming) explains that
this alliance is unique because it is based on relationships of affection and affinity
that are direct and personal. Barbara Zimmerman, the mediator between CI and
the Kayapo, has worked among the Kayapo for ten years, speaks their language
fluently, and maintains fictive familial relationships within Kayapo society. As a
result of her influence, CI invited a Kayapo chief to join its board as the first ever
indigenous representative on the board of a conservation BINGO.
In the course of our collective fieldwork we have all encountered many such
examples of individuals building such connections and relationships to produce
workable conservation solutions in defiance of the general trend. Many cases such
as these exist throughout the realm of international conservation and
international development. They also exist in myriad other contexts such as
indigenous societies, social movements, private enterprise and the like. What they
will all share in common is an emphasis on connections and relationships
between human beings, as well as between humans and non-humans, rather than
a focus on objects. These relationships and connections are flexible and specific,
as opposed to rigid and universalizing, while also being pragmatic and effective.
They also involve people creating new types of values and aesthetics and
accepting direct and personal responsibility for socio-environmental problems.
The outcomes of these types of engagements and processes and relationships
are unpredictable, and therefore never uniform or universalizing. They foster
what Dowie (forthcoming) calls ‘vital diversities’, multitude ways of seeing and
interacting with the planet and each other, which could stand in direct contrast
to the types of homogenizing and alienating processes that have so alarmed
theorists like Marx, Debord and Baudrillard.
We are still a long way from making these types of solutions visible and
acceptable. However, we hope that this book has shown both some possibilities
for fostering these types of solutions, as well as the potential costs of not doing
so. While this sort of perspective, and the agendas for research and action that it
implies, is frequently portrayed as hostile to conservation and romanticizing of
local people, it is actually neither of these things. Rather it is inspired by a broader
vision of seeking to understand ‘patterns that connect’ in ways that might
contribute to new types of human–environmental relational aesthetics that foster
new types of ecological and ethical sensitivity that, in turn, may promote
increased commitment to ecosystems and to the people who live within them.
Notes
1 www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/
2007/NickSternLectures.htm (accessed 4 January 2008).
2 www.aep.com/environmental/conservation/reforestation/rainforest.htm (accessed
4 January 2008).
3 www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2006/12/29/insideout_100107_feature.
shtml (accessed 4 January 2008).
4 www.cdmgoldstandard.org/about_goldstandard.php?id=16 (accessed 4 January

2008).
5 www.ccafrica.com/reserve-1-id-2-5 (accessed 29 December 2007).
6 www.surgeon-and-safari.co.za/safaris/safaris_bush.html (accessed 29 December 2007).
7 www.tswalu.com/ (accessed 29 December 2007).
8 www.lisulodge.com (accessed 16 March 2008).
9 www.anseladams.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=9 (accessed
18 March 2008).
10 Western visions of nature are not monolithic. Nevertheless, the wilderness ideal
has been exported to much of the world to create what Nugent (1994) has termed
‘ecodomains’: putative a-social landscapes that loom large in the Western
imagination such as the Amazon Rainforest, the Serengeti Plain and the
Himalayas. As lucrative tourist resorts, these landscapes have become hyperreal
in the manner outlined above.
11 www.awf.org/documents/SUMMER04.pdf (accessed 28 June 2007).
12 www.awf.org/section/engaging_you/getcc (accessed 28 June 2007).
13 www.awf.org/content/solution/detail/3372 (accessed 28 June 2007). A recent
report from the Kenya Daily Standard indicates that coffee farmers are not happy
with this arrangement www.eastandard.net/archives/cl/hm_news/news.php?
articleid=1143961897 (accessed 28 June 2007).
14 www.worldwildlife.org/wildchronicles/ (accessed 28 June 2007).
15 This is clearly illustrated in Dow’s Human Element Campaign, which can be
viewed at www.dow.com/Hu/ (accessed 18 February 2008). Human element
adverts ran on national television in the US during major sporting events,
although Dow sells no retail consumer products.
16 www.wdwpublicaffairs.com/ContentDrillDown.aspx?DisplayItem=6bcc53c7-f43d-
48d0-8049-ccdccb2775fe (accessed 28 June 2007).
17 www.wdwnews.com/ViewPressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=99937 (accessed 28
June 2007). www.awf.org/content/headline/detail/1171 (accessed 28 June 2007).
18 www.eastandard.net/archives/cl/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143961897
(accessed 28 June 2007).
Reference.qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page 203
References
Abbey, E. (1975) The Monkey Wrench Gang. New York: Avon Books, Harper Collins
Abbott-Cone, C. (1995) ‘Crafting selves: The lives of two Mayan women’. Annals of
Tourism Research 22: 314–327
Adams, J. S. and McShane, T. O. (1992) The Myth of Wild Africa. Conservation Without
Illusion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
Adams, W. M. (1986) Nature’s Place. Conservation Sites and Countryside Change.
London: Allen & Unwin
Adams, W. M. (1996) Future Nature: A Vision for Conservation. London: Earthscan
Adams, W. M. (2004) Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation. London: Earthscan
Adams, W. M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, R.,
Vira, B. and Wolmer, W. (2004) ‘Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of
poverty’. Science 306: 1146–1149
Agrawal, A. (2001) ‘Common property institutions and sustainable governance of
resources’. World Development 29(10): 1648–1672
Agrawal, A. (2003) ‘Sustainable governance of common-pool resources: Context,
methods, and politics’. Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 243–262
Agrawal, A. (2005) ‘Environmentality. Community, intimate government, and the
making of environmental subjects in Kumaon, India’. Current Anthropology 46(5):
161–190
Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. C. (1999) ‘Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of
community in natural resource conservation’. World Development 27(4): 629–649
Agrawal, A. and Ostrom, E. (2001) ‘Collective action, property rights, and
decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal’. Politics and Society 29: 485–514
Agrawal, A. and Redford, K. (2007) ‘Conservation and displacement: An overview’.
In K. H. Redford and E. Fearn (eds) Protected Areas and Human Displacement: A
Conservation Perspective. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society
Alcorn, J. B. (1993) ‘Indigenous peoples and conservation’. Conservation Biology 7(2):
424–426
Alexander, J. and McGregor, J. (2000) ‘Wildlife and politics: CAMPFIRE in
Zimbabwe’. Development and Change 31: 605–627
Ali, S. (2007) Peace Parks Conservation and Conflict Resolution. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press
Allen, H. (1981) ‘Against waking the rainbow serpent’. Arena 59(2): 25–42
Alvard, M. S. (1993) ‘Testing the “ecologically noble savage” hypothesis: Interspecific
prey choice by Piro hunters of Amazonian Peru’. Human Ecology 21(4): 355–387
Alvard, M. S. (1995) ‘Intraspecific prey choice by Amazonian hunters’. Current
Anthropology 36(5): 789–818
Alvard, M. S., Robinson, J. G., Redford, K. H. and Kaplan, H. (1997) ‘The sustainability
of subsistence hunting in the neotropics’. Conservation Biology 11(4): 977–982
Amend, S. and Amend, T. (1995) National Parks Without People? The South American
Experience. Gland: IUCN
204 NATURE UNBOUND
Amsden, A. (1990) ‘Third world industrialization: Global Fordism or a new model?’.

New Left Review 182: 5–32
Anderson, D.G. (2001) ‘Hunting caribou and hunting tradition: Aboriginal identity and
economy in Canada and Siberia’. In D. G. Anderson and K. Ikeya (eds) Parks,
Property and Power: Managing Hunting Practice and Identity within State Policy Regimes
Senri Ethnological Studies no 59. pp7–25. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology
Anderson, D. G. and Berglund, E. (2003) Ethnographies of Conservation.
Environmentalism and the Distribution of Privilege. New York: Bergahn Books
Anderson, D. M. and Grove, R. (1987) Conservation in Africa. People, Policies and
Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Anderson, J., Rowcliffe, J. M. and Cowlishaw, G. (2007) ‘Does the matrix matter? A forest
primate in a complex agricultural landscape’. Biological Conservation 135(2): 212–222
Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press
Appadurai, A. (2004) ‘The capacity to aspire. Culture and the terms of recognition’. In
V. Rao and M. Walton (eds) Culture and Public Action. pp59–84. California:
Stanford University Press
Ashenafi, Z., Coulson, T., Sillero-Zubiri, C. and Leader-Williams, N. (2005)
‘Behaviour and ecology of the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis) in a human-dominated
landscape outside protected areas’. Animal Conservation 8: 113–121
Austral Foundation, The (2007) Review and Analysis of Fiji’s Conservation Sector.
Waitakere City: The Austral Foundation
Azcarate, M. C. (2007) ‘Between local and global discourses and practices rethinking
ecotourism development in Celestún Yucatán México’. Journal of Ecotourism 5(1,2):
97–111
Baillie, J. E. M., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S. N. (2004) 2004 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species (TM). A Global Species Assessment. Gland: IUCN
Baland, J. M. and Platteau, J. P. (1996) Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is
There a Role for Local Communities?. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Ballantine, J. L. and Eagles, P. F. J. (1994) ‘Defining Canadian ecotourists’. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 2: 210–214
Balmford, A. (1996) ‘Extinction filters and current resilience: The significance of past
selection pressures for conservation biology’. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11(5):
193–196
Balmford, A., Green, R. E. and Jenkins, M. (2003a) ‘Measuring the changing state of
nature’. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18(7): 326–330
Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., Blyth, S., James, A. and Kapos, V. (2003b) ‘Global
variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet
conservation needs’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America 100(3): 1046–1050
Balmford, A., Crane, P., Dobson, A., Green, R. E. and Mace, G. (2005a) ‘The 2010
challenge: Data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights’.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 221–228
Balmford, A, Green, R. E. and Scharlemann, J. P. W. (2005b) ‘Sparing land for nature:
Exploring the potential impact of changes in agricultural yield on the area needed for
crop production’. Global Change Biology 11: 1594–1605
REFERENCES 205
Balmford, A. and Whitten, T. (2003) ‘Who should pay for tropical conservation, and
how could these costs be met?’. Oryx 37(2): 238–250
Barnes, J. I., MacGregor, J. and Weaver, L. C. (2002) ‘Economic efficiency and
incentives for change with Namibia’s community wildlife use initiatives’. World
Development 30(4): 667–681
Barnosky, A. D., Koch, P. L., Feranec, R. S., Wing, S. L. and Shabel, A. B. (2004)
‘Assessing the causes of Late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents’. Science
306(5693): 70–75
Barrett, C. B. and Arcese, P. (1995) ‘Are integrated conservation–development projects
(IDCPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa’.
World Development 23: 1073–1084
Barrow, E. and Fabricius, C. (2002) ‘Do rural people really benefit from protected
areas – rhetoric or reality?’ Parks 12: 67–79
Barrow, E. and Murphree, M. (2002) ‘Community conservation from concept to
practice: A practical framework’. Community Conservation Research in Africa
Principles and Comparative Practice Working Paper No. 8. Manchester: IDPM
Barthes, R. (2000 (1957)) Mythologies. London: Vintage
Bateson, G. (1979) Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. Dutton: New York
Bateson, G. and Bateson, M. (1988) Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred.
New York: Bantam Books
Baudrillard, J. (1981) Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press
Baudrillard, J. (1993) Symbolic Exchange and Death. London: Sage Publications
Bebbington, A. J. (2004) ‘NGOs and uneven development: Geographies of
development intervention’. Progress in Human Geography 28(6): 725–745
Bebbington, A. J., Hickey, S. and Mitlin, D. C. (2007) Can NGOs Make a Difference?
The Challenge of Development Alternatives. London: ZED
Bedunah, D. J. and Schmidt, S. M. (2004) ‘Pastoralism and protected area
management in Mongolia’s Gobi Gurvansaikhan National Park’. Development and
Change 35(1): 167–191
Bennett, E. L. (2002) ‘Is there a link between wild meat and food security?’.
Conservation Biology 16(3): 590–592
Bennett, E. L., Blencowe, E., Brandon, K., Brown, D., Burn, R. W., Cowlishaw, G.,
Davies, G., Dublin, H., Fa, J. E., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Robinson, J. G., Rowcliffe,
J. M., Underwood, F. M. and Wilkie, D. S. (2007) ‘Hunting for consensus:
Reconciling bushmeat harvest, conservation, and development policy in west and
central Africa’. Conservation Biology 21(3): 884–887
Benton, T. (2006) Bumblebees. London: Harper Collins
Berkes, F. (1989) Common Property Resources. Ecology and Community-based Sustainable
Development. London: Belhaven Press
Berkes, F. (1999) Sacred Ecology. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource
Management. London: Taylor and Francis
Beteille, A. (1998) ‘The idea of indigenous people’. Current Anthropology 39(2):
187–191
Bhomia, R. K. and Brockington, D. (2006) ‘Conservation: pride or prejudice? An
analysis of the protected areas of India’. Policy Matters 14: 142–154
206 NATURE UNBOUND
Bianchi, R. (2004) ‘Tourism restructuring and the politics of sustainability. A critical

view from the European periphery: The Canary Islands’. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 126: 495–529
Bianco, M. and Alder, S. (2001) ‘The politics of implimentation: The corporatist
paradigm applied to the implementation of Oregon’s statewide transportation
planning rule’. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21(1): 5–16
Bishop, K., Dudley, N., Phillips, A. and Stolton, S. (2004) Speaking a Common
Language. The Uses and Performance of the IUCN System of Management Categories
for Protected Areas. Cardiff: Cardiff University; IUCN; UNEP-WCMC
Blomely, T. and Ramadhani, H. (2006) ‘Going to scale with participatory forest
management: Early lessons from Tanzania’. International Forestry Review 8(1): 93–100
Bodmer, R. E., Eisenberg, J. F. and Redford, K. H. (1997) ‘Hunting and the likelihood
of extinction of Amazonian mammals’. Conservation Biology 11(2): 460–466
Bodmer, R. E. and Lozano, E. P. (2001) ‘Rural development and sustainable wildlife
use in Peru’. Conservation Biology 15(4): 1163–1170
Bolaane, M. (2004a) ‘The impact of game reserve policy on the River
BaSarwa/Bushmen of Botswana’. Social Policy and Administration 38(4): 399–417
Bolaane, M. (2004b) ‘Wildlife conservation and local management: The establishment
of the Moremi Park, Okavango, Botswana in the 1950s–1960s’. D.Phil, Oxford
University
Bolaane, M. (2005) ‘Chiefs, hunters and adventurers: The foundation of the
Okavango/Moremi National Park, Botswana’. Journal of Historical Geography 31:
241–259
Bonner, R. (1993) At the Hand of Man. Peril and Hope for Africa’s Wildlife. London:
Simon and Schuster
Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: The Potentials and the Pitfalls Vols 1 and 2. Washington DC:
WWF
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. and Coppolillo, P. (2005) Conservation. Linking Ecology,
Economics and Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Borner, M. (1985) ‘The increasing isolation of Tarangire National Park’. Oryx 19:
91–96
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Banuri, T., Farvar, T., Miller, K. and Phillips, A. (2002)
‘Indigenous and local communities and protected areas: Rethinking the relationship’.
Parks 12: 5–15
Bottrill, C. G. (1995) ‘Ecotourism: Towards a key elements approach to
operationalising the concept’. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3: 45–54
Boza, M. A. (1993) ‘Conservation in action: Past, present and future of the national
park system of Costa Rica’. Conservation Biology 7(2): 239–247
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2001) Editorial. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(1): 1–3
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2005) ‘From niche to general relevance? Sustainable
tourism research and the role of tourism journals’. The Journal of Tourism Studies
16(2): 52–62
Brandon, K. (1998) ‘Perils to parks: The social context of threats’. In K. Brandon,
K. H. Redford and S. E. Sanderson (eds) Parks in Peril. People, Politics and Protected
Areas. Washington DC: The Nature Conservancy
Brandon, K., Redford, K. H. and Sanderson, S. E. (1998) Parks in Peril. People, Politics
and Protected Areas. Washington DC: The Nature Conservancy
REFERENCES 207
Brashares, J. S., Arcese, P., Sam, M. K., Coppolillo, P. B., Sinclair, A. R. E. and
Balmford, A. (2004) ‘Bushmeat hunting, wildlife declines, and fish supply in West
Africa’. Science 306(5699): 1180–1183
Brechin, S. R., Wilshusen, P. R., Fortwangler, C. L. and West, P. C. (2003) Contested
Nature. Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty-first
Century. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press
Brockington, D. (2002) Fortress Conservation. The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game
Reserve, Tanzania. Oxford: James Currey
Brockington, D. (2003) ‘Myths of sceptical environmentalism’. Environmental Science
and Policy 6: 543–546
Brockington, D. (2004) ‘Community conservation, inequality and injustice. Myths of
power in protected area management’. Conservation and Society 2(2): 411–432
Brockington, D. (2006) ‘The politics and ethnography of environmentalisms in
Tanzania’. African Affairs 105(418): 97–116
Brockington, D. (2007) ‘Devolution, community conservation and forests. On local
government performance and village forest reserves in Tanzania’. Society and Natural
Resources 20: 835–848
Brockington, D. (2008) ‘Corruption, taxation, democracy and natural resource
management in Tanzania’. Journal of Development Studies 44(1): 103–126
Brockington, D. and Igoe, J. (2006) ‘Eviction for conservation. A global overview’.
Conservation and Society 4(3): 424–470
Brockington, D. and Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2004) ‘The social and environmental impacts
of wilderness and development’. Oryx 38(2): 140–142
Brohman, J. (1996) ‘New directions in tourism for Third World development’. Annals
of Tourism Research 23: 48–70
Bromely, D. W. and Cernea, M. M. (1989) The Management of Common Property
Resources. Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies. Washington DC: The World Bank
Brook, B. W., Burney, D. A., Flannery, T. F., Gagan, M. K., Gillespie, R., Johnson, C. N.,
Kershaw, P., Magee, J. W., Martin, P. S., Miller, G. H., Peiser, B. and Roberts, R. G.
(2007) ‘Would the Australian megafauna have become extinct if humans had never
colonized the continent? Comments on “A review of the evidence of a human role in
the extinction of Australian megafauna and an alternative explanation”, by S. Wroe
and F. Field’. Quaternary Science Reviews 26(3–4): 560–564
Brooks, S. (2005) ‘Images of “Wild Africa”: Nature tourism and the (re)creation of
Hluhluwe game reserve, 1930–1945’. Journal of Historical Geography 31: 220–240
Brooks, T. and Balmford, A. (1996) ‘Atlantic forest extinctions’. Nature 380(6570): 115
Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Rylands,
A. B., Konstant, W. R., Flick, P., Pilgrim, J., Oldfield, S., Magin, G. and Hilton-
Taylor, C. (2002) ‘Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity’.
Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M.,
Lamoreux, J. F., Mittermeier, C. G., Pilgrim, J. D. and Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2006)
‘Global biodiversity conservation priorities’. Science 313(5783): 58–61
Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L. and Collar, N. J. (1997) ‘Deforestation predicts the number
of threatened birds in insular southeast Asia’. Conservation Biology 11(2): 382–394
208 NATURE UNBOUND
Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L. and Oyugi, J. O. (1999) ‘Time lag between deforestation and
bird extinction in tropical forest fragments’. Conservation Biology 13(5): 1140–1150
Brosius, J. P. (2006) ‘Common round between anthropology and conservation biology’.
Brown, J. H. (1995) Macroecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Brummitt, N. and Lughadha, E. N. (2003) ‘Biodiversity: Where’s hot and where’s not’.
Bruner, A. G., Gullison, E., Rice, R. E. and da Fonseca, G. A. B. (2001a) ‘Effectiveness
of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity’. Science 291(5501): 125–128
Bruner, A. G., Gullison, E., Rice, R. E. and da Fonseca, G. A. B. (2001b) ‘Response to
Vanclay’. Science 293: 1007a
Bryant, D., Nielsen, D. and Tangley, L. (1997) Last Frontier Forests. Washington DC:
World Resources Institute
Bryman, A. (2002) ‘McDonalds as a Disneyfied institution’. In G. Ritzer (ed)
McDonaldization: The Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, pp54–69
Buergin, R. (2003) ‘Shifting frames for local people and forests in a global heritage: The
Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary in the context of Thailand’s globalization
and modernization’. Geoforum 24: 375–393
Buergin, R. and Kessler, Chr. (2000) ‘Intrusions and exclusions: Democratization in
Thailand in the context of environmental discourses and resource conflicts’.
Geojournal 52(1): 71–80
Bulbeck, C. (2005) Facing the Wild Ecotourism Conservation and Animal Encounters.
London: Earthscan
Burger, J. (1987) Report From the Frontier: The State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.
London: Zed Books
Burgman, M. A. (2002) ‘Are listed threatened plant species actually at risk?’. Australian
Journal of Botany 50(1): 1–13
Burnham, P. (2000) Indian Country God’s Country: Native Americans and National
Parks. Washington DC: Island Press
Büscher, B. and Dressler, W. (2007) ‘Linking neoprotectionism and environmental
governance: On the rapidly increasing tensions between actors in environment–
development nexus’. Conservation and Society 5(4): 596–611
Butchart, S. H. M., Stattersfield, A. J., Bennun, L. A., Shutes, S. M., Akcakaya, H. R.,
Baillie, J. E. M., Stuart, S. N., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Mace, G. M. (2004)
‘Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red list indices for birds’. PLoS
Biology 2(12): 2294–2304
Butchart, S. H. M., Stattersfield, A. J., Baillie, J., Bennun, L. A., Stuart, S. N.,
Akcakaya, H. R., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Mace, G. M. (2005) ‘Using Red List Indices
to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond’. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 360(1454): 255–268
Butchart, S. H. M., Stattersfield, A. J. and Collar, N. J. (2006a) ‘Biodiversity indicators
based on trends in conservation status: Strengths of the IUCN Red List Index’.
Butchart, S. H. M., Stattersfield, A. J. and Collar, N. J. (2006b) ‘How many bird
extinctions have we prevented?’. Oryx 40(3): 266–278
Butcher, J. (2003) The Moralisation of Tourism Sun Sand ... and Saving the World?
London: Routledge
REFERENCES 209
Campbell, B., Mandondo, A., Nemarundwe, N., Sithole, B., De Jong, W., Luckert, M.
and Matose, F. (2001) ‘Challenges to proponents of common property resource
systems: Despairing voices from the social forests of Zimbabwe’. World Development
29(4): 589–600
Caro, T. and Scholte, P. (2007) ‘When protection falters’. African Journal of Ecology 45:
233–235
Carrier, J. G. (1998) ‘Introduction’. In J. G. Carrier and D. Miller (eds) Virtualism. A
New Political Economy. pp1–24. Oxford: Berg
Carrier, J. G. (2003) ‘Mind, gaze, and engagement: Understanding the environment’.
Journal of Material Culture 8(1): 5–23
Carrier, J. G. and Macleod, D. V. L. (2005) ‘Bursting the bubble: The socio-cultural
context of eco-tourism’. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 11: 315–334
Carruthers, J. (1989) ‘Creating a National Park, 1910–26’. Journal of Southern African
Studies 15(2): 188–216
Carruthers, J. (1995) The Kruger National Park. A Social and Political History.
Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press
Castillo, A. R. (2004) Sustainable Inequalities? Community-based Conservation in an
‘Inequitable Society’. The Case of Il Ngwesi Group Ranch, Kenya. Oxford: University of
Oxford.
Castree, N. (2007a) ‘Neoliberalizing nature: Processes, effects and evaluations’.
Environment and Planning. A 40: 153–171
Castree, N. (2007b) ‘Neoliberalizing nature: The logics of de- and re-regulation’.
Environment and Planning. A 40: 131–152
Castro, G. and Locker, I. (2000) Mapping Conservation Investments: An Assessment of
Biodiversity Funding in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington DC:
Biodiversity Support Program
Cater, E. (1994) ‘Ecotourism in the Third World – problems and prospects for
sustainability’. In E. Cater and G. Lowman (eds) Ecotourism. A Sustainable Option.
pp69–86. London: John Wiley and Sons
Cater, E. (2006) ‘Ecotourism as a western construct’. Journal of Ecotourism 5(1, 2): 23–39
Catton, T. (1997) Inhabited Wilderness: Indians, Eskimos, and National Parks in Alaska.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press
Caughley, G. (1994) ‘Directions in conservation biology’. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:
215–244
Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (2003) ‘Preface’. In M. Lück and T. Kirstges (eds) Global
Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies Perspectives and Constraints. ppviii–xii. Clevedon:
Channel View Publications
Cernea, M. M. and Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006) ‘Poverty risks and national parks: Policy
issues in conservation and resettlement’. World Development 34: 1808–1830
Chan, K. M. A., Pringle, R. M., Ranganatran, J., Boggs, C. L., Chan, Y. L., Ehrlich, P. R.,
Haff, P. K., Heller, N. E., Al-Krafaji, K. and Macmynowski, D. P. (2007) ‘When
agendas collide: Human welfare and biological conservation’. Conservation Biology
21(1): 59–68
Chape, S., Spalding, M. and Lysenko, I. (2005) ‘Measuring the extent and effectiveness
of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets’. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 443–455
210 NATURE UNBOUND
Chapin, M. (2000) Defending Kuna Yala. Washington DC: USAID Biodiversity

Support Program
Chapin, M. (2004) ‘A challenge to conservationists’. World Watch Magazine Nov/Dec:
17–31
Chatty, D. and Colchester, M. (eds) (2002) Conservation and Mobile Indigenous
Peoples: Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development. Oxford:
Berghan.
Chernlea, J. (2005) ‘The politics of mediation: Local–global interactions in the central
Amazon’. American Anthropologist 107(4): 620–631
Child, B. (2000a) ‘Application of the southern African experience to wildlife utlisation’.
In H. H. T. Prins, J. G. Grootenuis and T. T. Dolan (eds) Wildlife Conservation by
Sustainable Use. pp218–245. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Child, B. (2000b) ‘Making wildife pay: Converting wildlife’s comparative advantage
onto real incentives for having wildlife in African savannas. Case studies from
Zimbabwe and Zambia’. In H. H. T. Prins, J. G. Grootenuis and T. T. Dolan (eds)
Wildlife Conservation by Sustainable Use. pp218–245. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers
Child, B. and Dalal-Clayton, B. (2001) ‘Transforming approaches to CBNRM:
Learning from the Luangwa experience’. MS: Synopsis of a review for the IIED,
London
Cinner, J. E. and Aswani, S. (2007) ‘Integrating customary management into marine
conservation’. Biological Conservation 140: 201–216
Clapham, C. (1996) Africa and the International System. The Politics of State Survival.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Colchester, M. (1997) ‘Salvaging nature: Indigenous peoples and protected areas’. In
K. B. Ghimire and M. P. Pimbert (eds) Social Change and Conservation. London:
Earthscan
Colchester, M. (2002) ‘Indigenous rights and the collective conscious’. Anthropology
Today 18(1): 1–3
Colchester, M. (2003) Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas and
Biodiversity Conservation. Moreton-in-Marsh: World Rainforest Movement; Forest
Peoples Programme
Colchester, M. and Erni, C. (1999) Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in South and
Southeast Asia. From Principles to Practice. Copenhagen: IWGIA
Conklin, B. and Graham, L. (1995) ‘The shifting middle ground: Amazonian Indians
and eco-politics’. American Anthropologist 974: 695–710
Connor, T. K. (2006) ‘Opportunity and constraint: Historicity, hybridity and notions
of cultural identity in the Sundays River Valley (Eastern Cape) and Pafuri
(Mozambique)’. PhD, Rhodes University
Cook, L. (2002) ‘Operators eyeing European markets’. Business Day. Johannesburg,
14 January 2002
Coombes, B. L. and Hill, S. (2005) ‘Na whenua, na Tuhoe. Ko D.o.C. te partner’ –
Prospects for co-management of Te Urewera National Park. Society & Natural
Resources 18: 135–152.
Cooney, R. and Jepson, P. (2006) ‘The international wild bird trade: What’s wrong
with blanket bans?’. Oryx 40(1): 18–23
REFERENCES 211
Corlett, R. T. (2007) ‘The impact of hunting on the mammalian fauna of tropical

Asian forests’. Biotropica 39(3): 292–303
Cosgrove, D. E. (1984) Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. London: Croom
Helm
Cowen, M. and Shenton, R. (1996) Doctrines of Development. London: Routledge
Cowlishaw, G. (1999) ‘Predicting the pattern of decline of African primate diversity:
An extinction debt from historical deforestation’. Conservation Biology 13(5): 1183–1193
Cronon, W. (1995) ‘The trouble with wilderness; or getting back to the wrong nature’.
In W. Cronon (ed) Uncommon Ground. Rethinking the Human Place in Nature.
New York: W. W. Norton
Cuaron, A. D. (1993) ‘Extinction rate estimates’. Nature 366(6451): 118
Cumming, D. and Jones, B. (2005) ‘Elephants in southern Africa: Management issues
and options’. WWF-SAPIRO Occasional Paper 11
da Fonseca, G. A. B. (2003) ‘Conservation science and NGOs’. Conservation Biology
17: 345–347
Daily, G. C. and Walker, B. H. (2000) ‘Seeking the great transition’. Nature 403(6767):
243–245
Daniels, S. (1993) Fields of Vision. Landscape Imagery and National Identity in England
and the United States. Oxford: Polity Press
Daniels, S. and Cosgrove, D. (1988) ‘Introduction: Iconography and landscape’. In
D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels (eds) The Iconography of Landscape. Essays on the Symbolic
Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Dann, G. (1996) The Language of Tourism. A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Oxon: CABI
Darlington, S. M. (1998) ‘The ordination of a tree: The Buddhist ecology movement
in Thailand’. Ethnology 37(1): 1–15
Davies, R. (2000) ‘Madikwe Game Reserve: A partnership in conservation’. In
H. H. T. Prins, J. G. Grootenuis and T. T. Dolan (eds) Wildlife Conservation by
Sustainable Use. pp218–245. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers
de Merode, E. and Cowlishaw, G. (2006) ‘Species protection, the changing informal
economy, and the politics of access to the bushmeat trade in the Democratic
Republic of Congo’. Conservation Biology 20(4): 1262–1271
de Merode, E., Homewood, K. and Cowlishaw, G. (2004) ‘The value of bushmeat and
other wild foods to rural households living in extreme poverty in Democratic
Republic of Congo’. Biological Conservation 118: 573–581
de Souza, M. and de Leeuw, P. N. (1984) ‘Smallstock use of reserved grazing areas on
Merushi Group Ranch’. Proceedings CSRP Workshop on Small Ruminants. Nairobi,
1984
De Waal, A. (1997) Famine Crimes. Politics and the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa.
Oxford: James Currey
Debord, G. (1995 (1967)) Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books
DeFries, R., Hansen, A., Newton, A. C. and Hansen, M. C. (2005) ‘Increasing
isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years’. Ecological
Applications 15(1): 19–26
Denevan, W. M. (1992) ‘The Pristine Myth: The landscape of the Americas in 1492’.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82(3): 269–285
212 NATURE UNBOUND
Denman, R. (2001) Guidelines for Community Based Ecotourism Development. Ledbury:

The Tourism Company; Geneva: WWF-International
Diamond, J. M. (1972) ‘Biogeographic kinetics: Estimation of relaxation times for
avifaunas of southwest Pacific islands’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 69(11): 3199–3203
Dirzo, R. and Raven, P. H. (2003) ‘Global state of biodiversity and loss’. Annual Review
of Environment and Resources 28: 137–167
Dombrowski, K. (2002) ‘The praxis of indigenism and native Alaskan timber politics’.
American Anthropologist 104: 1067–1072
Donald, P. F. (2004) ‘Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural commodity production
systems’. Conservation Biology 18(1): 17–37
Dorsey, M. (2005) ‘Conservation, collusion and capital’. Anthropology News October:
45–46
Dove, M. (2006) ‘Indigenous people and environmental politics’. Annual Review of
Anthropology 35: 191–208
Dowie, M. (1996) Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the 20th
Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Dowie, M. (2005) ‘Conservation refugees. When protecting nature means kicking people
out’. Orion Nov/Dec (www.oriononline.org/pages/om/06-06om/Dowie.html): 16–27
Dowie, M. (2006) ‘Problems in paradise. How making new parks and wildlife preserves
creates millions of conservation refugees around the world’. San Francisco Chronicle
11 June
Dowie, M. (forthcoming) Vital Natures: Balancing the Protection of Nature and Culture.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Duffy, R. (2000) Killing for Conservation. Wildlife Policy in Zimbabwe. Oxford: James
Currey
Duffy, R. (2002) A Trip Too Far: Ecotourism, Politics and Exploitation. London:
Earthscan
Duffy, R. (2004) ‘Ecotourists on the beach’. In J. Urry and M. Sheller (eds) Tourism
Mobilities: Places to Play, Places in Play. pp32–43. London: Routledge
Duffy, R. (2005) ‘The politics of global environmental governance: The powers and
limitations of transfrontier conservation areas in central America’. Review of
International Studies 31(1): 307–323
Duffy, R. (2006a) ‘Global environmental governance and the politics of ecotourism in
Madagascar’. Journal of Ecotourism 5(1,2): 128–144
Duffy, R. (2006b) ‘Global governance and environmental management: The politics of
transfrontier conservation areas in southern Africa’. Political Geography 25(1): 89–112
Duffy, R. (2006c) ‘NGOs and governance states: The impact of transnational
environmental management networks in Madagascar’. Environmental Politics 15(5):
731–749
Duffy, R. (2008a) ‘Ivory trade: Enforceability, effectiveness and ethical concerns’. In
C. Wemmer and K. Christen (eds) Elephants and Ethics: The Morality of Coexistence.
Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins Press
Duffy, R. (2008b) ‘Neoliberalising nature global networks and ecotourism development
in Madagascar’. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, in press
Dunn, K. (2003) ‘National parks and human security in East Africa’. In Proceedings of
the Conference: Beyond the Arch: Community Conservation in Greater Yellowstone and
East Africa. pp103–122. Mammoth Spring, WY: US National Park Service
REFERENCES 213
Dunn, R. R., Gavin, M. C., Sanchez, M. C. and Solomon, J. N. (2006) ‘The pigeon
paradox: Dependence of global conservation on urban nature’. Conservation Biology
20(6): 1814–1816
Dzingirai, V. (2003) ‘The new scramble for the African countryside’. Development and
Change 34(2): 243–263
Edwards, E. (1996) ‘Postcards – greetings from another world’. In T. Selwyn (ed) The
Tourist Image Myths and Myth Making in Tourism. pp197–221. New York: John
Wiley and Sons
Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. (1992) Making a Difference: NGOs and Development in a
Changing World. London: Earthscan
Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. (1995) Non-Governmental Organisations: Performance and
Accountability. Beyond the Magic Bullet. London: Earthscan
Egloff, B. J. (1979) ‘Mumballa Mountain. An anthropological and archeological
investigation’. Aboriginal and Historical Resources, National Parks and Wildlife
Services
Egloff, B. J. (2004) Biamanga and Gulaga. Aboriginal Cultural Association with
Biamanga and Gulaga National Parks. Canberra: Cultural Heritage Research Centre,
University of Canberra, Australia.
Ehrlich, P. R. and Wilson, E. O. (1991) ‘Biodiversity studies: Science and policy’.
Science 253: 758–762
Ellis, S. (1994) ‘Of elephants and men. Politics and nature conservation in South
Africa’. Journal of Southern African Studies 20: 53–69
Environmental-Investigation-Agency (1994) CITES Enforcement Not Extinction.
London: EIA
Fa, J. E., Peres, C. A. and Meeuwig, J. (2002) ‘Bushmeat exploitation in tropical
forests: An intercontinental comparison’. Conservation Biology 16(1): 232–237
Fabricius, C. and de Wet, C. (2002) ‘The influence of forced removals and land
restitution on conservation in South Africa’. In D. Chatty and M. Colchester (eds)
Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Displacement, Forced Settlement, and
Sustainable Development. New York: Berghahn Books
Fairhead, J. and Leach, M. (2000) ‘The nature lords: After desolation, conservation –
and eviction. The future of West African forests and their peoples. Times Literary
Supplement. 5 May (5066): 3–4
Fay, D. (2007) ‘Struggles over resources and community formation in Dwesa-Cwebe,
South Africa. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 3(2):
88–102
Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J. and Acheson, J. M. (1990) ‘The tragedy of the
commons twenty-two years later’. Human Ecology 18: 1–19
Fennell, D. (1999) Ecotourism, An Introduction. London: Routledge
Ferguson, J. (1990) The Anti-politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticisation and
Bureaucratic State Power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ferguson, J. (2006) Global Shadows. Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. Durham:
Duke University Press
Fiedel, S. and Haynes, G. (2004) ‘A premature burial: Comments on Grayson and
Meltzer’s “Requiem for overkill”’. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(1): 121–131
Fisher, J. (1998) Nongovernments. NGOs and the Political Development of the Third
World. West Hartford: Kumarion
214 NATURE UNBOUND
Fisher, R. J., Maginnis, S. W., Jackson, J., Barrow, E. and S. Jeanrenaud, S. (2005)
Poverty and Conservation. Landscapes, People and Power. Gland: IUCN
Fisher, W. F. (1997) ‘Doing good? The politics and anti-politics of NGO practices’.
Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 439–464
Fjeldstad, O.-H. (2001) ‘Taxation, coercion and donors: Local government tax
enforcement in Tanzania’. The Journal of Modern African Studies 39(2): 289–306
Fjeldstad, O.-H. and Semboja, J. (2000) ‘Dilemmas of fiscal decentralisation: A study
of local government taxation in Tanzania’. Forum for Development Studies 27(1): 7–41
Fjeldstad, O.-H. and Semboja, J. (2001) ‘Why people pay taxes: The case of the
development levy in Tanzania’. World Development 29(12): 2059–2074
Fortmann, L. (1997) ‘Voices from communities managing wildlife in southern Africa’.
Society and Natural Resources 10: 403–422
Fortmann, L. (2005) ‘What we need is a community Bambi: The perils and possibilities
of powerful symbols’. In J. P. Brosius, A. L. Tsing and C. Zerner (eds) Communities
and Conservation. Histories and Politics of Community-based Natural Resource
Management. pp195–205. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Fortun, K. (2001) Advocacy after Bhopal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Fortwangler, C. (2003) ‘The winding road. Incorporating social justice and human
rights into protected area policies’. In S. R. Brechin, P. R. Wilchusen,
C. L. Fortwrangler and P. C. West (eds) Contested Nature. Promoting International
Biodiversity Conservaton with Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century. New York: State
University of New York Press
Fortwangler, C. (2007) ‘Friends with money: Private support for national parks in the
U.S. Virgin Islands’. Conservation and Society 5(4): 504–533
Foster, J. (1999) ‘Marx’s Theory of the Metabolic Rift: Classical foundations for
environmental sociology’. American Journal of Sociology 105(2): 366–405
Frank, D. J., Hironaka, A. and Schofer, E. (2000) ‘The Nation-state and the Natural
Environment over the Twentieth Century’. American Sociological Review 65: 96–116
Frynas, J. G. (2000) Oil in Nigeria: Conflict and Litigation Between Oil Companies and
Village Communities. Hamburg: LIT Verlag/Transaction Publishers
Gadgil, M. and Guha, R. (1993) This Fissured Land. An Ecological History of India.
Delhi: Oxford University Press
Galbreath, R. (2002) ‘Displacement, conservation and customary use of native plants
and animals in New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of History 36(1): 36–47
Gamburd, M. R. (2000) ‘Relocated lives: Displacement and resettlement in the
Mahaweli Project, Sri Lanka’. American Anthropologist 102(4): 951–954
Garland, E. (2006) ‘State of nature: Colonial power, neoliberal capital and wildlife
management in Tanzania’. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Chicago
Geisler, C. (2003) ‘A new kind of trouble: Evictions in Eden’. International Social
Science Journal 55(1): 69–78
Geisler, C. and de Sousa, R. (2001) ‘From refuge to refugee: The African case’. Public
Administration and Development 21: 159–170
Gever, J, Kaufman, R., Skole, D. and Vorosmarty, C. (1986) Beyond Oil: The Threat to
Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger
Ghimire, K. B. (1994) ‘Parks and people: Livelihood issues in national parks
management in Thailand and Madagascar’. Development and Change 25: 195–229
REFERENCES 215
Ghimire, K. B. and Pimbert, M. P. (1997) Social Change and Conservation. London:

Earthscan
Gilardi, J. D. (2006) ‘Captured for conservation: Will cages save wild birds? A response
to Cooney & Jepson’. Oryx 40(1): 24–26
Gillies, C. A., Leach, M. R., Coad, N. B., Theobald, S. W., Campbell, J., Herbert, T.,
Graham, P. J. and Pierce, R. J. (2003) ‘Six years of intensive pest mammal control at
Trounson Kauri Park, a Department of Conservation “mainland island”, June 1996
to July 2002’. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 30(4): 399–420
Giroux, H. (2006) Stormy Weather: Katrina and the Politics of Disposability. Boulder,
CO: Paradigm Publishers
Goldman, M. (2001a) ‘The birth of a discipline. Producing authoritative green
knowledge, World Bank-style’. Ethnography 2(2): 191–217
Goldman, M. (2001b) ‘Constructing an environmental state: Eco-governmentality and
other transnational practices of a “green” World Bank’. Social Problems 48(4):
499–523
Gomez-Pompa, A. and Kaus, A. (1992) ‘Taming the wilderness myth’. Bioscience 42(4):
271–279
Gossling, S., Broderick, J., Upham, P., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Peeters, P. and
Strasdas, W. (2007) ‘Voluntary carbon offsetting schemes for aviation: Efficiency,
credibility and sustainable tourism’. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(3): 223–248
Gray, A., Parellada, A. and Newing, H. (1998) ‘From principles to practice. Indigenous
peoples and biodiversity conservation in Latin America’. Proceedings of the Puscallpa
Conference. Copenhagen: IWGIA
Gray, T. N. E., Chamnan, H., Borey, R., Collar, N. J. and Dolman, P. M. (2007)
‘Habitat preferences of a globally threatened bustard provide support for community-
based conservation in Cambodia’. Biological Conservation 138: 341–350
Grayson, D. K. and Meltzer, D. J. (2003) ‘A requiem for North American overkill’.
Journal of Archaeological Sciences 30: 585–593
Grayson, D. K. and Meltzer, D. J. (2004) ‘North American overkill continued?’.
Journal of Archaeological Science 31(1): 133–136
Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W. and Balmford, A. (2005a) ‘Farming
and the fate of wild nature’. Science 307(5709): 550–555
Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W. and Balmford, A. (2005b) ‘The
future of farming and conservation: Response’. Science 308(5726): 1257–1258
Greenberg, R., Bichier, P., Angon, A. C. and Reitsma, R. (1997) ‘Bird populations in
shade and sun coffee plantations in central Guatemala’. Conservation Biology 11(2):
448–459
Griffen, J. (1999) Study on the Development and Management of Transboundary
Conservation Areas in Southern Africa. Lilongwe Malawi: USAID Regional Centre for
Southern Africa
Groenewald, Y. and Macleod, F. (2004) ‘Park plans bring grief ’. Weekly Mail and
Guardian. 25 June 2004
Hafild, E. (2005) ‘Social movements, community-based natural resource management,
and the struggle for democracy; experiences from Indonesia’. In J. P. Brosius,
A. L. Tsing and C. Zerner (eds) Communities and Conservation. Histories and Politics
of Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
216 NATURE UNBOUND
Hall, C. M. (1994) Tourism and Politics Policy Power and Place. New York: John Wiley
and Sons
Halpern, B. S., Pyke, C. R., Fox, H. E., Haney, J. C., Schlaepfer, M. A. and Zaradic P.
(2006) ‘Gaps and mismatches between global conservation priorities and spending’.
Hardin, G. (1968) ‘The tragedy of the commons’. Science 162: 1243–1248
Harkness, J. (1998) ‘Recent trends in forestry and conservation of biodiversity in
China’. The China Quarterly 156: 911–934
Harrison, D. (1992) Tourism and the Less Developed Countries. London: Belhaven Press
Harrison, G. (2004) The World Bank and Africa. The Construction of Governance States.
London: Routledge
Harrison, G. (2005) ‘The World Bank governance and theories of political action in
Africa’. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 72: 240–260
Hart, K. (1982) The Political Economy of West African Agriculture. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Hayes, T. M. (2006) ‘Parks, people, and forest protection: An institutional assessment
of the effectiveness of protected areas’. World Development 34(12): 2064–2075
Hayes, T. M. and Ostrom, E. (2005) ‘Conserving the world’s forests. Are protected
areas the only way?’. Indiana Law Review 38: 595–617
Heaney, L. R. (1986) ‘Biogeography of mammals in SE Asia: Estimates of rates of
colonisation, extinction and speciation’. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 28:
127–165
Heywood, V. H., Mace, G. M., May, R. M. and Stuart, S. N. (1994) ‘Uncertainties in
extinction rates’. Nature 368(6467): 105
Hitchcock, M. and Teague, K. (2000) Souvenirs, The Material Culture of Tourism.
Aldershot: Ashgate
Hodgson, D. (2002a) ‘Introduction: Comparative perspectives on the indigenous rights
movement in Africa and the Americas’. American Anthropologist 104(4): 1037–1049
Hodgson, D. (2002b) ‘Precarious alliances: The cultural politics and structural
predicaments of the indigenous rights movement in Tanzania’. American
Anthropologist 104(4): 1086–1097
Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H. and Roberts, C. (2005) ‘Confronting a
biome crisis: Global disparities of habitat loss and protection’. Ecology Letters 8(1):
23–29
Hofer, D. (2002) ‘The lion’s share of the hunt: Trophy hunting and conservation – a
review of the Eurasian tourist hunting market and trophy trade under CITES’.
Brussels: TRAFFIC Europe Regional Report
Homewood, K. M. and Rodgers, W. A. (1991) Maasailand Ecology. Pastoralist
Development and Wildlife Conservation in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Cambridge:
Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development. Who Owns Paradise?.
Washington DC: Island Press
Horning, A. J. (2004) In the Shadow of Ragged Mountain: Historical Archaeology of
Nicholson, Corbin, & Weakley Hollows. Luray, VA: Shenandoah National Park
Association
Horning, N. R. (2005) ‘The cost of ignoring rules: Forest conservation and rural
livelihood outcomes in Madagascar’. Forests Trees and Livelihoods 15: 149–166
REFERENCES 217
Horning, N. R. (2008) ‘Strong support for weak performance: Donor competition in

Madagascar’. African Affairs 107(428): 405–431
Hulme, D. and Edwards, M. (1997) NGOs, States and Donors: Too Close for Comfort?.
London: Macmillan
Hulme, D. and Infield, M. (2001) ‘Community conservation, reciprocity and
park–people relationships. Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda’. In D. Hulme and
M. Murphree (eds) African Wildlife and Livelihoods. Portsmouth: Heinemann
Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (1999) ‘Communities, wildlife and the new conservation
in Africa’. Journal of International Development 11(3): 277–285
Hulme, D. and Murphee, M. (2001) African Wildlife and Livelihoods. The Promise and
Performance of Community Conservation. Portsmouth: Heinemann
Hunn, E. S., Johnson, D. R., Russell, P. N. and Thornton, T. F. (2003) ‘Huna Tlingit
traditional environmental knowledge, conservation and the management of a
“wilderness” park’. Current Anthropology 44(Supplement): S79–S103
Hurt, R. and Ravan, P. (2000) ‘Hunting and its benefits: An overview of hunting in
Africa with special reference to Tanzania’. In H. H. T. Prins, J. G. Grootenuis and
T. T. Dolan (eds) Wildlife Conservation by Sustainable Use. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers
Hutton, J. and Dickson, B. (2000) Endangered Species Threatened Convention. The Past,
Present and Future of CITES. London: Earthscan
Hutton, J. and Leader-Williams, N. (2003) ‘Sustainable use and incentive-driven
conservation: Realigning human and conservation interests’. Oryx 37(2): 215–226
Hutton, J., Adams, W. M. and Murombedzi, J. C. (2005) ‘Back to the barriers?
Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation’. Forum for Development Studies
NUPI 2005(2): 341–370
Igoe, J. (2000) ‘Ethnicity, civil society, and the Tanzanian pastoral NGO movement:
The continuities and discontinuities of liberalized development’. PhD., Boston
University
Igoe, J. (2003a) ‘Decentralised hegemony and the displacement of the political in
Tanzanian civil society: The story of the Barabaig NGOs’. The Hanang Community
Development Project
Igoe, J. (2003b) ‘Scaling up civil society: Donor money, NGOs and the pastoralist land
rights movement in Tanzania’. Development and Change 34: 863–885
Igoe, J. (2004a) ‘Becoming indigenous in Africa: The globalization of Maasai and
Barabaig ethnic identities’. Boston University, African Studies Working Paper 248
Igoe, J. (2004b) Conservation and Globalisation: A Study of National Parks and
Indigenous Communties from East Africa to South Dakota. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning
Igoe, J. (2004c) ‘History, culture, and conservation: In search of more informed guesses
about whether “community-based conservation” has a chance to work’. Policy Matters
13: 174–185
Igoe, J. (2005) ‘Global indigenism and spaceship Earth: Convergence, space, and
re-entry friction’. Globalizations 2(3): 1–13
Igoe, J. (2006a) ‘Becoming indigenous peoples: Difference, inequality, and the
globalisation of East African identity politics’. African Affairs 105(420): 399–420
Igoe, J. (2006b) ‘Measuring the costs and benefits of conservation to local
communities’. Ecological Anthropology 10: 72–77
218 NATURE UNBOUND
Igoe, J. (2008) ‘Global indigenism and spaceship Earth: Convergence, space, and
re-entry friction’. In J. Oosthoek and B. Gills (eds) The Globalization of the
Environmental Crisis. pp95–106. London: Routledge
Igoe, J. and Brockington, D. (2007) ‘Neoliberal conservation: A brief introduction’.
Conservation and Society 5(4): 432–449
Igoe, I. and Brockington, D. (under review) ‘Saving a dead world? Wildlife
conservation, virtualisms and the consumption of spectacle’. Current Anthropology.
Igoe, J. and Croucher, B. (2007) ‘Poverty alleviation meets the spectacle of nature: Does
reality matter?’. Conservation and Society 5(4): 534–561
Igoe, J. and Fortwangler, C. (2007) ‘Whither communities and conservation?’.
International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 3: 65–76
Igoe, J. and Kelsall, T. (2005) African NGOs, Donors, and the State: Between a Rock and
a Hard Place. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press
Ikeya, K. (2001) ‘Some changes among the San under the influence of relocation plan
in Botswana’. In D. G. Anderson and K. Ikeya (eds) Parks, Property and Power:
Managing Hunting Practice and Identity within State Policy Regimes. Senri
Ethnological Studies no. 59. pp183–198. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology
Ingram, J. C. (2004) ‘Questioning simplistic representations of environmental change
in southeastern Madagascar: An assessment of forest change, condition and diversity
of littoral forests’. Conference paper presented at ‘Trees, Rain and Politics in Africa.
The dynamics and politics of climatic and environmental change’. Oxford
Ingram, J. C., Whittaker, R. J. and Dawson, T. P. (2005) ‘Tree structure and diversity
in human-impacted littoral forests, Madagascar’. Environmental Management 35(6):
779–798
IUCN (2003) Fifth World Parks Congress 2003: Recommendation 12 ‘Tourism as a
Vehicle for Conservation and Support of Protected Areas’ www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/
wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/english/html/r12.htm (accessed
16 July 2007)
Ives, J. D. and Messerli, B. (1989) The Himalayan Dilemma. Reconciling Development
and Conservation. London: Routledge
Jackson, J. (1999) ‘The politics of ethnographic practice in Columbian Vaupes’.
Identities 6(2–3): 281–317
Jacoby, K. (2001) Crimes against Nature. Squatters, Poachers, Thieves and the Hidden
History of American Conservation. Berkeley: University of California Press
James, A., Gaston, K. J. and Balmford, A. (2001) ‘Can we afford to conserve
biodiversity?’. Bioscience 51(1): 43–52
Jeanrenaud, S. (2002) People-Orientated Approaches in Global Conservation. Is the
Leopard Changing its Spots?. London: IIED
Jenkins, M., Green, R. E. and Madden, J. (2003) ‘The challenge of measuring global
change in wild nature: Are things getting better or worse?’. Conservation Biology
17(1): 20–23
Jepson, P. and Whittaker, R. J. (2002) ‘Histories of protected areas: Internationalisation
of conservationist values and their adoption in the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia)’.
Environment and History 8: 129–172
Jepson, P., Momberg, F. and van Noord, H. (2002) ‘A review of the efficacy of the
protected area system of East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia’. Natural Areas Journal
22(1): 28–42
REFERENCES 219
Johnson, C. (2001) ‘Community formation and fisheries conservation in southern

Thailand’. Development and Change 32(5): 951–974
Jones, B. and Murphree, M. (2001) ‘The evolution of policy on community
conservation in Namibia and Zimbabwe’. In D. Hulme and M. Murphree (eds)
African Wildlife and Livelihoods. Portsmouth: Heinemann
Kalamandeen, M. L. Gillson, L. (2007) ‘Demything “wilderness”: Implications for
protected area designation and management’. Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 165–182
Karanth, K. K. (2007) ‘Making resettlement work: The case of India’s Bhadra wildlife
sanctuary’. Biological Conservation 139(3–4): 315–324
Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders. Advocacy Networks in
International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
Keller, R. and Turek, M. (1998) American Indians & National Parks. Tuscon: University
of Arizona Press
Khan, S. A. and bin Talal, H. (1987) ‘Introduction’. In S. A. Khan and H. B. Talal
(eds) Indigenous Peoples: A Global Quest for Justice. London: Zed Books
Khare, A. and Bray, D. B. (2004) ‘Study of critical new forest conservation issues in the
global South’. Final report submitted to the Ford Foundation.
King, D. A. and Stewart, W. P. (1996) ‘Ecotourism and commodification: Protecting
people and places’. Biodiversity and Conservation 5(3): 293–305
Kitson, J. C. (2002) ‘What limits the number of TiTi (Puffinus griseus) harvested by
Rakiura Maori?’. Human Ecology 30(4): 503–521
Kiwasila, H. (1997) ‘Not just a Maasai Garden of Eden’. The Observer, 13 April 1997
Klein, N. (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York:
Metropolitan Books
Kliot, N. (2001) ‘The political geography of cooperation and conflict in borderlands’.
In D. Newman, C. Schofield and D. Alasdair (eds) The Razors Edge International
Boundaries Geopolitics and Political Geography Essays in Honour of Professor Gerald
Blake. London: Kluwer Academic
Klooster, D. (2000) ‘Community forestry and tree theft in Mexico: Resistance or
complicity in conservation’. Development and Change 31: 281–305
Koch, E. (1997) ‘Ecotourism and rural reconstruction in South Africa: Reality or
rhetoric?’. In K. B. Ghimire and M. P. Pimbert (eds) Social Change and Conservation.
London: Earthscan
Koch, P. L. and Barnosky, A. D. (2006) ‘Late quaternary extinctions: State of the
debate’. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 37: 215–250
Kothari, A., Pande, P., Singh, S. and Variava, D. (1989) Management of National Parks
and Sancturies in India. A Status Report. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public
Administration
Kothari, A., Pathak, N., Anurdha, R. V. and Taneja, B. (1998) Communities and
Conservation. Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. New Delhi: Sage
Kothari, A., Pathak, N. and Vania, F. (2000) Where Communities Care. Community-
based Wildlife and Ecosystem Management in South Asia. Pune and London:
Kalpavriksh and IIED
Kramer, R., von Schaik, C. and Johnson, J. (1997) Last Stand. Protected Areas and the
Defense of Tropical Biodiversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Kull, C. A. (1996) ‘The evolution of conservation efforts in Madagascar’. International
Environmental Affairs 8(1): 50–86
220 NATURE UNBOUND
Kumar, S. (2002) ‘Does “participation” in common pool resource management help the
poor? A social cost–benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkhand, India’.
World Development 30(5): 763–782
Kuper, A. (2003) ‘The return of the native’. Current Anthropology 44(3): 389–402
Lamoreux, J., Akcakaya, H. R., Bennun, L., Collar, N. J., Boitani, L., Brackett, D.,
Brautigam, A., Brooks, T. M., de Fonseca, G. A. B., Mittermeier, R. A., Rylands, A. B.,
Gardenfors, U., Hilton-Taylor, C., Mace, G., Stein, B. A. and Stuart, S. (2003)
‘Value of the IUCN Red List’. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18(5): 214–215
Lane, M. (2003) ‘Decentralization or privatization of environmental governance? Forest
conflict and bioregional assessment in Australia’. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 283–294
Langholz, J. and Kerley, G. H. (2006) Combining Conservation and Development on
Private Lands: An Assessment of Eco-tourism Based Private Game Reserves in the Eastern
Cape. Port Elizabeth: Centre for African Conservation Ecology, NMMU
Langton, M., Ma Rhea, Z. and Palmer, L. (2005) ‘Community-orientated protected areas
for indigenous peoples and local communities’. Journal of Political Ecology 12: 23–50
Laungaramsri, P. (1999) ‘The ambiguity of “watershed”: The politics of people and
conservation in northern Thailand. A case study of the Chom Thong conflict’. In
M. Colchester and C. Erni (eds) Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in South and
Southeast Asia. From Principles to Practice. Copenhagen: IWGIA
Laurance, W. F., Croes, B. M., Tchignoumba, L., Lahm, S. A., Alonso, A., Lee, M. E.,
Campbell, P. and Ondzeano, C. (2006) ‘Impacts of roads and hunting on central
African rainforest mammals’. Conservation Biology 20(4): 1251–1261
Lawrence, D. (2000) Kakadu: The Making of a National Park. Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press
Lawton, J. (1997) ‘The science and non-science of conservation biology’. Oikos 79(1):
3–5
Leakey, R. (2003) ‘Science, sentiment, and advocacy (an interview)’. Yellowstone Science
10(3): 8–12
Lemos, M. C. and Agrawal, A. (2006) ‘Environmental governance’. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 31: 297–325
Levi-Strauss, C. (1969 (1964)) The Raw and the Cooked. Introduction to a Science of
Mythology. New York: Harper and Row
Levy, B. (1989) ‘Foreign aid in the making of economic policy in Sri Lanka,
1977–1983’. Policy Sciences 22(3–4): 437–461
Li, T. M. (2000) ‘Articulating indigenous identity in Indonesia: Resource politics and
the tribal slot’. Comparative Studies in Society and History 421: 149–179
Liebig, J. von (1859) Letters on Modern Agriculture. London: Walton & Maberly
Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J. and Sproule, K. (1996) ‘Ecotourism questioned: Case studies
from Belize’. Annals of Tourism Research 23: 543–562
Lindsey, P. A., Roulet, P. A. and Romanach, S. S. (2007) ‘Economic and conservation
significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa’. Biological
Conservation 134: 455–469
Litfin, K. (1994) Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental
Co-Operation. New York: Columbia University Press
Locke, H. and Dearden, P. (2005) ‘Rethinking protected area categories and the new
paradigm’. Environmental Conservation 32(1): 1–10
REFERENCES 221
Logo, P. B. (2003) ‘The decentralised forestry taxation system in Cameroon: Local

management and state logic’. In J. C. Ribot and P. G. Veit (eds) Environmental
Governance in Africa. Washington DC: World Resources Institute
Lomborg, B. (2001) The Skeptical Environmentalist. Measuring the Real State of the
World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Lovecraft, A. (2007) ‘Interest groups and science rhetoric in legislative testimony
framing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’. Paper presented at the Western Political
Science Association Conference Las Vegas 7–10 March 2007
Loveridge, A. J., Searle, A. W., Murindagomo, F. and Macdonald, D. W. (2007) ‘The
impact of sport-hunting on the population dynamics of an African lion population in
a protected area’. Biological Conservation 134(4): 548–558
Luck, G. W., Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. C. and Imhoff, M. (2004) ‘Alleviating spatial
conflict between people and biodiversity’. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 101(1): 182–186
Luck, K. (2003) ‘Contested Rights: The impact of game farming on farm workers in
the Bushman’s river area’. MA, Rhodes University
Luckham, R., Goetz, A-M. and Kaldor, M. (2000) ‘Democratic institutions and politics
in contexts of inequality, poverty and conflict’. IDS Working Paper 104
Lund, J. F. and Nielsen, O. J. (2006) ‘The promises of participatory forest management
is forest conservation and poverty alleviation: The case of Tanzania’. In H. Charton
and C. Médard (eds) L’Afrique Orientale. Annuaire 2005. Paris: L’Harmattan
MacDonald, K. (2004) ‘Developing “nature”: Global ecology and the politics of
conservation in northern Pakistan’. In J. Carrier (ed) Confronting Environments: Local
Environmental Understanding In a Globalising World. Lantham: AltaMira Press
MacDonald, K. (2005) ‘Global hunting grounds: Power, scale and ecology in the
negotiation of conservation’. Cultural Geographies 12: 259–291
Mace, G. M. (1994) ‘An investigation into methods for categorising the
conservation status of species’. In P. J. Edwards, R. M. May and N. R. Webb (eds)
Large-scale Ecology and Conservation Biology. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific
Publications
Mace, G. M. (2004) ‘The role of taxonomy in species conservation’. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 359: 711–719
Mace, G. M., Balmford, A., Boitani, L., Cowlishaw, G., Dobson, A. P., Faith, D. P.,
Gaston, K. J., Humphries, C. J., Vane-Wright, R. I., Williams, P. H., Lawton, J. H.,
Margules, C. R., May, R. M., Nicholls, A. O., Possingham, H. P., Rahbek, C. and
van Jaarsveld, A. S. (2000) ‘It’s time to work together and stop duplicating
conservation efforts’. Nature 405(6785): 393–393
Mackenzie, J. (1988) The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation and British
Imperialism. Manchester: Manchester University Press
Mann, C. C. (1991) ‘Extinction: Are ecologists crying wolf?’. Science 253: 736–738
Mann, C. C. (1993) ‘The high cost of biodiversity’. Science 260: 1868–1871
Margules, C. R. and Pressey, R. L. (2000) ‘Systematic conservation planning’. Nature
405: 243–253
Mark, A. F. (1989) ‘Responses of indigenous vegetation to contrasting trends in
utilization by red deer in 2 southwestern New Zealand national parks’. New Zealand
Journal of Ecology 12: 103–114
222 NATURE UNBOUND
Marx, K. (1971 (1875)) Critique of the Gotha Program. Moscow: Progress

Marx, K. (1976 (1867)) Capital vol 1. London: Penguin
Marx, K. (1978 (1863–65)) Capital vol 3. New York: Vintage
Marx, K. (1978 (1865–70)) Capital vol 2. New York: Vintage
Mbembe, A. (2001) On the Postcolony. Berkeley: University of California Press
McAfee, K. (1999) ‘Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green developmentalism’.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17: 133–154
McAlpine, C. A., Spies, T. A., Norman, P. and Peterson, A. (2007) ‘Conserving forest
biodiversity across multiple land ownerships: Lessons from the Northwest Forest Plan
and the Southeast Queensland regional forests agreement (Australia)’. Biological
Conservation 134(4): 580–592
McGrew, A. G. (1992) ‘Conceptualising global politics’. In A. G. McGrew and
P. G. Lewis (eds) Global Politics. pp1–28. Cambridge: Polity Press
McLean, J. and Straede, S. (2003) ‘Conservation, relocation and the paradigms of park
and people management: A case study of Padampur villages and the Royal Chitwan
National Park, Nepal’. Society and Natural Resources 16: 509–526
McNeely, J. A. and Scherr, S. J. (2003) Ecoagriculture. Strategies to Feed the World and
Save Wild Biodiversity. Washington DC: Island Press
Meir, E., Andelman, S. and Possingham, H. P. (2004) ‘Does conservation planning
matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?’. Ecology Letters 7: 615–622
Mendelson, J. R., Lips, K. R., Gagliardo, R. W., Rabb, G. B., Collins, J. P.,
Diffendorfer, J. E., Daszak, P., Ibanez, R., Zippel, K. C., Lawson, D. P.,
Wright, K. M., Stuart, S. N., Gascon, C., da Silva, H. R., Burrowes, P. A., Joglar, R.
L., La Marca, E., Lotters, S., du Preez, L. H., Weldon, C., Hyatt, A., Rodriguez-
Mahecha, J. V., Hunt, H., Robertson, S., Lock, B., Raxworthy, C. J., Frost, D. R.,
Lacy, R. C., Alford, R. A., Campbell, J. A., Parra-Olea, G., Bolanos, F., Domingo, J.
J. C., Halliday, T., Murphy, J. B., Wake, M. H., Coloma, L. A., Kuzmin, S. L.,
Price, M. S., Howell, K. M., Lau, M., Pethiyagoda, R., Boone, M., Lannoo, M. J.,
Blaustein, A. R., Dobson, A., Griffiths, R. A., Crump, M. L., Wake, D. B. and
Brodie, E. D. (2006) ‘Biodiversity: Confronting amphibian declines and extinctions’.
Science 313(5783): 48–48
Menzies, H. (1989) Fast Forward and Out of Control: How Technology is Changing Your
Life. Toronto, ON: Macmillan Publishers
Mgumia, F. H. and Oba, G. (2003) ‘Potential role of sacred groves in biodiversity
conservation in Tanzania’. Environmental Conservation 30(3): 259–265
Middleton, B. (2003) ‘Ecology and objective based management: A study of the
Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan’. In V. Saberwal and M. Rangarajan
(eds) Battles over Nature. Science and the Politics of Conservation. Delhi: Permanent
Black
Milliken, T. (2002) The Worlds Unregulated Domestic Ivory Markets. Cambridge:
TRAFFIC International
Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2004) ‘Against extinction: The story of conservation’. Nature
429(6990): 346–347
Milner-Gulland, E. J., Bennett, E. L. and SCB 2002 Annual Meeting Wild Meat
Group (2003) ‘Wild meat: The bigger picture’. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(7):
351–357
REFERENCES 223
Mintz, S. (1985) Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York:
Penguin Books
Mishra, H. R. (1994) ‘South and southeast Asia’. In J. A. McNeely, J. Harrision and
P. Dingwall (eds) Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. Gland: IUCN
Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Brooks, T. M., Pilgrim, J. D., Konstant, W. R.,
da Fonseca, G. A. B. and Kormos, C. (2003) ‘Wilderness and biodiversity
conservation’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 100(18): 10309–10313
Mittermeier, R. A., Robles-Gil, P. and Mittermeier, C. G. (1997) Megadiversity. Mexico
City: CEMEX.
Molnar, A., Scherr, S. J. and Khare, A. (2004a) Who Conserves the World’s Forests? A
New Assessment of Conservation and Investment Trends. Washington DC: Forest
Trends; Ecoagriculture partners
Molnar, A., Scherr, S. J. and Khare, A. (2004b) Who Conserves the World’s Forests?
Community-driven Strategies to Protect Forests and Respect Rights. Washington DC:
Forest Trends.
Monela, G. C., Chanshana, S. A. O., Mwaipopo, R. and Gamassa, D. M. (2004) A
Study of the Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts of Forest Landscape Restoration
in Shinyanga Region, Tanzania. Nairobi: IUCN, Eastern Africa Regional Office
Mosse, D. (2004) ‘Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of
aid policy and practice’. Development and Change 35(4): 639–671
Mowforth, R. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability Dilemmas in Third World
Tourism. London: Routledge
Muchnick, B. (2007) ‘9/10 of the law: Vigilante conservation in the American West’.
Paper presented to 106th American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting.
Washington DC
Muehlebach, A. (2001) ‘“Making Place” at the United Nations: Indigenous cultural
politics at the UN working group on indigenous populations’. Cultural Anthropology
163: 415–448
Murdoch, W., Polasky, S., Wilson, K. A., Possingham, H. P., Kareiva, P. and
Shaw, R. (2007) ‘Maximizing return on investment in conservation’. Biological
Conservation 139: 375–388
Murombedzi, J. (2001) ‘Committees, rights, costs & benefits. Natural resource
stewardship & community benefits in Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE programme’. In
D. Hulme and M. Murphree (eds) African Wildlife and Livelihoods. The Promise and
Performance of Community Conservation. Oxford: James Currey
Murombedzi, J. (2003) ‘Devolving the expropriation of nature: The devolution of wildlife
management in southern Africa’. In W. M. Adams and M. Mulligan (eds) Decolonizing
Nature. Strategies for Conservation in a Post-colonial Era. London: Earthscan
Murphree, M. (1995) ‘Optimal principles and pragmatic strategies: Creating an
enabling politico-legal environment for community based natural resource
management (CBNRM)’. In Keynote Address to the Conference of the Natural
Resources Management Programme (SADC Technical Coordination Unit, Malawi,
USAID-NRMP Regional) Chobe, Botswana 3 April 1995
Murphree, M. W. (1996) ‘Approaches to community participation’. In ODA (ed)
African Wildlife Policy Consultation, Final Report. London: Jay Printers
224 NATURE UNBOUND
Murphree, M. (2001) ‘Community, council and client. A case study in ecotourism

development from Mahenye, Zimbabwe’. In D. Hulme and M. Murphree (eds)
African Wildlife and Livelihoods. Portsmouth: Heinemann
Murphree, M. (2005) ‘Congruent objectives, competing interests, and strategic
compromise: Concept and process in the evolution of Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE,
1984–1996’. In J. P. Brosius, A. L. Tsing and C. Zerner (eds) Communities and
Conservation. Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management.
pp105–147. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Mutchler, J. C. (2007) ‘The failure of wilderness: Bureaucracy, bovine, and bullets’.
Paper presented to 106th American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting.
Washington DC
Mutwira, R. (1989) ‘Southern Rhodesian wildlife policy 1890–1953. A question of
condoning game slaughter?’. Journal of Southern African Studies 15: 250–262
Myers, N. (2003) ‘Biodiversity hotspots revisted’. Bioscience 53(10): 916–917
Myers, N. and Lanting, F. (1999) ‘What we must do to counter the biotic holocaust’.
International Wildlife 29(2): 30–39
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. and Kent, J.
(2000) ‘Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities’. Nature 403: 853–858
Myers, N. and Mittermeier, R. A. (2003) ‘Impact and acceptance of the hotspots
strategy: Response to Ovadia and to Brummitt and Lughadha’. Conservation Biology
17(5): 1449–1450
Nabakov, P. and Lawrence, L. (2004) Restoring a Presence: A Documentary Overview of
Native Americans and Yellowstone National Park. Norman, OK: University of
Oklahoma Press
Nadelman, E. A. (1990) ‘Global prohibition regimes. The evolution of norms in
international society’. International Organisation 44: 479–526
Nash, R. (2001) Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale Nota Bene
Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M. B. and Brandon, K. (2005) ‘The role of protected
areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods’. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 30: 219–252
Nelson, F. (2004) ‘The evolution and impacts of community-based ecotourism in
northern Tanzania’. IIED Drylands Programme Issue Paper 131
Nelson, F. and Makko, S. O. (2003) ‘Communities, conservation and conflicts in the
Tanzanian Serengeti’. Third Annual Community-based conservation network
seminar: Turning Natural Resources into Assets, Savannah Georgia, 2003
Nelson, J. and Hossack, L. (2003) Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Africa.
Moreton-in-Marsh: Forest Peoples Programme
Nepstad, D., Schwartzman, S., Bamberger, B., Santilli, M., Ray, D., Schlesinger, P.,
Lefebvre, P., Alencar, A., Prinz, E., Fiske, G. and Rolla, A. (2006) ‘Inhibition of
Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands’. Conservation Biology
20(1): 65–73
Netting, D. (1981) Balancing on an Alp: Ecological Change and Continuity in a Swiss
Mountain Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Neumann, R. (2004) ‘Moral and discursive geographies in the war for biodiversity in
Africa’. Political Geography 23: 813–837
Neumann, R. (2005) Making Political Ecology. London: Hodder Books
REFERENCES 225
Neumann, R. P. (1997) ‘Primitive ideas: Protected area buffer zones and the politics of
land in Africa’. Development and Change 28: 559–582
Neumann, R. P. (1998) Imposing Wilderness. Struggles over Livelihood and Nature
Preservation in Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press
Neumann, R. P. (2000) Primitive Ideas: Protected Area Buffer Zones and the Politics of
Land in Africa? Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet
Neves, K. and Igoe, J. (in production) ‘Disneyfied disaster: Neoliberal recovery and
parreality in post-Katrina New Orleans’. Under production for submission to
American Anthropologist.
Neves-Graca, K. (2003) ‘Investigating ecology: Cognition in human–environmental
relationships’. In P. Meusburger and T. Schwan (eds) Humanökologie: Ansätze zur
Überwindung der Natur-Kultur-Dichotomie. (Human Ecology: Towards Overcoming
the Nature–Culture Dichotomy.) pp287–307. Stuttgart, Germany: Steiner Verlag
Neves-Graca, K. (2004) ‘Revisiting the tragedy of the commons: Whale watching in the
Azores and its ecological dilemmas’. Human Organisation 63(3): 289–300
Neves-Graca, K. (2006) ‘Politics of environmentalism and ecological knowledge at the
intersection of local and global processes’. Journal of Ecological Anthropology 10: 19–32
Neves-Graca, K. (2007a) ‘Animals and global warming’. In M. Siano (ed) The
Encyclopedia of Global Warming and Climate Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications
Neves-Graca, K. (2007b) ‘Elementary methodological tools for a recursive approach to
human–environmental relations’. In J. Wassmann and K. Stockhaus (eds) Person,
Space, and Memory in the Contemporary Pacific: The Experience of New Worlds.
Oxford: Berghahn Books
Neves-Graca, K. (2009) ‘The aesthetics of ecological learning at Montreal’s Botanical
Garden’. Anthropologica, Special Issue edited by S. Aprahiman, K. Neves-Graca and
N. Rapport
Nielsen, M. R. (2006) ‘Importance, cause and effect of bushmeat hunting in the
Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania: Implications for community based wildlife
management’. Biological Conservation 128(4): 509–516
Niezen, R. (2003) The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press
Nikol’skii, A. A. (1994) ‘North Eurasia’. In J. A. McNeely, J. Harrision and P. Dingwall
(eds) Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. Gland: IUCN
Norton, D. (2004) ‘Echoes of Timberlands in high country debate: Are more decisions
being made on the basis of political ideology rather than principles of ecological
sustainability?’. New Zealand Journal of Forestry November: 39–41.
Novelli, M., Barnes, J. and Humavindu, M. (2006) ‘The other side of the ecotourism
coin: Consumptive tourism in southern Africa’. Journal of Ecotourism 5(1, 2): 62–79
Novelli, M. and Humavindu, M. (2005) ‘Wildlife tourism: Wildlife use vs local gain
trophy hunting in Namibia’. In M. Novelli (ed) Niche Tourism: Current Issues Trend
and Cases. Oxford: Elsevier
Nugent, S. (1994) Big Mouth: The Amazon Speaks. San Francisco: Brown Trout Press
Nygren, A. (2000) ‘Environmental narratives on protection and production: Nature-
based conflicts in Rio SanJuan, Nicaragua’. Development and Change 31: 807–830
226 NATURE UNBOUND
Oates, J. F. (1999) Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies are
Failing in West Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press
O’Brien, R., Goetz, A.-M., Scholte, J. A. and Williams, M. (2000) Contesting Global
Governance, Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
O’Connor, J. (1988) ‘Capitalism, nature, and socialism: A theoretical introduction’.
Capitalism, Nature, and Socialism 1: 11–38
Oldfield, S. (2002) The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation. London,
Earthscan
Olson, D. M. and Dinerstein, E. (2002) ‘The global 200: Priority ecoregions for global
conservation’. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89(2): 199–224
Olwig, K. F. and Olwig, K. (1979) ‘Underdevelopment and the development of
“natural” park ideology’. Antipode 11(21): 16–25
Onneweer, M. (2005) ‘New nature: On the topography and temporality of a paradox’.
Paper for the conference People Protecting Nature: Social Dimensions of
Environmental Conservation: 20–21 October 2005. Oxford, Brookes
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B. and Policansky, D. (1999)
‘Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges’. Science 284: 278–282
Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S. and Weber, E. U. (2002)
The Drama of the Commons. Washington DC: National Academy Press
Ostrom, E. and Nagendra, H. (2006) ‘Insights on linking forests, trees and people from
the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory’. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Ovadia, O. (2003) ‘Ranking hotspots of varying sizes: A lesson from the nonlinearity of
the species–area relationship’. Conservation Biology 17(5): 1440–1441
Oyono, P. R. (2004a) ‘Institutional deficit, representation, and decentralized forest
management in Cameroon’. In J. C. Ribot and P. G. Veit (eds) Environmental
Governance in Africa. Washington DC: World Resources Institute
Oyono, P. R. (2004b) ‘One step forward, two steps backward? Paradoxes of natural
resources management decentralisation in Cameroon’. Journal of Modern African
Studies 42(1): 91–111
Oyono, P. R. (2004c) ‘The social and organisation roots of ecological uncertainties in
Cameroon’s forest management decentralisation model’. European Journal of
Development Research 16(1): 174–191
Ozinga, S. (2001) Behind the Logo. An Environmental and Social Assessment of Forest
Conservation Schemes. Moreton-in-Marsh: FERN
Palmer, R., Timmermans, H. and Fay, D. (2002) From Conflict to Negotiation.
Nature-based Development of the South African Wild Coast. Pretoria:
Human Sciences Research Council
Pardo, C. (1994) ‘South America’. In J. A. McNeely, J. Harrison and P. Dingwall (eds)
Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. Gland: IUCN
Pathak, N., Bhatt, S., Tasneem, B., Kothari, A. and Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (2004)
Community Conservation Areas. A Bold Frontier for Conservation. Tehran: TILCEPA,
IUCN, CENESTA, CMWG and WAMIP
REFERENCES 227
Pattullo, P. (1996) Last Resorts: The Cost of Tourism in the Caribbean. London:
Cassell
Pawson, E. (2002) ‘The meanings of mountains’. In E. Pawson and T. Brooking (eds)
Environmental Histories of New Zealand. pp136–150. Melbourne: Oxford
University Press
Peacock, C. P. (1987) ‘Herd movement on a Maasai Group Ranch in relation to
traditional organisation and livestock development’. Agricultural Administration and
Extension 27: 61–74
Pearce, F. (2005a) ‘Big game losers’. New Scientist 16 April 2005: 21
Pearce, F. (2005b) ‘Laird of Africa’. New Scientist 13 August 2005: 48–50
Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) ‘Neoliberalizing space’. Antipode 34(3): 381–404
Peet, R. and Watts, M. (1996) ‘Liberation ecology. Development, sustainability and
environment in an age of market triumphalism’. In R. Peet and M. Watts (eds)
Liberation Ecologies. Environment, Development and Social Movements. London and
New York: Routledge
Peluso, N. L. (1993) ‘Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control’.
Global Environmental Change June: 199–217
Pergams, O. R. W. and Zaradic, P. (2006) ‘Is love of nature in the US becoming love of
electronic media? 16 year down trend in national park visits explained by watching
movies, playing video games, internet use and oil price’. Journal of Environmental
Management 80: 387–393
Pergams, O. R. W. and Zaradic, P. (2008) ‘Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive
shift away from nature-based recreation’. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Perry, D. (2004) ‘Animal rights and environmental wrongs: The case of the Grey
Squirrel in northern Italy’. Essays in Philosophy 5(2)
Petersen, L. and Sandhovel, A. (2001) ‘Forestry policy reform and the role of incentives
in Tanzania’. Forest Policy and Economics 2(1): 39–55
Philpott, S. M. and Dietsch, T. (2003) ‘Coffee and conservation: A global context and
the value of farmer involvement’. Conservation Biology 17(6): 1844–1846
Pimenta, B. V. S., Haddad, C. F. B., Nascimento, L. B., Cruz, C. A. G. and Pombal, J. P.
(2005) ‘Comment on “Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions
worldwide”’. Science 309:1999b
Pimm, S. L. (1991) The Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species
and Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Pimm, S. L. and Askins, R. A. (1995) ‘Forest losses predict bird extinctions in eastern
North America’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 92(20): 9343–9347
Pimm, S. L. and Brooks, T. M. (1997) ‘The sixth extinction. How large, where, and
when?’. In P. H. Raven and T. Williams (eds) Nature and Human Society. The Quest
for a Sustainable World. Washington DC: National Academy Press
Pimm, S. L. and Raven, P. (2000) ‘Extinction by numbers’. Nature 403: 843–845
Pimm, S. L., Russell, G. J., Gittleman, J. L. and Brooks, T. M. (1995) ‘The future of
biodiversity’. Science 269: 347–350
228 NATURE UNBOUND
Poirier, R. and Ostergren, D. (2002) ‘Evicting people from nature: Indigenous land
rights and national parks in Australia, Russia and the United States’. Natural Resources
Journal 42: 331–351
Polanyi, K. (2001 (1944)) The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins
of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press Books
Porter, M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmillan
Possingham, H. P., Andelman, S. J., Burgman, M. A., Medellin, R. A., Master, L. L.
and Keith, D. A. (2002) ‘Limits to the use of threatened species lists’. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 17(11): 503–507
Potkanski, T. (1997) ‘Pastoral economy, property rights and traditional mutual
assistance mechanisms among the Ngorongoro and Salei Maasai of Tanzania’. IIED
Pastoral Land Tenure Series Monograph 2
Princen, T. and Finger, M. (1994) Environmental NGOs in World Politics, Linking the
Global and the Local. London: Routledge
Pringle, T. R. (1988) ‘The privation of history: Landseer, Victoria and the Highland
myth’. In D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels (eds) The Iconography of Landscape. Essays on
the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments. Cambridge:
Proctor, J. D. and Pincetl, S. (1996) ‘Nature and the reproduction of endangered space:
The spotted owl in the Pacific northwest and southern California’. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 14: 683–708
Ramphal, S. (1993) ‘Para nosotros la patria es el planeta tierra’. In J. McNeely (ed)
Parks for Life: Report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas.
Gland: IUCN
Ramutsindela, M. (2007) Transfrontier Conservation in Africa at the Confluence of
Capital Politics and Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Rangan, H. (1992) ‘Romanticizing the environment: Popular environmental action in
Garhwal Himalayas’. In J. Friedman and H. Rangan (eds) Defense of Livelihoods:
Comparative Studies in Environmental Action. pp155–181. West Hartford, CN:
Kumarian
Ranganathan, J., Chan, K. M. A., Karanth, K. U. and Smith, J. L. D. (2008) ‘Where
can tigers persist in the future? A landscape-scale density-based population model for
the Indian subcontinent’. Biological Conservation 141: 67–77
Rangarajan, M. (2001) India’s Wildlife History. Delhi: Permanent Black
Rangarajan, M. and Shahabuddin, G. (2006) ‘Displacement and relocation from
protected areas: Towards a biological and historical synthesis’. Conservation and
Society 4(3): 359–378
Ranger, T. (1999) Voices from the Rocks. Nature, Culture and History in the Matapos Hills
of Zimbabwe. Oxford: James Currey
Rao, M., Rabinowitz, A. and Khaing, S. T. (2002) ‘Status review of the protected-area
system in Myanmar, with recommendations for conservation planning’. Conservation
Biology 16(2): 360–368
Rappole, J. H., King, D. I. and Rivera, J. V. H. (2002a) ‘Coffee and conservation’.
Rappole, J. H., King, D. I. and Rivera, J. V. H. (2002b) ‘Coffee and conservation III:
Reply to Philpott and Dietsch’. Conservation Biology 17(6): 1847–1849
Redford, K. H. (1990) ‘The ecologically noble savage’. Orion 9: 25–29
REFERENCES 229
Redford, K. H. (1992) ‘The empty forest’. Bioscience 42(6): 412–422

Redford, K. H., Coppolillo, P., Sanderson, E. W., Da Fonseca, G. A. B., Dinerstein, E.,
Groves, C., Mace, G., Maginnis, S., Mittermeier, R. A., Noss, R., Olson, D.,
Robinson, J. G., Vedder, A. and Wright, M. (2003) ‘Mapping the conservation
landscape’. Conservation Biology 17(1): 116–131
Redford, K. H. and Fearn, E. (eds) (2007) Protected Areas and Human Displacement: A
Conservation Perspective. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society
Redford, K. H., Robinson, J. G. and Adams, W. M. (2006) ‘Parks as shibboleths’.
Redford, K. H. and Sanderson, S. E. (2000) ‘Extracting humans from nature’.
Redford, K. H. and Stearman, A. M. (1993a) ‘Forest-dwelling native Amazonians and
the conservation of biodiversity: Interests in common or in collision?’. Conservation
Biology 7(2): 248–255
Redford, K. H. and Stearman, A. M. (1993b) ‘On common ground: Response’.
Reeve, R. (2002) Policing the International Trade in Endangered Species: The CITES
Treaty and Compliance. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs/Earthscan
Reeve, R. and Ellis, S. (1995) ‘An insider’s account of the South African security forces’
role in the ivory trade’. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 13: 222–243
Reid, D. G. (2003) Tourism, Globalisation and Development: Responsible Tourism
Planning. London: Pluto Press
Reid, H. (2001) ‘Contractual national parks and the Makuleke community’. Human
Ecology 29(2): 135–155
Reid, H. (2006) ‘Culture, conservation and co-management: Lessons from Australia
and South Africa’. Policy Matters 14: 255–268
Reid, H., Fig, D., Magome, H. and Leader-Williams, N. (2004) ‘Co-management of
contractual national parks in South Africa: Lessons from Australia’. Conservation and
Society 2(2): 377–409
Reid, H. and Turner, S. (2004) ‘The Richtersveld and Makuleke contractual parks in
South Africa: Win–win for communities and conservation?’. In C. Fabricius, E.
Koch, H. Magome and S. Turner (eds) Rights, Resources and Rural Development.
Community-based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. pp93–111.
London: Earthscan
Ribot, J. C. (2002) Democratic Decentralisation of Natural Resources: Institutionalizing
Popular Participation. New York: World Resources Institute
Ribot, J. C. (2004) Waiting for Democracy. The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource
Decentralisation. Washington DC: World Resources Institute
Ribot, J. C. (2006) ‘Choose democracy: Environmentalists’ socio-political
responsibility’. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 16(2):
115–119
Ricketts, T. H., Dinerstein, E., Boucher, T., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M.,
Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J. F., Morrison, J., Parr, M., Pilgrim, J. D., Rodrigues,
A. S. L., Sechrest, W., Wallace, G. E., Berlin, K., Bielby, J., Burgess, N. D., Church,
D. R., Cox, N., Knox, D., Loucks, C., Luck, G. W., Master, L. L., Moore, R.,
Naidoo, R., Ridgely, R., Schatz, G. E., Shire, G., Strand, H., Wettengel, W. and
Wikramanayake, E. (2005) ‘Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions’.
230 NATURE UNBOUND
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(51):
18497–18501
Robbins, P. (2004) Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell
Robbins, P. and Luginbuhl, A. (2005) ‘The last enclosures: Resisting privatization of
wildlife in the western United States’. Capitalism Nature Socialism 16(1): 45–61
Roberts, M., Norman, W., Minhinnick, N., Wihongi, D. and Kirkwood, C. (1995)
‘Kaitiakitanga: Maori perspectives on conservation’. Pacific Conservation Biology
2: 7–20
Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2006) ‘Are global conservation efforts successful?’. Science 313:
1051–1052
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M.,
Cowling, R. M., Fishpool, L. D. C., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Gaston, K. J., Hoffmann,
M., Long, J. S., Marquet, P. A., Pilgrim, J. D., Pressey, R. L., Schipper, J., Sechrest,
W., Stuart, S. N., Underhill, L. G., Waller, R. W., Watts, M. E. J. and Yan, X. (2004)
‘Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity’.
Nature 428: 640–643
Rodriguez, J. P., Taber, A. B., Daszak, P., Sukumar, R., Valladares-Padua, C., Padua, S.,
Aguirre, L. F., Medellin, R. A., Acosta, M., Aguirre, A. A., Bonacic, C., Bordino, P.,
Bruschini, J., Buchori, D., Gonzalez, S., Mathew, T., Mendez, M., Mugica, L.,
Pacheco, L. F., Dobson, A. P. and Pearl, M. (2007) ‘Globalization of conservation:
A view from the south’. Science 317: 755–756
Roe, D. (2006) ‘Blanket bans: conservation or imperialism? A response to Cooney &
Jepson’. Oryx 40(1): 27–28
Roe, D., Hutton, J., Elliot, J., Saruchera, M. and Chitepo, K. (2003) ‘In pursuit of
pro-poor conservation – changing narratives . . . or more?’. Policy Matters 12: 87–91
Romero, C. and Andrade, G. I. (2004) ‘International conservation organisations and the
fate of local tropical forest conservation initiatives’. Conservation Biology 18(2): 578–580
Rose, D. B. (1996) Nourishing Terrains. Australian Aboriginal Views of Landscape and
Wilderness. Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission
Rosenau, J. N. (1990) Turbulence in World Politics. A Theory of Change and Continuity.
New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf
Rosenweig, M. L. (2003) ‘Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity’.
Oryx 37(2): 194–205
Ross, E. (1998) The Malthus Factor: Population, Politics, and Poverty in Capitalist
Development. London: Zed Books
Runte, A. (1979) National Parks. The American Experience. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press
Saberwal, V., Rangarajan, M. and Kothari, A. (2001) People, Parks and Wildlife. Towards
Coexistence. Hyderabad: Orient Longman
Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redford, K. H. and Robinson, J. G. (2002) ‘Improving the
practice of conservation: A conceptual framework and research agenda for
conservation science’. Conservation Biology 16(6): 1469–1479
Sanders, D. (1980) Background Information on the World Council of Indigenous Peoples.
Lethbridge, Alberta: Fourth World Documentation Project
Sanderson, E. W., Jaiteh, M., Levy, M. A., Redford, K. H., Wannebo, A. V. and
Woolmer, G. (2002) ‘The human footprint and the last of the wild’. Bioscience
52(10): 891–904
REFERENCES 231
Sanderson, S. (2004) ‘Conservation in an era of poverty’. Yellowstone Science

12(2): 5–12
Sanderson, S. E. and Redford, K. H. (2003) ‘Contested relationships between
biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation’. Oryx 37: 1–2
Sandoval, C. (2000) Methodology of the Oppressed. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press
Sarkar, S. (1999) ‘Wilderness preservation and biodiversity conservation: Keeping
divergent goals distinct’. Bioscience 49(5): 405–412
Sarkar, S., Pressey, R. L., Faith, D. P., Margules, C. R., Fuller, T., Stoms, D. M.,
Moffett, A., Wilson, K. A., Williams, K. J., Williams, P. H. and Andelman, S. (2006)
‘Biodiversity conservation planning tools: Present status and challenges for the
future’. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31: 123–159
Sato, J. (2000) ‘People in between: Conversion and conservation of forest lands in
Thailand’. Development and Change 31: 155–177
Sato, J. (2002) ‘Karen and the land in between: Public and private enclosure of forests
in Thailand’. In D. Chatty and M. Colchester (eds) Conservation and Mobile
Indigenous Peoples. Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development.
pp277–295. New York: Berghahn Books
Saunders, A. and Norton, D. A. (2001) ‘Ecological restoration at Mainland Islands in
New Zealand’. Biological Conservation 99(1): 109–119
Schama, S. (1996) Landscape and Memory. London: Fontana Press
Scheyvens, R. (1999) ‘Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities’.
Tourism Management 20: 245–249
Schmidt-Soltau, K. and Brockington, D. (2007) ‘Protected areas and resettlement:
What scope for voluntary relocation’. World Development 35(12): 2182–2202
Scholfield, K. and Brockington, D. (2008) Non-governmental Organisations and African
Wildlife Conservation: A Preliminary Analysis. Manchester: University of Manchester
Scott, G. A. J. (1989) ‘Environmental politics and place: A political geography of the
South Westland Native Forests controversy’. Masters, University of Canterbury
Seligmann, P., Supriatna, J., Ampadu-Agyei, O., Roberts, C. S., Hails, C. and
McCormick, S. J. (2005) ‘A challenge to conservationists: Phase II – Letters’. World
Watch Magazine Jan/Feb: 5–20
Shanahan, C. L. (2005) ‘“(No) Mercy” Nary Patrols: A controversial, last-ditch effort to
salvage the Central African Republic’s Chinko Basin’. Thomas Jefferson Law Review
27: 223–254
Sharpley, R. (2006) ‘Ecotourism: A consumption perspective’. Journal of Ecotourism
5(1, 2): 7–22
Sheridan, M. and Nyamweru, C. (2008) African Sacred Groves. Ecological Dynamics and
Social Change. Oxford: James Currey
Shi, Hua, Singh, A., Kant, S., Zhu, Z. and Waller, E. (2005) ‘Integrating habitat status,
human population pressure and protection status into biodiversity conservation
priority setting’. Conservation Biology 19(4): 1273–1285
Simberloff, D. (1986) ‘Are we on the verge of a mass extinction in tropical rain forests?’.
In D. K. Elliot (ed) Dynamics of Extinction. pp165–180. New York: John Wiley and Sons
Simberloff, D. (1998) ‘Small and declining populations’. In W. Sutherland (ed)
Conservation Science and Action. pp116–134. Oxford: Blackwell
Simon, J. (1981) The Ultimate Resource. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
232 NATURE UNBOUND
Sivaramakrishnan, K. (1999) Modern Forests: Statemaking and Environmental Change in

Colonial Eastern India. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Sjoholm, H. and Wily, L. (1995) ‘Finding a way forward in natural forest management
in Tanzania: The emergence of village forest reserves’. IRDC Currents (International
Rural Development Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) June 1995
Sklair, L. (2001) The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell
Smith, E. A. and Wishnie, M. (2000) ‘Conservation and subsistence in small-scale
societies’. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 493–524
Smith, F. D. M., May, R. M., Pellew, R., Johnson, T. H. and Walter, K. S. (1993)
‘Estimating extinction rates’. Nature 364: 494–496
Smith, M. and Duffy, R. (2003) The Ethics of Tourism Development. London:
Routledge
Smyth, D. M. (2001) ‘Joint management of national parks’. In R. Baker, J. Davies and
D. Young (eds) Working on Country. Contemporary Indigenous Management of
Australia’s Lands and Coastal Regions. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Southgate, C. (2006) ‘Ecotourism in Kenya: The vulnerability of communities’. Journal
of Ecotourism 5(1, 2): 80–96
Spence, M. D. (1999) Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of
National Parks. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Spinage, C. (1998) ‘Social change and conservation misrepresentation in Africa’. Oryx
32: 265–76
Stattersfield, A. J., Crosby, M. J., Long, A. J. and Wege, D. C. (1998) Endemic Bird
Areas of the World. Cambridge: Birdlife International
Steadman, D. W. (1995) ‘Prehistoric extinctions of Pacific island birds: Biodiversity
meets zooarchaeology’. Science 267: 1123–1131
Stegeborn, W. (1996) ‘Sri Lanka’s forests: Conservation of nature versus people’.
Cultural Survival Quarterly 20(1)
Steinhart, E. I. (2006) Black Poachers, White Hunters. A Social History of Hunting in
Colonial Kenya. Oxford: James Currey
Stephenson, M. and Chaves, E. (2006) ‘The nature conservancy: The press and
accountability’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35(3): 345–366
Stepp, R. (2005) ‘Documenting Garifuna traditional ecological knowledge for park
co-management in southern Belize’. Paper presented to the meetings of the Society
for Applied Anthropology, Santa Fe, NM
Stepp, R., Servone, S., Castaneda, J., Lasseter, H., Stock, A. and Gichon, Y. (2004)
‘Development of a GIS for biocultural diversity’. Policy Matters 14: 256–266
Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change. London: The Cabinet Office – HM
Treasury
Stevens, B. (2005) Disney’s Commitment to Conservation. Lake Buena Vista, FL: Walt
Disney World Conservation Initiatives
Stoner, K. E., Vulinec, K., Wright, S. J. and Peres, C. A. (2007) ‘Hunting and plant
community dynamics in tropical forests: A synthesis and future directions’. Biotropica
39(3): 385–392
Stork, N. E. (1997) ‘Measuring global biodiversity and its decline’. In M. L. Reaka-
Kudla, D. E. Wilson and E. O. Wilson (eds) Biodiversity II. Understanding and
Protecting Our Biological Resources. pp41–68. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press
REFERENCES 233
Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Young, B. E., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Fischman,
D. L. and Waller, R. T. (2004) ‘Status and trends of amphibian declines and
extinctions worldwide’. Science 306: 1783–1786
Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Young, B. E., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Fischman,
D. L. and Waller, R. T. (2005) ‘Response to comment on “Status and trends of
amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide”’. Science 309: 1999c
Sulayem, M., Saleh, M., Dean, F. and Drucker, G. (1994) ‘North Africa and the
Middle East’. In J. A. McNeely, J. Harrison and P. Dingwall (eds) Protecting Nature:
Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. Gland: IUCN
Sullivan, S. (2000) ‘Gender, ethnographic myths and community-based conservation in
a former Namibian “homeland”’. In D. Hodgson (ed) Rethinking Pastoralism in
Africa: Gender, Culture and the Myth of the Patriarchal Pastoralist. pp142–164.
Oxford: James Currey
Sullivan, S. (2003) ‘Protest, conflict and litigation. Dissent or libel in resistance to a
conservancy in north-west Namibia’. In D. G. Anderson and E. Berglund (eds)
Ethnographies of Conservation. Environmentalism and the Distribution of Privilege.
New York: Berghahn
Sullivan, S. (2006) ‘The elephant in the room? Problematising “new” (neoliberal)
biodiversity conservation’. NUPI Forum for Development Studies 2006(1): 105–135
Sundar, N. (2000) ‘Unpacking the “joint” in joint forest management’. Development
and Change 31: 255–279
Sunseri, T. (2005) ‘“Something else to burn”: Forest squatters, conservationists, and the
state in modern Tanzania’. Journal of Modern African Studies 43(4): 609–640
Suzman, J. (2002/3) ‘Response from James Suzman to Stephen Corry’. Before Farming
4(14): 4–10
Swatuk, L. A. (2005) ‘From “project” to “context”: Community-based natural resource
management in Botswana’. Global Environmental Politics 5(3): 95–124
Sylvaine, R. (2002) ‘Land, water, and truth: San identity and global indigenism’.
American Anthropologist 104(4): 1074–1085
Taiepa, T., Lyver, P., Horsley, P., Davis, J., Bragg, M. and Moller, H. (1997)
‘Co-management of New-Zealand’s conservation estate by Maori and Pakeha:
A review’. Environmental Conservation 24(3): 236–250
Tapia, C. (2005) ‘Neoliberalism, security agendas, and parks with people: Implications
for community-based conservation’. Paper presented to the meetings of the Society
for Applied Anthropology, Santa Fe, NM
Taskforce, Alpine Grazing (2005) Report of the Investigation into the Future of Cattle
Grazing in the Alpine National Park. Melbourne: Victorian Government. Department
of Sustainability and the Environment
Taylor, P. (2005) Beyond Conservation. A Wildland Strategy. London: Earthscan
Terborgh, J. (1972) ‘Preservation of natural diversity: The problem of extinction prone
species’. Bioscience 24(12): 715–722
Terborgh, J. (1999) Requiem for Nature. Washington DC: Island Press
Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. and Nowak, M. A. (1994) ‘Habitat
destruction and the extinction debt’. Nature 371: 65–66
Tofa, M. (2007) ‘Justice in collaboration? Indigenous peoples and postcolonial
conservation management’. Master of Arts, University of Aukland
234 NATURE UNBOUND
Toogood, M. (2003) ‘Decolonizing Highland conservation’. In W. M. Adams and

M. Mulligan (eds) Decolonizing Nature. Strategies for Conservation in a Post-colonial
Era. London: Earthscan
Topp-Jorgensen, E., Poulsen, M. K., Lund, J. F. and Massao, J. F. (2005) ‘Community-
based monitoring of natural resource use and forest quality in montane forests and
miombo woodlands of Tanzania’. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2653–2677
Townsend, J. G. and Townsend, A. R. (2004) ‘Accountability, motivation and practice:
NGOs North and South’. Social and Cultural Geography 5(2): 271–284
Tsing, A. L. (2004) Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton: Princeton
University Press
Turner, I. M., Tan, H. T. W., Wee, Y. C., Ibrahim, A. B., Chew, P. T. and Corlett, R. T.
(1994) ‘A study of plant-species-extinction in Singapore: Lessons for the conservation
of tropical biodiversity’. Conservation Biology 8(3): 705–712
Turner, T. (1993) ‘The role of indigenous peoples in the environmental crisis’.
Perspective in Biology and Medicine 36(3): 526–545
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (1989) Convention (no. 169) Concerning
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Geneva: Office for the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Upton, C., Ladle, R., Hulme, D., Jiang, T., Brockington, D. and Adams, W. M. (2008)
‘Protected areas, poverty & biodiversity: A national scale analysis’. Oryx 42: 19–25
Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage
Urry, J. and Lash, S. (1987) The End of Organized Capitalism. Madison, WI: University
of Wisconsin Press
Van-Amerom, M. and Büscher, B. (2005) ‘Peace parks in southern Africa: Bringers of
an African renaissance?’. Journal of Modern African Studies 43(2): 159–182
Vanclay, F. (2002) ‘Conceptualising social impacts’. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 22: 183–211
Vandergeest, P. and Peluso, N. (1995) ‘Territorialization and state power in Thailand’.
Theory and Society 24: 385–426
Vayda, A. P. and Walters, B. B. (1999) ‘Against political ecology’. Human Ecology 27(1):
167–179
Verschuuren, B., Mallarach, J. M. and Oviedo, G. (2007) ‘Sacred sites and protected areas’.
Paper produced for the IUCN Categories Summit, Andalusia, Spain, 7–11 May 2007
Villa Boas, O. and Villa Boas, C. (1968) ‘Saving Brazil’s stone age tribes from
extinction’. National Geographic 134(3): 424–444
Wade, R. (1988) Village Republics: Economic Conditions for Collective Action in
South India. Oakland: ICS Press
Waitangi Tribunal (1996) The Taranaki Report – Kaupapa Tuatahi. Wellington
Walley, C. J. (2004) Rough Waters: Nature and Development in an East African Marine
Park. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Walsh, M. (1997) ‘Mammals in Mtanga’. Notes on Ha and Bembe ethnomammalogy
in a village bordering Gombe Streams National Park, Western Tanzania
Walsh, P. D., Abernethy, K. A., Bermejo, M., Beyersk, R., De Wachter, P., Akou, M. E.,
Huljbregis, B., Mambounga, D. I., Toham, A. K., Kilbourn, A. M., Lahm, S. A.,
Latour, S., Maisels, F., Mbina, C., Mihindou, Y., Obiang, S. N., Effa, E. N., Starkey,
M. P., Telfer, P., Thibault, M., Tutin, C. E. G., White, L. J. T. and Wilkie, D. S. (2003)
‘Catastrophic ape decline in western equatorial Africa’. Nature 422: 611–614
REFERENCES 235
Waters, K. (2006) Discussion Paper on Wellbeing and Co-management. Earlwood:

Waters Consultancy
Weiner, D. R. (1988) Models of Nature. Ecology, Conservation, and Cultural Revolution
in Soviet Russia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press
Weiner, D. R. (1999) A Little Corner of Freedom. Russian Nature Protection from Stalin
to Gorbachev. Berkeley: University of California Press
Wells, M., Brandon, K. and Hannah, L. (1992) People and Parks: Linking Protected Area
Management with Local Communities. Washington DC: The World Bank
Wells, M., Guggenheim, S., Khan, A., Wardojo, W. and Jepson, P. (1999) Investing in
Biodiversity. A Review of Indonesia’s Integrated Conservation and Development Projects.
Washington DC: The World Bank
Wels, H. (2003) Private Wildlife Conservation in Zimbabwe: Joint Ventures and
Reciprocity. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers
West, P. (2006) Conservation is Our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in Papua
New Guinea. Durham: Duke University Press
West, P. and Brockington, D. (2006) ‘Some unexpected consequences of protected
areas: An anthropological perspective’. Conservation Biology 20(3): 609–616
West, P. and Carrier, J. G. (2004) ‘Ecotourism and authenticity. Getting away from it
all?’. Current Anthropology 45(4): 483–498
West, P., Igoe, J. and Brockington, D. (2006) ‘Parks and people: The social impacts of
protected areas’. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 251–277
West, P. C. and Brechin, S. R. (1991) Resident Peoples and National Parks. Tuscon:
University of Arizona Press
Western, D. (1994) ‘Ecosystem conservation and rural development: The case of
Amboseli’. In D. Western and R. M. Wright (eds) Natural Connections. Perspectives in
Community-based Conservation. Washington DC: Island Press
Western, D. (2001) ‘Taking the broad view of conservation: A response to Adams and
Hulme’. Oryx 35: 201–203
Western, D. and Wright, R. M. (1994) Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-
based Conservation. Washington DC: Island Press
Westing, A. H. (1993) Transfrontier Reserves for Peace and Nature: A Contribution to
Human Security. Nairobi: UNEP
Wijnstekers, W. (2001) The Evolution of CITES, 6th edition. Geneva: CITES Secretariat
Wiles, G. J. W., Bart, J., Beck, R. E. and Aguon, C. F. (2003) ‘Impacts of the brown
tree snake: Patterns of decline and species persistence in Guam’s avifauna’.
Wilkie, D. S. and Carpenter, J. F. (1999) ‘Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: An
assessment of impacts and options for mitigation’. Biodiversity and Conservation 8(7):
927–955
Wilkie, D. S., Morelli, G. A., Demmer, J., Starkey, M., Telfer, P. and Steil, M. (2006))
‘Parks and people: Assessing the human welfare effects of establishing protected areas
for biodiversity conservation’. Conservation Biology 20(1): 247–249
Williams, R. (1973) The Country and the City. London: The Hogarth Press
Willis, K. J. and Birks, H. J. (2006) ‘What is natural? The need for a long-term
perspective in biodiversity conservation’. Science 314: 1261–1265
Willis, K. J., Gillson, L. and Brncic, T. M. (2004) ‘How “virgin” is virgin rainforest?’.
Science 304: 402–403
236 NATURE UNBOUND
Wilson, A. (1992) The Culture of Nature: North American Landscapes from Disney to the
Exxon Valdez. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers
Wilson, G. A. and Memon, P. A. (2005) ‘Indigenous forest management in
21st-century New Zealand: Towards a “postproductivist” indigenous forest–farmland
interface?’. Environment and Planning A 37(8): 1493–1517
Wilson, K. A., McBride, M. F., Bode, M. and Possingham, H. P. (2006) ‘Prioritizing
global conservation efforts’. Nature 440: 337–340
Wilson, K. A., Underwood, E. C., Morrison, S. A., Klausmeyer, K. R., Murdoch, W.
W., Reyers, B., Wardell-Johnson, G., Marquet, P. A., Rundel, P. W., McBride, M. F.,
Pressey, R. L., Bode, M., Hoekstra, J. M., Andelman, S., Looker, M., Rondinini, C.,
Kareiva, P., Shaw, M. R. and Possingham, H. P. (2007) ‘Conserving biodiversity
efficiently: What to do, where, and when’. PLoS Biology 5(9): 1850–1861
Wily, L. and Haule, O. (1995) ‘Good news from Tanzania: Village forest reserves in the
making – the story of Duru-Haitemba’. Forest, Trees and People Newsletter 29: 28–37
Wily, L. A. (2001) ‘Forest Laws. Tanzania gets it right’. Ecoforum Long Rains 2001: 35–38.
Wily, L. A. (2002) ‘The political economy of community forestry in Africa: Getting the
power relations right’. Forest, Trees and People Newsletter 46: 4–12
Wily, L. A. and Dewees P. A. (2001) ‘From users to custodians: Changing relations
between people and the state in forest management in Tanzania’. World Bank Policy
Research Paper 2569
Winer, N., Turton, D. and Brockington, D. (2007) ‘Conservation principles and
humanitarian practice’. Policy Matters 15: 232–240
Wolf, E. R. (1982) Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of
California Press
Wolmer, W. (2003) ‘Transboundary conservation: The politics of ecological integrity in
the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park’. Journal of Southern African Studies 29(1):
261–278
Wolmer, W. (2007) From Wilderness Visions to Farm Invasions: Conservation and
Development in Zimbabwe’s South East Lowveld. Oxford: James Currey
Woodruff, D. S. (2001) ‘Declines of biomes and biotas and the future of evolution’.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98(10):
5471–5476
Wroe, S. and Field, J. (2006) ‘A review of the evidence for a human role in the
extinction of Australian megafauna and an alternative interpretation’. Quaternary
Science Reviews 25(21, 22): 2692–2703
Wroe, S. and Field, J. (2007) ‘A reply to comment by Brook et al “Would the
Australian megafauna have become extinct if humans had never colonized the
continent?”’. Quaternary Science Reviews 26(3, 4): 565–567
WWF (1997) Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion
Conservation. Gland: WWF International, Terralingua
WWF and IUCN (1997) Centres of Plant Diversity. Gland: WWF, IUCN
Xu, J. and Melick, D. R. (2007) ‘Rethinking the effectiveness of public protected areas
in southwestern China’. Conservation Biology 21(2): 318–328
Young, D. (2004) Our Islands, Our Selves. A History of Conservation in New Zealand.
Otago: Otago University Press
Young, I. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press
REFERENCES 237
Young, O. R. (1989) ‘The politics of international regime formation: Managing natural

resources and the environment’. International Organisation 43: 349–375
Zaradic, P. and Pergams, O. R. W. (2007) ‘Videophilia: Implications for childhood
development and conservation’. The Journal of Development Processes 2(1): 130–147
Zimmerer, K. S. (2006) ‘Cultural ecology at the interface with political ecology: The
new geographies of environmental conservation and globalisation’. Progress in Human
Geography 30(1): 63–78
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 239
Index
Aboriginal people, Australia 84, 106–109, African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) 152,
114, 126 157, 163, 195–197
Abu Camp Elephant Safaris, Botswana Al-Haram al-Makki Inviolable Sanctuary
141 (Mecca), Saudi Arabia 41
Accelerated Mahweli Development Project, Alaska 20, 113, 122, 126, 128
Sri Lanka 3 Algeria 38
Africa Alliance for Zero Extinction 61
bushmeat trade 7, 72 Altmatt-Biberbrugg, Switzerland 40
community-based management 93, Amazon area 36, 65, 71–72, 123, 127
95–96, 98 American Electrical Power 179
conservation strategies 7–8, 20, 43, ANGAP, Madagascar 91–2, 168
93, 96 Angkor Wat National Park, Cambodia 39
ethnotourism 141–142 Anjajavy, Madagascar 140
hunting issues 8, 70–72, 77–78, 93 Antarctica 29–30, 37
international NGOs 42, 79, 156, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 2
157–158 Argentina 36, 41, 66
ivory trade 7, 78, 152–4 Asia 29–30, 33–34, 65, 71, 75–76, 131,
poaching 77–79, 154 179
poverty 81 Association Nationale pour la Gestion des
protected areas Aires Protégées, Madagascar see
distribution 29–30, 32, 33–34 ANGAP
evictions 75–76, 106 Atlantic Forest, Brazil 179
game reserves 7, 24, 35 Australia
history 32, 35, 47, 77 conservation movements 48, 114
indigenous inhabitants 74, 128 hunting issues 69–70
lawlessness issues 117 indigenous people see Aboriginal people
limitations 43, 70 mining industry 114
local community support issues 83 protected areas 38–40
national parks 35, 43, 117 co-management schemes 105,
private 183 107–109
traditional management 20, 70 data collection 42
tourism 106, 131, 141–142 and development 1
transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) distribution 29–30, 33–34
42, 165 evictions 75, 106–107
see also named countries grassland 64
African Parks Foundation 161–163 indigenous protected areas (IPAs)
African Rainforest and River Conservation 126
79 limitations 67
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 240
240 NATURE UNBOUND
national parks 23, 28 Caitlin, George 18–19, 47, 115

tourism 136–137 Cambodia 35, 39, 66, 104
Azores 145 Cameroon 3–4, 179
Campfire, Zimbabwe 70, 95–97
Badlands National Park, South Dakota, Canada 28, 64, 122, 165
USA 105, 110, 122 Cangrejo Caye, Belize 137
Barabaig people, Tanzania 122–123 capitalism
Barro Colorado Island, Panama 57 conservation relationship 1–6, 88, 162,
Baudrillard, Jean 176, 193, 195, 197, 200 175, 199–200
Belize 66, 82, 137, 144, 166–167 and consumerism 5, 18, 177, 192
Biamanga National Park, Australia disaster capitalism 192–193, 199–200
108–109 liberal capitalism 176, 186–193, 195,
Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea 57 197–200
Blue Ridge Parkway 123 and the metabolic rift 187–190
Bogd Khan Mountain National Park, neoliberal capitalism 3, 176, 191–193,
Mongolia 19, 38 199
Bolivia 66, 179 and protected areas 1–5, 18, 175,
Booderee National Park, Australia 107 199–200
Botswana 122–123, 125, 140–141, 154 tourism relationship 134, 192–193
Bowles, Samuel 115–116 carbon and carbon markets 9, 176–181,
Brazil 190, 194
indigenous peoples see Kayapo people Caribbean region 29–30, 33–34, 36, 40,
protected areas 40 75, 133, 137, 142
business involvement 179 Cayman Brac East Grouper Spawning Site,
distribution 29–30, 33–34 Caribbean region 40
limitations 65, 66 Celestun, Mexico 133
Britain see UK Central African Republic 67, 79
Brunei 67 Central America 29–30, 33–34, 36, 39,
Burma see Myanmar 43, 75–76
bushmeat trade 7, 72 Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Brazil
business 40
conservation involvement 9, 13, 90, Chile 36
155–156, 164–7 China 19, 35–36, 38, 66, 83
government relationships 91, 164–70 CITES 150–154, 171
local community relationships 90–91 Clean Development Mechanism 177–178
in networks 13, 91, 118, 164–167, Co-operative Bank 179–180
171 Cockscomb Basin Jaguar Preserve, Belize
NGO relationships 12, 90, 118, 82
155–156, 162, 164–165 Colombia 66
protected areas involvement 9–10, common pool resources 88, 99–101, 103
91–92, 167–170, 179, common property resource management
182–185 88, 99–104
in public–private partnerships 91–92, Communal Areas Management Plan for
141, 164–171 Indigenous Resources, Zimbabwe see
and tourism 132, 136, 139–141 Campfire
see also industry Congo 67, 71
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 241
INDEX 241
conservation and neoliberalism 13, 90, 118,

business involvement 9, 13, 90, 180–181, 195–196, 198–200
155–156, 164–167 networks involvement 4, 9, 12–13, 90,
capitalism relationship 1–6, 88, 162, 164–167, 171
175, 199–200 NGO involvement 12, 25, 36, 61,
and carbon 9, 176–181, 190, 194 154–157, 163, 171
certification schemes 179, 180–182, poverty relationship 63–64, 79–82, 87,
186–187 103–104, 123–124, 153
and common property resource prioritizing mechanisms 25–28
management 103–104 and protected areas 2–5, 9–10, 11,
conservation strategies 4, 6–10, 11, 17, 43–44, 64–72, 115–118,
12–14, 25, 28 186–187
consumerism relationship 5, 7, 144, and public–private partnerships 141,
177, 189–190, 198 164–167, 171
controversial issues 7–8 and science 32, 61–62, 151, 163–164
development relationship 1, 13–14, and the ‘spectacle of nature’ 176,
79–80, 96, 125, 159–160 194–197, 199
donor involvement 13–14, 80, 90, tourism relationship 23, 82, 143–144,
157–158, 163–170 146–147, 190
and the extinction crisis 8, 42, 50–61, 81 ecotourism 4, 11, 131–132,
of forests 1, 9, 24, 35–36, 43, 64–65, 136–138, 160, 193–194
68–69, 177–179 transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs)
‘fortress conservation’ 83, 87–88, 164 39, 42, 165–167
funding 25, 28, 157–159, 168, 171, violence caused 7, 17, 79, 106
195–197 and the wilderness lobby 7, 17, 45,
government strategies 13, 32, 65, 47–50
78–79, 90, 103, 164–167 Conservation International (CI) 36, 42,
history 20–21, 24, 115–116, 149 91, 155, 157, 163–164, 168–170, 200
and hunting 5, 7–8, 19–20, 47, consumerism
69–72, 98 and capitalism 5, 18, 177, 192
and images 176, 194–199 commodity fetishism theory (Marx)
indigenous peoples involvement 2, 144, 186–187
108–109, 113–114, 118, 124–130 conservation relationship 5, 7, 144,
industry involvement 5, 7, 90 177, 189–190, 198
international agreements 1, 13, and the media 144–145
150–151, 171, 175 see also CITES spectacle theory (Debord) 144–145,
at landscape level 43–44 194–196
limitations 17–18, 49, 149–150, tourism relationship 18, 70, 135, 145,
179–180 189–190
local community involvement 10, 12, Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) 151,
79–84, 87–88, 90, 97–98, 171
110–111, 166–167 Convention on International Trade in
mainstream conservation 9–10, 21, Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
23, 25, 115, 155–156, 195–196, Flora see CITES
198 Coral Cay Conservation 143–144
and the media 11, 140, 155, 176 Costa Rica 36, 41, 66
and the metabolic rift 189–190 Cote d’Ivoire 67
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 242
242 NATURE UNBOUND
dams 2–3, 42, 117, 126, 128 and local communities 82, 90,
Debord, Guy 144–145, 176, 194–196, 138–139, 194
200 luxury ecotourism 139–141, 147, 185
Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous and protected areas 79, 82
Peoples (UN, 2007) 118–19 sustainability issues 132, 134–138
deforestation 36–37, 64–65, 126, 178, and voluntourism 143
179, 180 Egypt 36, 40
Democratic Republic of Congo 39, elephants 7, 19, 70, 77, 97, 150, 152–154
67, 72 England 19, 36–37, 39, 41, 84
development Equador 66
conservation relationship 1, 13–14, Ethiopia 125, 161–2
79–80, 96, 125, 159–160 Europe 29–30, 33–34, 37, 75, 115, 131
neoliberalism relationship 132–133 the extinction crisis 8, 42, 50–61, 81
NGO involvement 159–162
and protected areas 1–4, 36–37, 39 Finland 40
tourism as a strategy 132–4, 136, 147 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 179,
see also sustainable development 181–182
Dinosaur National Monument, US 2 forestry and forest management 43
Disney, Walt 146 and carbon market 177–180
dolphins 58, 136–7 certification schemes 179, 181–182
donors community-based 65, 94–95, 103, 178,
conservation involvement 13–14, 80, 179
90, 157–158, 163–170 conservation strategies 1, 9, 24, 35–36,
in networks 90–92, 165 43, 64–65, 68–69, 177–179
protected area involvement 3, 70–71, forest reserves 1, 12, 35, 40–41, 95,
91–92, 168–170 103
in public–private partnerships 168–171 hunting issues 71–72
tourism involvement 132–133, 139, 146 see also deforestation
Dr Carlos Spegazzini Mycological Reserve, Fort Dauphin, Madagascar 4–5
South America 40 Fort Ross Underwater Park, California, USA
Dryodasos Mongostou Korinthias Aesthetic 40
Forest, Greece 40 Forum on Indigenous Issues (UN) 117,
Durban Vision Initiative and Group 42, 121
169–170 Franklin Dam, Tasmania 2
East Kalimantan 74 Gabon 42

ecotourism The Galapagos National Park, South
and conservation 4, 11, 131–132, America 39
136–138, 160, 193–194 Gates of the Arctic National Park, Alaska
defined 134–135, 137–138 113–114
the ecotourism bubble 144–146, geographic information systems see GIS
189–190 Ghana 67, 71
growth in 131, 135 GIS models and data 3, 25, 42, 75
hunting relationship 70 Glacier National Park, Montana 117
limitations 136–138, 140–141, governments
145–147 business relationships 91, 164–170
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 243
INDEX 243
in co-management schemes 105–107, Il Ngwesi Group Ranch, Kenya 127

109–110 images
conservation strategies 13, 32, 65, in conservation 176, 194–199
78–79, 90, 103, 164–167 and reality 144–145, 176, 193–199
indigenous people relationships 78, and the ‘spectacle of nature’ 176,
83–84, 90, 109–110, 116–117, 141 194–199
natural resource management 91, and tourism 73, 127, 142, 193–195,
94–96 199
in networks 13, 91–92, 164–167, 171 India
NGO relationships 4, 12–13, 36, 122, community-based management 94–95,
136, 139, 159, 162–3 179
protected areas involvement 12–13, 32, protected areas
35, 68, 91–92, 104–110, 167–170, forest reserves 35
182–183 history 19, 35
in public–private partnerships 141, indigenous inhabitants 35, 74
164–171 and industry 2
and tourism 132, 136, 139–141, 147 limitations 43, 66
and transfrontier conservation areas local community support issues 83
(TFCAs) 166–167 national parks 23, 35, 41, 49
violent campaigns 77, 79, 107 traditional management 20
The Great Barrier Reef, Australia 39 indigenous peoples
Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park 165 activism 113, 118–122, 124–127, 129
Greece 40 conservation involvement 2, 108–109,
Greenland 38 113–114, 118, 124–130
Greenpeace 2–3, 7, 155 as ecologically Noble Savages 87–88,
Guatemala 66, 166, 179 124–125, 129
Gulaga National Park, Australia 108–109 and ethnotourism 141–143
Gurig National Park, Australia 107 government relationships 78, 83–84,
90, 109–110, 116–117, 141
Hardin, Garrett 99–100 human rights issues 113, 118–119
Hawaii 52 hunting 69–70, 98
Holland 44 identity issues 89, 107, 115, 119–123
Honduras 66, 166 industry relationship 90, 113–114, 117
Huna Tinglit people, Alaska 20 land rights issues 2, 105–110, 124
hunting marginalized groups 93, 106, 121–125
and conservation 5, 7–8, 19–20, 47, natural resource management 20–21,
69–72, 98 108, 114, 128
extinction relationship 51 NGO relationships 114, 118, 128,
by indigenous peoples 69–70, 98 141–142, 161–162, 164, 200
poaching compared 77–78 and protected areas 40
and protected areas 4, 19–20, 24, 35, co-management schemes 104–110
44–45, 69–72 damage caused? 5, 35, 69–71, 145
safari hunting 5, 7–8, 45, 96–98 evictions 35–36, 73, 75–77,
sport hunting 70, 77, 96–97, 140, 153, 105–106, 125, 161–162
184 exclusion 83, 95, 105–106, 114,
Hurricane Katrina 192 116, 123, 128, 147
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 244
244 NATURE UNBOUND
impacts 24, 72–79, 82, 95, 114, Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, India
145, 185 49
indigenous inhabitants 74, Kibale National Park, Uganda 179–180
128–129, 141 Kimana community, Kenya 138
indigenous protected areas (IPAs) Korea 35
117, 126–127 Kruger National Park, South Africa 35,
representation issues 84, 114, 38, 105–106, 185
121–123 Kuna Yala Reserve, Panama 2, 117
and tourism 106–107, 123, 127, 138, Kuwait 36
145–147, 190 Kyoto Protocol 151, 177
violence suffered 77, 107, 116–117
see also local communities land use issues 37, 39, 43–45, 49,
Indigenous Peoples’ Movement 113, 75, 185
118–119 Laos 3, 42, 66
Indonesia 19, 35, 66, 124–126, Lapiosuon-Ison Åijönsuon
195 Soidensuojelualue Protected Mire,
industry 2–5, 7, 37, 90, 113–114, 117 Finland 40
see also business; tourism Latin America 23, 24, 71, 84, 114, 117,
Integrated Development with Conservation 128, 179
Projects (IDCPs) 13–14, 80 Lebanon 36
International Ecotourism Society 135, 138 Liberia 67
International Forestry Resources and Lisu Lodge, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Institutions (IFRI) network 68, 101 193–194
International Monetary Fund (IMF) 1, local communities
132 business relationships 90–91
Inuit people, Alaska 113–114, 126 common property resource management
Iraq 36 88, 99–104
Isla de la Estados Touristic, Historic, ‘community’ as a concept 88–92, 111
Ecological Provincial Reserve, community empowerment 92–99, 110,
Argentina 41 138–139, 147, 160
IUCN (International Union for Conservation conservation involvement 10, 12,
of Nature) 3–4, 21–23, 42, 113, 117, 79–84, 87–88, 90, 97–98,
136 see also Red List 110–111, 166–167
ivory trade 7, 77–78, 97, 150–154 devolved management 10, 88, 92–99,
166–167
Jamaica 66 forest management 65, 94–95, 103,
Japan 41, 66 178, 179
Jervis Bay, Sydney, Australia 1 natural resource management 10, 20,
Joint Forest Management, West Bengal, 87–88, 92–99, 111, 138, 140,
India 94–95, 179 163–164
in networks 13, 89–92, 166
Kakadu National Park, Australia 107 NGO relationships 12, 90, 139,
Kanevskiy Nature Zapodevnik, Ukraine 40 160–161, 163–164, 167, 171
Karen people, Thailand 76 protected areas issues 11, 13, 24, 65,
Kayapo people, Brazil 2, 105, 117, 122, 68, 83–84, 184
126, 128, 200 tourism involvement 82, 90, 138–140,
Kenya 7–8, 43, 57, 67, 78, 127, 138 145–147, 194
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 245
INDEX 245
and transfrontier conservation areas National Nature Reserves (NNRs) 37

(TFCAs) 166–167 national parks
see also indigenous peoples defined 22, 68
Lyapinskaya Ethnic Territory, Russia 40 history 3, 9, 18–19, 21, 28, 32, 35–37,
47, 115–116
Maasai people, Tanzania 83, 122–123, indigenous inhabitants 19, 23, 35–36,
126, 128, 145–146 113
Madagascar 4–5, 42, 67, 91–92, 140, limitations 18, 21, 70
167–171 Native Americans 105, 115–117,
Madikwe Game Reserve, South Africa 45 122–123, 128
Malawi 67 natural resource management
Malaysia 57, 66, 126 community-based 10, 20, 87–88,
Manu National Park, Peru 38 92–99, 111, 138, 140, 163–164
Maori people, New Zealand 20, 28, devolved management 10, 88, 92–99
69–70, 110 by governments 91, 94–96
Marx, Karl 144, 176, 186–187, 191, 200 by indigenous peoples 20–21, 108,
Marxism 188, 190–192, 198–199 114, 128
Mecca, Saudi Arabia 41 and the metabolic rift 187–90
the media, role of 11, 140, 144–145, 155, open access resources 93, 99–101
176, 193–195 traditional management practices 20, 70
Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado 117, see also common property resource
123, 127 management
Meso-American Barrier Reef System The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 36, 42,
(MBRS) Project 166 154–157
Meso American Biological Corridor 39, Nechasar National Park, Ethiopia
166 161–162
Mexico 66, 103, 133, 137, 166 neoliberalism
Middle East 29–30, 36, 131 and conservation 13, 90, 118,
mining industry 4–5, 114, 117 180–181, 195–196, 198–200
Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania 73, development relationship 132–133
123 explained 1, 132–133, 175, 192–193
Mongolia 19, 38, 74–75 and liberal capitalism 176, 191–193,
Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort, Australia 198–200
136–137 neoliberal capitalism 3, 176, 191–193,
Monocacy National Battlefield, USA 41 199
Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve, and protected areas 1, 3, 175
Costa Rica 41 and tourism 132, 136, 144, 146, 196
Morocco 36 Nepal 39, 67, 83
Mozambique 165 networks
Muir, John 9, 39, 47, 156 business involvement 13, 91, 118,
Mungkan National Park, Australia (prev. 164–167, 171
Ben Archer National Park) 109 conservation involvement 4, 9, 12–13,
Myanmar 67, 74 90, 164–167, 171
donor involvement 90–92, 165
Namibia 70, 98, 122, 154 global networks 4, 9, 12–13, 90, 146,
national monuments 1–2, 21–22, 41 166
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 246
246 NATURE UNBOUND
government involvement 13, 91–92, Nicaragua 66, 83

164–167, 171 Noel Kempff Mercado Park, Bolivia 179
local communities 13, 89–92, 166 North America 29–30, 33–34, 52, 75–76,
NGO involvement 13, 90–91, 118, 84 see also Canada; USA
164–165, 167, 171 North East Greenland National Park,
of protected areas 3, 25, 35, 42, 68 Greenland 38
public–private networks 164–167 Norway 83
New Guinea 146
New Zealand Oglala Sioux, USA 105, 122, 128
conservation movements 48 oil industry 2, 113
extinction rates 51–52 Oman 36
hunting issues 69–70 Osstvaardersplassen, Holland 44
indigenous people see Maori people
protected areas 38, 40 Pacific region 29–30, 41, 75, 131
co-management schemes 105, 110 El Palmary Alfredo Rural Development
and development 1 Area, Venezuela 41
distribution 29–30, 33–34 Pan European Forest Certification (PEFC)
grassland 64 181, 182
history 28, 32 Panama 2, 57, 66, 117
traditional management 20 Paraguay 66
NGOs parks see national parks; protected areas
business relationships 12, 90, 118, Peace Parks Foundation 42, 165
155–156, 162, 164–165 Peak District National Park, England 39
conservation strategies 12, 25, 36, 61, Penan people, Malaysia 126
154–156, 163, 171 Peoples Democratic Republic of Laos see
development NGOs 159–62 Laos
government relationships 4, 12–13, 36, Peru 38, 66
122, 136, 139, 159, 162–163 Philippines 67
indigenous NGOs 118, 122–123 Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota
indigenous people relationships 114, 105, 122
118, 128, 141–142, 161–162, 164, Port Meadow with Wolvercote Common
200 and Green, Oxford, England 41
international NGOs 36, 79, 90–91, poverty and conservation 63–64, 79–82,
113–114, 118, 154–164, 167–168 87, 103–104, 123–124, 153
local community relationships 12, 90, protected areas
139, 160–161, 163–164, 167, 171 benefits 4, 63, 73–74, 81, 114
in networks 13, 90–91, 118, 164–165, business involvement 9–10, 91–92,
167, 171 167–170, 179, 182–185
on poaching 78–79 and capitalism 1–6, 18, 175, 199–200
and protected areas 13, 23, 25, 32, 36, categories 21–23, 25, 35, 68
42, 167, 169–170 co-management schemes 88, 104–110
in public–private partnerships consequences of 24, 71–79, 81, 84, 95,
164–165, 167–171 98, 114
tourism involvement 82, 136, 139, 147 as a conservation strategy 2–5, 9–10,
and transfrontier conservation areas 11, 17, 43–44, 64–72, 115–118,
(TFCAs) 165, 167 186–187
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 247
INDEX 247
data collection 3, 19, 23–25, 42, restoration of habitats 11, 21, 44–45
66–67, 68, 74–75 size of 29–31, 41–42
defined 1, 22 sustainability issues 11, 17, 96–97
and development 1–4, 36–37, 39 tourism relationship 23, 73, 106–108,
distribution 29–31, 32, 33–4, 35–37, 131
38–41 transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs)
donor involvement 3, 70–71, 91–92, 39, 42, 165
168–170 violence caused 17, 77–79, 106,
in the extinction crisis 42, 61–62 116–117
government involvement 12–13, 32, as ‘wilderness’ 2, 17, 45, 47, 49, 141
35, 68, 91–92, 104–110, 167–170, see also national monuments; national
182–183 parks; reserves
growth in 1, 2, 41, 84, 175
history 18–21, 28, 32, 33–34, 35–37, Red List (IUCN) 52, 54–57, 59
75–77 reserves
hunting issues 4, 19–20, 24, 35, 69–72 extractive reserves 12, 40, 65
and indigenous peoples 40 forest reserves 1, 12, 35, 40–41, 82,
co-management schemes 104–110 103
damage caused? 5, 35, 69–71, 145 game reserves 1, 7, 24, 35
evictions 35–36, 73, 75–77, history 19–20, 35
105–106, 125, 161–162 marine reserves 22, 24, 29–31, 38–39,
exclusion 83, 95, 105–106, 114, 143–144, 166
116, 123, 128, 147 ngitili (grazing reserves) 95
impacts 24, 72–79, 82, 95, 114, private 12, 24
145, 185 scientific reserves 21–22, 32
indigenous inhabitants 74, rhinos 35, 61, 77, 184
128–129, 141 Rota Commonwealth Forest Primeval
indigenous protected areas (IPAs) Reserve, Pacific region 41
117, 126–127 Russia 40 see also Soviet Union
industry involvement 2–5, 37
land use issues 37, 39, 43–45, 49, 75, sacred sites 20, 24, 41, 108, 127
185 Sagarmatha National Park, Nepal 39
lawlessness issues 17, 117 see also Samriska Tiger Reserve, India 38
poaching below San people, Tanzania and Botswana
limitations 17–18, 36, 43–44, 64–72, 122–123
145, 179–180 Saudi Arabia 36, 41
local community issues 11, 13, 24, 65, Scandinavia 37
68, 83–84, 184 Scotland 8, 13, 24, 36–37, 69, 84
and neoliberalism 1, 3, 175 Senegal 67
networks of 3, 25, 35, 42, 68 Serengeti National Park, Tanzania 38, 98,
and NGOs 13, 23, 25, 32, 36, 42, 167, 196
169–170 Shenandoah National Park, Virginia 123
poaching issues 77–79 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
private 12, 13, 24, 36, 44, 164, 37
182–187 Society for the Preservation of the Wild
and public–private partnerships 91–92, Fauna of the Empire (SPWFE) 35,
167–170 149, 155–156
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 248
248 NATURE UNBOUND
South Africa Thailand 35, 76, 103, 125, 193

community-based management 163 Thoreau, David 48, 50
ivory trade 154 tigers 35, 38, 43, 77
marginalized groups 124 timber industry 2, 7
protected areas 38 Togo 67
co-management schemes 105–106, Tongariro National Park, New Zealand 38
108 tourism
data collection 42 and business 132, 136, 139–141
history 35 capitalism relationship 134, 192–193
private 13, 24, 44, 184–185, 187 conservation relationship 23, 82,
restoration of habitat 44–45 143–144, 146–147, 190
tourism 70, 185 consumerism relationship 18, 70, 135,
transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) 145, 189–190
165 as a development strategy 132–134,
South America 29–30, 33–34, 36, 38–40, 136, 147
74–75 see also Brazil donor involvement 132–133, 139,
South Uist, Scotland 8 146
Soviet Union 32, 40, 75 ethnotourism 141–143, 147, 190
‘Speaking a Common Language’ and governments 132, 136, 139–141,
Project (IUCN) 23 147
Sri Lanka 3, 67 growth in 131–133
St Katherine National Park, Egypt 40 and image-making 73, 127, 142,
Survival International 142 193–195, 199
sustainable development 5, 132–134, 136, and indigenous peoples 106–107, 123,
177, 197 127, 138, 145–147, 190
Switzerland 20, 40 local community involvement 82, 90,
138–140, 145–147, 194
Taiwan 67 nature-based tourism 131, 134–135,
Tanzania 137–138, 140, 143
community-based management 95, 98, and neoliberalism 132, 136, 144, 146,
103 196
conservation involvement 128 NGO involvement 82, 136, 139, 147
limitations 145 photographic 70, 96, 98, 140, 150,
marginalized groups 122–124 153, 154
protected areas 38 protected areas relationship 23, 73,
co-management schemes 105 106–108, 131
evictions 13, 73, 76 sustainability issues 134–138, 147
limitations 67 voluntourism 143–4, 146–147
local community support issues 83 see also ecotourism
tourism 145 Tourism Concern 139, 144
Taranaki National Park, New Zealand 110 Trinidad 57
Tarangire National Park, Tanzania 145 Tsurugisan Quasi National Park, Japan 41
Tasmania 2, 42 Twentynine Palms Marine Corp Military
Tassili N’Ajjer National Park, Algeria 38 Reservation, California, USA 41
Te Urewera National Park, New Zealand Tyrendarra Indigenous Protected Area,
110 Australia 40
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 249
INDEX 249
Uganda 67, 83, 179–180 water management schemes 101, 104

UK 8, 43–44, 47, 69, 75 see also England; Waterton-Glacier National Park 165
Scotland West Coast Forests, South Island,
Ukraine 40 New Zealand 1
Uluru National Park (prev. Ayer’s Rock), Wicken Fen, Cambridgeshire, UK 44
Australia 38, 107–108 the wilderness lobby 7, 17, 45, 47–50
United Nations (UN) 113, 117–119, 121, Wildlands Project 45
131–132, 135–136 Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) 36,
United Nations World Tourism Organization 42, 155, 164, 169–170
(UNWTO) 131–132, 135 wildlife ranches 44–45, 184–185
United States Agency for International Wolong Nature Reserve, China 38
Development (USAID) 91, 168 World Bank 1, 3, 91, 113–114, 132, 136,
USA 163, 166, 168–169
conservation movements 2, 9, 48, 115 World Conservation Union see IUCN
forestry and forest management 43 World Council of Indigenous
indigenous people 123 see also Native Peoples 118
Americans World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA)
protected areas 24, 39–41 19, 23–25, 66–67, 68, 74–75
co-management schemes 105, 110 World Parks Congresses 21, 23, 83, 128,
exclusion 116, 123 136, 169–170
history 18–19, 28, 47, 115–117 World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
lawlessness issues 117 anti-poaching operations 78–79
limitations 66 conservation involvement 36, 154–157,
national parks 9, 18–19, 28, 163
115–117, 123 industry relationship 3–4
private 24 in networks 91, 168
restoration of habitats 45 protected area involvement 32, 36,
traditional management 20 42
transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) and tourism 82
165
Usangu Game Reserve, Tanzania 76 Xcaret, Mexico 137
Ute Mountain people, Colorado 117, 123, Xingu National Park, Brazil 2, 105,
127–128 117
Ute Mountain Tribal Park, Colorado 117, Xpu-Ha Palace Resort, Mexico 137
126–127
Yellowstone National Park, USA 9, 18–19,
Venezuela 41, 66 21, 23, 39, 115–116
Vietnam 67 Yemen 36
Virunga National Park, Democratic Yosemite National Park, USA 39,
Republic of Congo 39 115–116
Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) 143
Zambia 98
Waikaka Willow Bank Stewardship Area, Zimbabwe 13, 70, 78–79, 95–97,
New Zealand 40 153–154, 165, 183–184
Index.qxd 9/30/2008 2:11 PM Page 250

Nature Unbound - Conservation Capitalism and The Future of Protected Areas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nature Unbound - Conservation Capitalism and The Future of Protected Areas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nature Unbound - Conservation Capitalism and The Future of Protected Areas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prelims.

qxd 9/30/2008 2:13 PM Page i

Dan Brockington, Rosaleen Duffy and Jim Igoe

publishing for a sustainable future

First published by Earthscan in the UK and USA in 2008

Copyright © Dan Brockington, Rosaleen Duffy and Jim Igoe, 2008

All rights reserved

ISBN 978-1-84407-440-2 paperback

Typeset by Domex e-data Pvt Ltd

For a full list of publications please contact:

22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166-2012, USA

Earthscan publishes in association with the International Institute

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been applied for.

The paper used for this book is FSC-certified.

List of Figures, Tables and Boxes vii

6 Conservation and Indigenous Peoples 113

7 The Spread of Tourist Habitat 131

8 International Conservation 149

9 Conservation and Capitalism 175

List of Figures, Tables and Boxes

Writing about conservation is never straightforward. Describing and analysing

xii NATURE UNBOUND

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ANGAP Association Nationale pour la Gestion des Aires Protégées

xiv NATURE UNBOUND

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

A good place to begin a study of wildlife and landscape conservation is to look at

Figure 1.1 The global growth of protected areas

Source: The World Database of Protected Areas (2005)

successful campaigns to prevent the construction of the Franklin Dam in

Greenpeace. But, in the main, conservation is more conciliatory and

Chad–Cameroon oil pipeline, again funded by the World Bank. It is increasingly

1 In what ways do conservation policies and conservation interventions

Conservation and conservation strategies

Table 1.1 A taxonomy of biodiversity conservation approaches and strategies

Managed Compliance Non-Formal Using Market

Protected & Litigation Informal Economic

Species & Policy Moral Conservation

Figure 1.2 A typology of conservation practice

Source: Borgerhoff Mulder and Coppolillo (2005). Reproduced with permission

But just as important as the types of conservation strategy presented by these

The outline of the book

predicated on our insistence that community conservation will, like ‘fortress

targets’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 443–455; Lemos, M. C.

it in others (Adams, 1996, pp4–5). Instead he suggests that conservation should

The idea of protected areas

HISTORIES AND GEOGRAPHIES OF PROTECTED AREAS 19

…some great protecting policy of government preserve a large expanse

HISTORIES AND GEOGRAPHIES OF PROTECTED AREAS 21

Box 2.1 Classifying protected areas: The evolution of the

Table 2.1 The protected area category system

Group Category Definition Category Definition

A I Scientific Ia Strict Nature Reserve:

II National Park II National Park:

III Natural III National Monument:

V Protected V Protected Landscape/

B VI Resource VI Managed Resource

HISTORIES AND GEOGRAPHIES OF PROTECTED AREAS 23

Box 2.2 Setting global conservation priorities