Rd October 2010 [a] Contents

“We pastoral peoples have always considered our land what you call a “protected area”. We have always embraced “conservation” not as a professional activity but as intimate duty and pride of every member of our tribes, as the heart of our livelihood, because our very subsistence depends on it. I hear you talk of ecosystems, landscapes, and connectivity. We have always known about this without using your terms. Our migration patterns transfer seeds. Our grazing patterns shape the landscape. We subsist on our lands; we know and care for its diversity of plants and animals. We pray on this land, and we guard its many sacred places. For the land provides us also with spiritual well-being. But we can no longer do it alone. In the world of today, we need the concurrence of our governments and all the support that bothers can give.” Sayyaad Soltani, Council of Elders of the Kuhi subtribe of the Qashqai Confederation, Iran excerpt from the address to the Plenary of the World Parks Congress, Durban 2003 (translated by Aghaghia Rahimzadeh) quoted in Dowie (2009).

1. 
   areas governed by states
   
2. 
   areas governed by a variety of different actors – co-management
   
3. 
   areas governed by a private entity (e.g. company or other private owner)
   
4. 
   areas governed by local communities and indigenous peoples – indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCA)
   

Although important cultural values can and are maintained in all protected area governance types (and under all available management models), it is within the realm of the last governance type that there is the widest scope for protected areas to contribute substantially to the enhancement and maintenance of cultures and cultural values, although co-management also offers important possibilities. An ICCA is described as “…natural and modified ecosystems including significant biodiversity, ecological services and cultural values voluntarily conserved by indigenous and local communities through customary laws or other effective means…” (Pathak et al, 2004; Borrini-Feyerabend et al, 2007).

Four aspects of cultural values can be seen as related to protected areas, each of which are explored in more detail below:

1. 
   Particular features in a landscape or seascape, either natural or constructed.
   
2. 
   Management techniques or other behavioural characteristics.
   
3. 
   Entire lifestyles of particular peoples or communities linked with the area in question.
   
4. 
   Traditional ecological knowledge and knowledge related to the wider values of lands and waters.
   

All natural landscapes/seascapes which are inhabited by or used by people are also ‘cultural-scapes’. In this sense almost all protected areas are also cultural landscapes with cultural significance for one people or another. Indeed if you think of modern conservation also as a ‘culture’ in that it embodies certain values and ethics, all protected areas are cultural sites/scapes.

** Amboy Crater in the Mojave Desert, protecting an extinct volcano crater and lava field.

** John Day Fossil Beds in Oregon, important because of the high density of fossils.

** Giant Sequoia in California, maintaining habitat for some of the world’s largest trees.

** Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump in Alberta, the site of an unusual cliff feature that was used to trap buffalo by First Nations groups.

** Petroglyph National Monument in New Mexico, protecting both an extinct volcano and also important rock paintings; in this case the link between natural and cultural features becomes even more blurred.

Much less common than the above but increasingly important in a world where agricultural/forestry/fishing/pastoral techniques and lifestyles are becoming less diverse, is the conservation of culturally important uses of the ecosystem. These include the variety of forest management techniques, traditional agriculture/pastoralism/fishing and organisational systems to manage lands and waters. Such an approach only works in the protected areas’ framework if the particular use also encourages or supports biodiversity (in theory biodiversity that has become culturally adapted to human intervention); this situation is less common than often assumed, at least in government-run protected areas. Examples might include European nature reserves where traditional wood coppicing and pollarding is maintained to protect associated biodiversity or the re-introduction of traditional grazing patterns to prevent scrub encroachment on flower rich meadows or hillsides.

The concept of using protected areas as a tool to protect whole peoples and their lifestyles is relatively new as a conscious strategy and is still controversial, both amongst indigenous and traditional peoples, some of whom reject the whole idea and also amongst some conservationists who see this as a dilution of biodiversity conservation aims. However there are a growing number of cases where indigenous peoples’ groups and other local communities have used the protected areas concept strategically in their quest to secure land rights, which are also working effectively to maintain biodiversity. Whilst conflicts still exist in many parts of the world between protected area authorities and indigenous people there are beginning to be examples of how protected areas can help to sustain the cultures of the marginalised societies around the world.

Linked to the survival of cultures in the point above is the understanding and appreciation of traditional knowledge, and specifically ecological knowledge. Local knowledge (also variously referred to as traditional, indigenous, community, customary, or practical knowledge), refers to the long-standing information, wisdom, traditions and practices of certain indigenous peoples or local communities. In many cases, traditional knowledge has been orally passed for generations from person to person. Some forms of local knowledge are expressed through stories, legends, folklore, rituals, songs, art, and even laws. One distinction that is often made between local knowledge and modern or ‘western’ knowledge is that unlike the latter, it does not separate ‘secular’ or ‘rational’ knowledge from spiritual knowledge, intuitions, and wisdom. It is often embedded in a cosmology, and the distinction between ‘intangible’ knowledge and physical things is often blurred. Indeed, holders of local knowledge often claim that their knowledge cannot be divorced from the natural and cultural context within which it has arisen, including their traditional lands and resources, and their kinship and community relations.

Of the three options described above, the third – the use of protected areas to protect traditional cultures – is by far the most significant, but also the most complex. The split that has arisen between indigenous peoples, local communities and protected area managers in some places is a tragedy that threatens, over time, to undermine the aims of both cultural and ecological conservation. These groups should all be natural allies in resisting large-scale environmental degradation and contemporary attempts to build partnerships are to be welcomed. The concept of self-generated indigenous protected areas, which is one important result of taking a fresh view at this issue, has developed particularly in Australia, Canada and Latin America.