|
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 10/24/2007 10:38:12 AM
Posts: 1, Visits: 129 |
| Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a working draft of a paper whose final version will be submitted on behalf of the IUCN-WCPA Wilderness Task Force (which is co-chaired by The WILD Foundation) to IUCN. This paper is in preparation for the Categories Summit to be held in Spain in May 2007. The Categories Summit is part of a process that began with a small group at the World Parks Congress in 2003 to review the 1994 guidelines for each of the 6 protected area categories recognized by IUCN. The Wilderness Task Force has recently become much more engaged in this process as it has become apparent that this process could have serious implications for Category 1b-Wilderness as well as for IUCN’s definition of what constitutes a protected area. More background information on the Summit can be found at http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/theme/categories/summit/summit.html. Information on the Speaking a Common Language Report, which was commissioned by IUCN as part of this process can be found at http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/cplan/sacl/. As summarized in the paper, we have significant concerns with the Summit and the Speaking a Common Language Report. Our primary issues, which are elaborated in the paper, are: (1) The fact that the process of revising the guidelines is seen by at least some participants as a way of seriously deemphasizing the natural biodiversity focus of IUCN's definition of a protected area. (2) The suggestion that the names National Park and Wilderness (as well as all the other category names) should be dropped from the IUCN's system in favor a strictly generic, numeric system (i.e. Category I, Category II etc.), accompanied with a greater emphasis on Categories V and VI; (3) Process related - we feel this meeting is in need of greater transparency in its planning and implementation to ensure a true diversity of views, and we want to react in time for those concerns to be taken into account. Please Note that the Wilderness Task Force will also be preparing comments on the guidelines for Category 1b-Wilderness. However, because we had significant concerns with the way the Categories Summit agenda was unfolding, as well as with the Speaking a Common Language Report, we felt that it was first necessary to voice those concerns. Please submit comments and suggestions to Cyril Kormos, WILD’s VP for Policy, at Cyril@wild.org. We are working on a short timeline, so please send comments by December 15. Many thanks, Vance Martin
|
| |
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 3/27/2007 5:58:31 PM
Posts: 2, Visits: 4 |
| Dear Wild Foundation,
I agree fully with your analysis of the SaCL report, indeed I think it is even worse. My comments are:
Concerns about ‘Speaking a Common Language’ (regarding Protected Areas) report to IUCN
By Haydn Washington, Secretary of the Blue Mountains Wilderness Network, Australia, and author of Ph.D. thesis ‘The Wilderness Knot’, University of Western Sydney.
There are several things that concern me about the ‘Speaking a Common Language’ report, especially as this is supposed to be a detailed, factual and presumably unbiased report to IUCN, on the basis of which IUCN may modify its protected area categories. These concerns are:
Factual errors
P. 22 says that ‘human communities were often expelled to maximise the perceived values of these
areas, which were at that time primarily aesthetic – particularly the preservation of so-called ‘wilderness’. This is a very popular claim amongst postmodernist critics of wilderness, yet I have not been able to find examples where they actually provide examples where this occurred. Surely this would be important to cite this in a factual document? On p. 17 about Australia, it says that when the IUCN categories were raised with Traditional Owners (TOs) about IPAs, questions were raised about the title and definition of wilderness, as from the TOs perspective ‘no “wilderness” areas exist since there is no landscape without people or cultural significance’. P. 22 says ‘protection need not be incompatible with the presence of people’. P. 142 states wrongly (given the IUCN definition) that wilderness is ‘land untouched or unmodified by the influence of people’. It then further states that there is ‘no place which has not been imaginatively grasped through song, dance, and design, no place where TOs cannot see the imprint of sacred creation’.
In the body of the report, it never actually gives the full IUCN definition of wilderness anywhere (it is only found in an appendix). This is:
A large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or sea, retaining its natural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition. (my emphasis)
Four ‘objectives for management’ were identified by IUCN, being to maintain natural attributes over the long term; ensure future generations can experience wilderness; permit non-motorised public access that maintains wilderness qualities; and to enable indigenous human communities living at low density and in balance with available resources to maintain their lifestyle.
It is crystal clear from this definition (and the management objectives) that wilderness does include people, just not permanent settlements. Nor is there any suggestion that wilderness ignores or disputes ‘cultural significance’. The definition of wilderness specifies that land can be ‘slightly modified’ by humans, and this thus includes acceptance that indigenous cultures have influenced the landscape to varying degrees over time. The claims made about wilderness are thus incorrect in terms of the IUCN definition and meaning for Category 1b Wilderness, as the proponents of the claim were working with a different meaning of ‘wilderness’ from that made explicit in the IUCN definition. Yet the report does not raise this obvious point, rather it encourages us to believe that these statements have some validity, when they are just indicative of the confusion around the term ‘wilderness’ (about which I wrote my thesis, see Washington 2007 forthcoming). The IUCN definition makes it clear that Category 1b wilderness is not about human exclusion, yet this report repeatedly encourages the readers to believe it is (such as on pp. 17, 134, 142). This is both factually wrong, but also shows a prejudice against the term. The report also fails to examine why wilderness has become so polarised in Australia, where historically certain academics have run very strong campaigns against ‘wilderness’, primarily for reasons in support of land rights.
p. 42 states that ‘protected areas are a cultural artefact’. This confuses the fact that our naming of such places is dependent on culture - with the reality of the places themselves, which are not human artefacts. Humans did not create the landforms, nor did they evolve the native species. In Category I and II protected areas, the agency of nature far exceeds the agency of humanity. This is an issue that environmental philosopher Plumwood (2001) has pointed out repeatedly. To suggest that all protected areas are a human creation is both factually incorrect, and demonstrates a strong anthropocentric stance. P. 51 has a table (it is not referenced where this comes from, so presumably it is that of the consultants?) which states that for wilderness, science as a value is only ‘potentially applicable’ while natural/ cultural features and education are deemed ‘not applicable’. However, biogeography, and landscape and systems ecology tend to show the opposite. As the IUCN Chief Scientist Jeff McNeely said at the 8th World Wilderness Congress, the need for wilderness for biodiversity protection was a ‘no brainer’. Category 1b Wilderness clearly has major value for science, as indicated by Prof. Michael Soule, Prof. E.O. Wilson and many others (e.g. Robertson et al 1992). To suggest that wilderness is only ‘potentially applicable’ to science is thus factually inaccurate. Its scientific values have been recognised for many decades (e.g. Hendee et al 1978). Similarly, it is factually inaccurate to state that natural/ cultural features and education values are ‘not applicable’ in wilderness. Wilderness clearly celebrates both natural and cultural features, and has had tremendous impact as an educational tool. To dismiss these values of wilderness demonstrates both a very narrow reading of the literature on wilderness, it also demonstrates a prejudice against it.
On p. 141, terra nullius is said to be the ‘legal assumption that land was not occupied or owned’. This is factually incorrect, as the ‘legal meaning’ of terra nullius (as shown by the Mabo court case) was that land was not owned. The British knew it was occupied, but deemed the Aboriginal nations did not own it as they did not practice European agriculture. Given the importance of this in terms of Australian conservation, one would have expected the authors to correct (rather than just re-state) this common misconception?
Illogical conclusions
P. 16 states ‘To retain the names may therefore be considered as somewhat inconsistent
with the aim of developing a common language that is independent of the variable terminology used at the national level’. It claims some people want to move to ‘neutral titles’. P. 36 says IUCN should ‘Consider removing generic names of protected areas from the category system and using only management objectives and numbers for each category’. P. 90 states that Queensland in Australia has Category 1a and VI rated NPs, so that it can be confusing to have the generic name ‘national park’ attached to category II, and suggests we abandon all generic titles for categories. In other words, the argument is that there is confusion, therefore we should abandon the descriptive titles. This would seem to be illogical. If there is confusion, then rather than running away from it, we should correct this confusion? The report fails to realise that we can educate about IUCN definitions, so that we don’t have to remove all generic Category descriptors such as national park and wilderness. After all, the report shows on p. 90 that 96% of national parks in Queensland are correctly listed as Category II. Therefore, rather than remove the generic name ‘national park’ for Category II, we should urge that reserves be named correctly in terms of the categories and their management functions. This makes more sense than abandoning all generic terms. Similarly, we need to educate about the formal IUCN ‘large natural area’ meaning of wilderness. Removal of the generic category titles is not in fact ‘neutral’, it is an overt political act. There is no consideration of the impact in the real world of dropping using terms such as ‘national park’ and ‘wilderness’, which would be considerable, and I believe would certainly assist in the further degradation of such areas. These terms have tremendous power in the minds of the public, so to remove them would hinder (not advance) the cause of conservation. If there is a problem in clarity and meaning (and I agree there is), then the logical decision is to educate to clarify what these mean, rather than remove generic titles which have immense public appeal and political power.
Questions of unstated prejudice?
Everyone has biases (Reason and Torbert 2001), and I do not wish to pretend that I do not. My own bias is for the long term protection of large natural areas, which is what wilderness is formally defined as by the IUCN. Clearly the authors of this report have their own biases and agendas also. They have not been spelled out however in the report. It is when such biases are in fact stated as ‘fact’ that is not amenable to rational debate that they become prejudices. There are several things in the report that worry me in this regard.
P. 9 states that we should be ‘Using the Categories to support the needs and rights of Traditional and Indigenous Peoples in protected areas’. This is an argument for social justice, which I support. However nowhere is there a recognition of the equivalent need for environmental justice, or for ‘rights of the land’. The research in my Ph.D. showed that many deep thinkers on ‘wilderness’ felt that both social and environmental justice need to go together and be integrated. To argue solely for social justice (as this report does) is to ignore the intrinsic value of nature and the non-human world, which would be a very strange position for the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources to take? I think it is perfectly acceptable for the authors to have such a bias – but that they should in all fairness state this in the preamble.
Similarly, p. 22 says ‘80% of national parks in Latin America contain permanent settlements’, as if this demonstrates that they are harmless. There is no evidence provided to show that this is the case. Indeed conservation biologists such as Soule (2002) argue this may lead to the destruction of such parks. The report says on p. 22 that ‘protection need not be incompatible with the presence of people’, yet the ‘presence of people’ does not equate with permanent settlements, and in fact in most reserves it is the management of the presence of people that determines the level of impact. P. 132 states ‘As land owners and managers in a traditional and a contemporary sense, indigenous and traditional peoples have long called for recognition of their rights, responsibilities and capacity to be fully involved in natural and cultural resource management activities.’. However, there is no discussion of differing indigenous ideas of human relationships to the land that are very different to the Western possessive idea of ‘ownership’, such as custodianship or stewardship or joint ownership by the tribe. Rather, the western possessive idea of ownership is assumed as the norm.
There is selective quoting of material to bolster the position the authors wish to take. For example, p. 133 quotes an anonymous source stating that ‘management models have often forcibly removed people’ and that ‘conservation has violated their rights’. This is the equivalent of media techniques such as ‘some people say …’. It is selective use of an unknown source to quote what the authors wish to convey. Were native peoples forcibly removed? If so, when and where? Did conservation action violate their rights? How and why? Do only people have rights? Does not nature itself have rights (Nash 1989), and have these not been violated by human action repeatedly? The selective quoting of criticism about wilderness in Australia is also of concern, especially the erroneous equation of wilderness to human exclusion. Wilderness is not the same as a human exclusion zone, and any momentary reference to the IUCN definition (included in an Appendix to the report) shows exactly this, yet these purported experts on IUCN chose to selectively quote this erroneous claim in several places throughout the report. Wilderness is referred to as ‘so-called wilderness’ (p. 22), it is reported that ‘no wilderness exists, as there is no landscape without people or cultural significance’ (even though the IUCN definition makes clear this is not the case), it is said on p. 142 that wilderness is ‘land untouched or unmodified by the influence of people’, when this runs contrary to the IUCN definition (as the authors must have known surely?). It is suggested that wilderness has limited scientific value (when biogeography and landscape and systems ecology indicate the opposite) and no educational or natural/ cultural feature values either. Again, it is perfectly acceptable for the consultants who did this report to be critics of ‘wilderness’, provided they state why, and the stance they are taking. It is not acceptable for them to selectively quote sources that suit their prejudice, nor to deliberately seek to distort the meaning of wilderness away from the definition given by IUCN, which is now the internationally accepted definition.
There is also the statement that protected areas are cultural artefacts. This is a criticism that is commonly made by postmodernist critics of wilderness, and by those who take a strong anthropocentric stance. Again, it is perfectly acceptable for the consultants to have such a bias, but they should state this in the front of the report. Certainly to my mind, supporting anthropocentrism is not what IUCN or conservation is about?
Conclusion
Having gone through ‘Speaking a Common Language’ in some detail, I remain concerned that this is a report that is meant to be an objective analysis of the situation, upon which IUCN is meant to make decisions on the categories of protected areas listed by IUCN, and used by governments around the world. I do not believe this to be an objective report, indeed it contains factual errors, prejudice, and irrational conclusions. The authors did not state their biases, nor did they explain their extremely selective quoting in regard to wilderness. I completely agree with the Wild Foundation, that IUCN needs to vastly expand the input, stakeholders and discussion about its review of its categories for protected areas. The ‘Speaking a Common Language’ report should not be used as a key resource for such discussions. Rather it should be just one report among many, without any special weight being attached to it, considering its shortcomings. As an environmental scientist and conservationist for more than 30 years, I am disturbed that such a report could be accepted by IUCN as final, given the problems I have detailed above. I desperately hope IUCN will now vastly improve the debate over these issues?
References
Hendee, J., Stankey, G. and Lucas, R. (1978), Wilderness management, Forest Service, US Dept. of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365.
Nash, R. (1989), The Rights of Nature, TWS/ Ballentine, Sydney.
Reason, P. and Torbert, W. R. (2001), ‘Toward a Transformational social science: a further look at the scientific merits of action research’, Concepts and Transformations 6(1), 1-37.
Robertson, M., Brown, A. and Vang, K. (1992), Wilderness in Australia: Issues and Options, Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra.
Soule, M. (2002), Debating the Myths of Wilderness, The Wilderness Society (Australia), calendar introduction for 2002.
Washington H (2007 forthcoming) ‘The Wilderness Knot’. In: Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese, Sproull, Janet, comps. 2005. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2005 September 30 – October 6; Anchorage, AK. Proceedings RMRS-P—000. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
|
| |
|
|