How Kenyan rural communities can create their own water supplies with assist...
Pages from KEL PhD small part1
1. Negotiated Biodiversity Conservation for Local Social
Change:
A Case Study of Northern Palawan, Philippines.
Thesis submitted for the Ph.D.
by
Karen E. Lawrence
November 2002
Geography Department
Kings College London University
3. Contents
1. EXPLORING BIODIVERSITY...........................................................1
PROBLEMS OF BIODIVERSITY .........................................................................................1
A CASE FOR OPTIMISM...................................................................................................2
BIODIVERSITY AS A CONTESTED NOTION.......................................................................2
NEGOTIATED CONSERVATION........................................................................................7
2 BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVES AS OPPORTUNITY FOR LOCAL
CHANGE..............................................................................................11
OPPORTUNITY TO ASSERT LOCAL KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS .............................................17
OPPORTUNITY TO ASSERT LOCAL SENSE OF PLACE.....................................................21
OPPORTUNITY TO ASSERT LOCAL GOVERNANCE.........................................................28
SUMMARY....................................................................................................................35
3. METHODOLOGY...............................................................................36
WHY THE PHILIPPINES..................................................................................................36
METHOD ......................................................................................................................39
TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED..............................................................................................43
RESEARCH FLEXIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ..........................................................47
4 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES ......49
PHILIPPINE POLICY SITUATION.....................................................................................49
STRUGGLES OVER KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS IN MALAMPAYA...........................................57
STRUGGLE FOR PLACE-BASED RELATIONS IN MALAMPAYA........................................64
STRUGGLES WITHIN MALAMPAYA GOVERNANCE .......................................................67
NATIONAL INTEGRATED PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAMME - NIPAP ...........................69
5 ASSERTING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS............................73
TYPES OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS.......................................................................73
REPRESENTING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS OFFICIALLY ..........................................85
DISCURSIVE NEGOTIATIONS....................................................................................... 99
AGREED ACTIVITIES AND RESTRICTIONS ...................................................................107
OPPORTUNITIES EXAMINED .......................................................................................117
6 ASSERTING SENSE OF PLACE....................................................124
LOCAL BIODIVERSITY STORYLINES............................................................................124
SHARED BIODIVERSITY STORYLINES .........................................................................132
DISCURSIVE NEGOTIATIONS.......................................................................................139
AGREED ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................149
OPPORTUNITIES EXAMINED .......................................................................................158
7 ASSERTING LOCAL GOVERNANCE .........................................165
GOVERNANCE INSTITUTIONS......................................................................................165
GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS......................................................................................168
GOVERNANCE PRACTICES..........................................................................................172
DISCURSIVE NEGOTIATIONS.......................................................................................176
AGREED GOVERNANCE ..............................................................................................182
OPPORTUNITIES EXAMINED .......................................................................................185
ii
4. 8. NEGOTIATED BIODIVERSITY....................................................192
OPPORTUNITIES ASSERTED ........................................................................................192
FOUCAULDIAN APPROACH .........................................................................................194
NON-MONETARY BENEFITS GAINED..........................................................................197
BIODIVERSITY AND BEYOND......................................................................................199
APPENDIX 1 .............................................................................................203
1.1 GUIDE TOPICS USED FOR THE UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS IN 5 SITIOS........203
1.2 GUIDE QUESTIONS USED FOR OTHER SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES.................203
1.3 GUIDE QUESTIONS FOR LOCAL SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES...........................204
GLOSSARY...............................................................................................206
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................206
FILIPINO TERMS .........................................................................................................207
CODE, LEVEL, AND NAME OF LAWS. ..........................................................................208
OTHER TERMS............................................................................................................208
REFERENCES..........................................................................................209
CARTOGRAPHIC CITATIONS .......................................................................................222
DOCUMENT CITATIONS ..............................................................................................223
INTERVIEW CITATIONS...............................................................................................224
LEGAL CITATIONS......................................................................................................227
PUBLIC HEARING CITATIONS .....................................................................................229
Figures
Figure 1 Northern Palawan and Malampaya Sound 38
Figure 2 Community Mapping 45
Figure 3 Sites of CPPAP and NIPAP 52
Figure 4 Barangays in Malampaya Protected Land and Seascape 56
Figure 5 Malampaya Sound, Inner, Outer and Middle 57
Figure 6 Small-scale Fishing Activities 58
Figure 7 Medium-scale Fishing Activities 59
Figure 8 Large-scale Fishing Activities 62
Figure 9 LGU Zoned Management Plan 63
Figure 10 Buwaya Sound and Little Sound 66
Figure 11 Makasabi and Lomombong Community Maps 74
Figure 12 Rattan sketch 75
Figure 13 Sito Lomombong 78
Figure 14 Sitio Pinigupitan 79
Figure 15 Sitio Pinagupitan and Barangay Abongan Community Maps 80
Figure 16 Sitio Calapa and Barangay Banbanan 82
Figure 17 Sitio Calapa and Barangay Banbanan Community Maps 83
Figure 18 Sitio Bulalo and Barangay San Jose Community Maps 84
Figure 19 Various Community Symbols from their Maps 87
Figure 20 External and Internal Relations On the Community Maps. 88
Figure 21 Malampaya Sound, Resources and Vegetation Map, ESSC 91
Figure 22 Inner Sound Symbol Changes 92
Figure 23 MSSFA and Liminancong (Piglas) Community Maps 94
iii
5. Figure 24 Excerpt form Resource Use Map Showing CADCs 95
Figure 25 Sitio Yakal Ancestral Land Claim 96
Figure 26 Trawler Symbols Drawn by Communities, ESSC and NIPAP 98
Figure 27 People Looking at the Technical Maps 104
Figure 28 People Looking at the Community Maps 104
Figure 29 3D Model of Malampaya Sound 105
Figure 30 The Large Maps from the Public Hearings 109
Figure 31 Negotiated Boundary Changes for the Protected Area 110
Figure 32 Terrestrial Management Zones, NIPAP map 112
Figure 33 Aquatic Management Zones, NIPAP map 115
Figure 34 Sitio Panaya-ayan 125
Figure 35 Sitio Pangay-ayan and Barangay Minapla Community Maps 126
Figure 36 Sitio Bulalo 128
Figure 37 Sitio Bulalo Community Map 129
Figure 38 Barangay Pancol CBFM Community Map 140
Figure 39 Barangay Baong Community Map 142
Figure 40 Sito Yakal Ancestral Land Claim and the Community Map 143
Figure 41 MSSFA Community Map and Proposed Sanctuary Areas. 145
Figure 42 Aquatic zones; the Core Zone Changes 150
Figure 43 Finalised Aquatic Zones, ESSC Map 152
Figure 44 Finalised Terrestrial Zones, ESSC Map 154
Figure 45 Rabbit-Squid Community Symbol 163
Quotation Guide
“reference” (name year: page) Literature Reference
“reference” (document name year: page) Document citation
“legal quote” (law code: para. code) Legal citation
“quote” (name interview year) Interview citation
“quote” (institution interview year) Institution citation, general
“quote” (place interview year) Place citation, anonymous
“quote” (place public hearing year) Public hearing citation
“interpreted quote” (place community map) Cartographic citation
‘emphasis’
iv
6. This thesis is dedicated to;
Ading, (Ignacio Domino) who died from the affects of malnutrition at the age of
five in 1997, and for the rest of the
Bukidnon community of Bendum, Malaybalay, Philippines, that provided the
inspiration for this thesis.
My family, especially those who have died before seeing me complete this; my
father Robert Lawrence, Catherine Lawrence, Maurice and Adeline Lawrence,
and Madge Taylor.
v
7. Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the support and hospitality from the communities of
Lomombong, Pangay-ayan, Bulalo, Calapa, and Pinigupitan.
I would also like to thank all the communities in Malampaya Sound Protected
Land and Seascape, but especially those of Baong, Yakal and Minapla.
My field work was supported by Estelita Navidad who assisted in the
translations in the sitios and cultural nuances of interviewing, and ESSC staff,
Peter Walpole, Martial Bolen, Edwina Dominguez, Jonathan Pilien and Sylvia
Miclat.
I would also like to thank the assistance and ground support of DENR staff,
especially PASu Pete Velasco and all those that gave me interviews; Former
Tambuyog staff, PNNI, CI, WWF-KKP, NIPAP, PAWB-DENR, RED staff,
PENRO staff, CENRO Taytay and Roxas, DILG officer, PCSD staff, Taytay
Municipal Councillors, and finally Mayor Evelyn Rodriguez.
The task of detailed editing and careful advice was provided by my supervisor
Dr Raymond Bryant, who was both generous, constructively critical and
supportive when I needed it. I am also very grateful to Peter Tremlett for advice
on editing the text. Thanks to the staff of the Geography Department, Kings
College London, who were both supportive and understanding.
Financial assistance for this study was provided by Environmental Science for
Social Change (ESSC), Gillian Boast, Gideon Lawrence, Robin Lawrence,
London University, Kings College Humanities department and the Geography
Department of Kings College. I would also like to thank Nicolas Ashton-Jones
and Tunde Morakinyo for providing me with the two consultancy jobs that were
critical in keeping me afloat during the very expensive London stages.
Critical emotional support was provided by family and friends, and in particular
Paco Alonso-Sarria, Sarah Dyer, Margaret Byron, Sophia Wigzel-Natapon, Pip
Tremlett, Sylvia Miclat and Peter Walpole. No one warns you how lonely a PhD
can be.
This thesis uses ‘we’ throughout rather than the expected ‘I’ this is for two
reasons. The first is to defer to the Filipino culture and in doing so I am quietly
acknowledging all those that have assisted me in this thesis. Secondly I
imagined myself with reader as she/he goes through this and therefore, it is the
Filipino ‘exclusive’ we used here, so as to be inclusive whilst not assuming the
reader will necessarily agree with everything here.
vi
8. Abstract
Research in political ecology and social construction of nature has tended to
analyse human-environment relations surrounding biodiversity conservation
through either dichotomous terms or the so called dramatic event. Another
approach taken here investigates those relations as a series of small-
interrelated events embedded within daily life struggles. As such, it explores
the circumstances where biodiversity as a contested notion may provide
opportunities for locally negotiated and beneficial social change. Surprisingly
this aspect has received little attention in the literature. Here a Foucauldian
approach provides the theoretical basis for examining the possibility that
biodiversity initiatives may be considered beneficial by local people. Such
benefits are understood in terms of three potential local opportunities vis-à-vis
knowledge claims, a sense of place and governance. Therefore, the thesis
contributes to Southeast Asian political ecology and to Foucauldian scholarly
work generally with what is termed a sceptically optimistic approach to social
constructions and dynamics of biodiversity conservation.
Specifically the thesis adapts Hajer’s (1995) social interactive discourse
analysis in the context of research based on the descriptive and explanatory
case study method. This study combines community maps, interviews and other
techniques to gather data from the different sectors involved in a biodiversity
initiative in Northern Palawan, Philippines. The analysis assesses changes in
micro-powers, discursive storylines, and established norms in order to examine
how local power relations may shift to benefit local people through this initiative.
Discursive negotiation processes were assessed with the resulting discourse
coalitions and hybrid agreements related to local social change. The study
concludes by distilling broader insights from this analysis of negotiated
biodiversity conservation in the Philippines. It suggests that, contrary to
research in political ecology and social construction of nature, biodiversity
initiatives can potentially provide new ways for local people to address social
injustice through hybrid agreements and discourse coalitions supportive of local
social change.
Key words: Biodiversity, Discourse, Social change, Foucault,
Participatory planning, Political ecology.
vii
9. 1. Exploring Biodiversity
“There is grandeur in this view of life…that, whilst this planet has gone cycling
on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless
forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”
Charles Darwin 1859:460
Problems of Biodiversity
In the new millennium, the view of life looks more tarnished than it did during
the time of Charles Darwin. An unfortunate achievement of the last century is
that while there has been so much rapid change in people’s lives – there has
also been rapid degradation of the environment. The previous sense of wonder
typified by Darwin, has been largely replaced by a sense doom and of
perceived environmental crisis. Biodiversity loss is part of this crisis and is cited
as one of the biggest environmental problems of our time. Norman Myers
(1985; Myers et al 2000a, 2000b), has notably helped to articulate this problem,
illuminating the grave implications of biodiversity loss for human survival as part
of the variety of life.
“The mass extinction of species, if allowed to persist, would constitute a
problem with far more enduring impact than any other environmental
problem. According to evidence from mass extinctions in the prehistoric
past, evolutionary processes would not generate a replacement stock of
species within less than several million years” (Myers et al 2000a:858).
Myers has focused on the importance of tropical rainforests, as the ‘lungs of the
earth’ and harbour of multiple life forms, yet also highlights rates of destruction,
and their severe social and ecological consequences.
The recommended response is to secure remaining blocks of ‘pristine
rainforest’ against human exploitation. Implicit here is the assumption that
biodiversity has inherent value as scientists emphasise the various ecological
benefits. Yet they have a different way of interacting with and talking about
biodiversity than others such as loggers or indigenous people. Indeed, a group
adhering to a contrasting ‘web’ of social meanings and human-environmental
relationships may interpret differently a set of activities that seem beneficial to
scientists. This can have dramatic political implications. To take an example:
state protection of biodiversity through a system of national parks can be
interpreted by local residents as an unjust infringement on their rights to
firewood and fodder (Agrawal 2001).
Hence, biodiversity protection can indeed be problematic. Differences of
opinion arise when we consider the value of biodiversity, its benefits, the
implications of its loss, and the reasons for perception and changes. Deciding
how to protect it reflects the various ways of understanding biodiversity.
Choices made at every stage of such an endeavour implicate different social
meanings and power relations. Choosing biodiversity initiatives for
conservation is inevitably a political strategy and one that is also socially
constructed. A particular initiative or conservation strategy is therefore likely to
empower a group in society to make decisions about it, possibly at the expense
1
10. of another. The choice may support dominant socio-power relations or seek to
challenge them. Hence studying biodiversity as a social construct can
illuminate potential injustice or positive social change and is of interest here.
A Case for Optimism
This thesis is partly an exploration of different social constructions of
biodiversity. It is therefore valuable to probe the possible complexity of shifting
human-biodiversity relations in terms of its multiple dimensions of meaning,
culture, society and politics of nature (Redclift 1992, Braun and Castree 1998).
An approach is needed to capture the complexity of these multiple dimensions,
and interacting perspectives, which offers a way of examining the contestations
of biodiversity other than simply by focusing on the resistance strategies
invoked (Zimmerer 2000). It is therefore surprising that the circumstances
where biodiversity as a contested notion and practice may provide positive
opportunities for local social change has not been systematically examined. In
pursuing this topic, we are broadly interested in seeing whether biodiversity
initiatives may be a possible way of negotiating local opportunities for social
change as opposed to the conventional zero-sum conflict type of dynamics.
This chapter thus introduces biodiversity as a contested notion, and then relates
it to the issue of local opportunities. We next explain the theoretical approach of
Michel Foucault as a means of exploring negotiated conservation and discourse
as a way in which to unpack cultural practices that condition potential
opportunities. The chapter concludes by setting out the basic focus and
structure of the thesis. Overall, our aim is to assess the case for a cautiously
optimistic understanding of local benefits to be derived from biodiversity
conservation initiatives.
Biodiversity as a Contested Notion
To begin this investigation though, it is essential to clarify first the contested
nature of biodiversity as a measure of the variety of life on earth. What is
biodiversity after all? Biodiversity does not describe an object in the same way
that a tree or a forest refers to particular objects. Scientifically it describes a
way of measuring how much biological variety an object or set of objects has.
When forests are said to have high or low biodiversity, its biological and
physical diversity along a vertical ‘transect’ is described as a feature of the
forest, and as a dynamic characteristic. Biodiversity is addressed by natural
scientists on three levels: genetic, species and ecosystems (González-Barbera
and López Bermúdez 2000).
However, there are many ways to describe biodiversity depending upon who is
assigning the meaning and why. Multiple definitions of biodiversity result from
different sets of practices and therefore are subject to contested meanings, as
can be briefly illustrated. When defined genetically, biodiversity describes the
genetic variety between or within species or populations, and requires
laboratory analysis. At both the species and ecosystem levels it describes
distributions patterns, variety within species and habitats and how many
different species and habitats are present. These are only some of the ways
that scientists define biodiversity (Begon et al 1990).
2
11. In contrast, anthropologists refer to ‘cultural biodiversity’ that includes the field
of ethno-botany (Milton 1996). Cultural biodiversity is a way of understanding
the indigenous knowledge and practices of a group of people at the genetic,
species and ecosystem levels (Kandeh and Richards 1996, Little 1996). For
example many indigenous groups have a classification system for different
types of forest – some according to how it feels to be in that type of forest,
others differentiate between structural and species types (ESSC 1998a). These
systems may also represent a forest regeneration cycle reflective of community
use of biodiversity. Importantly, the notion of cultural biodiversity incorporates
relationships of local people with their biophysical environment. As we will see
later, this is the basis of local knowledge claims in biodiversity initiatives. In
contrast, science-based knowledge claims, as noted above, are based on
scientific practices that define biodiversity but in ways that imply no human
relationship with it.
Other ways of defining biodiversity, such as endemism, may indicate areas
where species are unique to a place or where habitats and species only exist
through human intervention. However, no one set of practices used to define
biodiversity can describe the total variety of life because different approaches
give a variety of results (Purvis and Hector 2000). Indeed, the practices used to
collect and analyse data are themselves chosen to illuminate a particular
meaning. Each meaning in turn, shows a different aspect of biodiversity as
constructed knowledge of nature. This is so in botany as elsewhere where new
knowledge developed initially from observing broad differences in leaves and
plant structure lead to the development of taxonomic classification systems
supportive of specialised fields of scientific enquiry. Similar processes have
been observed in other fields such as geology (Braun 2000).
Constructed meanings of biodiversity thus reflect particular sets of social and
political relations. These relations interact with previous threads and
connections in the dense knot of ‘nature’s multiple dimensions’ (Haraway
1994:63). Nature as a social construct with a complex web of contested
meanings has been widely discussed (Cronon 1995, Escobar 1996, 1999a,
Braun and Castree 1998). Nature described as biodiversity shows possibilities
of similar discursive complexity as chapter two will suggest. There are certainly
differences in perspectives on biodiversity, for example in relation to ideology
(Leach and Fairhead 2000, Young and Zimmerer 1998). And yet these different
perspectives often share a broader and usually dichotomous framework such as
– local-expert, insider-outsider or top down-bottom up – that tends to conceal as
much as it reveals (Jewitt 1995, Dove 1996, Escobar 1999b).
Indeed, this framework tends to assume homogeneity within groups. It does not
therefore allow for internal socio-political difference. True, this assumed
homogeneity is challenged notably on the basis of gender in some of the
feminist literature. Women are shown to have different patterns of resource use
than men which gives them access to a corresponding different set of social
and political relations (Rocheleau and Ross 1995, Rocheleau et al 1996,
Fortmann 1996, Agarwal 1997, Schroeder 1999). However, assuming any type
of group homogeneity needs to be undertaken cautiously. Rather than
investigating how different sectors understand biodiversity as opposing
homogenous groups, greater insight may be gained by looking at how
meanings and practices of biodiversity are understood within sectors and
3
12. groups as well as across them (Sajor and Resurreccion 1998). Therefore a
basic question posed here is how do uneven power relations interact with
biodiversity practices and how does such a dynamic in turn prompt wider social
change.
Biodiversity in Daily Life
These concerns over assumed homogeneity can be linked to other assumptions
in work by political ecologists on biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity is
analysed in some literature using an ‘extreme event’ to show moments in space
and time where meanings crystallise and are clearly contested between rival
groups. Focusing on explaining such an event certainly has its value (Watts
1998, 2000). Thus, easily observed phenomena can provide insights into
underlying social and political relations that brought about the event that may
otherwise go unnoticed. However, extreme events are not the only aspects of
social reality worth examining. Indeed, by choosing to relate one ‘story’ another
is inevitably left untold. As Cronon (1992:1350) states “whatever its overt
purpose, it [the story] cannot avoid a covert exercise of power, it inevitably
sanctions some voices while silencing others”.
A case in point is where Bryant (2000) examines two sharply opposing
conservation strategies on Coron Island in the Philippines. One strategy
articulated through protected area legislation was pitted against an indigenous
conservation strategy supported through an ancestral domain programme. The
dramatic event was a meeting of protagonists in October 1996 that highlighted
contested meanings of biodiversity. It was used to compare institutional
contexts of the two strategies and how protected area legislation did not support
existing local biodiversity conservation efforts. It was extreme because it was
not usual, since many negotiations in the Philippines are non-confrontational in
nature.1
This is especially so with many indigenous groups, and certainly for
the Tagbanua (the tribal group on Coron Island), who until the 1950s would
even run away from strangers (Lomombong interviews 2000). Coron Tagbanua
were also presented as homogeneous view such that less vocal views held by
some residents were not represented during this event. That said, a key
argument that “all conservation projects contain within them assumptions about
what is good and proper” is a useful pointer returned to at various stages of this
study (Bryant 2000:26).
The social dynamics that continued after this particularly extreme event
suggests there may be nonetheless greater complexity surrounding biodiversity
negotiations than accounted for in this and similar works. Indeed, that event
1
True, the Philippines is known for its extreme violence yet even here groups are responding to
particular situations and have a historical context of violent struggle (Steinberg 2000). Face to
face confrontation is avoided because it carries the risk of losing face which has on occasion
escalated into family blood feuds. Sajor (1998) investigates the relationship between the
Philippine state laws and indigenous people’s customary laws in Northern Philippines. This
study found that so-called customary laws are in fact “ever evolving rules and practices in
resource access that are ambiguous and inconsistent” (Sajor 1998:136). Importantly he
analyses local barangay boundary negotiations and suggests that “the ambiguity, endless
backdoor negotiations and manipulations of various social ties such as kinships and alliances
employed by the feuding parties and delegated arbiters are built-in features of the village’s
system of dispute settlement. Also because there are not absolute winners or losers – because
no party loses face – the villagers believe this system to be highly effective” (Sajor 1998:181).
4
13. may have been simply one of acknowledging positions as a precursor to
negotiating agreements. The extreme event thus may have provided a basis for
a less assertive indigenous group to later uphold their own views on the way
biodiversity in their area should be managed. Their own ancestral management
plan first disseminated during this event, provided the multiple zoning pattern for
the protected area (Ambal interview 2000, Coron-GMP 2000). The negotiated
agreement ensured that ‘experts’ supported the indigenous conservation
agenda, such that the agreed strategy was not simply defined by a scientific
knowledge system.
In contrast to the sort of approach represented by Bryant (2000), some scholars
have adopted an approach more akin to the one that we follow here. Braun
(2000), for example takes a less dramatic topic when he describes a new way
of discussing geology in Canada during the 19th century. The ‘event’ here was
within cycles of accumulation and construction of knowledge that occurred
literally over a period of one hundred years. Braun (2000:20) thus traced a key
cycle where “the collection of specimens, observations and other inscriptions at
many different sites around the globe – and their movement back to centres of
calculation – allowed for the emergence of an ordered system of knowledge”.
Consequently, structured geological knowledge emerged gradually from that
first cycle of knowledge accumulation and calculation, and changed established
social and political relations in conjunction with other developments such as the
emergence of a technologically sophisticated mining industry.
Braun suggests that the emergence of this ‘vertical’ knowledge of nature went
beyond just reconfiguring networks of science, government, and capital. The
making of ‘vertical’ nature also reconfigured “contours and power of the state,
paths and intensities of capitalist development, vision and conduct of citizens
and not least, territory of the state and its qualities” (Braun 2000:40). The ‘main
event’ thus occurring as a set of practices in the context of daily life, had
‘dramatic’ consequences over time. Its impact was such because this
constructed knowledge of nature was embedded within “knots of intertwined
practices and objects” (Braun 2000:40). As a less immediately ‘dramatic’ event
or better, as a series of events radiating from a web of socio-political relations, it
provides a useful approach to discuss various contested notions of biodiversity,
and one that is broadly followed in this thesis.
Hence, biodiversity practices also produce ‘vertical’ knowledge of biological
objects, mapping them genetically, by species or by ecosystem, even forming
new fields of research and practice such as biotechnology (Shiva 1993, Laird
and Kate 1999). As a constructed knowledge the latter too is embedded within
knots of intertwined practices similar to that discussed by Braun (2000). It is
likely that impacts of constructed vertical knowledge of biodiversity, such as
genetically modified objects, will be an enduring focus of geographers
(Kloppenburg 1988). The result of mapping biodiversity of ecosystems has lead
to the emergence of biodiversity conservation as ecosystem protection (an
example here is bioregional mapping and their strategic protection, see Olson
and Dinerstein 1999). However, the merits of visualising biodiversity in this
manner are strongly contested (Heaney 1998, Bryant 2002). Heaney (1998) for
example argues that the biogreographical regions represent species endemism
evolved over long periods of time without human influence, and subsequently
biodiversity degradation caused by destructive human interaction needs to be
5
14. stopped. In contrast, Bryant (2002) argues that this biogreographic imagined
community in which signs of people have been erased in favour of endangered
biota, de-socialises nature and sets the frame for national biodiversity
conservation policy and legal practices that further marginalize local people.
This thesis builds on this sort of critique by analysing the extent to which
biodiversity is pulling on diverse social threads of practices in such a way as to
provoke divergent views about biodiversity and conservation. Yet, negotiation
and not conflict is the predominant response. Negotiations within and between
sectors that evolve in a new set of social and power relations linked to
biodiversity initiatives are hence of interest here.
Analysing the ‘dramatic’ or ‘extreme’ event may also tend to underestimate the
capacity of local people to influence the power relations in subtle or covert
forms. Scott (1985, 1989) highlighted in an agrarian context how everyday
forms of resistance are embedded in daily life rather than are manifested in the
revolutionary event. He found that in a Malaysian village dominated by state
officials and landlords, there developed covert forms of resistance such as foot
dragging, false compliance, poaching and anonymous threats. In this context,
the ‘weak’ were motivated by a sense of injustice and need for survival in a
context where power relations constrained open forms of resistance.
Yet, there are limitations in applying this approach to biodiversity initiatives.
The state and economic elites tend to be reduced to monolithic categories of
oppression for instance. Still, in overturning the myth of suppressed people as
‘powerless’, and illuminating the use of ‘micro-powers’ that the poor can use to
erode the foundations of established social relations, it is potentially useful. In
particular it forces us to question the view of social compliance by the weak as
positive affirmation and to search for other behaviour such as resistance
expressed through daily practice. In the context of exploring negotiated
agreements within biodiversity conservation strategies in the Philippines, Scott’s
work offers potentially helpful insights, albeit here applied to assertion via
cooperation rather than ‘resistance’.
Just as Scott (1990) does not deny the importance of revolution in his analysis
of everyday resistance, this thesis will not deny dramatic events brought about
by opposing perspectives (Watts 1998, Bryant 2000). Nor does it deny that
creating protected areas may sometimes marginalize communities prompting
resistance (Gauld 1999). Yet this thesis does suggest that these situations do
not represent the whole story, and hence that there may be circumstances
whereby local people welcome biodiversity conservation strategies (cf.
Zimmerer 2000). This latter scenario is usually manifested through a series of
small, interrelated events embedded within the struggle of daily life, and will be
a main interest here.
Scott (1990) understood such resistance as a daily expression of words,
multiple meanings and complex actions. This thesis seeks to unpack
‘biodiversity’ in a similar way. Indeed, the view explored in this study is that
multiple definitions and practices suggest a certain complexity leading to
possible opportunities for local people to change power relations in their favour
through negotiated agreements. This view suggests more broadly that
negotiated opportunities are not new to communities. In fact, most of them have
6
15. a history of ongoing engagement and negotiation with powerful outsiders such
as traders or government officers (Sajor 1998, Zerner 2000, Murray 2001).
Where policies promote local participation in biodiversity planning and
management, they may be well received by local communities. Importantly,
these benefits need not be wholly about money. This has been found, for
instance where local people have access to ‘culturally meaningful’ benefits
(Colchester 1992, BCN 1999). One such benefit is the opportunity to negotiate
in their own terms and to meet their needs, be they cultural, material or spiritual.
With such ‘negotiated conservation’, there is an increasing demand by local
communities to influence decisions regarding local biodiversity and its
management. In many cases, they articulate a need to reserve areas for natural
regeneration in a stance that echoes some of the views of conservation-minded
scientists. Yet, these self-imposed restrictions may not necessarily exclude
them from using local resources to improve their socio-economic situation
(Neumann 1995, Hviding and Baines 1996).
Nevertheless, negotiated conservation as this thesis will consider can be about
much more than material gain. Indeed, it can bring local benefits across a
range of social and environmental relations. Much of this can be seen by the
close examination of discursive concerns and relations (Thompson and Rayner
1998). A discursive approach anticipates multiple perspectives on biodiversity
based on different sources of knowledge, meanings and values. How may we
understand the possible changes in social relations of perceived benefit to local
communities resulting from those multiple perspectives in biodiversity
negotiations? Theoretical work by Michel Foucault and other scholars on
discourse provides a useful frame of reference for this study.
Negotiated Conservation
The Approach of Michel Foucault
Using Foucault to consider biodiversity management as opening up
opportunities for positive local change may seem unusual. As Simons
(1995:108) points out “Foucault is portrayed as a pessimistic prophet of
entrapment.” This reputation is based notably on his work in the 1970s. Even
in the 1980s though, Foucault (1984b:343)could observe that;
“not everything is bad, but everything is dangerous. And if this is the
case then we always have something to do; which leads not to apathy
but to a hyper and pessimistic activism”.
Such pessimism is based ultimately on the view that “humanity proceeds from
domination to domination” (Foucault 1984c:85). The possibility of human
resistance to oppression seems impossible.
Yet, Foucault also provides the means for guarded optimism. For one,
Foucault’s analysis of the fluid nature of power relations removes the myth that
power sits permanently within structures, persons, roles or institutions. As
Simons (1995:87) points out, there is “no oasis of eternal respite”. For another
Foucault’s work shifts the analytical focus from analysing events, actors and
roles to assessing practices, processes, and procedures: “Events are analysed
according to the multiple processes which constitute them” (Foucault,
1991b:76). These aspects are refreshing and even possibly optimistic because
7
16. they seem to put the potential for change in the reach of local people through
everyday action thus eliminating polarized perspectives creating ‘heroes or
villains’. Still, a Foucauldian approach suggests that a ‘sceptical eye’ is
required to follow the power/knowledge relations within these practices to
examine how shifts and changes are occurring and with what effects on local
people.
Foucault thus provides various grounds for ‘sceptical optimism.’ One is in the
potentially transformative nature of power/knowledge relations expressed in
discourse. He considered discourses in terms of “transformations which they
have effected, and the field where they coexist, reside and disappear” (Foucault
1991a:60). In effect, discursive negotiations can lead to social transformation,
and shifts can be made in both knowledge and governance dynamics. Shifts
can be against dominant discourses, concerning resource management for
instance.
Another Foucauldian contribution is to look at power in a subtle and dynamic
way as a constantly shifting field of relations “because power is capillary,
diffused and everywhere” (Darrier 1999a:19). Gordon (1991:5) states that, for
power in a society is “never a fixed and closed regime, but rather an endless
and open strategic game.” This interpretation can be positive in light of the
concerns of this thesis. As Darier (1999a:19) suggests “Foucault’s concept of
power is less deterministic”. Societies are made up of complex systems of
practices, procedures and processes involving many institutions and individuals,
with complex micro-powers operating between them. As strategic struggles
over micro-power occur, there is always the possibility that a shift beneficial to
local communities can be obtained.2
This social change is unlikely to occur as
a ‘dramatic’ event of the kinds discussed above but rather as a series of ‘micro-
events’. To critically analyse who benefits from shifting micro-powers is notably
to assess whether and how the marginalized or elite members of communities
ultimately benefit from conservation efforts.
Further evidence for sceptical optimism in Foucault’s work can be gained from
his definition of government as the “conduct of conduct” (Foucault 1982:220-1,
Gordon 1991:48). This definition broadens our frame of analysis so that
opportunities in governance may occur in both formal and informal practices
affecting both organisations and individuals. Further the opportunity “to govern
is to structure the field of possible actions to act on our own or other’s capacities
for action” (Dean 1999:14, emphasis added). Yet, this presupposes the
existence of freedom and the capacity to think and to act for both governed and
governor (cf. Rose 1999). Freedom is therefore the capacity to struggle in
these fields of power relations; as Simons (1995:87) notes, “this is an
affirmation of life as it is”. Analysing changes and struggles in these power-
relations is the challenge. To assist in this task, Foucault suggests that
discursive practices be analysed since they indicate shifts in micro-power
relations, which in turn may result in broader social transformation.
2
‘local community’ itself is unpacked below in chapter 2.
8
17. Discourse
This thesis focuses on discourse to investigate negotiated conservation as a
way of assessing possible opportunities for local benefits. There are various
possible ways to proceed here. For some the analysis of discourse is basically
a linguistic approach (e.g. Harré et al 1998). Yet, as noted below, this approach
gives insufficient attention to cultural nuance and hence is inadequate for this
study. Early theorising on discourse was also concerned with relations
between universal truth claims of science and universal power claims of
European colonisation (Said 1979, Grove 1996). Such a focus has been readily
analysed through written documents. However, other knowledge claims may be
of a more narrative or oral nature. To this end, Barnes and Duncan (1992:8)
suggest discourse “embraces combinations of narratives, concepts, ideologies
and signifying practices each relevant to a particular realm of social action.”
Even here, the use of ‘signifying’ implies a static one-way process from
meaning and concepts to practices that does not allow for reciprocal influence.
Recent work on discourse and the environment has begun to acknowledge
such reciprocity. Research by Hajer (1995) and Litfin (1994), for example,
assess negotiated discourses in the international policy fora. Hajer (1995) thus
considers acid rain and Litfin (1994) addresses climate change negotiations.
Both these environmental issues are of global concern, and as such, are
seemingly similar to the biodiversity issues. Hajer’s analysis focuses on
discourse interactions, negotiation processes and resulting hybrid agreements
and coalitions. Litfin focuses more on the web of knowledge/power relations
within negotiation processes themselves, rather than the outcomes that lead to
policy changes. The temporal and spatial scales of acid rain and climate
change mean there is a great deal of uncertainty in the scientific claims with the
result that these are contested.
The rate of biodiversity loss has two temporal scales – one affecting global
spatial impacts of loss (and hence subject to similar negotiations as described
by both Hajer and Litfin) and the other affecting its local impact. Yet, the issue
of biodiversity loss has an arguably greater immediate impact at the local level
as communities are adversely affected. As such, biodiversity initiatives may be
responding to both global and local concerns. Thus approaches of Litfin (1994)
and Hajer (1995) may offer a less than complete context for examining possible
effects of negotiation leading to local social change. Indeed at this local scale,
culture becomes a prominent lens through which knowledge, webs of social
relations, values and meanings are negotiated.
The importance of culture can be seen, for example, in rural tropical areas with
multiple ethnic groups. Many of these groups may still have limited contact with
a European knowledge framework and may also have limited reading and
writing skills. The discursive interactions are hence likely to be oral, through
stories, jokes, and discussion, and in response to local experiences (Dove
1996, Murray 2001). Experiences incorporate knowledge gained over time both
as a learned activity and through an expression of sets of practices (Croll and
Parkin 1992). In this context, practices as sets of cultural activities for livelihood
or otherwise play an important role in the formation of discourse. It is
suggested that similarly where the written text, expresses part of the discourse,
so may actual cultural practices such as those for livelihood do the same (Milton
9
18. 1996). In this way cultural practices not only give meaning to concepts, but
they can also be an expression of meaning (Little 1996).
Thesis Focus
A Foucauldian approach is used then to explore three potential opportunities for
local benefits ensuing from biodiversity initiatives. Eight years of fieldwork in
Southeast Asia, and in West Africa listening to local people and state officials in
the context of resource management struggles has led me to conclude that
there is a need to look at biodiversity and its conservation in a new way. That
way, I would suggest is to see it as a series of discursive negotiations that lead
to possible opportunities for local people. It is suggested therefore that local
residents may be said to enjoy benefits from negotiated conservation if they
have the opportunity to assert local knowledge, a local sense of place or local
governance. This thesis examines the extent to which this may be so using
evidence from an official biodiversity initiative in Malampaya, Northern Palawan,
Philippines. The initiative took place over a two and half year period from 1999
to 2001 and involved several different activities, some of which took the form of
officially organised discursive negotiations. Other discursive negotiations were
embedded within the daily struggles of local groups as well as others with a
stake in the process.
As such the thesis will avoid approaches using either dichotomous frameworks
or the analysis of extreme events. Rather it seeks to relate everyday local level
relations to biodiversity negotiations within a process of discursive interaction.
This approach ought to provide new insights into the view of biodiversity as a
contested notion. Discursive negotiations are seen to be central and may lead
to tangible outputs, some of which may have positive material consequences
through agreements, coalitions, or other forms of governance for local people
involved in biodiversity initiatives.
The next chapter will establish the theoretical framework of this thesis. It
elaborates the central claims that negotiated biodiversity initiatives may provide
opportunities for local benefit. A threefold opportunity structure emphasising
particular types of benefit is therefore outlined. In turn, this structure enables an
exploration of the extent to which biodiversity initiatives provide opportunities to
assert local knowledge claims, sense of place, and local governance. By
exploring these potential opportunities across one biodiversity initiative in the
Philippines, an assessment of the possible relevance of initiatives to local
residents can be made. Chapter 3 presents the case study method and the
techniques used to gather data. By providing a background to conservation
management in the Philippines, Chapter 4 examines the historical context in
which the biodiversity initiative took place. The three empirical chapters
thereafter assess the theoretical framework. Chapter 5 thus explores how
complex negotiations may have involved the assertion of local knowledge
claims. Chapter 6 examines in turn how these negotiations may have enabled
the local assertion of a sense of place. Chapter 7 explores how the negotiating
process may have provided opportunities for the assertion of local governance.
Chapter 8 finally assesses the broader implications of the study as it
summarises the theoretical and empirical findings of the thesis.
10
19. 2 Biodiversity Initiatives as Opportunity for Local
Change
Choosing how to conserve biodiversity is a socially loaded strategy. Initiatives
chosen indicate both how biodiversity is understood and valued, as well as by
whom. Certain approaches may give greater opportunity for local benefits than
others; indeed, some may even result in a net loss for local people. Benefits
where they do exist may not necessarily be synonymous with economic gain.
What then are the local benefits that may emerge from biodiversity initiatives?
Further, could perceived opportunity here motivate local people to support a
biodiversity initiative? This thesis explores these questions using a three-fold
opportunity structure.
The previous chapter introduced the idea that there are various meanings of
biodiversity in the scholarly literature. It also established the basic approach of
this thesis from the Foucauldian literature. Here, the main themes are explored
in greater depth as the theoretical framework is elaborated. The aim is to
explore three types of possible opportunity for local benefit. First, though, the
discussion of biodiversity will assess basic notions of central concern to the
thesis, namely those of biodiversity initiatives, non-monetary opportunity, and
the idea of the ‘local’. Thereafter, the chapter uses pertinent literature to
establish the three-fold opportunity structure as it suggests that negotiated
biodiversity initiatives may provide local opportunities to assert knowledge
claims, a sense of place and governance. This framework is believed to offer a
suitable structure to assess possible benefits associated with local social
change.
Biodiversity Initiatives
In addressing the issue of biodiversity in more depth it is clear that there are two
main sorts of initiatives involved in its attempted protection: those that are on
site and those that are off site. Off-site strategies involve the collection of
specific species usually also re-locating them in a different place, such as a zoo,
botanical garden or gene bank (Whatmore, 2000). However, it is on-site
conservation strategies which are usually most socially contested, and which in
any event are of primary interest in this thesis. On-site initiatives require that an
area be identified, policies and practices defined, and an administrative system
set up to support the process. Each step reflects particular power relations
within and between social groups.
Examining biodiversity initiatives thematically enables us to assess the type of
power relations that may be in play. Initiatives can be grouped along three
themes: territorial, prescriptive and indigenous (local). Territorial conservation is
most associated with national parks. Many state agencies developed this
strategy to restrict resource access to non-favoured groups (Vandergeest and
Peluso 1995, Wittayapak 1996, Neumann 1997) For example, Thai national
parks gazette forests for tourism that were long protected by local communities
who were thereby denied access (Ghimire 1994). Communities thus
marginalized here often responded by over-using resources in these areas as a
form of resistance (Scott 1998). Indeed national parks in many developing
11
20. countries are not that effective at protecting biodiversity (Peluso 1993, Barrett
and Arcese 1995, Neumann 1998, Gauld 2000).
Prescriptive biodiversity initiatives were developed as a response to the
perceived difficulties of the territorial approach. The World Conservation Union
(IUCN) and other conservation organisations sought to incorporate community
participation and local needs into protected area design and management
(Oviedo and Brown 1999). Protected Area Systems or Reserves are supported
legislatively in the Philippines, Bolivia and Costa Rica, for example, to
encourage multiple categories of reserves, some even allowing limited local
access to resources through a system of multiple zoning (Philips and Harrison
1999, Zimmerer 2000). Similarly, biodiversity ‘hotspots’ have been identified
which are places with high biodiversity perceived as highly ‘threatened’ by
human exploitation (Myers 1998, Mittermieier 1998, Mittermieier et al 2000,
Myers et al 2000a, 2000b).3
This approach prioritises funding reserves in
‘hotspot’ countries such as the Philippines, Colombia and Indonesia. Recently,
the strategy Global 200 extends priorities to the most threatened ecosystems or
habitats (Olson and Dinerstein 1999). 4
These various projects and programmes share the same basic features. First,
they depend on scientific experts to designate the location of zones and design
management strategies (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996). Second, local communities
living in the buffer-zones surrounding the protected areas are usually invited
(some say coerced) to ‘participate’ in allowed activities (Peluso 1993, Neumann
1998, Cooke and Kothari 2001). Allowed activities are designed to reduce
local dependence on natural resource use by encouraging alternative
‘sustainable’ livelihoods such as eco-tourism (Miller 1999). This is a
prescriptive conservation strategy in that it is a top-down process of
management based on scientific data, provided by experts and often geared to
the advent of new market potentials (Braun 1987, Katz 1998, McAfee 1999).
In contrast, local or indigenous biodiversity conservation initiatives highlight the
plight of ‘local’ people in ‘outsider’ initiated conservation (PAFID 1998, Li 2000).
Local, if defined at all, is often equated with indigenous people, who are
portrayed as victims and/or advocates of indigenous rights (Poffenberger and
McGean 1996, TERRA 1998). ‘Bottom-up’ strategies, such as counter mapping,
are seen to be an alternative to ‘top-down’ approaches (Peluso 1995). As part
of this process ‘local knowledge’ is preferred to scientific knowledge (Chambers
1983, Poffenberger 1990, Peluso 1995, Bebbington 1999, Dove 1999). Lately,
this position has been refined to emphasise the legitimacy of ‘insiders’ to
determine what is true and valuable for local empowerment rather than that
determined by ‘outsiders’ (Guyer and Richards 1996, Escobar 1996, 1999b,
2001; Resurrecion 1998). These processes are shown as facilitating ‘bottom up’
resource protection, control, and access that is seen to be the basis for local
conservation (Walpole et al 1993, 1994; Pinkaew 1997, PAFID 1998).
The literature just noted indicates that the local/indigenous biodiversity initiative,
but also perhaps the prescriptive conservation initiative, may offer opportunities
3
See also www. CI 2002
4
Science based global ranking of the earth’s most biologically outstanding habitats, collectively
known as the Global 200, see www. WWF 2002
12
21. to assert local benefits. However, what type of benefits are being offered and
who are the beneficiaries? The literature above indicates that not all benefits
are seen as such by local groups. This reiterates the need to not address
groups as homogeneous entities, it also directs our attention to the nature of
benefits as well as the varied interests and concern that go under the label of
‘local’. Thus notions of ‘opportunity’ and ‘local’ in relation to biodiversity
conservation need to be assessed.
Opportunities for Non-monetary Benefits
First, let us consider what is meant by ‘opportunity’. According to the New
Oxford Dictionary (1998:1301), “opportunity is a set of circumstances that
makes it possible to do something”. Within biodiversity initiatives it is precisely
such a new set of circumstances that may be discursively negotiated.5
Hence,
the negotiation is a discursive practice because agreements or compromises
are reached through discussion between various groups (Litfin 1994, Hajer
1995, Hilhorst 1997). The result of discursive negotiation will be discussed in
the context of the three-fold framework where it is related that outcomes are
discursive in nature, but may also have material consequences. True,
discourse analysis and the Foucauldian approach in general are sometimes
criticized for not making sufficiently explicit the relations of discourse to the
material world (Hajer 1995, Tait and Campbell 2000). However, discursive
practices as negotiated processes provide the potential for discursive outcomes
that may incorporate a new set of circumstances that directly effect material
relations. Discourse thus allows us to understand the changes, if any, in power
relations that are incorporated within new sets of circumstances. Foucault
(1982:220) suggests that in this way power can be a creative opportunity “faced
with a relationship of power, a whole field of responses, reactions, results, and
possible inventions may open up”. However and to reiterate a point first made
in chapter 1, we are not looking at extreme shifts, but rather the way in which
micro-powers may be in flux as a result of negotiations embedded in the social
relations of daily life (Tait and Campbell 2000).
Overall, biodiversity initiatives have tended to favour particular social relations
aligned to powerful outsiders. Activities have thus provided opportunities for,
among others, specialist bird groups, scientists, state officials, tourists or
businesses. These opportunities are often at the expense of local residents.
However need this always be the case? There may be circumstances for
instance, where local people participate in negotiations aimed at generating a
discourse as to what activities are allowed, so their needs and perspectives are
incorporated into the new circumstances. These negotiations may also result in
supportive discourse coalitions, agreements and alliances even between groups
previously in opposition. These outcomes are new emerging circumstances
and may enable local people to do something differently now or in the future.
For example, where the training of locals in conservation work increases their
status in the community, they thus gain a potentially important non-monetary
benefit of a sort that is of particular interest here.
5
Negotiate has several meanings. For clarity in this thesis it is “try to reach an agreement or
compromise by discussion with others” (New Oxford Dictionary 1998,:1241).
13
22. This thesis certainly does not deny that where groups perceive biodiversity as a
commodity, monetary benefits may be the prime motivation. Escobar (1996)
and O’Connor (1998) among others, discuss the theoretical implications of
treating biodiversity as a commodity. However, whether monetary benefits are
sufficient to secure local support over the long-term is questionable. Songorwa
(1999), for example, discusses these issues in a Tanzanian context where
community based wildlife management has been driven mainly by the promise
of economic benefits. He concludes that the project failed because it was
based on the flawed assumption that local people would be moved to
participate solely due to the prospect of economic gain through eco-tourism.
However, these groups re-interpreted the values underpinning the initiative in
an unexpected manner. In effect, they poached the wildlife instead of protecting
it for tourists seemingly as a way to eliminate a ‘hazard’ to local people and
livelihoods.
Songorwa (1999) supports the view that focusing mainly on monetary benefits
may divert attention from other motivating factors. This thesis would go further.
It suggests that there are cases where monetary benefits are clearly secondary.
Indeed, this study explores the case where monetary benefits are not even
directly a part of the initiative. In the process, we consider the range of possible
benefits that may exist and may motivate local people to support biodiversity
conservation.
This discussion raises in turn the question of the ‘local’. What is meant in this
thesis by the word ‘local’ is a set of relations between actors that are sometimes
also referred to as community, indigenous, village or resident. The term is used
mainly to emphasise the scale at which a particular set of relations are manifest.
However, patterns in these relations may not necessarily conform to externally
defined political boundaries. The New Oxford Dictionary (1998:1083) defines
local as an “inhabitant of a particular area” or “belonging to, or relating to a
particular area or neighbourhood”. The literature discusses various contexts in
which local at a community level comprises differentiated actors with various
roles and interests (Jackson 1995, Rocheleau et al 1996, Leach, et al 1997,
Agarwal 1997, Agrawal 1999, Cramb et al. 2000). As Agrawal (1999:630) notes
“initiatives must be founded on images of community that recognize their
internal differences and processes, their relations with external actors and the
institutions that effect them both”. The methodological difficulties arising from
this distinction are discussed in the next chapter. Meanwhile, the importance of
‘unevenness’ within local communities is apparent in subsequent discussions
on micro-powers and Foucault below. Suffice to say here that not everyone at
the local level receives the same type of benefits or indeed even any benefit at
all.
For those living at the socio-political margin some opportunities may be
influenced by uneven power relations within and between groups operating at
various levels. These uneven relations may be expressed through the different
practices or ways of getting things done. Foucault (1973, 1976, 1979) suggests
that research should focus on small often hidden practices as these often
determine how larger processes work. These considerations allow us to move
away from seeing communities as homogenous or static groups. Foucault’s
emphasis on multiple discourses leads him to suggest that it is combinations of
different types of transformations that bring about social change, and that the
14
23. ‘micro-powers’ driving these transformations need to be investigated.
Biodiversity discourse can be analysed in a similar manner by investigating the
micro-powers in the multiple practices within biodiversity initiatives.
Knowledge Claims
Multiple social practices are based on different knowledge systems with each
one providing a different perspective on ‘truth’ based on its particular context
(Foucault 1973). Foucault described this process of knowledge construction
generally as discourse. If it is understood that place-based relations, local
knowledge and governance are part of this process, then a discursive approach
help us to ‘recover’ unheard voices. Hajer’s (1995) definition of discourse is
thus preferred to that of the one by Barnes and Duncan (1992) as discussed in
chapter 1, because it focuses on the interactive development of meaning
through practice. Hajer (1995:44, emphasis added) thus defines discourse as
“specific ensemble of ideas, concepts and categorisations that are produced,
reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which
meaning is given to physical and social realities”.
In this way, Hajer emphasises the process of discourse formation that links to
iterative practices. This is particularly significant for environmental discourses.
The meanings, concepts and categorisations here evolve out of and are
consolidated by relating with the biophysical environment through daily activities
(Ingold 1992, Goodwin 1998, Escobar 1999b). Hajer implies that an interactive
process between what is said and done together creates discourse. This not
only grounds discourse in material processes thus avoiding a common criticism
of discourse. It also means that the historical or institutional context for the
different sets of practices must also be understood in any discourse analysis.
This is indeed something that is vital to a study of the kind undertaken here.
Darier (1999b:219) further suggests that for Foucault there were “only games of
truth; as knowledge was embedded in its own context of production.” He also
states that Foucault understood “knowledge inevitably intertwined with power
relations and vice-versa” (Darier 1999b:220). This dissolves an absolute sense
of power and allows a more flexible understanding of it to be developed, “as a
field or a strategic game” (Foucault 1988b:18). According to Levy (1999: 208),
this Foucauldian strategy is the “battle over meaning and functioning of
networks of terms”. Biodiversity thus has multiple meanings and practices that
represent different knowledge claims. Where negotiation processes bring about
new meanings practices or a hybrid agreement, a change in power/knowledge
relations may be present. This assumes that negotiation processes over
meanings-practices are equivalent to ‘strategies/battles’.
Emphasising Culture in Discourse Theory
A question then arises as to the confrontational nature of negotiations if
‘strategies/battles’ are the principal means of human interaction. Hajer
(1995:53) defines human interaction as “an argumentative struggle in which
actors not only try to make others see the problems according to their views, but
also seek to position other actors in a specific way”. Hajer also suggests that
actors try to secure support for their definition of reality through credibility,
acceptability, and trust. True argumentation may involve confrontation.
15
24. However, this may not be the case. When considering discursive negotiations at
the local scale, an emphasis on cultural expression is necessary. Culture is the
principal social lens through which existing webs of power relations operate
(Massey 1998, Rose 1995). Local discourse negotiations remain within the web
of particular relations that helped form them. Thus, local responses before,
during and after discursive negotiations such as over a biodiversity initiative
may be reflective of historical social relations (Murray 2001). Therefore, culture
becomes an especially important lens at the local scale, while its significance
may be less appreciated to some extent, at the international scale.6
The cultural context for human interaction is rarely reducible to confrontation.
Indeed, interaction may be constrained by established socio-power relations,
and strong cultural norms such that confrontation simply may not be culturally
acceptable. Foucault (1982:222) here saw power relationships as permanent
provocation and “less of face-to-face confrontation which paralyses both sides”.
Indeed, on some occasion even silence may be a culturally accepted discursive
strategy that is simultaneously provocative and a form of negotiation
Cultural practice may influence discourses in other ways. During negotiations
for example, a practice often used by weaker groups is to reverse key meanings
at strategic junctures through ‘reverse discourses’. This strategy has been
popular in the Philippines. Take the case of indigenous people. They are
perceived as being different to society – ‘inferior’ due to their ‘primitive practices’
and lifestyles (Anti-Slavery Society 1983). Over the last two decades though,
indigenous peoples have formed reverse discourses in which they have
asserted land rights on the basis of precisely these perceived differences
(Resurrecion 1998).
Similarly, the social impact of discourses may be influenced by cultural
dynamics. For example, where two groups of people are influenced by the
same discourse, their reactions to it may nonetheless be quite distinct as a
result of different cultural norms. In a Philippine context characterized by
diverse cultures, some indigenous groups are ‘known’ for a particular
behavioural response. Thus while some Luzon based groups, such as the
Bundoc, respond aggressively in discursive negotiations, others such as the
Tagbanua of Palawan and Bukidnon of Mindanao tend to avoid confrontation
usually opting instead to go with ‘avoidance behaviour’ (Adas 1981).
The influence of discourse over thought and action lead Foucault to consider
discourses themselves as distinct power centres. Here it is the ability to
delineate the boundaries of thought itself through discursive action. In this
regard, Litfin (1994) criticises definitions of power that associate it with control
and domination, because these do not consider persuasion through reasoning
and debate that is central to knowledge-based power. Litfin (1994:18) helpfully
suggests instead a “spectrum of power relations ranging from coercion at one
end, through manipulation, and authority, and to persuasion at the other end”.
This thesis suggests that the discursive practice of negotiation may be able to
pull on particular ‘threads’ in power relations depending upon the type of
6
Culture – “refers to people’s feelings, thoughts and knowledge about the world” (Milton
1996:38). Its suggested here that both Litfin (1994) and Hajer (1995) did not emphasise culture
at the international scale.
16
25. negotiating strategy used. The choice of which strategies to use may reflect
cultural practice and existing capacities but is rarely settled solely in terms of
sheer control and domination.
Since discourses are power centres they also produce resistance. When
certain discourses come to dominate the field, other ‘counter-discourses’
articulate networks of resistance to particular ‘regimes of truth’ (Foucault
1980a). As Foucault (1982:225) states “there is no relationship of power
without the means of escape or possible flight”. Because resistance forms a
part of discursive practice, its formation may indicate shifts in power relations
(Sharp et al 2000).
How do we know what type of discursive strategy is used to resist or to assert a
claim? Hajer (1995:56) suggests storylines may be used as “subtle
mechanisms for creating and maintaining discursive order, by clustering
knowledge, and positioning actors”. It is suggested here that storylines woven
into discourse may illuminate these shifts. How discourse frames ‘knowledge,’
as well as the metaphors used, will shape the discursive strategy of
participants. Where less forceful discourse strategies are used in negotiations,
for example, we may expect an opportunity for the assertion of local benefits
such as knowledge claims, sense of place and governance. The context for
each of these possible benefits is explored in the remainder of this chapter as
we elaborate the theoretical framework of the thesis.
Opportunity to Assert Local Knowledge Claims
The implications of uneven power relations between and within sectors shall be
examined to show how the assertion of local knowledge claims may provide
non-monetary opportunities to local people. As discussed above, knowledge
claims are important to discourse formation and negotiations. How are
knowledge claims formed and asserted and with what effect? Firstly, the
influence of biodiversity practices in the formation of local claims is explored
leading thereafter to an examination of how claims by marginal groups may
differ. Then how claims are asserted is explored using cultural discourse
analysis – the potential of story-lines and counter-knowledge claims will be
assessed as ways of shifting ‘micro-power’ relations to address local social
injustice. First though, it is necessary to examine how biodiversity is valued.
Valuing Biodiversity
The terms used to attach value to biodiversity are important. Many
environmental NGOs have co-opted economic terms using monetary values to
define benefits, thereby justifying protection. This is a common strategy to
make biodiversity protection appealing to ‘third world’ state agencies and ‘first
world’ donors (Katz 1998). Biodiversity is not evenly distributed with much of it
in the third world. Yet, development there has relied on the intensive
exploitation of natural resources, embedded within established power relations
of local elites. Biodiversity protection requires a shift in how these resources
are valued if power relations are also to alter. Murray (2001) suggests that the
way in which organisations talk about biodiversity and construct meaning, may
reflect historical power relations. These meanings may even encompass the
communities most associated with a particular biodiversity. Escobar (1996)
17
26. found that communities with cultural knowledge that sustain rainforests or
unlock its pharmaceutical potential were also symbolically sequestered into
biodiversity meanings such that both were seen as sources of value.
Yet trying to assign monetary values to things of æsthetic or spiritual worth can
devalue them. “Assigning value to that which we do not own and whose
purpose we can not understand except in the most superficial ways is the
ultimate in presumptuous folly” (Ehrenfield 1988:216). Here the view is that
ethical criteria not economic values should be the basis for valuing biodiversity.
The argument is that as ‘stewards’ of the earth humanity has a responsibility to
take care of it (Poffenberger 1990).
Types of Knowledge Claim
Values of biodiversity are inherent within local knowledge claims developed
from experiences with people’s immediate environment (Ingold 1992, Dove
1996, Goodwin 1998, Escobar 1999b). Indeed, this link is true for other types of
knowledge claims. In the context of biodiversity initiatives three basic
knowledge claims emerge: biodiversity as a shared resource incorporating
survival relations; biodiversity as a scientific classification; and biodiversity as a
commodity (Milton 1996, AFN 1997, Escobar 1999a). As such, each claim will
discuss biodiversity in a manner that reflects both inherent values and
substantive experiences. Litfin (1994:15) in this regard points out, “knowledge
does not emerge in a void but is incorporated into pre-existing stories to render
it meaningful”. Biodiversity storylines derived from local practices may even
discuss biodiversity without explicitly mentioning the term thereby reflecting the
experience of ‘living in’ biodiversity rather than ‘looking at’ it (Milton 1996).
Further, knowledge is not evenly distributed in society. This can give rise to the
phenomenon of local experts – that is, someone recognised within a community
for being competent in certain resource processing activities (Thomas-Slayter et
al 1996, Escobar 1999b, ESSC 1999a). Where a group has historical relations
in a certain locality, past experiences and knowledge is usually transferred
between the generations. In this manner, the broader community endows
individuals with authority to talk of matters referring to their particular expertise.
At the same time though, knowledge may be the preserve of diverse individuals
with overlapping if not competing claims. Consequently, these differences in
knowledge may affect which claims are asserted by local groups in the context
of biodiversity negotiations.
Not only may knowledge be unevenly distributed between groups, so too may
the ability to assert knowledge claims vary socially. Many researchers present
these differences as a gap between knowledge claims (Litfin 1994, AFN 1995,
1997, Milton 1996, Schroeder 1999). A marked difference is often observed
between officials and local communities. Thus officials are trained in practices
based on a scientific knowledge claim and are adept in using codified ways of
presenting discourse authoritatively – through the use of graphs or tabulated
data for example. Meanwhile communities have a set of practices based in
local knowledge claims formed through survival and exchange relations with
different biodiversity resources. Local people may not have developed
necessary reading and writing skills because they have had no need to
18
27. document past discourses but instead have often presented their knowledge in
the form of oral storylines.
The process of how local knowledge is acquired, adapted and transferred to
others is rarely explored by resource officials such as foresters as they require
scientific qualifications for promotion and not an understanding of community
discourses (Dove 1996, AFN 1997). Indeed, such ignorance is steeped in
arrogance. There is often seen to be no need to understand local claims as
officials have unquestioning ‘confidence’ in their own practices. Litfin (1994:25)
points out that “this confidence is often misguided as the scientific community
does not independently verify what is known, most is accepted on referenced
authority”. Scientific knowledge claims are perceived differently as having
greater legitimacy although this is itself cultural in nature.7
For Murray
(2001:63) these cultural differences are an expression of historically sedimented
relations of power and hence they do not stand apart from “socially organised
forms of inequality”. It is rather formed and inscribed “symbolically as well as
instrumentally, discursively as well as forcefully in the relations of rule, trade
and everyday interaction” (Murray 2001:63).
This point holds for localised legitimacy based on uneven abilities of local
groups to assert different knowledge claims let alone where cultural differences
arise. For example often ‘indigenous’ knowledge claims are legitimised through
an organised local elite (such as Tagbanua Foundation of Coron discussed
earlier) but their legitimisation has come through officially sanctioned
processes. These differences within groups are also subject to uneven
patterns/relations of power. These patterns may reflect differences in gender,
age or socio-cultural status (e.g. cast or class). Kothari et al (1995), Ostrom
(1990), Schroeder (1999), and Agrawal (2001) found that internal group
differences were a major factor in establishing the success of local resource
initiatives, similar to some biodiversity initiatives. In particular, where new
institutions are introduced into existing socio-power networks, they interact
promoting new ideas of biodiversity initiatives and patterns of discursive
negotiation and opportunity. This complexity is notably seen in multiple fora
where facilitation is used, notably to draw out ‘minority’ knowledge claims. How
well the latter are asserted in local discursive negotiations may indicate in turn
how extensively (if at all) power relations shift.
Asserting Whose Knowledge Claims?
According to Fay (1987:130 in Litfin 1994) empowerment implies a local group
gains an understanding of its ‘best’ interests and collaborates to achieve them.
Litfin (1994) adds that empowerment often involves knowledge-based power as
people reconceptualise interests and identities. The civil rights and women’s
movements are examples, but this is also applicable to biodiversity initiatives
where environmental education is prominent. However this situation assumes a
‘void’ of local knowledge, which is usually not the case. Empowerment may be
less a question of reconceptualisation but rather a transformation of the limits of
local knowledge systems previously constrained by existing norms, some even
7
Often individuals making the claim legitimises it, for example Severin (1997) suggests that
Alfred Wallace, at the time an unknown field naturalist, had to jointly present his ideas of natural
selection with Charles Darwin who had the scientific legitimacy to present the idea publically
and it be accepted, whereas Wallace was not ‘known’ by the scientific community at that time.
19
28. externally imposed. For example, when people use local knowledge as the
basis for understanding, scientific knowledge-claims may be forced to assess
these local claims, thus reversing ‘established’ power/knowledge arrangements.
Simons (1995:17) suggests Foucault saw “limits as historical and contingent
rather than universal and necessary and thus open to change”. Hence,
knowledge is reframed so it incorporates new truths, but still connects with
existing knowledge systems in complex ways.
Let us consider hypothetically at this point, how this may apply in a biodiversity
context. Local knowledge says something about how the ‘natural’ world is
perceived to work. Hunters tell us about how monkeys eat the seeds of rattan.
Rattan gatherers tell us that rattan is most abundant along rivers associated
with flowing water. The two knowledge claims may be connected: the monkeys
going to the rivers to eat on stones by the river may have excreted rattan seeds
which with added nutrients had an advantage over other plants in the area.
Scientific knowledge-claims based in ethno-botany may confirm later this link.
It may be thereafter the basis for rattan gatherers to negotiate with hunters to
keep riverbanks as no hunting zones. In this way local knowledge can lead to
social change favourable to some if not necessarily all local interests.
Science too is a social process involving persuasion and power and tells us how
the natural world works (Litfin 1994, Myerson and Rydin 1997). As the above
example shows, it may be used to verify other knowledge claims. More often
though scientists seek data for their own purpose of persuasion. There is still a
tendency for taxonomic scientists to engage local people as hired porters rather
than to consider them as cultural botanists such that data is analysed and
interpreted according to pre-existing value communities (Litfin 1994, Blaikie and
Jeanrenaud 1997). In its re-interpretation in subsequent papers, scientists
move the discourse frame and incorporate knowledge into other storylines,
using the data to advance different perspectives and theories.
How discourses frame knowledge or move the frames is therefore important
(Hajer 1995). The “techniques of power” used to frame knowledge are also
critical, such as those “that organise biodiversity spatially, zoning, partitioning,
enclosing” (Allen 1999:202). Litfin (1994) further suggests that scientists have
access to specialised knowledge and this allows them to place certain issues on
the public agenda. Equally, society knows culturally how to accept this data as
authoritative, because of respect for the ‘scientific’ way of presenting data.
However, scientists may not have access to the knowledge of those who live in
the local environment. Equally, society may not acknowledge the legitimacy of
the local voice, because it is not framed in a recognizable manner (Bourdieu
1991).
Whose knowledge is ultimately recognised in biodiversity initiatives thus reflects
a struggle of knowledge claims, where values and meanings are woven into
storylines to legitimate a particular claim. In many ‘industrialised’ societies there
is a tendency to value knowledge gained through observing biodiversity
(science) over that gained from experiencing it (local) (see Milton 1996). Within
a negotiation process that acknowledges the latter, however, biodiversity
initiatives may be a means of shifting not only perspectives, but also the
legitimacy of a minority group. Negotiated agreements for biodiversity
conservation may even bring about shifts in micro-powers leading to actual
20
29. social change – for example, through the empowerment of local people as part
custodians.
How different knowledge claims are incorporated in conservation discourses
matter enormously. A dominant claim may be an important symbol that adds
legitimacy to official initiatives but also local efforts. Local people often want to
be acknowledged or made visible to officially through maps or the census, for
example (Murray 2001). However, local perspectives may also be just tacked
on at the end of the process as an afterthought to legitimise outcomes as
‘participatory’ development (Cooke and Kothari 2001).
Still, the very act of being involved in biodiversity initiatives may assist local
people. For them the ability to assert claims in official discursive negotiations
itself appears to lend legitimacy to their way of interpreting the world. For many
communities their sense of personal/group identity is linked with cultural
practices and knowledge ascribed to a specific location (Croll and Parkin 1992).
Therefore asserting knowledge claims may re-affirm group identities and create
forms of “social solidarity” (Thompson and Rayner 1998:68). Discursive
negotiations may acknowledge local claims in agreements, thereby opening
new circumstances where local people may be potential beneficiaries of other
official or NGO programmes. For example, in 1974 the Ikalahan tribe in Luzon
negotiated a twenty-five year agreement with state agencies that established
their domain as a reserve and allowed them to define their own management.
This provided the basis for further benefits in the form of support for their
education system and livelihood development (BCN 1999). By legitimising the
value of local knowledge through these agreements, local relations with
biodiversity may be ultimately strengthened.
In summary, knowledge claims discuss biodiversity in ways that reflect
underpinning values, experiences and practices of the claimants. However,
gaps occur between knowledge claims of groups in both local and broader
society and are due to uneven distributions of knowledge, different capabilities,
and perceived legitimacy of the claim. Storylines are a means to assess these
differences between claims incorporated into conservation discourses. Thus
storylines enable us to assess how local people may benefit in so far as they
can assert a local knowledge claim.
Opportunity to Assert Local Sense of Place.
Local knowledge claims are partly formed from a group’s historical and current
place-based relations (Murray 2001, Agrawal 2001). These local place relations
also are in important in constituting a sense of place. However “there can be no
single definition of place” (Thrift 1999:310). As such, place is assessed here to
understand how biodiversity discourses are incorporated as various senses of
place for different groups. Assessing local sense of place by linking
biodiversity to resource access rights, control and management, it will be
explored the extent to which protected areas can function as what Foucault
termed ‘heterotopias’. These are “other places” where key local place-based
relations are asserted in ways that both represent and challenge broader
human-biodiversity relations (Foucault 1986 in Heyd 1997:159). In so doing, we
asses circumstances where protected areas may be associated with new
freedoms for local people linked with essentially non-monetary benefits. Let us
21
30. first examine though three elements of place in the context of biodiversity:
place-based relations, ‘placed’ processes and sense of place. While analytical
disaggregated, it needs to be remembered that these are all related to each
other, and hence cannot be separated (Agnew 1993).
Place-Based Relations
Massey and Jess (1995) point out that there are often rival claims to the
meaning of places and therefore the right to its use. Agnew (1993:262)
suggests place is “the setting in which social relations are constituted” (see also
Massey 1995). Adapting Rose (1995) here though, there are four main ways to
highlight place-based relations linked to biodiversity (see also Smith 1992,
Massey 1994).8
First, place is a set of social survival relations with the physical
resources available. Secondly, place is a result of meanings drawn from
activity/knowledge relations built on from experiences gained from exposure to
physical characteristics. Thirdly, place is the uneven socio-cultural relations
within a group and/or between several groups again in relation to biophysical
resources. Finally, place is a set of spatial access relations related to the
locality.
The emphasis added here above stresses the types of relationship associated
with place. Hence, ‘sense of place’ “emphasises the significance of a particular
place” for a group and is linked to a set of place-based relations (Rose
1995:88). Sense of place provides the flexibility to explain differences between
multiple groups interacting with biodiversity at the same site. Thus a sense of
place is not bound to localities per se, as meanings are drawn from dominant
place-based relations or combination of relations often generated at a distance
from them. Hence for example biodiversity meanings as a sense of place may
develop from programmes (Dewailly 1999). Indeed biodiversity meanings and
relations incorporated in a sense of place may even be maintained when people
transfer to different localities, like nomadic hunters or migrant fishers (Brown
1990).
If place is thus understood as a nexus of social, political and economic relations
that are interacting, then more than one ‘sense of place’ can exist in the same
location (Massey 1993, 1995). This is important in terms of biodiversity where
the international science community has identified countries such as the
Philippines and Colombia as places of high biodiversity under enormous threat
from human development. The sense of place is interpreted as a discourse
centred on the ideas of ‘hot spots’ (see chapter 1). Yet for example, Aeta tribes
living within the Sierra Madre, among old growth forest may contest this sense
of place. Their alternative may relate to the physical and spiritual health of the
group living within the forest and not see biodiversity as a degraded hot spot,
but rather as a dynamic source of life (Milton 1996, ESSC 1998a).
Mapped hotspots are thus a highly political way of spatially representing the
human biodiversity relationship. This is also a poignant example of the potential
8
Rose (1995) suggests there is there is a need for place as a natural survival strategy, place
results from the meanings people actively give to their lives, place is a means of establishing
difference between groups and place also establishes social differences by establishing spatial
boundaries. Similarly, Massey (1994) also suggests four ways of understanding place, however
territorial linkages to place are not necessarily bounded.
22
31. power of maps and hence of map makers to condition social perceptions of
place. Indeed, as Dorling and Fairbairn (1997:7) note the map maker “is able to
manipulate the appearance and content of the map to a surprisingly large
degree”. Above, the map maker is the trans-national NGO Conservation
International, which emphasised countries where the human threat to
biodiversity is considered critical and such biodiversity is deemed vital to
humanity as a whole. All maps thus “express an embedded social vision”
(Harley 1996:441). Further Harley (1996:432) also suggests that “much of the
power of the map as a representation of social geography is that it operates
behind a mask of seemingly neutral science” (cf. Wood with Fels 1993). In this
regard Foucault (1984d:252) admits that specific “spatial arrangements” are a
technique of power and are “fundamental in any exercise of power”. Maps
present symbolised knowledge in a way that enables the map maker to
communicate certain kinds of meanings – in the process, map can be seen as
essential discourses in themselves (Wood with Fels 1993, Harley 1996). It is in
the process of map construction – what features to include, whether to
exaggerate some or displace others, and how features are even classified that
can be seen as a process which is “extremely and explicitly subjective” (Dorling
and Fairbairn 1997:39). This holds true whether comparing digitally produced
maps (from Geographical Information Systems) assisted through a computer
programme or those that are drawn by local people with pen and paper (Peluso
1995).
Enframing Biodiversity
Changing the scale of place brings out its second element, as an “objective
macro-order of location” (Agnew 1993:263). One approach to biological
diversity does this very clearly by viewing unique biophysical or biological
features through the concept of biodiversity hot spots (Mittermieier et al 1998,
Myers et al 2000a). This process causes biodiversity-nature to be abstracted
and separated from the social relations that gave rise to a local ‘sense of place’.
A specific site can then become imbued with certain inherent values, meanings
and qualities, and therefore biodiversity becomes ‘placed’ (Wilson 1999). This
occurs when species are found to be endemic to a particular country or habitat,
such as the Siberian tiger, or the Philippine eagle or there is site specific
endemism, so it exists unique to one island or habitat, such as the Mindoro
Tamaraw, or the Madagascan lemur. Many international NGOs have relied on
this ‘placed’ biodiversity as bringing to television viewers’ attention the survival
of these animals, and as a means of raising funds for less symbolically resonant
conservation activities. Large animals or habitats such as rainforests that are
rare or endangered may be similarly treated so that one can ‘own’ an elephant
or a square mile of a rainforest (www. WWF campaign 2002). Biodiversity
discourses formed by these organisations are typically derived from a
relationship that ‘looks at’ biodiversity and with an ‘eye’ to a host of biophysical
and often commercial concerns.
Vandergeest and Peluso (1995) discuss the ‘placing of biodiversity’ as part of a
process of internal state territorialization or ‘enclosure of the commons’. This
process consists of three aspects: mapping of land boundaries; the allocation of
land rights to private actors; and the designation of specific resource uses by
both state and private actors according to territorial criteria (Vandergeest and
Peluso 1995). They point out that this process benefits the state as a means of
controlling and facilitating economic interests. National park systems as a set of
23
32. biodiversity initiatives based on scientific criteria to assess the protection of
biodiversity are also a means of separating areas from local claimants
(Neumann 1998). Vandergeest and Peluso (1995) suggest this state process
clashes with local property rights, particularly claims that comprise complex
bundles of overlapping, hierarchical rights. It must be said though, that
Vandergeest and Peluso (1995) address a rigidly coercive concept of state
power using a Thai example. This is likely an extreme one and hence may not
be ‘representative’ of state power even though it provides an insightful window
through which to view some of the consequences of ‘placing biodiversity’.
However, not all protected areas are the same as those in Thailand. Indeed,
generally it is precisely the process of designating specific resource uses as a
consequence of ‘placed biodiversity’ that may offer opportunities to local people.
‘Tragedy of enclosure’ to ‘heterotopias of opportunity’
The negative consequences of ‘placed biodiversity’ are documented in the
literature in many forms. The process of placing biodiversity through
territorialization has gone hand in hand with the historical development of the
nation-state. The latter has depended in turn upon the management and
exploitation of resources, with state agencies set up to regulate access.
Forestry policies and the evolution of forest bureaus is a typical example of this
process (AFN 1995, 1997; Poffenberger 1999). The state develops both the
role of the policeman and the trader. Bryant and Bailey (1997) drawing on a
wide political ecology literature discuss further this contradictory dualistic role
and suggest that state intervention and regulation of the environment has been
necessary to allow capital accumulation and a prospering of the modern
capitalist system (see also Hecht and Cockburn 1989, Peters 1994, Peet and
Watts 1996, Neumann 1998, Horta 2000, Watts 2000). They also argue that
the power of the state and its pursuit of economic development noticeably
depends on the exploitation of the environment and its ability to facilitate the
modern capitalist system. Although the state has a formal responsibility for
finding solutions to environmental problems therefore it is more likely to give
resource access rights in a manner that contributes to degradation (Escobar
1996). This may have particular consequences for biodiversity initiatives, some
of which may require the state to control the excesses of some capitalists
degrading the environment even as it may enable other capitalists linked to say
‘eco-tourism’.
Far from justifying the role of the state as an effective manager of biodiversity-
nature, Ostrom (1990) reinforces this general observation by pointing out that
states often create open access situations because often rules license capitalist
users, but rarely limits them through enforced legislation. In this way Ostrom
(1990) and the Ecologist (1993) challenge the ‘tragedy of the commons’
concept used by official organisations to justify state management of the
environment (Bryant and Bailey 1997).9
9
Stated as the ‘tragedy of the commons’, Hardin (1968) used games theory strategies to argue
that resource degradation was a consequence of open-access as different local actors acquired
as much of the resource as possible until none remained. He concluded that resources not
under private ownership, should be rendered under state control, with rules articulated and
enforced by the state in order to protect them. According to Darrier (1999b:220) this is opposite
to Foucault who sees “power relations as taking place in a non-deterministic ‘field of power’ and
in a non-linear, non-top-down/dominating/dominated type of relationship”.
24
