Table Of Content>U
·a
0
8
-"»"' ·(/")-
-o� �......
(1) Q.)
Ethnography
ofP rotected
Areas
Endangered Habitats
Endangered Cultures
Ljubljana 2006
Ethnography of Protected Areas
Endangered Habitats - Endangered Cultures
http://www.ff.uni-lj.si/oddelki/etnologija/pohorje/default.htrri
UrednikjEditor: Peter Simonic
Uredniski odbor/Editorial board: Bozidar Jezernik, Rajko Mursic, Peter
Simonic, Prabhu Budhathoki, HelenMcBeth, Mladen Berginc, Grazia
Borrini-Feyerabend
I;:dajateij in ;:aloinikjPublished by: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska
fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo ter
Drustvo za raziskovanje, trzenje in promocijo varovanih obmocij
Slovenije/University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of
Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, and Association for Re
search, Marketing and Promotion of Protected Areas of Slovenia.
ZbirkajBook series: Zupaniceva knjiznica, st. 16/ZupaniC's Collection, Vol. 16
Urednik birkejEditor of the series: Jaka Repic
:.:
Uredniski odbor ;:birkejEditorial board of the series: Joie Hudales, Bozidar
Jezernik, Rajko Mursic, Zmago Smitek
Naslov i;:dajateijajPub!isher' s address: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska
fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo, Zavetiska
5, p.p. 580, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija
LektorjLanguage editor: Helen Macbeth and AMIDA S d.o.o.
Oblikovanje ;:birkejDesign: Mojca Turk
Fotografija na naslovnici/Cover photograph: Anze Tavcar
Prelom, oblikovanje in priprava ;:a fisk/Layout: Tamara Siladi, PG Group d.o.o.
Tisk/Printed by: Tiskarna Utrip d.o.o.
NakladajNumber printed: 600
CIF-Katalozni zapi s o publikaciji
Narodna in univerzitetna knjiznica, Ljubljana
712.23( 100 ):39(082)
719(100)(082)
502.7(100)(082)
ETHNOGRAPHY of protected areas: endagered habitats-endangered
cultures/ edited by Peter Simonic.-Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta,
Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo, 2006.-(Zbirka
Zupaniceva knjiznica Book series ZupaniC's collection ; vol. 16)
=
ISBN 961-237-150-4
225271552
Contents
7 Introduction
Legislation
11 Marija Zupancic Vicar, Application of the Protected Areas Management
Categories of IUCN, Slovenia
19 Zvezda Delak Kozelj, Ethnology, Cultural Heritage and Protected Areas,
Slovenia
31 Agustin Coca Perez, The Value of Cultural Heritage in the Natural Spaces,
Andalusia, Spain
Landscape
49 Bostjan Kravanja, Sacred Meaning: The Significance of Extraordinary Places
in Ordinary Settings, Breginjski Kat, Slovenia
71 Matej Vranjes, Cultural Landscape and Triglav National Park from »The
Native Point of View«, The Case of Trenta Valley, Slovenia
Diversity
85 Szab6 T. Attila, Ethnobiodiversity, A Concept for Integrated Protection of
Endangered Habitats and Cultures
101 Antonia Young, Cross-Border Balkans Peace Park, Albania, Montenegro,
Kosovajo
Subsistence
111 Javier Escalera Reyes, Gardens of Pegalajar, Sustainable Development in
Andalusia, Spain
121 MichaelJ. Day, Stakeholder Reaction to the Proposed Establishment of the
National Park, Cockpit Country, Jamaica
133 Sandro Piermattei, Some Reflections on the Agricultural Sustainability of
Nature Conservation Policies, Ecopolitical Strategies in National
Park Monti Sibillini, Italy
147 Britta Heine and Sina Arnold, »One Day the Government Became Clever ... «,
The Arusha National Park and Ngurdoto Village, Tam;ania
163 Dihider Shahriar Kabir and Sabir Bin Muzaffar, People and Sustainability
of Natural Resources, Sundarban-World Heritage Site of Bangla
desh
Management
175 Helen Macbeth, The Creation of New National Parks in Scotland
191 Prabhu Budhathoki, Connecting Communities with Conservation: Poli-
cies and Strategies, A Case Study of Nepal
201 Peter Meurkens, How to Preserve the Natural State and Make the Park Fit
for Public Recreational Use?, The Dutch Belvedere Program Fac
ing the Dilemma of the Park
217 Peter Simonic, Writing Culture for Nature Conservation, Human Resources
and Network Analysis on Pohorje, Slovenia
239 Index
5
Peter
Simonic
t
c
t
t
r
l
s
c
a
t
c
V
e
c
iJ
s
le
s
Peter
Simonic
Introduction
Ecological distress has forced the international public to
protect nature -all over the world, nature preserves, land
scapes and parks have been established. Twelve percent of the
Earth's surface has already been protected.
During the 20th century these areas were managed by
biologists, environmentalists, economists and lawyers who
tried to protect nature from humans, mostly the residents of
these areas. This in some cases amounted to a direct attack
on their subsistence. There is still miscommunication be
tween nature conservationists and the inhabitants of pro
tected areas.
Attending the Sth World Park Congress in Durban in 2003,
I was astonished and disappointed that half a century after
the Declaration on Human Rights it is still necessary for rep
resentatives of different ethnic groups in Asia, Africa and
America to persuade the international community that their
voices should be heard and that they wish to be involved in
the management of protected areas -their homelands. Parks
should really be protected for people.
The European history of protected areas may have been
different, but it serves as a example of the paradigm exported
around the world. Kings and the Church invented justifica
tions for the exclusive exploitation of hunting resorts and
other forms of privatisation. Peasants fought to regain pre
vious rights for public use of these areas. Robin Hood is an
excellent example of this struggle.
In the 20th century, European parks were implicated in the
depopulation of rural, mostly mountain areas. Conflict of
interest was internal in the sense that they all felt a partofthe
same (national) community. Intensive colonisation (and rac
ism) was yet to come: outside Europe, migration generally fol
lowed the establishing of parks and not the other way around.
Pressure on natural resources has been increasing ever
since the beginning of man and the centralisation of large-
7
scale societies, but western industrial society has made nature even more tionship betwec
functional. It is obvious that it was not (only) ecological awareness that economy, etc. M
forced the nation states at the end of 19th century and later the interna edge and science
tional community (IUCN) to protect nature. Establishing protected areas did not only pre
was also a matter of the control of resources important for the develop with protected a
ment of the timber industry, medicine, tourism, etc. Protected areas can to overcome ther
be seen as an economic category within the framework of national and Thebookisc
international trade. sity, subsistence
With respect to the asymmetrical relation of power, I believe that ments of all the:
societies and cultures in these areas are »endangered(( and therefore »need(( emphasise the m
to be protected. This is an anthropological response to contemporary tion (of protectec
ecology, politics, economy and human rights. Of course, we should not and national cm
stop by involving humanities and social science in these areas. We must and involvemer
basically educate and equip inhabitants and other users for self-and eo tural and social
governance. living environrr
The world's human population is almost 6. 5 billion at the moment, modern science,
rising at the rate of approximately 3 births per second. Even though sistence sectior
financial capital is supposed to be the most promising key to one's wanted to put tr
future, it is still land (as real estate and resource) that guarantees the core not an anthropc
existence and development of many individuals, ethnic groups and na course, manage
tions. Is a park a paradigm for the new millennium, or just a tool for tional societies.
continuous domination and exploitation? sponsors and th
AttheendoJ
* to establishing t
Areas, which, b:
In October 2003, the Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthro parks(<. I believe
pology (Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana), the Association for Finally, I she
Research, Marketing and Promotion of Protected Areas in Slovenia try of Higher Ec
(Ljubljana) and the Public Economic Institute for Tourism in Maribor ulty of Arts in L
organized an international symposium on the Ethnography of Protected Eastern Europ1
Areas, with the subtitle Endangered Habitats j Endangered Cultures. It Bistrica, Lovrer
was our wish to learn about experiences in other parts of the world, in port. Thanks a!:
view of the plans of the Slovenian environmental administration to in Ljubljana for
extend the protection of the national territory from 8 to almost 30 Macbeth from 1
percent, following the trend in certain other European countries. The and a good frieJ
response to our invitation was great, confirming that the topic is rel
evant for the international anthropological (scientific) community. The
symposium was held on Poho*, in one of the regions that is destined to
be protected in the near future.
It is important to mention that all contributors have noticed the
clash of interests between different »stakeholders(( involved in parkg ov
ernance, internal and external forces, ideology and practice, nature and
culture, etc. The symposium brought up many questions about the rela-
8
tionship between anthropology and natural science, politics and
economy, etc. Multivocality is essential for the development of knowl
edge and science. It was especially encouraging that most contributors
did not only present the problems (of local communities) connected
with protected areas, but also gave some hints and suggestions of how
to overcome them.
The book is divided into five sections: legislation, landscape, diver
sity, subsistence and management. Of course it is possible to find ele
ments of all these topics in almost every article. My intention was to
emphasise the main directions of contemporary anthropological percep
tion (of protected areas). Legislation is a framework of the international
and national community, a starting point that provokes our reactions
and involvement. Landscape studies are a trend in contemporary cul
tural and social anthropology connecting people and shaping of their
living environment. Diversity is another major theme and motive of
modern science, applicable to natural and cultural phenomena. The sub
sistence section could just as well be called »advocacy«, except that I
wanted to put the survival strategies of »Stakeholders« in the forefront,
not an anthropological statement on this matter. And there is also, of
course, management, a subject almost unavoidable in goal-oriented na
tional societies. Science must serve their objective, in the minds of (our)
sponsors and the public.
At the end of the symposium the participants committed themselves
to establishing the International Network for Anthropology of Protected
Areas, which, by the way, can have a much broader scope than »nature
parks«. I believe this is a very promising start.
Finally, I should like to express my gratitude to the Slovenian Minis
try of Higher Education and Science, the Scientific Institute of the Fac
ulty of Arts in Ljubljana, the Austrian Institute for Eastern and South
;-fled Eastern Europe and the municipalities of Ruse, Maribor, Slovenska
- It Bistrica, Lovrenc na Pohorju and Slovenj Gradec for their financial sup
in port. Thanks also to Professor Bozidar Jezernik from the Faculty of Arts
. to in yubljana for yet another fruitful inspiration and to Professor Helen
30 Macbeth from Oxford Brookes University for being persistent, precise
• ne and a good friend.
rei
Maribor, February 2006
The
:d. to
.;:_:the
gov
-
�and
-rela-
9
Marija
ZupancicViear
AppliG
0)
M
Oj
Slo
Keyt
Man
gr01
ratio
tom
torr
re cc
pro
nab
mer
and
wa�
see)
tha
tior
pro
spo
tior
tec1
rati
Marija
ZupancicVicar
Application
of the ProtectedA reas
Management Categories
of!UCN
Slovenia
Keywords: Conventions, Legislation, Zoning, Public awareness,
Management
In the past the creation of parks was based on aesthetic
grounds: we now advance scientific, economic and cultural
rationales as well. Park visitors, engaged in recreation and
tourism, were once seen as the protected area's principal cus
tomers: increasingly the local community is more often
recognised as the key stakeholder. Where previously most
protected areas were strictly protected as national parks or
nature reserves, we now believe that they should be comple
mented by other kinds of protected areas in which people live
and use resources sustainably. Formerly, each protected area
was seen as a unique investment in conservation: we now
seek to develop networks and systems of protected areas so
that the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem func
tions can be secured at the bioregional scale. Fifty years ago
protected areas were almost entirely seen as a national re
sponsibility; now many are regarded partly as an interna
tional concern. Historically protected areas were about pro
tection; now there is also a need to focus on ecological resto
ration.
The question is to what extent the new approaches are
applied at a national level, in the management of existing
11
