Voices from Durban

The George Wright

FORUvolume 20 number 4 • MDecember 200 3

Voices from Durban Reflections on the 2003 World Parks Congress Origins Founded in 1980, the George Wright Society is organized for the purpos es of promoting the application of knowledge, fostering communication, improving resource management, and providing information to improve public understanding and appreciation of the basic purposes of natural and cultural parks and equivalent reserves. The Society is dedicated to the protection, preservation, and management of cultural and natural parks and reserves through research and education.

Mission The George Wright Society advances the scientific and heritage values of parks and protected areas. The Society promotes professional research and resource stewardship across natural and cultural disciplines, provides avenues of communication, and encourage public policies that embrace these values.

Our Goal The Society strives to be the premier organization connecting people, places, knowledge, and ideas to foster excellence in natural and cultural resource management, research, protection, and interpretation in parks and equivalent reserves.

Board of Directors

DENNIS B. FENN, President • Flagstaff, Arizona

ABIGAIL B. MILLER, Vice President • Alexandria, Virginia

DwiGHT T. PITCAITHLEY, Treasurer • Rcston, Virginia

GILLIAN BOWSER, Secretary • College Station, Texas

JERRY EMORY • Mill Valley, California

BRUCE M. KILGORE • Poeatello, Idaho

DAVID J. PARSONS • Florence, Montana

JOHN J. REYNOLDS • Castro Valley, California

RICHARD B. SMITH • Placitas, New Mexico

STEPHEN WOODLEY • Chelsea, Quebec

Executive Office DAVID HARMON, Executive Director ROBERT M. LINN, Membership Coordinator EMILY DEKKER-FIALA, Conference Coordinator P. O. Box 65 • Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA 1-906-487-9722 • fax 1-906-487-9405 [email protected] • http://www.georgewright.org

The George Wright Society is a member of US/ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites—U.S. Committee), IUCN-The World Conservation Union, and The Natural Resources Council of America

FORUvolume 20 number 4 • DecembeMr 2003

Society News, Notes & Mail 2

INSIDE THE GWS: Why Should I Join? Rick Smith 6

VOICES FROM DURBAN Reflections on the 2003 World Parks Congress Jessica Brown, Thomas Cobb, Gary E. Davis, David Harmon, Nora Mitchell, Peter Newman, David Ostergren, David J. Parsons, John Reynolds, Rick Smith, Michael J. Tranel, George N. Wallace, and Stephen Woodley 8

Through the Fog of War in Iraq: Lessons Learned in Heritage Preservation Ann Hitchcock 28

Alleviating Multiple Threats to Protected Areas with Adaptive Ecosystem Management: The Case of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park Tony Piato 41

How Attitudes and Values Shape Access to National Parks Joanna Kafarowski 53

The Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Conservation Ben A. Minteer and Robert E. Manning 64

On the cover (clockwise from top): Participants at a pre-Congress mountain protected areas workshop did a ' jieace climb" in die Drakensberg Mountains to celebrate international solidarity (courtesy ofMervyn Gom, 'Hie Mountain Club if South Africa): a guide from the adjacent community of Karnberg explaii is Sat l rock art at Game Pass Shelter, uKhahlamba-Drakenslierg World Heritage Site (courtesy ofMcnyu Guns): two Zulu delegates in the Exhibition Hall (courtesy of Nora Mitchell, University of Vermont); two delegates in traditional dress at die Convention Center (courtesy of Nora Mitchell).

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 1 Society News, Notes &z Mail

GWS Board Meeting Report The GWS Board of Directors held its annual meeting November 14-15 in Oakland. After the various committees of the Board met, the first order of busi ness was to count the ballots from the election. As is noted in more detail below, Dwight Pitcaithley and Dave Parsons were re-elected for a second and final term. Officers for 2004 also were selected. Pitcaithley was elected the new president, Abby Miller and Gillian Bowser will continue as vice president and secretary, respectively, and Jerry Emory was elected treasurer. Ethics requirements for gov ernment employees serving on boards were reviewed.

As always, much of the discussion focused on the Society's finances and oper ations. We are glad to be able to report that the Society is in good financial shape, thanks to the success of the 2003 conference. This set the context for a review of the GWS portfolio and how our investments should be allocated. This past sum mer, after consultation with a financial advisor, funds not needed for operations were consolidated into several Vanguard mutual funds, following a balanced, fairly conservative investment approach. The Board continues to count our selves extremely lucky with the Society's staff, Executive Director Dave Harmon and Emily Dekker-Fiala, and commended them, including their efforts on the conference. The Board also recognized continued volunteer services by Bob Linn, which are critical to the day-to-day operations of the Society.

The 2003 conference in San Diego was well received by participants. The 2005 conference in Philadelphia will be at a smaller venue that will accommo date fewer concurrent tracks. The Board agreed with many commenters that there should be an effort to increase the papers on science and scholarly topics at the next conference. Issues of concern expressed in the committee reports and other business were the lack of success to date in building a capital fund to pro vide for long-term sustainability, and the need to increase Society membership. Expanded participation by new NPS employees and non-NPS employees, espe cially USGS employees, is desired. All agreed that the conferences are the best means to do this and tasks were assigned to take advantage of opportunities pre sented by the 2005 conference. Additionally, the use of potential appointed Board members to help meet this, as well as other objectives, was discussed at length.

The Board discussed and made plans to follow up on several other issues, including increased involvement with the Ecological Society of America and its program aimed at minorities in science; renewalof the Cooperative Agreement with the National Park Service and the need to have one with USGS; topics for the Forum,; a policy on Society publication of manuscripts, in response to a request to publish; and formalizing criteria for GWS awards.

International issues were another focus. The Board supported having a 2005 conference workshop on defining IUCN's protected area categories, to make them more useable and useful. Four Board members were at the World Parks

2 The George Wright FORUM Conference in Durban, South Africa. These participants shared their reac tions—both positive and humbling. The lack of interest by some GWS members in international Forum articles and conference sessions on international issues was recognized. The Board would like to help increase the sense of connected ness among protected area advocates worldwide, as well as the ability for us both to assist ana learn from others, internationally as well as from nongovernmental organizations in general, where much of the conservation action is centered. After these discussions, the Board adopted a change to a portion of the Society's strategic statement to that effect.

The final order of routine business was to bid a fond farewell to the outgoing resident, Denny Fenn, who is stepping down after completing his two terms, Elenny was presented with a small gift in recognition of the excellent leadership he has provided to the GWS over the last two years. Parsons, Pitcaithley Re-elected to Board; Nominations for 2004 Election Open In the 2003 GWS Board of Directors election, David Parsons and Dwight Pitcaithley were each re-elected to a second three-year term. They bested Costa Dillon in a well-contested three-way race for the two available seats. Parsons, who directs the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, and Pitcaithley, who serves as chief historian of the National Park Service, were first elected to the Board in 2000. Another Board member, Denny Fenn of the U.S. Geological Survey, is finishing his second and final term in 2003. He holds an appointed position on the Board; as of this writing, his replacement has not been decided.

Nominations are now being accepted for the 2004 election. It is for two seats: one, an open seat that is currently held by Rick Smith, who will be completing his second term and is ineligible to run again; the other, for the seat currently held by Abby Miller, who is eligible for re-election and has indicated that she intends to run again. We are now accepting nominations from GWS members who would like to be candidates for these seats. The term of office runs from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007. Nominations are open through July 1,2004. To be eligible, both the nominator and the potential candidate must be GWS members in good standing (it's permissible to nominate one's self). The potential candidates must be willing to travel to Board meetings, which usu ally occur once a year; help prepare for and cany out the biennial conferences; and serve on Board committees and do other work associated with the Society. Travel costs and per diem for the Board meetings are paid for by the Society; otherwise there is no remuneration. Federal government employees who wish to serve on the Board must be prepared to comply with all applicable ethics requirements and laws; this may include, for example, obtaining permission from one's supervisor, receiving ethics-related training, and/or obtaining a con flict of interest waiver. The Society can provide prospective candidates with a summary of the requirements.

The nomination procedure is as follows: members nominate candidates for possible inclusion on the ballot by sending the candidate's name to the Board's nominating committee. The committee then, in its discretion, determines the composition of the ballot from the field of potential candidates. Among the cri-

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 3 teria the nominating committee considers when determining which potential candidates to include on the ballot are his/her skills and experience (and how those might complement the skills and experience of current Board members), the goal of adding and/or maintaining diverse viewpoints on the Board, and the goal of maintaining a balance between natural- and cultural-resource perspec tives on the Board. (It also is possible for members to place candidates directly on the ballot through petition; for details, contact the GWS office.) To propose someone for possible candidacy, send his or her name and complete contact details to: Nominating Committee, The George Wright Society, P.O. Box 65, Hancock, MI 49930-0065 USA. All potential candidates will be contacted by the nominating committee to get background information before the final ballot is determined. Again, the deadline for nominations is July 1, 2004. Work on 2003 Conference Proceedings Nears Completion Nearly 100 papers from the GWS/CR2003 joint conference will be included in a proceedings volume that will be available soon. The book, which will be published in paperback and on CD, is being jointly edited by Dave Harmon, Bruce Kilgore, and Gay Vietzke. It is expected to be ready sometime in February. Full details and ordering information will appear in the next Forum. Henry Honored with GWS Special Achievement Award At its November 2003 meeting, the Society's Board of Directors decided to honor Dr. Wes Henry, wilderness program manager for the National Park Service, with a George Wright Society Special Achievement Award. This award is bestowed by the Board on an occasional basis to recognize outstanding indi vidual efforts related to our core mission. Although Henry has dedicated his entire NPS career to protecting natural resources of his beloved national parks, the George Wright Society is recognizing him for specific achievements dating back to 1990. These achievements relate largely to the success Hemy has had in bringing recognition and protection to natural soundscapes and wilderness resources and values of America's national parks.

Henry began his NPS career in the Washington budget office, where he had responsibility for shepherding natural resource budget requests. In this role, he was responsible for helping to obtain funding to address congressional concerns about aircraft overflights at Grand Canyon National Park. This was the first funding ever for natural sound protection in the National Park System.

In 1990, Flenry transferred to the ranger activities division, where he became responsible for both the aircraft overflight/natural sound program and for wilderness. There, he oversaw the development and delivery of a major 1994 NPS report to Congress on aircraft overflights ("Report on the Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System"). This report provided the first com prehensive assessment of the effects of overflights on visitors, wildlife, cultural and historic resources, and the natural soundscapes of the parks. Partly as a result of these efforts, there are now new regulations requiring air tour manage ment plans for national parks. Henry also played a major role in the development of the NPS Director's Order 47 (Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management) and its accompanying manual. He managed to address concerns about aircraft overflights and increase the recognition of natural sound values

4 The George Wright FORUM while also coordinating wilderness issues, until a separate program and funding were secured in 2000 for the current natural sound program and he could devote full time to wilderness.

Since the early 1990s, Henry has provided dedicated leadership to the fledg ling NPS wilderness program. During a time when few higher-level NPS man agers believed that wilderness was a priority issue or concern for the agency, Henry was an enduring advocate for appropriate wilderness stewardship. He lit erally salvaged all of the NPS records related to wilderness when he first report ed to duty as the wilderness coordinator—in a well-meaning attempt to provide him with a clean office upon his arrival, the files had been taken out of his office and stacked in the hall to await disposal.

He organized the first NPS wilderness task force and coordinated its 1994 report on improving wilderness stewardship in the NPS. This report made rec ommendations related to wilderness leadership, planning, management, and accountability that continue to provide targets for the agency. In 1996, Henry was the driving force behind establishment of the NPS's national wilderness steering committee. This committee, the actions of which he continues to help coordinate, has addressed specific wilderness management challenges faced by the agency, produced annual NPS wilderness reports, and, most recently, draft ed an NPS wilderness action plan for consideration by the director. Hemy also was one of the chief architects of NPS Director's Order 41 (Wilderness Stewardship) and Reference Manual 41 (Wilderness Stewardship Guidance Materials). Finally, Henry has long advocated for interagency dialogue regarding wilderness stewardship, serving as the NPS representative on the interagency wilderness steering committee since its formation in 1994, and lending support to the Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute.

As a result of Henry's efforts, both natural sound protection and wilderness stewardship are now receiving significantly higher levels of attention within the National Park Service. With such attention, it is hoped that more sustainable funding for these programs may be achieved in the near future. Without the ded ication, perseverance, and talents applied by Henry, these important resource values would not be receiving the attention that they have today. 2005 Awards Round Underway The GWS is now accepting nominations for the 2005 round of its awards program. Eveiy two years at the conference, we recognize excellence in the park professions by bestowing awards for cultural and natural resource management, communications, and career-long achievements. The award includes peer recog nition at a high-profile event at the conference, and free attendance at and travel expenses to the conference itself. To learn more about the awards or to make a nomination, visit www.georgewright.org/awards.html.

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 5 Rick Smith INSIDE THE GWS: Why Should I Join?

am often asked two questions: the first by my fellow retirees who wonder why I serve on the Board of Directors of the George Wright Society since I am no longer an active National Park Service employee. The second question comes from rangers, the profession into which I entered when I began my career with the NPS. Why serve on a board whose members are prima- Irily resources managers, researchers, and academics, and what does it have to do with the interests of rangers? My answer to these questions is believe that it is an organization dedi- related to what I feel about the pro- cated to giving life to these words. Its tected areas of the USA. As an mission statement reads, The George employee, I always said that I owed my Wright Society advances the scientific loyalty, not to an agency, the National and heritage values of parks and pro- Park Service, but to an idea, the tected areas. The Society promotes pro- National Park System. Remember fessional research and resource stew- how the Congress described that idea ardship across natural and cultural in almost poetic language? disciplines, provides avenues of communication, and encourages public Congress declares that the national policies that enhance these values. I like park system, which began with estab- the phrase “protected areas” because lishment of Yellowstone National Park it demonstrates the inclusiveness of in 1872, has since grown to include superlative natural, historic, and recre- the Society. The Society aims to ation areas in every major region of the accomplish its mission, not just in the United States, its territories and island U.S. National Park System, but also possessions; that these areas, though within those systems managed by our distinct in character, are united through partners in world conservation. their inter-related purposes and I also like the Society’s stated goal: resources into one national park sys- The Society strives to be the premier tem as cumulative expressions of a sin- organization connecting people, places, gle national heritage; that, individually knowledge, and ideas to foster excel- and collectively, these areas derive increased national dignity and recogni- lence in natural and cultural resource tion of their superb environmental qual- management, research, protection, and ity through their inclusion jointly with interpretation in parks and equivalent each other in one national park system resources. This ambitious goal takes preserved and managed for the benefit direct aim on preserving and protect- and inspiration of all the people of the ing the world’s patrimony. This is a United States.... goal that we can all support, active employees, rangers, or retirees alike. I joined the George Wright Society It’s a great reason to join the Society. I and serve on its Board because I know it’s why I did.

Rick Smith has served on the GWS Board since 1999.

6 The George Wright FORUM INSIDE THE GWS is a new regular feature that highlights communications from the Board of Directors. The idea is to open up another channel of communication with GWS members and the Forum’s readership. We are always interested in hearing from you—tell us how we can serve you and your profession better. Contact the GWS executive office or any Board member; details are on the inside front cover. 3

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 7 Voices from Durban: Reflections on the 2003 World Parks Congress

[Ed. note: Quite a few GWS members attended the Fifth World Parks Congress (WPC) in Durban, South Africa, which was hosted by IUCN–The World Conservation Union in September 2003. This is the world’s largest conference on protected areas, and is held once every ten years. The theme of this Congress, “Benefits Beyond Boundaries,” emphasized IUCN’s interest in highlighting the contributions protected areas can make to people’s well-being in everyday life, not just when they are visiting parks. The WPC had an ambitious schedule of meetings, press events, festival activities, and field trips. The four main products were: (1) the Durban Accord, a consensus statement on the values and principles under- girding protected areas; (2) a set of recommendations, which, in many countries, are regarded as guidelines for protected area policy; (3) a ten-point action plan, with targeted outcomes from the international to the local level; and (4) a com- muniqué to the next meeting of the signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is emerging as the major international treaty affecting protected natural areas. For a summary of the Congress, go to www.iucn.org/ themes/wcpa/wpc2003/. Here, we present a compilation of brief personal observations from GWS members who were there. We hope you’ll take a few minutes to listen to these “Voices from Durban.”] z Rather than a side topic, the role of indigenous and local communities has “I Feel Roots Here” become part of the mainstream debate Jessica Brown on protected areas and their future. QLF/Atlantic Center for the This is a significant development. Environment Of course, this integration came about largely by design, thanks to the vision of the WPC steering committee and the efforts of several working A particularly exciting aspect of the groups. “Communities and Equity” Congress was that broad recogni- was a cross-cutting theme of the tion—and a good deal of discussion Congress, and the theme drew on time—was given to the important role experience from all over the world. For of communities in creating and man- well over a year members of the core aging protected areas. While this sub- group of TILCEPA (the Theme on ject has been explored in past Indigenous and Local Communities, Congresses, in Durban it was on the Equity,and Protected Areas, an IUCN agenda as never before, integrated into working group) had worked together the workshop streams and addressed to ensure that the theme would be well in many plenary discussions and in integrated into the Congress plenary Congress products such as the recom- program and seven workshop streams. mendations and Durban Accord. I served as a liaison with Stream 1,

8 The George Wright FORUM “Linkages in the Landscape and looking at communities and conserva- Seascape,” where sessions addressing tion. Disappointingly, a group of the cross-cutting theme included a women we had invited from a commu- panel on “The Role of Communities nity group in Kosi Bay, South Africa, in Sustaining Linkages in the to share their story of co-managing Landscape,” and multi-session work- marine and coastal resources in a pro- shops on “Human–Wildlife Coexis- tected area could not participate in the tence” and “Protecting Landscapes panel because they lacked the photo and Seascapes.” IDs necessary for entry into the The participation of so many com- Convention Center. They had munity leaders greatly enriched the planned to follow their case study Congress as a whole and our discus- presentation with singing in tradition- sions. For me the workshops were the al style. But we heard stories from heart of the Congress, and I was fortu- other community leaders, including nate to be involved in several sessions representatives of the Huaorani that drew on the experience of indige- Nation in Amazonian Ecuador, and nous and local leaders. Our panel on pastoralist communities in western the first day featured several case-stud- India. There were many nomadic and ies by mobile peoples from diverse pastoralist community leaders at the regions, describing how they practice Congress, giving the term “mobile conservation in the landscapes they peoples” a new meaning as they trav- inhabit. This is a fresh perspective for eled from remote communities to the many of us, requiring a new way of Congress site! Favorite images include

Members of the “Mussel Monitoring Team” at St. Lucia Wetlands Park explain their activities to a field trip group. The team monitors the local mussel harvest, working with people in the community to manage the harvest and reseed the mussel beds. Photo courtesy of Nora Mitchell, University of Vermont.

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 9 the stately Masai in traditional dress which I co-chaired with Nora Mitchell (who I frequently saw talking on his of the United States and Bob mobile phone—yet another twist on Wishitemi of Kenya, stretched over that term), and “Uncle Sayyad” two days, and had a core of some 30 or Soltani, representing the Qashqai 40 participants who came to all three Turkic Nomadic Confederation of sessions, joined by others who came Tribes (Iran), who spoke none of the for one of the sessions. Due to poor three official languages of the acoustics in the workshop rooms, we Congress but always greeted one most had been asked not to applaud after eloquently, touching his hand to his presentations. The participants spon- heart and offering a beautiful smile. taneously devised a novel way of A surprising part of my experience expressing their appreciation, throw- at the Congress was the sense of coming their hands up in and giving a flut- munity I felt there, this despite the tering sort of wave (with variations large number of people participating, including an emphatic thumbs up ges- and the cavernous feel of the ture favored by a delegate from Convention Center! One reason was Ireland). Everyone beamed as they that many of us had spent time togeth- looked around the room to “hear” the er in preparation for our contributions applause. Apparently other workshop to the Congress. Advance meetings, groups independently had arrived at like the ones held by the Protected the same solution. When I returned Landscapes Task Force (PLTF) in the home I learned that American Sign U.K. in late 2001, and by the Language (ASL) uses this wave ges- TILCEPA core group in India earlier ture to indicate applause. this year, helped us to work together Finally, a particularly exciting more effectively across the distance of aspect of the Congress for my hus- geography and culture. Once in band, Brent Mitchell, and me was the Durban, there was a good deal of active participation of some 20 alumni space for many different communities of QLF’s international fellowship pro- of interest to come together, whether grams, many of whom we had nomi- through formalized task forces and nated to participate in the Congress. working groups, or ad hoc meetings Taking advantage of this rare opportu- being held in places like the nity to bring together so many of our Community Park, or countless side international alumni and partners, meetings. I was delighted to see the QLF hosted an alumni reunion dinner PLTF energized by Durban, and to during the WPC, which brought watch new working groups emerge together past Fellows from Latin from the Congress, focusing on topics America, the Caribbean, and Central such as Human–Wildlife Coexistence Europe. The atmosphere was con- and Islands and Coastal Areas, all vivial, as past Fellows reconnected drawing on members with diverse with each other after many years, while experience from many different coun- meeting colleagues from other regions tries. for the first time. There were animated An anecdote from our workshop conversations along the length of the on Protecting Landscapes and table, some toasts at the end, and a Seascapes captures this sense of com- good deal of laughter. Even in the munity, illustrating how people from short evening together people started diverse backgrounds can quickly learn to connect in the way we see at our how to solve problems together—at longer workshops. As an alumnus least small ones. The workshop, from Belize said, “I feel roots here.”

10 The George Wright FORUM Queen Noor of Jordan, current South African President Thabo Mbeki, and former South African President Nelson Mandela opened the Congress. Photo courtesy of Gary Tabor, Wilburforce Foundation.

who are generally characterized as res- Parks, Poverty, idents of destitute rural villages seek- and the Conservation ing security and equity in the distribution and use of timber, water, land, and of Biodiversity wildlife resources from parks or other Tom Cobb types of protected areas in close prox- Minnewaska State Park Preserve & imity to their homes. Palisades Interstate Park In the course of identifying this issue at the opening ceremony of the World Parks Congress in Durban, While park managers in the United South African President Thabo Mbeki States and other industrialized nations emphasized that people living near are variously coping with acid rain and parks must be able to see how they smog, encroachment of second-home benefit from protection policies for developments, an array of motorized conservation campaigns to work. recreational vehicles, and a host of “Mere exhortations to poor people to other environmental stresses of afflu- value and respect national parks will ence on the scenic and ecological not succeed,” he said. “It is critically integrity of our state and national important that alternative means of parks, our counterparts in less-devel- livelihood be found for the poor of the oped countries of the world are being world, so when driven by hunger and called upon to help confront a vastly underdevelopment, they are not different, yet difficult and immediate forced to act in a manner that under- set of social and economic conditions mines the global effort to protect these that arise from poverty. These entail ecosystems.” people with a low standard of living The notion that protected areas can

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 11 and should contribute to poverty greatest wildlife preserves, it serves to reduction and sustainable develop- demonstrate the type of linkages ment was addressed at the Congress between parks, poverty, and biodiver- by a working group concerned with sity conservation that resource man- building broader support for conser- agers and conservation biologists vation. Under the lead of IUCN’s throughout the world should become Chief Scientist, Jeff McNeely, this more adept at making. It also suggests group came up with recommenda- another rationale for nature conserva- tions that would facilitate effective tion and resource management agen- involvement of the poor in planning cies to extend their capacity to under- and decision-making processes, and take socially responsible conservation called upon governmental and non- onto the scale of the larger landscape governmental organizations alike to of which our parklands are not sepa- adopt several principles for advancing rate from, but very much a part. conservation and sustainable development in impoverished areas. The requirement that “no net loss” of bio- Place-based diversity must be balanced with “no Ocean Conservation net impact” on the livelihoods of the poor was the first of these principles. Has Arrived Another was that “Biodiversity must Gary E. Davis be recognized and managed to sup- Ocean Programs, port local livelihoods as well as a glob- U.S. National Park Service al public good.” The example of the Makuleke people in South Africa was seen as a Marine issues emerged throughout model for site-level design and man- the World Park Congress program. agement, as well as for enhancing job That’s the good news. The bad news opportunities and empowerment of was that conservation in the ocean lags the poor. Driven from their ancestral a hundred years behind land conser- lands in Kruger National Park by the vation. former apartheid regime in 1969, Remoteness and apparent isolation ownership of 100 square miles was no longer protect ocean parks. Recent reinstated in 1998 after negotiations advances in marine transportation with South Africa’s new government. technology have dramatically acceler- Instead of returning, however, the ated public access to once remote 15,000 Makuleke opted to remain in ocean conservation sites. New their villages outside the national park, “ground effect” vehicles now provide and to establish leaseholds in the form day-use access to the entire 2,000-km- of safari lodges to be built and largely long Great Barrier Reef Marine Park staffed by the Makuleke. They would (Australia). When it was established in also receive a share of the profits of 1975, the speed (8–10 knot) and this ecotourism venture, and in 30 capacity of vessels limited day use to years gain complete ownership. small groups near major ports. Today, Although this is but one example, ultra-fast (100–200 knot) ground- and a brief outline of an initiative to effect vehicles departing from the help alleviate poverty and promote same ports provide large groups daily sustainable development affecting one access to 95% of the park. While pro- of South Africa’s premier tourist desti- viding wonderful opportunities to nations, as well as one of Africa’s connect people to coral reef environ-

12 The George Wright FORUM ments, this new technology requires helped defuse border disputes and that stewardship strategies explicitly bring nations together by overcoming protect resources. Traditional reliance objections of military, agricultural, on remoteness for passive “protec- immigration, and health concerns. The tion” no longer works. Full Value of Parks, a Rowman & The newly human-dominated Littlefield book launched at the Earth is changing faster and in ways Congress, explores these intangible never seen before. Consequently, park values of parks. Presentations and dis- managers must plan strategically,while cussions at the Congress showed a maintaining daily operations. The remarkable commonality of issues environment, people, and institutions among highly diverse parks, park sys- need new and greater capacities to tems, and cultures, as reflected by the cope with these changes or they will program streams (Management lose touch with their heritage and Effectiveness, Capacity, Finance, and greatly diminish options of future gen- Network / System Design). Paradoxi- erations. In that light, the concept of cally, the Congress also revealed a “ecological integrity” needs to be wide range of different cultural and added to “biodiversity” and “species political perceptions of national park of concern” as a goal of stewardship. values among nations. An apparent Ecosystem resilience is an emergent divide, driven by social and economic property of systems with high ecologi- factors such as poverty, seems to sepa- cal integrity.It is a symptom of healthy rate heritage and legacy values from ecosystems and a characteristic, or an values of parks as local economic outcome, of successful conservation engines. In some places, parks that do management. not generate net income (profit) may Ocean conservation is in crisis. be judged unworthy of preservation Triage requires treating symptoms of and receive inadequate resources to environmental stress, such as coral assure protection of heritage and lega- bleaching, and acting to prevent extir- cy values. To assure that all park val- pation and extinction as a tactical mat- ues are protected, adequacy of pro- ter. People must also simultaneously tected area budgets needs to be increase understanding of ecosystems grounded in measures of perform- to deal strategically with underlying ance, such as trends in biodiversity, causes of such stress and subsequent visitor satisfaction, and ecosystem changes recognized as “unhealthy,” integrity, and scaled to local (national) such as loss of integrity and resilience. standards as established by profes- Since so many environmental stresses sional third parties to assure objectivi- operate at global scales, the resolution ty and to engender trust. of these stresses requires a global net- While an inherently inefficient work or system of protected areas to medium of exchange, the Congress resolve the issues. It is the only way to may be the best way to share observa- learn how these systems work and tions, experiences, and analyses of how they will respond to future envi- common issues and concerns. It sure- ronmental stresses. ly invigorated participants with a pas- Parks provide societies with com- sion for caring for special places by mon ground that can help to resolve seeing and hearing how many others differences generated by “us and are similarly engaged for the common them” perceptions of environmental good. issues. At the Congress, we heard how transfrontier parks in Africa have

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 13 the vowels sonorous and rounded— and his presence electrifying. He is a Listening to Africa person of immense moral authority, David Harmon and it added depth to all the subse- George Wright Society quent deliberations just by his having been at the opening ceremony. I heard one of Mandela’s fellow cit- As several others in this compila- izens, a Zulu woman living near the tion of reflections on the Congress Hluhluwe–Imfolozi Park, tell us how mention, there were something like selling crafts at a specially designed 3,000 voices to be heard in Durban— sales center in the game reserve made voices from every corner of the world, a big difference to the income of her representing almost every conceivable family—an excellent example of a pro- viewpoint on parks and protected tected area contributing to “communi- areas. I spent much of my time in ty upliftment,” as our hosts at the South Africa just listening. Here is a Ezemvelo KwaZulu Wildlife agency little of what I heard. put it. I heard Nelson Mandela open the I heard Ian Player, a legendary fig- Congress with what was, to my mind, ure in African conservation and the a standard political speech. But that founder of the wilderness movement didn’t matter. His voice was magnifi- in South Africa, after walking slowly to cent—deep and with a touch of gravel, the podium with the aid of a cane, turn

San Rock art depicting an eland hunt at Game Pass Shelter, uKhahlamba–Drakensberg World Heritage Site. The San (also known as Bushmen) are the aboriginal inhabitants of southern Africa. Photo courtesy of Mervyn Gans, The Mountain Club of South Africa.

14 The George Wright FORUM to us and say, “We must dispel the us, matter-of-factly, about the nonsense that wilderness is against HIV/AIDS epidemic that threatened people. Wilderness does not lock peo- their communities’ existence. ple out. It unlocks the human spirit.” Last but not least, I heard the eerie In contrast, I heard a professor call of wild helmeted guineafowl as from the social sciences declare, day broke across the lodge we were provocatively, that “National park staying at in Hluhluwe—a reminder of agencies are too often predatory on an even more primal set of voices, local communities of people.” voices that still can be heard, against In a major plenary session, I heard all odds, in the Africa of the 21st cen- the CEO of one of the largest mining tury. companies in the world say—and he was claiming this as a significant achievement—that many of the world’s biggest mining companies are Joining Hands in New going to demonstrate their commit- Partnerships ment to parks and the environment by Nora Mitchell voluntarily refraining from mining Adjunct Faculty, inside of World Heritage Sites. Then I University of Vermont heard the person next to me mutter, “Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.” She was right. In the halls or in small-group meet- “Only through partnerships can ings or out in the city I heard people protected areas be made relevant to speaking Russian, Catalan, Xhosa, society and part of a sustainable French, Mandarin Chinese, Dene, future.... We must ensure that national Swedish, San, German, Afrikaans, parks are transformed—we need to Spanish, Swahili ... and many more break with traditional thinking, cat- languages I couldn’t even begin to rec- alyze a new vision, and to join hands in ognize. new partnerships.” — Nelson Mandela I heard numerous indigenous peo- With these words, Nelson Mandela ple embrace protected areas if they opened the Congress, challenging us respect their culture and concerns. I to craft a new conservation, responsive also heard several others, speaking to our current challenges with an with complete conviction, predict an inspiring vision for the future. The impending downfall for Western cul- deliberations at the conference ture and an end to 500 years of domi- answered this challenge and the nation by Europeans and North “Durban Accord” describes a new Americans—an apocalyptic payback paradigm for protected areas—one from the Earth for hubris and willful that is inclusive of all stakeholders, ignorance—and a resurgence of links protected areas in a broader indigenous power. landscape, and integrates conservation On three occasions, I heard beauti- with sustainable development in an ful community singing by (materially) equitable way. poor rural Africans who came out to South Africa provided a perfect greet us as honored visitors during venue for these deliberations. Here in field trips. I heard them ask us to the decade after Mandela’s election, please help them find more money for parks have become a cornerstone for their local community conservation reconciliation and a public symbol of projects. I heard several of them tell access and the re-integration of socie-

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 15 ty. The vision of South African seascapes (IUCN Category V) with National Parks is “To be the pride and colleagues Jessica Brown (QLF/ joy of all South Africans” and the mis- Atlantic Center for the Environment, sion statement for Cape Peninsula USA) and Bob Wishitemi (Moi National Park is simply and eloquent- University, Kenya), designed to ly,“A park for all, forever.” The natu- explore linkages with the larger land- ral and cultural resources of their park scape and with neighboring commu- system are truly outstanding. We visit- nities. In these sessions and others at ed the fynbos on Table Mountain and the conference, I was inspired to see the Cape Peninsula, one of the world’s the commitment, the innovation and most diverse ecosystems, and were quality of work, as well as the progress astonished by close encounters with being made by so many people in so penguins, giraffes, hippos, wilde- many parts of the world, many in very beests, springboks, waterbucks, and difficult circumstances. Many speak- rhinos in Greater St. Lucia Wetland ers reminded us that over half the Park, a World Heritage Site, and at world’s population now lives in urban Imfolozi Reserve. On the conference areas. So it was appropriate that, for tours, we were introduced to people in the first time, the World Parks the local communities who are work- Congress included a series of working with the park on restoration of for- shops on urban parks. This track gen- est ecosystems and sustainable eco- erated a great deal of enthusiasm and nomic initiatives such as traditional participants from San Francisco, Cape crafts, mussel harvesting, and small- Town, Sydney, Rio, and other cities scale ecotourism. This demonstrated with national parks agreed to form a on the ground a comment in the open- network to share experience in ways to ing plenary by South Africa’s effectively reach the increasing num- President, Thabo Mbeki: “[W]e need bers of urban dwellers and engage to protect natural ecosystems and them in conservation. Her Majesty ensure sustainable livelihoods ... it’s Queen Noor of Jordan reminded us of key to combine environmental and our fragile, war-torn world and the social goals.” While in Cape Town, contribution that protected areas and Greg Moore (executive director of collaborative conservation can make: Golden Gate National Parks “[T]here is an important role for Conservancy) and I visited several of transboundary protected areas in pro- the townships with Xola Mkefe, a con- moting peace and security ... and I servationist and educator who grew therefore urge increased international up there and has dedicated his career cooperation.” Youth delegates from to bringing conservation home. We Africa provided hope for the future visited a wetland area that had been through their comments: “Protected restored by the township communities areas are sacred places important for through his leadership and now serves life on earth” and “African youth lack as a park and educational resource for not interest, but opportunities to be the surrounding neighborhoods. involved [with protected areas].” This was the most diverse confer- Participating in this Congress recon- ence I have ever attended—over 2,700 nected me to a vision of an interna- people from 154 countries—coming tional community working together from major urban centers and small for a sustainable world—and I was villages, and every environment in privileged to be part of it. between. I co-chaired a series of workshops on protected landscapes and

16 The George Wright FORUM some of the most beautiful I have met. Music and dance are an integral part of Looking Beyond Our life. People such as Hugh Masekela Own Lifetimes graced the Congress and played tunes Peter Newman of hope and empowerment His music Colorado State University infuses incredible passion and African rhythms with remnants of American jazz. But like Masekela’s music, the As a kid, I grew up hearing stories American park idea has been infused of Africa and living in a house filled into the context and landscape of with African masks—constant South Africa, and it has morphed, in reminders of my father’s Peace Corps many cases, to deal with external pres- experience in West Africa in 1963.My sures such as population growth, cul- experience at the World Parks tural strife, and equity issues. Many of Congress in South Africa forty years my students from Colorado asked, later brought together my father’s “How do we even talk about the devel- legacy in an adventure of my own. opment of protected areas in the con- The World Parks Congress gath- text of disease, inequality, poverty?” ered over 2,500 people from 154 This question was a part of most con- countries with a single mission of versations at the Congress. What I working toward something better. I truly believe is that protected areas are mingled with people in all forms of a necessity in any context. Basic con- cultural dress, speaking languages I servation biology teaches the need for had never heard, and tasted indige- core areas to protect our wild fabric. nous African food. These interactions We must also look beyond our own emphasize the importance of cross- lifetime and believe that we can restore cultural exchanges of ideas, under- and re-wild areas stressed by current standing, and friendships, in a world conditions. In establishing protected where these concepts seem foreign in areas, we create reservoirs of core eco- daily news bulletins. logical values as well as core social val- Outside the protective walls of the ues that help sustain the cultural and Congress lay a harsh reality. South ecological landscapes that heal, teach, Africa is a country barely a decade and provide nourishment for the removed from apartheid, ravaged by human spirit. HIV/AIDS, yet is rich in human spirit. I felt the racial tensions among the diverse indigenous, Indian, and Afrikaner populations. The statistics Personal Connections on HIV/AIDS are staggering. In the and Politics in Durban region we visited, there is a 40% infec- David Ostergren tion rate. We were told that in Center for Environmental KwaZulu–Natal Province, natural Sciences and Education, resource leaders are training twice as Northern Arizona University many students in protected areas management due to the high HIV mortali- ty rate. Protected area managers must The Vth World Parks Congress even deal with people poaching tim- (WPC) was an incredible opportunity ber to build coffins. to participate in and (from political The people of South Africa are scientist’s perspective) watch politics

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 17 set a protected area agenda. My pri- the future. In addition, all protected mary responsibility was to organize a area neighbors will be part and parcel three-day workshop titled “Building to many more plans and practices in Political Support.” This workshop the coming years. As plenary speaker was designed to identify particular Nelson Mandela indicated, restricting strategies to build the political support economic activity or the distribution for protected areas. As I sat in my sub- of protected area benefits to a few peo- session and watched the ebb and flow ple will not serve South Africa (nor of audience participation, several any nation) in the long run. At first speakers started to repeat an observa- such rhetoric may be disquieting to tion: “Why aren’t there more people those who place a premium on biodi- in this session?” And I thought to versity values or wilderness character- myself, “Why didn’t many of the istics (e.g., pristine and untrammeled speakers stay for more than 2–3 ses- landscapes, solitude). However, as an sions?” In many cases it was because optimist, I foresee a opportunity. rather than devising strategies for cre- Regardless of how any culture eventu- ating political support, they were out ally changes and adopts the practices creating political support. of the global socioeconomic forces, The WPC was an extraordinary indigenous and mobile peoples resist example of multiple agendas being the imposition of an “outside” culture promoted simultaneously. The overall upon their own. That is, they resist the intention of the Congress was to for- forces of global/Western/capitalist cul- ward the cause of protected areas tural change washing over those values throughout the world, but, as any and traditions deemed central to their observer would agree, that means very identity. Similarly, protected areas different things to such a wonderfully resist the imposition of monoculture diverse gathering. For example, crops, development, exotics, and the humans are only welcome as visitors in myriad threats that challenge ecologi- the wilderness areas of many coun- cal integrity. In the face of larger tries, while wilderness (i.e., a wild or encroaching forces, both humans and natural area) is “home” and a source of nature stand to lose that which makes sustenance in many other countries. them unique. Preserving the biodiversity of a park My impression is that indigenous may include very specific measures to and mobile peoples are not an emerg- protect a species, while forwarding ing entity on the political landscape, global biodiversity may require influ- but an emerged entity. The many enti- encing governments. These issues and ties that constitute IUCN will incorpo- many more emerged and re-emerged rate the humans who most intimately as forty-plus sub-streams held three live with the consequences of protect- days of talks refining recommenda- ed area decisions. I also believe that tions to the Durban Accord. the indigenous and mobile peoples of I am low on the food chain of peo- the world will find advocates and allies ple who influence international policy among the many interests that support (any policy for that matter) so I lis- protected natural areas for nonhuman tened for a big, take-home message. I species. Similarly,those who are advo- believe the big message is that indige- cates of preserving biodiversity and nous and mobile peoples are a perma- feel that biodiversity must be saved nent part of the political landscape from human demands will find that and will be part of many,if not all, pro- the two political entities share much in tected area policies and decisions in common.

18 The George Wright FORUM Table Mountain and other sections of Cape Peninsula National Park. Photo courtesy of Nora Mitchell, University of Vermont. Participants at the WPC were the challenges will demand high levels doing politics. Politics is about power of dedication and energy for several and who gets to share in the decision- more decades. The WPC was an making process. The face of protected excellent opportunity to witness and area leadership is changing. When the participate in the continuing struggle director general of IUCN awarded the to maintain and preserve the remain- Youth Conservation Award he stated ing biodiverse areas and unique cul- (and I paraphrase) that the future of tures throughout the world. protected areas stands before you (he spoke to us the audience). The two youths before us were young black Balancing Sustainable women from Africa. The majority at many head tables were not young Development and black women from Africa (or young Ecological Values people from South Asia, Southeast David J. Parsons Asia, South America, or non-Western Aldo Leopold nations). The future looks different. Wilderness Research Institute / Regardless of their origin, the people George Wright Society who will be directing future protected Board Member area policy will have very different worldviews than the decision-makers of the 20th century. As we devise new I found the Vth World Parks political strategies (as we do politics), Congress in Durban, South Africa, to

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 19 be a vivid reminder of the differences development and community involve- in conservation programs and priori- ment. These discussions were often ties between the United States and the heated, with ecologists claiming that rest of the world. I have the strong feel- the emphasis on sustainable developing that most U.S. land managers are ment (often explained as essential to simply unaware of much of what goes attract the funds necessary to support on outside of our boundaries. I was large conservation projects) has com- humbled by the magnitude of the promised some of the world’s most issues faced and the interest, sincerity, valued natural resources (e.g., there and dedication of nongovernmental was passionate debate over the nega- organization (NGO) and government tive impacts of large mining operations scientists and conservationists I met on the edges of tiger reserves in India). from such diverse places as Bhutan, In addition, numerous sessions Ecuador, Nepal, Pakistan, Trinidad focused on issues related to cultural and Tobago, and Uganda. From the values and local community involve- importance placed on the definitions ment, including the needs and rights of IUCN protected area categories of indigenous populations. Unfor- (virtually unrecognized by the U.S. tunately, I found the lack of awareness land management agencies), to the (or sympathy) of some indigenous emphasis on local community involve- representatives to the biodiversity val- ment in park management, to the ues that are critical to so many protect- struggles to make resource protection ed areas posed significant obstacles to meaningful in the face of threats posed the discussions needed to bring these by extractive industries and even war, diverse interests together. I found the international conservation Many in the United States are movement to be largely disconnected unaware of the extent to which inter- from the issues that drive national park national conservation efforts are dom- and forest managers in the U.S. inated by NGOs, including Conser- The dominant themes I heard at vation International, the Wildlife the Congress focused on the interface Conservation Society, the World between science, resources manage- Wildlife Fund, Plant Conservation ment, and politics. There was abun- International, The Nature Conser- dant discussion about the number and vancy, and the Global Environment size of protected areas around the Facility. In Durban, the conservation world (generally attributed to now be interests of these organizations were as much as 10–12% of the Earth’s sur- often pitted against the reality of need- face), and the Congress included ing to attract the funding necessary to announcements of major new park provide even minimal protection for designations in Brazil, Gabon, and established protected areas. This, no Madagascar. But there was generally doubt, helps to explain the visible, too little discussion of the distribution although controversial, role at the and effectiveness of existing protected Congress accorded to multinational areas. Elaborate studies of the impor- extractive industries (e.g., Shell tance and challenges of preserving International, British Petroleum, and biodiversity, including establishment the International Council on Metals of transfrontier protected areas and and Minerals were featured in a full transnational corridors (e.g., the plenary session). Meso-American biological corridor in Based on what I heard in Durban, it Central America), were balanced by is my distinct impression that the abundant discussion of sustainable major international conservation

20 The George Wright FORUM issues of the coming decade will focus around the world (154 countries were around the inevitable conflicts and represented among the over 3,000 compromises needed to balance (1) participants). Despite its social chal- biodiversity needs with sustainable lenges, South Africa provides a great development interests, and (2) cultur- role model for the world’s efforts to al values and the needs of local com- protect its natural heritage. munities with ecological preservation. There was clearly a concern among many delegates that the growing influence of sustainable development and A Human local uses threatens to over-ride the Ecosystem of Caring more traditional ecological values John Reynolds associated with many protected areas. George Wright Society Given my special interest in wilder- Board Member ness (IUCN category 1b), I was particularly pleased to see the acceptance of a new IUCN Wilderness Task Force How to describe the World Parks (WTF) under the auspices of the Congress in Durban? World Commission on Protected Optimism. There cannot help but Areas. The WTF (http://wtf.wild.org) be a pervasive feeling of optimism left sponsored several organizational after such a gathering. Park and pro- meetings as well as selected presenta- tected area people from all over the tions during the Congress. Since world absolutely dedicated to preserv- wilderness has often been perceived as ing, protecting, and sharing the places a largely Western construct, IUCN’s and ecosystems that are so dear to acceptance of the wilderness concept them. One of the greatest things about is significant. It was also encouraging the conference was meeting these peo- to hear commitments were made from ple in settings of all kinds, and con- representatives from the U.S. National necting their love of these places to my Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, love, now not just of the places that I and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service know but to their places as well. to support WTF’s efforts to organize Forming a human ecosystem of caring, the 8th World Wilderness Congress, understanding, awe and commitment scheduled for September 2005, in that entwines with that of nature. Anchorage, Alaska. As an example, I met a Saudi The serious opportunities for Arabian wildlife biologist. I was in information exchange and delibera- Saudi Arabia in 1982. He did not tions on the challenges and trade-offs know of the park we had proposed ... facing the future of protected areas and I was awed to know that there is that dominated the Congress were now a corps of wildlife biologists there gratefully broken by a series of cultur- that did not exist then! Optimism. al events (music, dance, food, and Positive steps forward. An increasing crafts) as well as opportunities to cadre of professionals dedicated to escape the confining atmosphere of protected areas and professionalism in Durban (a city of 2.5 million that was the name of conservation, growing unsafe to wander about) on a variety of worldwide. field trips. These provided valuable Relationships. More than partner- opportunities to visit the magnificent ships. Intellectual relationships parks of KwaZulu–Natal as well as formed magically every day and meet and mix with colleagues from evening of the conference. The educa-

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 21 tional sessions spewed out thoughtful, brought together to share, to quest for exciting things being done here, there, new beginnings and new approaches. everywhere. People, quietly but Learning and teaching, all taking place appropriately proud of their achieve- virtually spontaneously, both in ses- ments, shared them ... and shared sions and out. Science, politics, edu- their quest for the next step, the next cational outreach, sacredness, culture, evolutionary mutation of ideas to a kind of nearly automatic consilience apply to accomplish the goals of con- trying to take place. A wholeness servation, most often in concert with working to form from the variety of others. Relationships. Begun and nur- specific examples available. tured also in the hallways in electric Youth. A pervading theme was for conversations and exchanges of busi- conservation to constantly and seri- ness cards. Eyebrows raising and ously include youth, both educational- inflections changing as realization that ly and as they grow in our professions. a new connection has just been made It is they who will carry on. The trust ... intellectually, politically, education- that they not only can, but will, with ally ... just by listening and questing. passion and distinction, was deeply New relationships, all in the spirit of apparent Durban. saving and sharing our natural Oneness. Bobbie (my wife) left birthright in this world. with a feeling of oneness with the oth- Intellect. What a pleasure to be ers in this world who care enough to surrounded by intellect that pours into devote their lives, their passion, their you! From around the world, intellect minds, their souls to this most pre-

Congress workshop on “Indigenous Mobile People.” Photo courtesy of Nora Mitchell, University of Vermont.

22 The George Wright FORUM cious place in whose ecosystems we equipment, minimal salaries, and little live. public support. What particularly troubled me is that not one of these issues was addressed in the draft recommenda- Protecting and tions posted on IUCN’s website prior Respecting the to the Congress. I knew that if the IRF Protectors were to ask the delegates to modify the Rick Smith recommendations to address our con- International Ranger Federation / cerns, it would have to be done during George Wright Society Board the Congress itself. As many George Member Wright Society members know from our own conference, an individual’s opportunity to shape the outcome of a conference is rather small. Imagine a Prior to my trip to Durban, South conference the size of the Fifth World Africa, to attend the Fifth World Parks Parks Congress—2,500 delegates, Congress, a meeting held every ten three times the size of our last meeting years, as a representative of the in San Diego. Then, add three official International Ranger Federation languages and who knows how many (IRF), I was concerned about three other regional or local languages, and issues about which the rangers of the you have some idea of the complexity world were worried. The first of these of IRF’s task. is personal safety and security. The Luckily, 39 ranger/delegates were incidence of rangers and their families able to attend the Congress in support threatened, attacked, or killed in the of IRF goals and objectives. These world’s protected areas is alarming. people worked night and day, lobby- The conservation community must ing delegates, staffing the IRF booth in find a way to protect the protectors. the exhibition hall, and presenting The second is that of training and pro- papers during workshop and plenary fessional development. In many coun- sessions. The response of our fellow tries, the rangers are at the absolute delegates was heartwarming. They lis- bottom of the food chain when it tened, and more importantly, they comes to training. This is curious as acted. As one small example of what these are the employees who are the they did, I would like to cite a part of ears and eyes of park management. recommendation 5.2 from the They are important links in the inven- Congress: The delegates recommend tory and monitoring programs. They that those changed with managing have the most intimate contacts with protected areas “provide all protected people living in and near our protect- areas staff (in particular rangers, war- ed areas. They are our ambassadors to dens and forest guards, who face hard- the visiting public and our first ships and threats in carrying out their responders to emergencies and other jobs) with adequate living, working, special incidents. Yet, they have been health and safety and security condi- virtually ignored in many parts of the tions by providing management sup- world. Finally, I was concerned about port, appropriate equipment and the conditions under which many pro- training....” tected area agencies ask their rangers GWS members ought to be happy to live and work—poor housing, with this outcome. In much of the unsanitary conditions, little or no world, rangers provide the logistical

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 23 and staffing support for on-going in parks and protected areas. Equally research projects in protected areas. If educational, if not more so, were the they are better trained and equipped, conversations I had with South they will be able to support African park managers in particular researchers more effectively and effi- and the opportunity to see some of the ciently. Moreover, since rangers have country’s best protected areas, such as almost daily contact with the the uKhahlamba–Drakensberg Park, a resources we preserve and protect, World Heritage Site. The field trip to they can be valuable allies in our mon- Hluhluwe–Imfolozi Park gave us the itoring programs. They will be the first opportunity to experience the rich- to detect changes in resources or in ness of the Zulu culture. After these visitor or local community behavior. field trips and more travel after the Researchers and resources managers conference, my major impressions of need well-trained rangers. If agency South Africa were the diversity of the managers implement the recommen- country, the incredible disparity in dations of the Fifth World Parks wealth, and the richness of its culture. Congress, the science and research These characteristics are inextrica- community will soon have them. bly linked with South Africa’s turbu- lent history. Yet despite serious and immediate problems, the outlook now is one of hope. This emerged many From Denali times, such as at the end of the special to Durban ceremony on the sacred dimension of Mike Tranel protected areas at the Congress, and at Denali National Park and Preserve the event called “Africa Night.” A couple of the other delegates and I were checking with some of the local employees at the Congress about what Durban, South Africa, is about was in store for “Africa Night.” They halfway around the world from Denali informed us that Hugh Masekela National Park and Preserve, Alaska. It would be playing, which for them would be difficult to find a more dis- meant an event not to be missed. I did- tant point in the inhabited world. But n’t immediately confess to my lack of when it came to discussions about knowledge of Hugh Masekela’s music, managing protected areas, I was struck but my new South African friends by the similarities as much as by the were happy to fill me in that evening differences. A few examples: the on the “story behind the music.” importance of involving local and When “Bro’ Hugh” and his band indigenous peoples in protected area took the stage that evening, we were planning and management, the need given a demonstration of some of to strengthen partnerships, and the South Africa’s contributions to the challenges in protecting ecological music world in the past few decades. I integrity in a rapidly changing world. wondered how many others in the I found the World Parks Congress audience knew who he was and of his to be fascinating and the best confer- background: traveling outside his ence I’ve ever attended. I participated native country, because of apartheid, in the workshop stream on “Building to further his musical career, essential- Broader Support for Protected Areas” ly being a “musician in exile.” and presented a session on resolving Similarly, on the other side of the conflicts involving competing values world in Denali National Park and

24 The George Wright FORUM Preserve, the context and the “story park is Africa’s most important source behind the scenery” is what truly gives for the reintroduction of both into it meaning. While we have our share of other conservation areas and private challenging issues, we don’t have to game parks), Cape buffalo, and a huge worry about removing a military fence, bull elephant. Meanwhile, warthogs, as park managers do in Kruger hyenas, baboons, and other support- National Park in South Africa. In fact, ing actors added to species richness we don’t have fences at all, as do the and the number of pictures snapped African protected areas, and we don’t through half-clean bus windows. We need them to protect the integrity of a traveled mostly on paved roads natural ecosystem. through a dry-season countryside that It is equally gratifying to see hope reminded me of an over-grazed BLM for Africa’s best—but also most threat- allotment, arriving at one of several ened—protected areas as to know that “camps” by late afternoon. Each had our American national park sites stand comfortable lodges (total overnight out among the best in the world. visitor capacity = 324), electricity, hot water, good food, and entertainment. We were attended to by hospitable KZN officials. Benefits Beyond Even though humans are prey in Imfolozi, and not often allowed to get Boundaries: out of their vehicles or leave camp Thoughts from the WPC unless accompanied by armed George N. Wallace rangers, and even though one-third of Center for Protected Area the park is managed as roadless Management and Training, wilderness, I never felt like I was in the Colorado State University wild or that it awaited me there. The reason: Imfolozi has a 10-foot-high electrified fence around its entire Among the unforgettable images of perimeter, and just across that fence is Africa and the World Parks Congress rural sprawl as far as the eye can see in (WPC) was our field trip to the savan- all directions (albeit mostly traditional nah woodlands of Hluhluwe–Imfolozi Zulu homes). The combination had Park and nearby villages. The park is jaundiced my view. The reasons for managed by Ezemvelo KwaZulu the fence and adjacent settlement pat- Wildlife (whose acronym, KZN, refers terns is a complex story for another to its being the nature conservation day, but the current reality is that the service of KwaZulu–Natal province) park has become a large island of bio- and has an impressive array of “charis- diversity—functional for now—but matic megafauna.” We saw giraffes surrounded with an abrupt ecological gliding gracefully above the bush, gradient that will eventually challenge impalas, nyalas, kudus, wildebeest, its integrity.There is no buffering from and zebras herded up on the grass- multiple-use lands or community con- lands. Then, we came on a pride of servation areas, no place to put a corri- lions—with bellies full of the afore- dor that might connect to other pro- mentioned herbivores—basking lazily tected areas or allow flora and fauna a on a river sandbar. One had to smile at chance to flow out into portions of an their indolent top-of-the-food-chain agricultural landscape for use by posture. We also saw more than our locals. Culling takes place within the share of black and white rhinos (the park instead. Hundreds of animals are

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 25 now rounded up and sold to generate continuing struggle for a sustainable revenue for the park. life. The experience was indelible. Cut to the local school where Zulu children read poetry and sang to us (a cappella) with incredibly strong, beautiful voices. They danced with tremen- A Time to dous energy and athleticism, portray- Celebrate, a Time to ing the well-established prowess of Despair Zulu hunters and warriors. They wore Stephen Woodley the skins of animals that their fathers Parks Canada / and grandfathers had traditionally George Wright Society taken from the Imfolozi savannahs and Board Member forests. Later, grim reality broke the spell when one of their teachers asked me, candidly,what should we do about the fact that 40% of them are HIV-pos- It was Africa Night at the Parks itive. I marveled at their spirit in the Congress. Three thousand delegates face of such odds. I wondered how from every corner of the world were long that spirit could survive, now cut taking a break from a frantic run of ple- off from any real interaction with the nary sessions, workshop streams, side landscape that gave it much of its sub- events, and book launches. The host stance for so many millennia. government of South Africa had pro- Although, at the urging of Ian Player vided a great venue for the delegates to and others, some school children visit relax with some of the hottest bands in the park and their mothers can sell the country. Like protected areas, the handicrafts to (mostly white) visitors music had a universal appeal and the there, I wondered why the Zulu could whole crowd was moved to dance. not be allowed part of the annual Arabs danced with Melanesians and culling, a pilot traditional management Native Americans with Kurds. It was area, or at the very least, the ability to the whole world dancing, and like the continue their ceremonial hunts dur- whole World Parks Congress, it was ing the year where the next generation powerful in both symbol and content. of young people might be included. As The Congress was a time to cele- I pondered this with my colleague brate. Over 11% of the planet’s land Peter Newman, it occurred to us that area now has some kind of protected wilderness is also in the heart and the status. The protected areas movement option to experience it must be pres- is stronger, more science-based, and ent if it is to engender our long-term more pluralistic that ever before. support and protection. Heady announcements for more pro- Fortunately, our conversations with tected areas, as well as landscape con- KZN managers proved that the chal- nections, were made at the Congress lenges of providing “Benefits Beyond by both government and nongovern- Boundaries,” maintaining genetic mental organizations. In fact, the non- diversity, and landscape-scale process governmental organizations brought are on their minds as well as ours. We much of the innovation to the thank them for sharing their parks Congress, perhaps best embodied by with us and wish them all success as Conservation International’s announ- their strategies evolve. We thank the cement to raise 1 billion dollars to Zulu people for opening their commu- support their “biodiversity hot spot” nities to us and openly sharing their initiative.

26 The George Wright FORUM The Congress was also a time to nance stream, there were hours of dis- despair. Despite the achievement of cussion on the role of protected areas 11% of lands in protected areas, there in poverty alleviation, gender equity, was the strong evidence that much of and social justice to local, aboriginal, the gain is on paper only. Many pro- and mobile peoples. To me, this tected areas are designated, but not debate illustrates how much protected effectively managed or, in fact, protect- areas have emerged into the main- ed at all. The estimated global shortfall stream. They have grown from being to effectively manage existing protect- the passion of a few into the vital inter- ed areas over the next five years is 25 est of many.For conservation this must billion dollars. The Congress had be a good thing. much to say on management effective- The Congress set a huge agenda for ness and conservation finance, but the the future, embodied in the formal path ahead will be arduous. conference outputs of the Durban Globally, while we have made Accord, the Durban Action Plan, and advances on land, we have failed in workshop stream recommendations. protecting the oceans and large fresh- Perhaps the most immediately relevant water ecosystems. Only 1% of the Congress output is the Message to the oceans is protected and all of that in Convention on Biological Diversity coastal areas. High seas protection, (CBD). At the 7th meeting of the especially in critical biodiversity areas Conference of the Parties to the con- such as seamounts, is almost com- vention (to be held February 2004 in pletely lacking. Malaysia), the role of protected areas Perhaps the greatest stir at the in conserving biodiversity will be a key Congress was the spirited debate over part of the agenda. In the message to the equitable sharing of benefits from the CBD, the voices from Durban will protected areas, one perspective on be heard, and, I predict, will make a the Congress theme of “Benefits difference. Beyond Boundaries.” In the gover-

Men from communities near St. Lucia Wetlands Park greet field trip arrivals. They hold traditional Zulu shields. Photo courtesy of Nora Mitchell, University of Vermont. 3

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 27 Ann Hitchcock Through the Fog of War in Iraq: Lessons Learned in Heritage Preservation

he news of the looting of the Iraqi National Museum on April 10–12, 2003, was shocking. To professionals involved in heritage preservation it was more than shocking—it shook us to the very core of our existence. It was a violation of what we held sacred. Our hearts reached out to our Iraqi colleagues, and we were frustrated that our handsT could not immediately do the same. Donny George, director general, Department of Research and Studies, Iraqi State Board of Antiquities and Heritage,1 later shared his feelings upon seeing the destruction in the museum: “It felt like I was bleeding, like I had a deep cut in my heart.”2 Even at this early stage in the evolu- gists who worried that antiquities tion of the Iraqi National Museum would be lost during war.4 The tragedy, some lessons in heritage Society for American Archaeology preservation are emerging from the sent a letter to the secretary of defense “fog of war.” Whether the lessons are requesting compliance with the 1954 new to the reader, or old lessons rein- Hague Convention for the Protection forced, they are worthy of study. This of Cultural Property in the Event of essay summarizes the events at the Armed Conflict (although the United National Museum and the response of States is not a party to this conven- professionals in the United States and tion). It noted that “the artifacts held internationally, and then elaborates on in museums and that remain to be the circumstances that prompted the found in archaeological sites are the emergence of the lessons. documents of a people’s history. Those documents connect people to A Response to the Looting the past and in so doing connect them Both before the war and in the to the future.”5 In March, the weeks that followed, professionals had Archaeological Institute of America urged their governments and national (AIA) issued and sent its “Open and international organizations to Declaration on Cultural Heritage at address looting. Pre-war, several pro- Risk in Iraq” to the Department of fessional societies contacted the Defense, stating: “The extraordinary Department of Defense about the risk significance of the monuments, muse- of looting. In January, archeologists, ums, and archaeological sites of Iraq collectors, and curators met with the (ancient Mesopotamia) imposes an defense deputy assistant secretary for obligation on all peoples and govern- stability operations to alert him to the ments to protect them. In any military risk of looting at Iraqi monuments, conflict that heritage is put at risk, and museums, and archeological sites. it appears now to be in grave danger.”6 They cited the looting that had In mid-March, the Office of occurred at regional museums and Reconstruction and Humanitarian archeological sites following the 1991 Assistance (ORHA), charged with Gulf War.3 In February, National helping to rebuild Iraq, sent docu- Public Radio interviewed archeolo- ments to senior US officials listing 16 28 The George Wright FORUM institutions that “merit securing ... to those who stole indiscriminately from prevent damage and pilferage.” The the more accessible storage rooms; first of those was the national bank; the and those who, with intimate knowl- second was the museum.7 In April, a edge of the museum and its storage cultural anthropologist with the U.S. practices, targeted high-value items in military said in a formal press briefing unmarked cabinets.10 The U.S. attor- that potential looting is of concern and ney general has said that evidence that the military is interested in coor- indicates a strong case for organized dinating with organizations that are criminal groups doing some of the dedicated to the task of preservation.8 looting.11 Museum officials agree that The fears of the professionals were some looters sought certain types of realized. Looters and vandals ran- items12 but said that there was no indi- sacked the museum. They also looted cation that the culprits were officials the national library, provincial muse- connected with the antiquities depart- ums and libraries, and archeological ment or the museum.13 Additionally, sites throughout Iraq. The National some looters took office equipment Museum, which is the subject of this and generally vandalized the offices.14 discussion, received the most immedi- The New York Times reported the ate and extensive press coverage and following on April 13: became a symbol for critics of the U.S. military efforts to protect Iraqi cultur- The National Museum of Iraq al heritage. recorded a history of civilizations Military spokesmen said that Iraqi that began to flourish in the fertile forces used the museum as a defensive plains of Mesopotamia more than position. Neighborhood residents cor- 7,000 years ago.... [I]t took only 48 roborated the charges, acknowledging hours for the museum to be that the Americans had been attacked destroyed, with at least 170,000 from inside the museum grounds and artifacts carried away by looters.... that fighting in the area was heavy. [A] full accounting of what has When the fighting was over and the been lost may take weeks or Iraqi forces had abandoned the build- months.... [W]hat officials told ing, looters entered. A museum arche- journalists today may have to be adjusted as a fuller picture comes ologist, who stayed on the museum 15 grounds during the fighting and the to light. looting, said the looting began when a Such dramatic reports galvanized group of seven men broke the muse- museum and library professionals and um’s glass front door and went inside. archeologists to action. Immediately, On the third day of looting, museum UNESCO (the United Nations staff secured the building and U.S. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural military personnel arrived four days Organization) asked American and later.9 British authorities to take prompt Reserve Marine Colonel Matthew measures to protect Iraqi archeologi- Bogdanos, who was appointed to cal sites and institutions.16 On April investigate the looting and coordinate 14, the president and CEO of the recovery efforts with museum officials, American Association of Museums has proffered that the thieves of the (AAM) wrote to the AAM Board say- museum items appear to fall into three ing that the association had been inun- categories—those who sought specific dated with e-mails and calls asking pieces and took some of the most valu- what can be done. He said that the able items from the public galleries; AAM was working through the

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 29 Department of State to try to establish Task Force, a coalition of national gov- direct communication with museum ernment agencies and nongovernmen- staff in Iraq to learn of the needs. The tal organizations (NGOs), called for secretary of state promised that the immediate assessment of needs and United States would embrace the priorities through consultation with international law that requires an Iraqi professionals, followed by a fact- occupying army to safeguard cultural finding trip. Some, including the patrimony and retrieve stolen items or American Anthropological Assoc- prevent them from leaving the coun- iation, urged the U.S. administration try.17 to offer amnesty and monetary Within a week, the United States rewards to encourage the return of Committee of the International items.21 The Federal Bureau of Council on Monuments and Sites Investigation (FBI) announced that it (US/ICOMOS), joined by 22 other would hunt the museum’s stolen art.22 professional organizations, including Less than a week after the looting the George Wright Society, sent a let- ended, international experts met at ter to President George W. Bush call- UNESCO in Paris. They agreed to ing for protection of sites, protection send an emergency fact-finding mis- of Iraqi colleagues, plans to recover sion to Iraq and called for securing of stolen artifacts through international sites, a trade embargo on Iraqi cultural cooperation and import/export inter- objects, and the development of a list dictions, and funds for post-war of missing objects to facilitate preven- recovery to support cultural resources. tion of illegal export.23 The United Kingdom Committee of By the end of April several organi- ICOMOS (ICOMOS-UK) sent a sim- zations had established databases to ilar letter to Prime Minister Tony track Iraqi cultural property,including Blair. the United Kingdom Department of On April 15, the U.K. culture sec- Culture, Media and Sports24 and the retary announced formation of a cul- Oriental Institute at the University of ture coalition with specialists from the Chicago, which assembled a “hot list” British Museum and other institutions of missing items from information with large Iraqi holdings, including contributed by institutions with the Louvre, Berlin Museum, and the archival records of Iraqi artifacts.25 In Metropolitan Museum of Art.18 On a May meeting at the Interpol head- April 29, the British Museum hosted a quarters in France, international meeting of international museum pro- experts coordinated strategies for fessionals that was attended by Donny recovering Iraq’s looted heritage. George, who, in addition to British They listed the types of artifacts pro- Museum officials who had just tected by legislation; those banned returned from Iraq, gave a detailed from export, import, and sale; and account of the Iraqi National those favored by the illegal antiquities Museum.19 markets. The resulting “Emergency In the United States, the president Red List of Iraqi Antiquities at Risk” of the National Trust for Historic is on the International Council of Preservation wrote to the secretary of Museums website.26 It is a tool for defense to “strongly urge the Coalition customs officials, police officers, art Forces to take full responsibility for dealers, collectors, and museums to safeguarding Iraq’s remaining muse- use in recognizing objects that could um collections and monuments.”20 originate from Iraq. The Heritage Emergency National On April 23, U.S. officials reported

30 The George Wright FORUM that although many valuable pieces ber states the responsibility of taking were lost, others remained in storage, all possible measures to facilitate the and many stolen items had been safe return of Iraqi stolen cultural returned via local mosques.27 U.S. property and other items of archeolog- military officials worked to establish ical, historical, cultural, rare scientific, priorities with Iraqi museum officials and religious importance to Iraqi insti- who requested replacements for lost tutions and prohibiting trade in or equipment, digital cameras, scanners, transfer of such property. and computers, as well as conservation During May, June, and July, the supplies.28 press was filled with wildly disparate Congress is considering two bills reports on the numbers of National relative to the protection of Iraqi cul- Museum items looted and recovered. tural heritage. H.R. 2009, introduced Recoveries included items returned in May,provides for the recovery,resti- under the amnesty program estab- tution, and protection of the cultural lished by Colonel Bogdanos, items heritage of Iraq by imposing indefinite seized, and items found secure where import restrictions on archeological they were put for safekeeping by the and cultural materials that were illegal- museum staff. For example, staff ly removed from Iraq since August 2, placed the Treasure of Nimrud and 1990. It also amends the Convention objects from the royal cemetery at Ur on Cultural Property Implementation in a Central Bank vault in 1990, before Act (implementing the 1970 the Gulf War. The basement of the UNESCO Convention in the United bank flooded, and it was not until a States) to change the time limit for National Geographic reporter emergency import restrictions on arranged to pump the water out of the archeological and ethnological materi- building that the items were confirmed als under bilateral agreements from to be safe.29 The press gave increased five to ten years, and allows emergency attention to the thousands of archeo- import restrictions to be applied to logical sites subject to unabated loot- countries that are not party to the ing. The losses of items from sites are 1970 UNESCO Convention. The basically unknown and generalized in minimum age for covered archeologi- the tens of thousands. Headlines indi- cal materials changes from 250 to 100 cated that looters had “riddled ancient years. Other proposed legislation, S. sites with holes.” Additional informa- 1291, introduced in June, authorizes tion emerged regarding looting at the president to impose emergency provincial museums, such as at Mosul, import restrictions on Iraqi archeolog- and damage at the National Library ical or ethnological materials until nor- and provincial libraries. The National malization of relations between the Library and Archives burned beyond United States and the government of recovery, but staff estimated that 50 Iraq, but no later than September 30, percent of the collection was safe and 2004. The archeological community held in three separate locations. The generally supports H.R. 2009, where- inventories were destroyed.30 as the AAM sees H.R. 2009 as sup- Worldwide professional response planting the established process for to the looting and devastation of muse- protecting cultural antiquities and ums, libraries, and archeological sites supports S. 1291. in Iraq was spontaneous and striking- In May, the U.N. Security Council ly swift. Meetings and fact-finding adopted Resolution 1483 lifting Iraqi tours continue. U.S. authorities and economic sanctions and giving mem- the museum staff are daily revising the

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 31 inventory of missing and recovered tragedy. objects. Additional assistance is on the horizon. The Department of State has Some Lessons Learned announced several U.S. initiatives, After lending a helping hand in a including, at an appropriate time in disaster, a natural response is to con- the future, the establishment of a U.S. sider, “What if this happened to us? overseas research center in Baghdad How would we fare? What lessons can and a special institute to train Iraqi be learned?” Professionals managing graduate students for museum and museums, libraries, archeological library careers. U.S. government agen- sites, and other heritage resources, cies are offering grants and other sup- who ask these questions and look port for projects to document, pre- through the “fog of war” in Iraq, will serve, and revitalize Iraq’s museums, find many poignant lessons emerging. libraries, and archeological sites. Beyond the six lessons suggested The National Endowment for the below, additional heritage preserva- Humanities has announced a grant tion lessons will emerge for those who program to assist in preserving cultur- seek them from the events in Iraq. al collections and rebuilding Iraq’s Whether the lessons are new or old, cultural heritage infrastructure. The they are worthy of review and contem- National Endowment for the Arts will plation in the context of the preserva- partner with other federal agencies tion of Iraqi cultural heritage. and NGOs to restore Iraq’s artistic Lesson 1: Museums, libraries, legacy, including the documentation, and sites are symbols of authority. preservation, and exhibition of works As symbols of the ruling authority, of art. The Institute for Museum and museums, libraries, and historic sites Library Services will support are targets for those fighting against American librarians and museum pro- that authority. Although personal fessionals in partnership with their profit motivated much of the looting at Iraqi counterparts to create and share the Iraqi National Museum, anger at digital content and develop education- Saddam Hussein’s regime and the al resources. The National Science Ba’athist Party was also a factor. As Foundation is offering support for the Donny George said: identification, recovery, preservation, and conservation of scientifically rele- The people saw the Americans fir- vant archeological and other cultural ing on the gates of Saddam’s heritage artifacts. The U.S. Agency for palaces and then opening the International Development will estab- doors to the people and saying: lish a prioritized list of buildings ‘Come and take this stuff, it’s (including museums and libraries) yours now.’ So they started, and it and equipment to be reconstituted. became a sort of rage as they The Library of Congress will coordi- attacked every government build- nate the effort of libraries to re-build ing. I don’t make excuses but, you Iraqi collections and modernize Iraqi know, after 30 years of a regime library systems. like that, pressure builds up on Now that plans for recovery are people. Most of them were not beginning to take shape, we can step educated, and to them the muse- back and consider, from the viewpoint um was just one more government of a cultural heritage professional, building. They didn’t just take what new lessons might be learned, or antiquities but 95% of the office old lessons reinforced, from this furniture, all computers, most of the cameras. My office was two 32 The George Wright FORUM feet deep in papers; my desk was of the United States. In recent years, broken into three pieces and I managers of museums and national found my chair 100 yards away.”31 sites have needed no reminding of this vulnerability. Likewise, the museums As symbols of authority through- in Iraq learned this lesson long ago. out history, museum collections have The staff has evacuated the collections been traditional war booty. Saddam of the National Museum many times, Hussein demonstrated this lesson beginning with the Iran–Iraq war in when, six weeks after invading Kuwait, the 1980s.35 Although U.S. museums Iraq seized collections from the and sites have increased their security, Kuwait National Museum and few would be able to implement evac- shipped them to Baghdad for storage 32 uation plans on the scale of and in the in the Iraqi National Museum. Iraq timeframe demonstrated by the Iraqi subsequently returned the collections National Museum. under terms of a United Nations reso- 33 Lesson 2: Early news of war or lution. After castles, many of which disaster is often wrong (in unpre- have become museums, museums dictable ways). “It is very common became the traditional place to store a for the first information following a national treasure. There can be little crisis to be wrong, and when I say doubt that they are symbols of the rul- wrong, I mean wrong. So let us all try ing authority. to be responsible in how we speak Similarly, archeological sites are about this issue until we know the part of a country’s cultural patrimony; facts, and let us dedicate ourselves to they are protected by law and are sym- gathering the facts as expeditiously bols and targets. Saddam Hussein left and efficiently as possible,” said the little doubt about his understanding of secretary general of the International this principle, when he rebuilt the Criminal Police Organization (ICPO) ancient cities of Babylon and Nineveh –Interpol when he addressed the May in an attempt to validate his regime. 6 meeting on cultural property looting When he learned that original in Iraq.36 Babylonian bricks were stamped with Acting precipitously based on early the name “Nebuchadnezzar II” and news can be a political liability, a step the equivalent of “605 BC,” he wanted in the wrong direction that will have to a similar statement on reconstruction be retraced, and a catalyst for dishar- bricks acknowledging his role. They mony with other parties who are criti- say, “In the reign of the victorious cal to the resolution. All of these mis- Saddam Hussein, the president of the takes occurred in the Iraqi National Republic, may God keep him, the Museum case. guardian of the great Iraq and the ren- The first news reports, on April 12 ovator of its renaissance and the and in the weeks following, erroneous- builder of its great civilization, the ly reported that looters had taken rebuilding of the great city of Babylon 170,000 artifacts from the National was done in 1987.”34 Museum. This figure was followed by Following the events of September reported figures of 50,000, 270,000, 11, 2001, the U.S. National Park 90,000, 200,000, 1,200, 10–15%, and Service (NPS) greatly increased the fewer than 100 before U.S. and Iraqi security at its iconic sites, such as the museum officials clarified the original Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, misunderstanding. By mid-May and the Washington Monument, Colonel Bogdanos called 170,000 a which are highly vulnerable symbols “gross, if dramatic, exaggeration.”37

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 33 Museum authorities were reported as said it is “a tragedy that has no parallel “blaming shoddy reporting amid the in world history; it is as if the Uffizi, ‘fog of war’ for creating the impression the Louvre, or all the museums of that the majority of the institution’s Washington DC had been wiped out 170,000 items had been looted.”38 As in one fell swoop.”44 Now that the fig- Donny George explained: ures have been drastically revised downward and the “fog” is beginning There was a mistake. Someone to clear, some have expressed second asked us what is the number of thoughts about these comparisons.45 pieces in the whole collection. We Some journalists—and, according said over 170,000, and they took to reports, at least one professional that as the number lost. Reporters colleague— have been critical of the came in and saw empty shelves Iraqi museum officials for not correct- and reached the conclusion that ing the misunderstanding about the all was gone. But before the war, 170,000 items sooner. A defensive we evacuated all of the small backlash from some parts of the press pieces and emptied the showcas- sought to discredit both the Iraqi es except for fragile or heavy mate- 39 museum authorities and the scholars rial that was difficult to move. who had commented on the early Following these announcements, news, and even pit one against the the numbers on missing items that other. A few individuals took the bait U.S. and Iraqi museum authorities and some strong words were cited were similar, and evolving at the exchanged. One journalist reported, same rate. As of the end of July, that “[Donny] George is now quoted as figure was estimated at 13,50040 and saying that that items lost could repre- remained at that level into sent ‘a small percentage’ of the collec- September.41 tion and blamed shoddy reporting for Within a week of the looting, three the exaggeration.” A scholar, who members of the president’s Cultural heard Donny George speak at the Property Advisory Committee had British Museum at the end of April, resigned. The chairman’s letter of res- commented, “Is it not a little strange ignation cited “the wanton and pre- that quite so many journalists went ventable destruction” of Iraq’s away with the wrong impression, National Museum of Antiquities.42 while Mr. George made little or no Immediately, following the first news, attempt to clarify the context of the fig- scholars sought to explain the magni- ure of 170,000 which he repeated tude of the looting of the National with such regularity and gusto before, Museum by comparing it with other during, and after that meeting.”46 major cultural disasters. It was called Other scholars responded in letters to the greatest cultural disaster of the last the editor: 500 years. Several scholars said that not since the Mongol invasion of [The reporter] would have us Baghdad in 1258 had there been loot- believe that unscrupulous, 43 Ba’athist curators of the Iraq ing on this scale. The American museum in Baghdad have deliber- Schools of Oriental Research com- ately overplayed the pillaging and pared the museum looting to “the sack destruction on April 9-11.... At no of Constantinople, the burning of the time did George claim ... that the library at Alexandria, the Vandal and entire contents of the museum Mogul invasions, and the ravages of had gone ... our high opinion of the the conquistadors.” One commenter character of Dr. George and his 34 The George Wright FORUM colleagues has been formed over objects (plus or minus), due to lot cat- two decades of working with aloguing wherein one inventory item, them.... George deserves the or lot, may account for multiple world’s praise, not its condemna- items.49 tion, for saving so many of Iraq’s First reports implied that inventory treasures....47 records were lost. Some said the 50 Cultural heritage professionals are museum records were burned. in the position of both releasing infor- Museum officials countered that they mation to the press, as the Iraqi muse- have good records and the reports are um authorities did, and reacting to not true: “A lot of our paper records are safe. Most of the computerized information that others release, as 51 American, European, and other schol- data we had backed up.” One report ars and professionals did in response noted that creating a reliable inventory is complicated by the museum’s lack to the news of the Iraqi museum loot- 52 ing. Care must be taken not to suc- of detailed records. Another stated cumb to the immediate questions of that the museum staff is methodically the press seeking to fill the public’s going through the catalogue of the collection—index card by index card— 24/7 appetite for facts, figures, and 53 opinions, especially ones that create without benefit of computers. “shock and awe” and will make head- Questions have arisen as to when lines. Knowing that the first news is objects may have disappeared from often wrong, waiting for the “fog of the museum. Reports have suggested war” to lift before making definitive that some missing objects may have disappeared long before the looting on decisions or statements may be pru- 54 dent. If, however, a statement is incor- April 10–12. Although the institu- rect or misinterpreted, an immediate tions that have partnered with the correction is in order to avert the bal- Iraqi National Museum on archeolog- looning of misunderstandings and ical projects are working to recon- hard feelings. In addition, designating struct databases that may assist the a single person or office in the muse- museum in its inventory, it appears um as a primary point of contact with that the index cards at the museum are the press is essential to ensure consis- the most complete record of the col- tency of information. lections. Lesson 3: Complete and updated Documenting the loss of an item documentation that is duplicated that is not inventoried on a list is virtu- and dispersed is essential for ally impossible. Documenting the loss accountability. We now understand, of an item that may be on a list but is from press reports, that the Iraqi not catalogued, described, pho- National Museum has 170,000 entries tographed, or illustrated is challeng- on its inventory. In addition, we have ing. Catalogue records and inventory learned that the museum housed thou- lists must be updated each time infor- sands more artifacts that had either mation about the object changes, such not yet been catalogued or had been as its condition or location. Museum set aside in a ground-floor “study col- record-keeping tasks are enormous lection” storeroom for researchers to and on-going. Similar documentation examine. One of the looted ground- needs apply to the recording of arche- floor storage rooms included about 10 ological and other cultural sites, steel trunks containing as-yet unnum- although the items buried in the sites bered material from recent digs.48 The remain unrecorded until the site is total collection may consist of 500,000 excavated, and their loss, prior to sci-

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 35 entific excavation, is particularly tive information, such as provenience poignant. data, and management information, Cataloguing refers to assigning and such as maintenance cycles, are not applying a unique number to an object appropriate for public access, basic or group of objects and recording identification, dates, descriptive infor- descriptive and documentary data on mation, and photographs are of great a museum catalogue record that is educational benefit in providing pub- maintained in both electronic and lic access to the collections. They also paper copy. The cataloguer may sup- support recovery efforts if items are plement the record with photography, missing. Had such a website existed and digital images can be maintained for the Iraqi museum collections, the with the electronic record. Copies of lists needed by the police, customs, the electronic and paper records military, and the press would have should be stored in at least one off-site been instantly available. Similarly, the location. Museums should do annual posting of statistics about the collec- inventories that involve a verification tions on the web can help to eliminate of the objects and their records. For misunderstandings during the “fog of example, an annual inventory might war,” or the “fog” of other disasters. involve a 100% survey of the most sig- The website would need to be mir- nificant and high-value items and a rored on servers, or backed up on random sample of the remainder of the high-capacity tapes, in additional and collection. Such annual inventories remote locations to avoid catastrophic help to spot damage and losses that loss of data and address loss of power may have occurred without the cura- and functionality at the primary site. tor’s notice. They also serve to elimi- Lesson 4: An emergency opera- nate suspicions that missing objects tions plan is critical. An emergency may have gone unreported prior to a operations plan is critical to ensuring disaster such as the looting of the Iraqi that emergencies do not turn into dis- National Museum, which requires a asters. Not only do staff and visitors full accounting. need to know what to do and where to When disaster strikes, having elec- go, but also staff needs to know how to tronic and paper copies of the cata- protect the collections. Parts of emer- logue records (or archeological site gency operations plans are often confi- records) that can be recalled from dential, so that other professionals and another location is critical to recovery. the public are unlikely to see the full Most museums maintain this kind of scope of a museum’s plan. Sometimes duplication, but often in the same city. evacuation is appropriate, sometimes With a widespread disaster, such as protecting the collections in place is struck the Iraqi National Museum, best. duplicates in other locations in The staff of the Iraqi National Baghdad may not have helped. Museum is experienced in both evacu- Multiple copies and wide dispersal of ating and protecting collections in such copies are advantageous. place. As the museum authorities Depending on the risk, museums may noted, the experience of recent wars need to entrust these copies to muse- had made them experts in safeguard- ums in other countries. ing antiquities. They evacuated the Placing catalogue records and museum many times. Their strategy images on the web for public access is was never to tell other staff—“not even one way to duplicate and disseminate the minister of culture”—when or catalog information. Although sensi- where they were moving items. In the

36 The George Wright FORUM past, only 10 people who were under salvage the remaining books that had oath knew. This time, five were under not yet been systematically evacuated, oath.55 In the 1970s and 1980s, the she turned to the owner of the empty collections of the National Museum of restaurant next door and asked for Beirut largely survived the fighting help. He and his brothers and employ- because of the successful strategies of ees, and soon other shopkeepers, deception and physical protection that began moving the books and ancient the museum’s director adopted: he manuscripts into the restaurant and announced the removal to safe storage other shops. The library later burned, of material that was still, in fact, in the but 70 percent of the collections had museum’s basement.56 The Iraqi been saved. The librarian said, “The museum staff removed easily portable people who carried the books, not all items from the galleries, and secured of them were educated. Some of them and padded others. The staff also could not write or could not read, but moved some items from museum stor- they knew they were precious age to off-site locations. Clearly, the books.”57 Likewise, the Baghdad damage and loss would have been neighborhood that guarded boxes of much greater had all the collections manuscripts clearly had a sense of been housed in the museum. ownership in its cultural heritage. Large museums are vulnerable. At the pillaged archeological site of They are big targets and evacuation is Nimrud, a U.S. sergeant asked a challenging. Museums must identify, guard, “Why, now that people are lib- in advance, evacuation locations and erated, would they want to destroy the means of transportation to those loca- history of Iraq?” The guard’s tions. If they can disperse their collec- response: “We asked them the same tions into multiple locations as a part thing. They said this nation gave them of their regular operations, they lessen nothing. They cursed its history.”58 the risk of a catastrophic loss. The The message is clear. Cultural her- architecturally imposing building that itage preservation depends on its abil- generally houses the exhibits is the ity to serve and build constituencies in symbol of authority and the prime tar- the population at large. No group get. Storage and work areas that are should feel disenfranchised or left physically separated from the main behind. Cultural heritage preserva- building are at lower risk. Museums tion, to be successful, must have mean- also spread their risk by lending large ing for everyone and be the concern of portions of collections to other institu- all. tions on a long-term basis for use in Lesson 6: When all else fails, fol- exhibits and research. low your heart. In Baghdad, many Lesson 5: A broad-based con- were motivated to steal because they stituency reduces risk of loss. could not bear to watch the destruc- Citizens who have a sense of pride and tion of their history. Just over two ownership in a museum, library, or weeks after the looting, Donny George archeological site are more likely to reported that up to 50 objects a day, protect it than attack it. Even if they do which local people “removed for safe- not visit the museum or read the keeping,” were being returned to the library’s books, they may appreciate museum.59 Early reports said that its role in the community and the cul- museum staff members took some of tural heritage that it preserves. When the more valuable items home and the librarian at Basra’s Central Library returned them as the situation began knew she had only a few hours left to to stabilize,60 but Donny George later

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 37 clarified that staff members had not back wall as the war surrounded her, taken items to their homes for protec- the Baghdad citizens who kept a tion.61 neighborhood watch on boxes of man- Perhaps the story that best illus- uscripts, and the difficulties in recov- trates the lesson of following your ering items when inventories are miss- heart is that of a 33-year-old Iraqi ing or incomplete. pianist who watched in horror as loot- These lessons remind us that com- ers ransacked the museum. He said he placency, born of familiarity with our decided to do the same—not for per- shortcomings, is not acceptable. We sonal gain, but to hide the antiquities may advance the preservation of the until they could be safely returned. He world’s heritage if we take these les- said he remembered lessons in Iraqi sons to heart and act upon them. Can history from his school days. He rec- we afford to tolerate a backlog of sites ognized the statue of Assyrian King to be surveyed and recorded or collec- Shalmaneser III. It lay in fragments, tions to be catalogued when we know which he collected. He and two rela- that looting and theft are occurring tives filled two vanloads. At home he even without war? We have learned wrapped the objects to protect them, our lessons and we know the answer. then called Donny George, who told As cultural heritage professionals we him to keep them until the museum need to share these lessons from Iraq was secure. “I am so happy,” said with government leaders, those who George, patting his heart with affec- sponsor heritage preservation work, tion for the pianist.62 and the general public and ask them to help us to shorten the gap in the race Lessons Applied against time. The mission to preserve the Author’s note: The information for world’s cultural heritage is a daunting this article has been taken from press race against time. War, pests, and envi- releases and news articles through ronmental factors take their toll. The September 2003. As the “fog of war” role of the cultural heritage profession- lifts, some of the reports may prove to al is to minimize that toll so that the be inaccurate or misleading. I trust greatest number of generations can that the lessons learned will remain enjoy and benefit from the record of valid although the examples continue the past. We have heard of the Basra to evolve. librarian who passed books over a Additional Sources of Information The following websites provide reports and links to other websites with information on Iraqi cultural heritage. • AAM: www.aamus.org/hottopics.cfm?mode=list&id=24 • AIA: www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10129 • ICOM: http://icom.museum/iraq.html • UNESCO: www.unesco.org/culture/iraq

Endnotes 1 Donny George is now acting director general, Museums Department, Iraqi State Board of Antiquities and Heritage. 2 Roger Atwood, “Inside Iraq’s National Museum,” Art News Online, Summer 2003. 3 Andrew Lawler, “Mayhem in Mesopotamia,” Science,Vol. 301, August 1, 2003.

38 The George Wright FORUM 4 National Public Radio, “Protecting ancient history in Iraq,” Morning Edition,February 20, 2003. 5 Robert L. Kelly, “Letter to Secretary of Defense on Protection of Antiquities in Iraq,” Society for American Archaeology, February 27, 2003. 6 Archaeological Institute of America, “Open declaration on cultural heritage at risk in Iraq,” March 19, 2003. 7 Paul Martin, Ed Vulliamy, and Gaby Hinsliff, “U.S. Army was told to protect looted museum,” The Observer, April 20, 2003. 8 Martin Bailey, “U.S. Officer warned that there was a risk the museum would be looted,” The Art Newspaper,n.d. 9 Atwood, “Inside Iraq’s National Museum.” 10 International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State, “Thousands of missing artifacts from Iraqi Museum recovered,” Washington File, September 10, 2003. 11 Interpol, “Prepared remarks of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft,” Interpol press release, Meeting on Cultural Property Looting in Iraq, May 6, 2003. 12 Alex Spillius, “Media blamed for exaggerating loss of antiquities,” The Daily Telegraph,May 22, 2003. 13 Martin Gottlieb, “Campaign starts to help Iraq rebuild cultural institutions,” The New York Times, April 30, 2003. 14 Dan Cruickshank, “Return to Baghdad: The cost of war at the Iraq Museum,” BBC History, June 9, 2003. 15 John F. Burns, “Pillagers strip Iraqi Museum of its treasure,” The New York Times, April 13, 2003. 16 UNESCO, “The director-general of UNESCO calls for all measures to be taken to ensure the protection and surveillance of Iraqi cultural heritage and effectively fight against illicit trafficking,” UNESCO press release, April 12, 2003. 17 Maria Puente, “The looting of Iraq’s past,” USA Today, April 15, 2003. 18 Martin Bailey, “An account of the looting,” The Art Newspaper,n.d. 19 Fiachra Gibbons, “Experts mourn the Lion of Nimrud, looted as troops stood by,” The Guardian, April 30, 2003. 20 Richard Moe, “Letter to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld about looting in Iraq,” The National Trust for Historic Preservation, April 16, 2003. 21 American Anthropological Association, “Association calls for remedies to looting,” Media Advisory, April 17, 2003. 22 Tribune News Services, “FBI to hunt museum’s stolen art,” The Chicago Tribune, April 18, 2003. 23 UNESCO, “Experts’ meeting at UNESCO issues recommendation to safeguard Iraqi cultural heritage,” UNESCO press release, April 17, 2003. 24 Liam McDougall, “U.K. database to track stolen art treasures,” Sunday Herald, April 27, 2003. 25 Mike Toner, “Iraqi relics go on most wanted list,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 26, 2003. 26 On-line at http://icom.museum/redlist/irak/en/index.html. 27 Monte Reel, “Slowly, loot is being returned to museum,” The Washington Post, April 24, 2003. 28 William Sumner, “Assessment Report Iraqi National Museum Brief,” Humanitarian Information Center for Iraq, April 26, 2003. 29 National Geographic Society, “Ancient Assyrian treasures found intact in Baghdad,” Jason Williams, producer, National Geographic Ultimate Explorer, National Geographic News, June 6, 2003. 30 Keith Watenpaugh, Edouard Méténier, Jens Hanssen, and Hala Fattah, Opening the Doors: Intellectual Life and Academic Conditions in Post-War Baghdad, A Report of the Iraqi Observatory, July 15, 2003. 31 Neal Ascherson, “Iraq and ruin,” The Guardian,May 2, 2003. 32 Alan Riding, “In Kuwait, lost items and a blackened museum are effects of earlier war,” The New York Times,May 6, 2003. 33 Kirsty Norman, “The retrieval of Kuwait National Museum’s collections from Iraq: an assessment of the operation and lessons learned,” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation,Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 135–146, 2000; United Nations, “Report of the secretary-general on the return of Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq,” March 2, 1994. 34 Neil MacFarquhar, “Hussein’s Babylon: a beloved atrocity,” The New York Times,August 19, 2003. 35 Scheherezade Faramarzi, “Archaeologists counting missing Iraq artifacts say about one-tenth returned,” Canadian Press, Canada.com News, July 8, 2003. 36 Interpol, “Speech by Ronald K. Noble, secretary general of the ICPO-Interpol,” Interpol press release, Meeting on Cultural Property Looting in Iraq, May 6, 2003. 37 Tom Hundley, “U.S. suspects insiders in Iraq museum raid, less-than-feared loss confirmed,” The Chicago Tribune,May 17, 2003. 38 Alex Spillius, “Media blamed for exaggerating loss of antiquities,” The Daily Telegraph,May 22, 2003. 39 David Aaronovitch, “Lost from the Baghdad museum: truth,” The Guardian, June 10, 2003. 40 Andrew Lawler, “Mayhem in Mesopotamia,” Science,Vol. 301, August 1, 2003.

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 39 41 International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State, “Thousands of missing artifacts from Iraqi Museum recovered.” 42 Paul Richard, “Bush panel members quit over looting,” The Washington Post, April 17, 2003. 43 Frank Rich, “And now: ‘Operation Iraqi Looting,’” The New York Times, April 27, 2003. 44 Aaronovitch, “Lost from the Baghdad museum: truth.” 45 Lawler, “Mayhem in Mesopotamia.” 46 Aaronovitch, “Lost from the Baghdad museum: truth.” 47 Harriet Crawford and Eleanor Robson, “The dust hasn’t settled in the Baghdad museum,” in Letters, The Guardian, June 12, 2003. 48 Guy Gugliotta, “Looters stole 6,000 artifacts,” The Washington Post, June 21, 2003. 49 Lawler, “Mayhem in Mesopotamia.” 50 Douglas Jehl and Elizabeth Becker, “Scholars devastated by sacking of museum,” The San Diego Union Tribune and New York Times News Service, April 16, 2003. 51 Martin Bailey,“Nimrud gold treasures ‘safe,’ Dr. Donny George gives the first detailed assessment of the looting to The Art Newspaper,” The Art Newspaper,n.d. (ca. April 29, 2003). 52 Reel, “Slowly, loot is being returned to museum.” 53 William Booth and Guy Gugliotta, “All along, most Iraqi relics were ‘safe and sound,’” The Washington Post, June 9, 2003. 54 Dan Cruickshank, “What really happened at the Baghdad museum?” The Guardian, June 19, 2003. 55 Faramarzi, “Archaeologists counting missing Iraq artifacts say about one-tenth returned.” 56 Neil Brodie, “Focus on Iraq: spoils of war,” Archaeology,Vol. 56, No. 4, July/August. 57 Shaila K. Dewan, “After the war: the librarian; books spirited to safety before Iraq library fire,” The New York Times, July 27, 2003. 58 Paul Salopek, “Looters go to source to steal Iraq artifacts,” The Chicago Tribune,May 7, 2003. 59 Gibbons, “Experts mourn the Lion of Nimrud, looted as troops stood by.” 60 Booth and Gugliotta, “All along, most Iraqi relics were ‘safe and sound’.” 61 Lynda Hurst, “Iraq museum curator recalls looting scenario,” To ronto Star, September 29, 2003. 62 Reel, “Slowly, loot is being returned to museum.” Ann Hitchcock, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW (2251), Washington, D.C. 20240; [email protected] 3

40 The George Wright FORUM Tony Prato Alleviating Multiple Threats to Protected Areas with Adaptive Ecosystem Management The Case of Waterton–Glacier International Peace Park

anaging a protected area to achieve the purposes of its organic act is difficult and challenging. In the United States, the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 431–433) requires national parks to be managed so as “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the Menjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”The ability of national park managers to achieve the dual mandate of conserving resources and providing for public use and enjoyment in perpetuity is stymied by multiple external and internal threats. Cumulative effects of threats are additive over time and/or space, and occur when seemingly minor management actions are made or minor events occur in an ecosystem that eventually have major social, economic and ecological consequences (Meffe et al. 2002). Management actions for alleviating multiple threats are best devised using a long-term, regionally based, stakeholder- inclusive approach known as adaptive ecosystem management (AEM). This article describes an AEM framework for alleviating the multiple threats facing protected areas with special reference to Waterton–Glacier International Peace Park. Background is a World Heritage site (Flathead In 1932, the American and Basin Commission 2001; Montana’s Canadian governments passed legisla- Flathead Valley 2001). Waterton tion creating Waterton–Glacier Lakes is 52,540 ha (129,728 acres) in International Peace Park, the world’s extent, and Glacier is 410,506 ha first such park. The peace park sym- (1,013,594 acres). The peace park is bolizes “peace and goodwill between the centerpiece of the Crown of the the United States and Canada” and Continent Ecosystem (CCE), which “represents the need for cooperation includes the mountainous regions of and stewardship in a world of shared northwestern Montana, southwestern resources” (Waterton Lakes National Alberta, and southeastern British Park Resource Guide 2002). The Columbia. peace park consists of Waterton Lakes In 1980, the U.S. National Park National Park in Alberta, Canada, and Service (NPS) reported that national Glacier National Park across the bor- parks in the United States faced 4,300 der in Montana, United States (see threats (Dilsaver 1994). More than Figure 1). Both parks are UNESCO half of the threats to aesthetic quali- biosphere reserves, and the peace park ties, cultural resources, air and water quality, plants, and wildlife came from

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 41 Figure 1. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park. Source: National Parks Conservation Association (2002b) sources outside the parks. The report resort developments; (c) clearcut log- documented only about 25% of the ging; (d) growth in sightseeing air threats. Glacier National Park faced an tours; (e) invasions of non-native above-average number of threats: 56 species into parklands and waters; (f) for Glacier vs. 13.5 for the 326 park legalized hunting for gray wolf in units that existed at the time. The Alberta; (g) potential extraction of oil, National Parks Conservation gas, coal, and hard-rock mineral Association (NPCA) identified several resources; (h) global warming and air- internal and external threats to the borne chemical pollutants; and (i) peace park (NPCA 2002b). They are: shortages of personnel and operating (a) proposed highway expansion; (b) funds for monitoring wildlife popula- conversion of working ranches and tions, completing archeological forests to residential, commercial, and research, maintaining historic struc-

42 The George Wright FORUM tures and museum collections, and potential water quality degradation; providing high-quality visitor servic- (e) high likelihood of total absence of es. Most of these threats are caused by glaciers in 30 years; (f) potentially events and circumstances external to severe impacts to alpine, floodplain, the peace park. On a scale of 0 to 100, and wetland systems; and (g) degrada- NPCA gave the peace park scores of tion and loss of native vegetation. 83 for natural resources, 52 for cultur- Table 1 lists the threats and impacts, al resources, and 52 for stewardship and Figure 2 summarizes the nature, capacity. Low scores for cultural location, and impacts of the threats to resources and stewardship capacity the peace park. Other protected areas indicate that improvements are need- in North America face similar threats ed in these areas. and consequences. Impacts of threats to the peace park include: (a) fragmented, degraded, AEM for Protected Areas and destroyed habitat for several Making specific management pre- wildlife species; (b) severe limitations scriptions for threats to the peace park on the movement of wide-ranging and other protected areas requires species such as bears, wolves, deer, detailed site-specific socioeconomic and elk; (c) reduced populations of and ecological assessments that are native fish that are unable to compete beyond the scope of this article. with invasive non-native species; (d) Moreover, socioeconomic and ecolog-

Table 1. List of threats and impacts to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park and the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem Threat Impact Proposed highway expansion (external) Fragmented, degraded, and destroyed habitat for several wildlife species Conversion of working ranch and forests to Severe limitations on the movement of wide-ranging residential, commercial, and resort species such as bears, wolves, deer, and elk developments (external) Clearcut logging (external) Reduced populations of native fish that are unable to compete with invasive non-native species Growth in sightseeing air tours (external) Potential water quality degradation Invasions of non-native species into High likelihood of total absence of glaciers in 30 parklands and water (internal and external) years and potentially severe impacts to alpine, floodplain, and wetland systems Legalized hunting for gray wolf in Alberta Degradation and loss of native vegetation (external) Potential extraction of oil, gas, coal, and hard-rock mineral resources (external) Global warming and airborne chemical pollutants (external) Shortage of personnel and operating funds for monitoring wildlife populations, completing archeological research, maintaining historic structures and museum collections, and providing high-quality visitor services (internal)

Note: There is not necessarily a cause-and-effect relationship between threats and impacts listed in the same row. Source: National Parks Conservation Association (2002a) Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 43 Figure 2. External threats to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park. Source: National Parks Conservation Association (2002b) ical conditions in protected areas threats or impacts requires a suite of change often enough that management well-designed and coordinated man- prescriptions have a short shelf life. agement actions. This does not mean, The proposed AEM approach for alle- however, that management actions viating threats to protected areas is aimed at seemingly unrelated prob- based on the following six general lems are totally independent. In the principles (see also Table 2). above example, part of the additional 1. Wide-ranging threats to pro- budget and personnel used to monitor tected areas cannot be alleviated wildlife populations could be used to with a single management action. monitor and evaluate how wildlife Actions such as increasing the amount populations respond to habitat loss of a park’s budget and personnel and degradation from landscape frag- devoted to monitoring wildlife popu- mentation. lations or improving the maintenance 2. It is easier to alleviate internal of historic structures would do little to threats than external threats. The reduce landscape fragmentation in the two national parks that comprise the CCE. Therefore, alleviating multiple peace park could make a coordinated

44 The George Wright FORUM request to their respective agencies based ecological knowledge and (Parks Canada and USNPS) for addi- socioeconomic perspectives and val- tional personnel and equipment to ues in a collaborative decision-making monitor threatened and endangered framework designed to enhance long- species, complete archeological term sustainability of protected areas. research, maintain historic structures EM represents a fundamental shift in and museum collections, provide the philosophy for managing people high-quality visitor services, and and natural resources to incorporate reduce the spread and adverse ecolog- larger spatial scales, longer time peri- ical impacts of non-native species in ods, and more variables than com- the park. By comparison, it is more modity-based resource management difficult for managers to alleviate (Thomas 1997) and strives for sus- external threats to the peace park from tainable productivity of the entire proposed highway expansion, contin- ecosystem (Franklin 1997; Schowalter ued fragmentation of working ranches et al. 1997; Prato 2003; Prato, in and forests, and logging and mineral press). An EM approach requires extraction on nearby lands. Managers threats and impacts to be addressed in have virtually no control over global a manner that harmonizes social, eco- warming and airborne chemical pollu- nomic, and ecological values at the tants originating in far-off places. CCE scale and accounts for the inter- Differences in the ability of park dependencies among those values. For managers to deal with internal versus example, proposed highway expan- external threats arise because the envi- sion and commercial/resort develop- ronmental, socioeconomic, and demo- ment in gateway communities would graphic drivers of external threats are, improve the quality of visitor services for the most part, independent of the outside the peace park, but threaten mandate to conserve park resources the park’s ecological integrity. and provide for public enjoyment. Similarly, using more of the peace These drivers are regional economic park’s limited budget to monitor development, supply and demand for wildlife populations and complete wood and minerals, global emissions archeological research and less to of carbon and chemical pollutants, reduce habitat loss/fragmentation and and other events beyond the control of controlling the spread of non-native park managers. This situation does species involves trade-offs. not imply that peace park managers 4. Adaptive management (AM) should focus only on reducing internal allows managers to handle uncer- threats to the exclusion of external tainty regarding the likely impacts of threats; quite the contrary. Not only alternative management actions on are most threats to the peace park social, economic, and ecological val- external (see Table 1), but alleviating ues of protected areas. While out- them is likely to require more planning comes of some management actions and collaboration than internal are fairly certain, outcomes of other threats. actions are uncertain. Clearcut logging 3. Formulating and evaluating and mineral extraction in areas adja- management actions in an ecosys- cent to the peace park have a high like- tem management (EM) framework lihood of impairing the movement of accounts for interdependencies wide-ranging species, increasing soil among social,economic,and ecolog- erosion and the spread of invasive ical values of protected areas. An EM species, and contaminating water. In approach requires integrating science- contrast, impacts of global warming on

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 45 alpine, floodplain, and wetland sys- “anyone who has an interest in the tems and impacts of legal hunting for topic at hand and wishes to participate gray wolf in Alberta on wolf recovery in decision making” (Meffe et al. in the United States are more uncer- 2002). Stakeholders for protected tain. AM is specifically designed for areas include private landowners and managing natural resource systems businesses, First Nations, community under uncertainty (Holling 1978; planners, residential and commercial Walters 1986; Walters and Holling developers, resource extraction firms, 1990). It rests on the basic tenet that public land management agencies, nat- “if human understanding of nature is ural resource/environmental interest imperfect, then human interactions groups, and the general public. with nature [e.g., management Effective cooperation among stake- actions] should be experimental” (Lee holders requires establishing and 1993). maintaining collaborative relation- There are two forms of AM: passive ships with them, and involving them in and active. Passive AM formulates pre- a more comprehensive and integrative dictive models of ecosystem responses way than is done in traditional man- to management actions, makes management approaches. agement decisions based on model Several organizations have been predictions, and uses monitoring data established to raise stakeholder aware- to revise model parameters (Walters ness and understanding and facilitate and Hilborn 1978; Hilborn 1992). collaboration on natural resource While passive AM is relatively simple issues in the CCE. The Crown of the and inexpensive to implement, it is Continent Ecosystem Education nonexperimental and, as such, lacks Consortium (COCEEC) has as its statistical validity and does not pro- goals to: (a) encourage and support vide reliable information for making coordination and cooperation among decisions (Hurlbert 1984; Wilhere individuals and organizations that 2002). Active AM evaluates manage- educate about the human and natural ment actions using an experimental resources of the CCE; (b) promote a design (Halbert 1993). Experimental sense of community among citizens of results are used to test hypotheses the region, a comprehensive view of about whether alternative manage- the landscape, and an ethic centered ment actions influence achievement of on personal and community steward- desired outcomes, such as recovery of ship; (c) provide balanced educational threatened and endangered species. leadership on emerging concepts of Since experiments incorporate repli- ecosystem stewardship, biological cation and randomization of manage- diversity conservation, and ecosystem ment actions (treatments), active AM sustainability; (d) encourage the yields reliable information about how development and dissemination of management actions influence socioe- information and educational materials conomic and ecological conditions for presentation to diverse audiences (Lee 1993). in a variety of settings; and (e) cooper- 5. Protected area managers are atively seek private and public support likely to have greater success in alle- and partnerships for activities which viating the impacts of threats by further its mission (COCEEC 2002). working collaboratively with a The goal of NPCA’s Glacier Field broad range of stakeholders to Office is to build grassroots communi- establish and achieve common ty support for park conservation goals. A stakeholder is defined as among diverse interests in the

46 The George Wright FORUM Waterton–Glacier region (NPCA making decisions. Such integration 2002a). A collaborative organization can be accomplished using an AEM whose geographic domain includes approach that incorporates the six the CCE is the Yellowstone to Yukon principles proposed here. Conservation Initiative. The goal of this initiative is to ensure that the Designing and Evaluating region’s rich and diverse wilderness, Management Actions wildlife, native plants, and natural Well-designed management actions processes continue to function as an can alleviate one or more threats to the interconnected web of life, capable of peace park. Management actions are supporting all the natural and human discussed first for external threats and communities within it for present and impacts, and then for internal ones. future generations (Yellowstone to Park management actions aimed at Yukon Conservation Initiative 2003). reducing one external threat or impact Transboundary cooperation be- can influence another such threat or tween parks is especially important impact, as well as social, economic, when the political jurisdictions have and ecological values. For example, a conflicting natural resource manage- management action that bans clearcut ment policies. For example, hunting logging in national forests in the CCE for gray wolf is not permitted in the might not only increase the movement United States portion of the CCE of wide-ranging species across their because the wolf is a protected home range, but also improve habitat species. Hunting for wolf is permitted for endangered fish species outside across the border in Alberta, Canada. the park by reducing sediment deliv- Such divergent policies can slow the ery to streams. Banning clearcuts is recovery of gray wolves in the United likely to have a negative impact on States. regional income and employment in 6. Success in alleviating threats to gateway communities if it is more prof- protected areas is increased by inte- itable than other forms of logging and grating knowledge about (a) cultur- the ban causes some timber operations al, social, economic and ecological to shift to areas outside the CCE that values; (b) institutional arrange- allow clearcutting. Any reduction in ments influencing management and regional income and employment operations; and (c) state-of-the-art attributable to a management action is decision-making approaches. Com- a social cost and needs to be weighed plex dynamic processes operating in against the fish and wildlife benefits of natural resource-based protected areas the ban. such as the peace park makes these Similarly, management actions to areas difficult and challenging to man- reduce internal threats are likely to age. In order to alleviate threats to the generate benefits and costs in the peace park and other protected areas, regional economy. For example, a managers need to continually develop management action that reduces con- and evaluate management actions that gestion in park campgrounds and harmonize multiple social, economic, roads by limiting the number of vehi- and ecological values. This requires cles admitted to the park would integration of knowledge about the improve the quality of visitor experi- multiple values of the park, the institu- ences (internal benefit), but reduce tional setting in which resource man- gate receipts (internal cost) and agement and other decisions are decrease regional income and employ- made, and various approaches for ment in gateway communities (exter-

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 47 nal cost). Decreases in regional sonable to expect that disallowing income and employment have adverse clearcut logging in national forests in economic consequences on gateway the CCE would benefit large carni- communities. Other examples of man- vores because they are area- and edge- agement actions aimed at reducing sensitive species. However, this benefit internal threats to the peace park that could be partially offset by other fac- have external impacts are reconstruct- tors that influence carnivore popula- ing Going-to-the-Sun Road and revis- tions, such as food supply, natural dis- ing the commercial services plan for asters, weather, and climate change. Glacier National Park. Both actions Not only are ecological effects of log- ultimately improve the quality of visi- ging methods and climate change con- tor services, but have potentially sig- founded and hence difficult to sepa- nificant economic impacts on gateway rate, but logging releases carbon to the communities. atmosphere, which contributes to cli- The preceding discussion illus- mate change. trates the advantages of evaluating management actions for the peace Implementing AEM park using an AEM approach. Such an The Crown of the Continent approach requires protected area Managers Partnership (CMP) is a managers to consider the long-term group of public and land resource impacts of management actions on the management agencies in the CCE CCE, in which the park resides. EM whose goal is to develop “manage- requires managers to consider how a ment tools, data management and sci- ban on clearcut logging affects not ence (research/inventory/monitoring) only wildlife species that have a signif- at the ecosystem scale in cooperation icant portion of their home range in with academic institutions” (CMP the park, but also water quality in 2002). To illustrate how adaptive streams outside the park and income ecosystem management might work in and employment in gateway commu- the CCE, let us suppose CMP were to nities. Ecological and economic be given the authority and responsibil- impacts to the greater ecosystem are ity to implement it, and in response just as important to consider as those created an adaptive management within the arbitrarily defined bound- working group (AMWG) for the pur- aries of the park. Evaluating manage- pose of developing management ment actions in a long time-frame is actions to alleviate threats to and just as important to AEM as taking a impacts on the peace park, based on regional perspective. Hence, the long- the six principles listed in Table 2. term social, economic, and ecological Membership in the AMWG would trade-offs involved in, say, replacing best be determined based on the crite- clearcut logging (even-aged manage- ria of inclusivity, self-selection, and ment) with selective cutting (uneven- diversity of representation. Inclusivity aged management) or reconstructing means that all interested stakeholders Going-to-the-Sun Road using the or their representatives would be invit- quickest, lowest-cost alternative rather ed to participate in the AMWG. Being than longest, highest-cost alternative inclusive helps “people with different need to be considered. views recognize and understand their AEM recognizes the uncertainty common interest in working together” regarding the social, economic, and (Meffe et al. 2002). Self-selection ecological consequences of manage- means AMWG members would be ment actions. For example, it is rea- free to choose how involved they

48 The George Wright FORUM Table 2. Principles for designing management actions to alleviate threats to protected areas Principle Management Implication Wide-ranging threats/impacts cannot be Alleviating multiple threats or problems requires a alleviated with a single management action. suite of well-designed and coordinated management actions. It is easier to alleviate internal threats than Alleviating external threats is likely to require more external threats. planning and engagement with stakeholders than alleviating internal threats. In dealing with external threats, planners and managers should focus on those posing significant risks to ecological integrity. Formulating and evaluating management An AEM approach requires integrating scientific- actions in an AEM framework accounts for based ecological knowledge and socioeconomic interdependencies among social, economic, perspectives and values in a collaborative decision- and ecological values. making framework designed to enhance long-term sustainability of natural and cultural resources. Adaptive management allows managers to Adaptive management requires more planning, handle uncertainty regarding the likely research, and coordination than traditional impacts of alternative management actions on management approaches. social, economic, and ecological values. Managers are likely to have greater success in Collaboration requires managers to interact with alleviating the impacts of threats by working stakeholders in a more comprehensive and collaboratively with a broad range of interactive way than traditional top-down stakeholders to establish and achieve management. common goals. Success in alleviating threats is increased by AEM is a suitable integrating framework that allows integrating knowledge about: (a) cultural, consideration of these elements. social, economic, and ecological values; (b) institutional arrangements influencing management and operations; and (c) state-of- the-art decision-making approaches, concepts, and methods. become in particular issues. The opers, community planners, environ- degree of stakeholder involvement in mental groups, and other stakehold- an issue depends on how that issue ers. affects each stakeholder and the man- The primary objectives of the ner in which the AMWG would AMWG would be to: (a) identify address the issue. In other words, desirable outcomes for the ecosystem AMWG members would not be equal- and management actions for achieving ly interested in all threats and impacts. them; (b) compare the social, econom- Diversity of representation requires ic, and ecological consequences of that AMWG members would have to management actions using AEM; and reflect a broad spectrum of interests (c) select preferred management and concerns. Meffe and co-workers actions. An AMWG should identify (2002) provide an excellent treatment management actions that are likely to of successful community-based con- provide sustainable and efficient servation based on these and other social, economic, and ecological out- principles. Based on these criteria, comes (Prato 2003). For instance, a members of the AMWG would likely desirable ecological outcome for car- include scientists, private landowners, nivores is to have sufficient habitat to First Nations, businesspersons, devel- sustain viable populations, especially

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 49 for threatened and endangered carni- attributes of the actions being consid- vores that have a portion of their home ered. Not all stakeholders will attach range in the peace park. the same relative importance to attrib- One of the principles discussed utes. The ranking of management earlier is that wide-ranging threats and actions according to stakeholders’ impacts cannot be alleviated with a preferences requires: (a) calculating single management action. Neither stakeholders’ utility scores for man- can desirable outcomes be achieved agement actions using a simple addi- with one management action. This tive utility function that combines the does not mean that a single manage- values of attributes for management ment action influences only a single actions and the relative importance threat or impact. For instance, buying (weights) of attributes, (b) ranking conservation easements on ranchland management actions based on those might not only alleviate adverse eco- scores, and (c) resolving stakeholder logical impacts of landscape fragmen- disagreements about preferences for tation, but also improve movement of management actions using group deci- carnivores and water quality (ranches sion-making techniques. generate less sediment and chemical- Suppose an AMWG is able to dis- laden runoff than built-up areas) and tinguish between management actions reduce losses in native vegetation. (or elements of them) that have rela- An AMWG should identify alternatively certain outcomes, and those that tive management actions to alleviate have relatively uncertain outcomes in threats and impacts. Management terms of alleviating the threats to and actions that provide desirable out- impacts on the peace park and CCE. comes can be compared and ranked Management actions with relatively using a multiple-attribute decision- certain outcomes should be addressed making approach (Prato 2003). For using passive AM, and, if feasible, instance, appropriate social, econom- management actions with uncertain ic, and ecological attributes for man- outcomes should be addressed using agement actions designed to alleviate active AM. adverse impacts of landscape fragmen- Two hypothetical management tation on carnivore populations are: actions may be used to illustrate (a) local and regional income and implementation of passive and active employment, (b) landscape patterns AM. The first is a ban on sightseeing that enhance habitat suitability for car- air tours in the peace park. This action nivores, (c) movement of carnivores, would eliminate the visual and audito- and (d) water quality. Impacts on ry disturbances caused by these tours, income and employment can be esti- the option of seeing the park from the mated using the IMPLAN model air, and the income and employment (Lindall and Olson 1993). Other man- generated by air tours. While there is agement actions that an AMWG might some uncertainty regarding the extent consider are land donations, land pur- to which banning sightseeing air tours chases, cooperation with land trusts, would enhance the experiences of on- land exchanges, zoning. and so on the-ground visitors, most elements of (Brown 1999). this management action have relatively Selecting preferred management certain outcomes. Hence, an AMWG actions using multiple-attribute evalu- should evaluate the elimination of ation requires knowledge of the rela- sightseeing air tours and similar man- tive importance to stakeholders of the agement actions using passive AM. social, economic, and ecological The second management action is

50 The George Wright FORUM to have a land trust buy conservation comes are evaluated using passive AM easements on working farms and and, if feasible, elements of manage- ranches in the vicinity of the peace ment actions having uncertain out- park in an effort to reduce further comes are evaluated using active AM. landscape fragmentation. Uncertainty AEM is best implemented by a work- regarding this management action ing group of stakeholders that is con- stems from two sources: whether the stituted based on inclusivity,self-selec- location and spatial extent of ease- tion, and diversity of representation of ments will be sufficient to reduce land- stakeholders. scape fragmentation, and whether the Application of AEM is challenging likely reductions in landscape frag- because it requires: (a) specification of mentation will significantly improve the number and scale of experimental wildlife habitat. Due to these uncer- units (in the case of active AM); (b) tainties, an AMWG should evaluate spatial replication of certain manage- conservation easements and similar ment actions, which may not be possi- management actions using active AM. ble when larger-scale environmental processes, such as climate change, Conclusions affect localized experimental respons- Multiple internal and external es; (c) accounting for complex tran- threats to protected areas can be allevi- sient responses (delays, sharp increas- ated using an AEM approach based on es followed by slow decline, cycles, the six general principles enunciated etc.); and (d) the presence of stake- here. AEM establishes desired out- holders who are willing to accept comes or future conditions for a pro- experiments that could yield unac- tected area ecosystem, and ranks effi- ceptable social and economic out- cient and sustainable management comes (Walters and Holling 1990). actions for achieving those outcomes Despite these challenges, AEM holds based on stakeholders’ expressed pref- promise for alleviating internal and erences for the multiple attributes of external threats to protected areas in actions. Elements of management general and the Waterton–Glacier actions having relatively certain out- International Peace Park in particular. References CMP [Crown of the Continent Managers Partnership]. 2002. Unpublished concept paper. COCEEC [Crown of the Continent Ecosystem Education Consortium]. 2002. On-line at http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/coceec/default.htm. (Accessed 3 December 2002.) Dilsaver, L.M., ed. 1994. America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Flathead Basin Commission. 2001. Land use trends. On-line at www. montanaweb.com/fbc/trends.htm. (Accessed 19 November 2002.) Franklin, J.F. 1997. Ecosystem management: an overview. In Ecosystem Management: Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. M.S. Boyce and A. Haney, eds. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 21–53. Halbert, C. 1993. How adaptive is adaptive management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia. Reviews in Fisheries Science 1, 261–263. Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester, U.K.; John Wiley & Sons. Hilborn, R. 1992. Can fisheries agencies learn from experience? Fisheries 17, 6–14. Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54, 157–211. Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment.Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Lindall, S., and D. Olson. 1993. MICRO IMPLAN 1990/1985 Database Documentation. St. Paul: Minnesota IMPLAN Group.

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 51 Meffe, G.K., L.A. Nielsen, R.L. Knight, and D.A. Schenborn. 2002. Ecosystem Management: Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation.Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Montana’s Flathead Valley. 2001. On-line at www. fcvb.org/. (Accessed 19 November 2002.) NPCA [National Parks Conservation Association]. 2002a. Across the nation. On-line at www.npca.org/across_the_nation/npca_in_the_field/northern_rockies/northern_rockies.asp. (Accessed 3 December 2002.) ———. 2002b. State of the parks, a resource assessment: Waterton–Glacier International Peace Park. On- line at www.npca.org/across_the_nation/park_pulse/glacier/glacier.pdf. (Accessed 19 November 2002.) Prato, T.In press. Adaptive management of large rivers with special reference to the Missouri River. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. ———. 2003. Multiple attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River. Ecological Economics 45, 297–309. Schowalter, T.,E. Hansen, R. Molina, and Y.Zhang. 1997. Integrating the ecological roles of phytophagous insects, plant pathogens, and mycorrhizae in managed forests. In Creating Forestry for the 21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management. K.A. Kohm and J.F. Franklin, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 171–189. Thomas, J.W. 1997. Foreword. In Creating Forestry for the 21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management. K.A. Kohm and J.F. Franklin, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, ix–xii. Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York: Macmillan. Walters, C.J., and R. Hilborn. 1978. Ecological optimization and adaptive management. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9, 157–188. Walters, C.J., and C.S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71, 2060–2068. Waterton Lakes National Park Resource Guide. 2002. On-line at www.watertonpark.com/reference/spe- cial_status.htm. (Accessed 19 November 2002.) Wilhere, G.F. 2002. Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conservation Biology 16, 20–29. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. 2003. On-line at www.y2y.net. Tony Prato, 130 Mumford Hall, University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 65211; [email protected] 3

52 The George Wright FORUM Joanna Kafarowski How Attitudes and Values Shape Access to National Parks

Introduction his article investigates how dominant Western societal attitudes and values have shaped access to national parks both historically and currently. Parks and protected areas are powerful cultural and spiritual icons epitomizing Western ideals of freedom and independence for many North Americans (McNamee 1993; Primm and Clark 1996). TEcological integrity provides a sound foundation upon which parks are established. Recreationists participate in a diverse range of leisure activities in parks, partly because of access to the ecological richness that parks provide. These images of ecosystem health coupled with visitor satisfaction are perpetuated by park agencies keen to engender public support. However, this view of national parks does not mirror reality. National park agencies worldwide humans, originated in Mesopotamia in have responded to Western societal 1500 BC (Bailey 1978). Spiritual val- beliefs and values in the development ues, based on the need to connect the of park policies and programs. Over individual with the divine, shaped the time, and in response to these shifting creation of these earliest parks. The values, park agencies have expropriat- Kirishnauru or, “The Park in the ed local peoples, uprooted communi- Centre of the City,” was a 600x1500- ties, and inflicted significant socioeco- foot natural area connected to a temple nomic damage (Berg et al. 1993; complex that was established and Stevens 1997; Straede and Helles used for rituals. Parks in ancient China 2000). User fees have been instituted were created to serve similar purposes. restricting the access of low-income Henneberger (1996) writes: and other visitors. The physically challenged are subject to unique con- The large ‘Numinous Preserves’ of straints that limit participation in park the Han were thought of as micro- activities (Henderson 1991). The representative of the Chinese cos- income level, gender, and physical mic order. These ‘parks as empire’ ability of park users is rarely taken into stemmed from the prototypical consideration by park planners (Kraus divine parks of the mythical 1987; Toth and Brown 1997). This Golden Age that held symbolic article explores how access to national meaning for the Chinese in their parks has been shaped by prevailing control over nature. They were Western attitudes and values. practical, earthly paradises where sacrifices to the gods were per- Attitudes and Values that formed to assure an orderly world Shaped Access to Parks (p. 128). The concept of a park, as a natural area delineated and controlled by The creation of these parks for reli-

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 53 gious purposes reflected the values of ed natural space and all of the ele- these early societies. Access to the ear- ments contained within it. For the liest “parks” was closely linked to the majority of British society, game spiritual values of the ruling class. reserves were a place where subsis- While ostensibly accessible to pil- tence activities could be conducted. grims, the Kirishnauru were designed Those who transgressed these and maintained by holy men for their metaphorical and physical boundaries own activities. These “parks” were were not only guilty of trespassing on established as bounded natural spaces private property,but, more significant- set apart from other areas. Designed as ly, of flouting societal attitudes and val- sanctuaries, these “parks” reinforced ues. the spiritual priorities of the religious The later development of the mid- ruling elite. dle classes and shifts in attitudes Cultural attitudes towards nature towards recreational and social pur- later shifted and nature, for its own suits stimulated the establishment of sake, became an integral aspect of the “landscape park” of country parks. In Egypt and Persia, rulers built homes and towns. Landscape parks, garden reserves for the purposes of designed for the edification and hunting, fishing, and achieving delight of residents and visitors, were enlightenment. These reserves also incorporated into English and French acted as a repository for exotic animals towns and cities in the 18th century brought to the monarch as spoils of (Malcolmson 1973; Nelson 1993). war (Henneberger 1996). The utilitar- These parks were more accessible to ian value of parks, provided primarily all members of society than were the through the usage of wildlife, gained in earlier game reserves (Chadwick significance, although spiritual values 1966). were still important (Nelson 1993). In moving from private to public With these prevailing attitudes, parks space, parks in towns theoretically were accessed only by people of dis- became more accessible to a greater tinction in society. number of citizens. Public gardens In Britain, game reserves and parks and boulevards were established to established by royal charter proliferat- allow promenading residents the ed throughout the medieval period opportunity of putting themselves on and emphasized the concept of park as display (Chadwick 1966; Thomas playground. Most of these parks were 1983). Colorful and artfully designed enclosed areas used for hunting by botanical gardens were a dominant royalty and members of the landed element of these early parks, but clear- gentry (Cantor and Hatherley 1979; ly their primary function was sociocul- Henneberger 1996). Access to game tural. These gardens represented pub- reserves was granted by invitation only lic space, but the upper classes and extended to the favored few. claimed the space as their own. Illegal entry to these reserves by mem- Although few regulations applied, bers of the lower classes was subject to restrictions on access to these areas strict punishment. Poachers caught were imposed by the prevailing moral snaring rabbits in the game reserve code. Dress and deportment were served as a rude intrusion on the tran- monitored informally by visitors and quil world of a country gentleman those not adhering to this moral code (Lawrence 1991). These game could be encouraged to leave (Taylor reserves were pleasure-grounds for the 1999). gentry who controlled and manipulat-

54 The George Wright FORUM Values in the “New World” the exploitation of natural resources When Europeans immigrated to (Hendee et al. 1978; Nash 1982). In the United States in the late 17th and securing their claim on the land, these 18th centuries, many brought with settlers also sought to deny access to them the attitudes and values of a “civ- the original aboriginal inhabitants. ilized” society (Nash 1982). Although Prevailing attitudes in the domi- some people settled in established nant society towards the landscape towns such as Boston and New York, continued to shift. In immigrating to most pioneers in the “New World” the United States, settlers sacrificed were confronted with an unfamiliar security and familiarity as well as a and harsh environment (Nash 1982). direct connection to their culture. Survival was seen to be dependent Once the land was “conquered,” set- upon asserting control over the ele- tlers wished to preserve the scenic vis- ments of nature (Dillard 1993). tas of the “New World” that reminded The mistrust of the hostile land- them of the grandeur of Europe (Nash scape experienced by these pioneers 1982). was also manifested through a fear of The Romantic period in 18th-cen- aboriginal peoples. According to tury Europe was significant in influ- Hendee et al. (1978): “Clearly, the encing attitudes towards nature. wilderness was a barrier. It hindered According to the works of Jean- movement, it harbored Indians, and it Jacques Rousseau, cultures previously frequently possessed little that could deemed primitive and untamed were help settlers prosper” (p. 356). The idealized and wilderness was repre- unfamiliar customs, appearance, and sented as paradise on Earth. In the sense of oneness with the wilderness early 1830s, American artist George displayed by aboriginal peoples were Catlin depicted aboriginal peoples as foreign to the settlers. The attitudes “noble savages” driven from their and values of the European settlers homelands by white conquerors. towards the “New World” did not Catlin asserted that aboriginal peoples embrace the value systems of aborigi- should remain on their traditional nal peoples. lands and argued that the cultures of The pioneering desire of the set- aboriginal peoples were under attack tlers to modify the landscape was dis- (Hendee et al; 1978; Berg et al. 1993). played through the exploitation of nat- Catlin advocated for the creation of a ural resources and by driving aborigi- park where both natural elements and nal peoples from their traditional human beings were present. lands. Inherent in the settlers’ goal to By the 19th century, urbanization establish new colonies and vanquish within American towns was becoming the wilderness was the attitude that more prevalent and planners incorpo- the land belonged to them. By staking rated natural elements such as green a claim and working the land, the set- squares and tree-lined streets in tlers believed that the land was right- towns. The landscape designer fully theirs. In reality, the “New Frederick Law Olmsted sought to World” that the settlers set out to con- encourage residents to engage with quer was new only to them. natural settings (Taylor 1999). As the Many early pioneering settlements originator of the greenbelt concept, in the United States were carved out of Olmsted’s ideas were instrumental in the wilderness. Access to the land was introducing natural elements into gained through conquering nature urban areas throughout North and this was accomplished through America (Stormann 1991). According

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 55 to Rybczynski (1995), “This natural- of the untamed wilderness, ization of the city represents an uncon- already in submission to the ax, scious move away from Europe and the railroads and the last cam- toward the American Indian urban paign against the Indians (p. 113). model, in which architecture was sub- ordinated to the landscape” (p. 52). Attitudes and Values that This shift in societal attitudes Shaped the Creation of North towards nature was also evident in American National Parks contemporary literature. The works of In response to vigorous lobbying American Transcendentalists, includ- by John Muir and public support for ing Emerson, Thoreau, and Fuller, parks, in 1864, Yosemite was designat- extolled the spiritual wonder and ed as the first public park in the delight to be found in natural spaces. United States. Since Yosemite was Writing in the mid- to late 19th centu- deeded to the state of California, ry, they celebrated the beauty of natu- Yellowstone, designated in 1872, is ral environments and portrayed considered to be the world’s first humans as insignificant beings national park (Stevens 1997). (Thoreau 1966; Emerson 1982; The creation of Yellowstone Fuller 1982). Nature was still heralded National Park reinforced societal as a haven for those seeking spiritual beliefs that the protection of outstand- fulfillment, but greater emphasis was ing natural landscapes was of public placed on the wilderness as a sanctu- benefit. However, the creation of ary for all individuals rather than sole- Yellowstone also reinforced the con- ly for the upper classes. cept that parks possessed practical The publication of Man and value (Sax 1998). According to Glick Nature: or, Physical Geography as and Alexander (2000): “From its Modified by Human Action in 1864 by inception, Yellowstone National Park George Perkins Marsh detailed how has been viewed as a treasure trove of humans negatively affected the natural natural wonders on the one hand, and environment and helped to marshal as a cash cow on the other” (p. 185). public support for the park ideal. The Created as a public park, Yellow- works of the Transcendentalists and stone was accessible to all citizens. others such as Marsh heavily influ- However, due to the constraints enced the activist John Muir. Muir imposed by a lack of transportation founded the Sierra Club and became infrastructure, lack of leisure time, and one of the most powerful and outspo- high traveling costs, physical accessi- ken advocates for protected areas in bility to the park was limited. The the United States. Muir’s works are Northern Pacific Railroad became the permeated with a sense of wonder and principal means of accessing Yellow- galvanized American society upon stone and other parks (Glick and publication (Hendee et al. 1978). Alexander 2000). Sax (1998) states: In Canada, the origins of the national park system were also related Proposals to preserve scenic to the conservation of natural features places followed a period of roman- and economic benefits (McNamee tic idealism that had swept the 1993; Carter-Edwards 1998). In country—the religious naturalism 1885, Banff was established as a of Thoreau and Emerson, romanti- national park. In 1887, park bound- cism in the arts and early nostal- aries were expanded and Banff gia for what was obviously the end became known as Rocky Mountain

56 The George Wright FORUM Park. Although Prime Minister John area for generations before park A. MacDonald supported the concept boundaries were imposed (Berg et al. of protection, he was first and fore- 1993). One example of the spurious most a pragmatist. He stated: “The treatment of aboriginal peoples by the Government thought it was of great National Park Service is the case of the importance that all this section of Havasupai people in Northern country should be brought at once Arizona. Living in the Grand Canyon into usefulness”(Brown 1969:49). area from at least the 12th century, the Canada’s early national parks, includ- Havusupai way of life was based on ing Banff, focused on attracting farming, hunting, and gathering. wealthy visitors as well as protecting Summers were spent in watered areas natural features. Access to Banff was below the rim of the canyon and win- provided through the establishment of ters were spent on the plateau (White a railway system. However, for the 1993). The traditional territory of the average citizen, the costs of traveling to Havasupai extended from the south Banff were still prohibitive and it is rim of the Grand Canyon to Flagstaff, likely that most early visitors to both Arizona. In 1882, at the behest of the Banff and Yellowstone national parks United States government, the were members of the upper classes. Havasupai people were confined to a Early national parks in North reservation in the village of Supai only America reflected 19th-century socie- 518 acres in size. Prior to 1882, the tal beliefs that parks were valuable Havasupai used the village of Supai as because they protected outstanding only one of several summer farming natural features and generated income. areas. White (1993) states: However, these parks also reflected earlier ambivalent attitudes towards Confinement to such a small area local aboriginal peoples. According to and exclusion from the area that Achana and O’Leary (2000): became the Grand Canyon National Park led to a tense rela- The Yellowstone model of national tionship between the Havasupai parks that views parks essentially tribe and the National Park as instruments of conservation Service.... The confinement also with minimal human involvement eliminated many of the Hava- has not been enthusiastically supai’s traditional activities, which embraced by adjacent local com- over the past century has taken its munities. Tensions that originate toll socially, culturally and econom- from the adoption of some exclu- ically (p. 341). sionary natural science-based park management policies are Contemporary Attitudes and translated in local communities as Values Shaping Access to Parks a failure to address their trans- Access and local peoples: the boundary concerns (p. 75). Canadian context. As indicated, some national parks have been estab- In the late 1800s, these exclusion- lished on lands traditionally inhabited ary policies (based on Western ideals by aboriginal peoples, and in several of protection) extended to evicting cases these peoples have been forcibly aboriginal peoples from their commu- removed and their access to tradition- nities within areas proposed as national activities and resources denied al parks. This policy was enforced (Hodgins and Cannon 1998). In even if these peoples had lived in the Canada, it was government policy to

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 57 expropriate local residents (aboriginal owner is willing to sell the land to the and non-aboriginal) and dissolve com- government. In addition, traditional munities located within the bound- activities and uses of the park by abo- aries of proposed national parks. For riginal peoples are allowed upon the example, more than 200 families were negotiation and/or settlement of land expropriated to create Forillon claim agreements. This is most preva- National Park in Quebec and 1,200 lent in Canadian national parks in the residents were removed from their North, including Vuntut and Ivvavik land in the establishment of national parks. Kouchibouguac National Park in New Access and local peoples: the Brunswick (McNamee 1993). international context. Lusigi (1981) According to McNamee (1993), contends that national parks are a “Until the 1960’s, there was little mass Western idea introduced to develop- resistance to expropriation for nation- ing countries by colonial powers and al parks or other purposes. However, implemented under pressure from society began to reassess its relation- international conservation organiza- ship with those elements that exer- tions. Not surprisingly, relationships cised authority over daily life. This between national parks and local resi- manifested itself in mass resistance by dents in developing countries are typ- the residents affected by government ified by conflict (Hough 1988; plans to establish Kouchibouguac Glavovic 1996; Straede and Helles National Park” (p. 27). As a result of 2000). While the goal of conservation the organized public outcry, an of natural resources is laudable, the inquiry was launched into the expro- process of evicting local peoples from priations at Kouchibouguac. This within park boundaries and otherwise inquiry condemned the governmental marginalizing local communities has practice of expropriations of local peo- had adverse socioeconomic impacts ples for the purposes of national park for both the community and the park establishment. Following the inquiry, agency (Hough 1988; Stevens 1997). the government modified its practice The concept of strict protection of removing local peoples before the causes particular challenges in devel- establishment of a national park. oping countries which may be ill-suit- This revised policy was evident in ed to cope with and manage monitor- the process leading up to the estab- ing and enforcement of park legisla- lishment of Gros Morne National tion. Negative consequences for local Park, Newfoundland. In 1970, the communities include the restriction of Family Homes Expropriation Act was access to traditional resources, the dis- passed by the Newfoundland legisla- ruption of local cultures and ture and stipulated that none of the economies by tourists, increased 125 families affected by the park depredations on crops and livestock would be forced to move. Today,seven by wild animals, and the displacement communities are contained within the of peoples from their traditional lands boundaries of Gros Morne National (Lusigi 1981). Park (McNamee 1993). The federal Conflict may result in resentment government also amended its policy in towards park staff, leading to vandal- 1979 to prohibit the expropriation of ism in the park itself, continued har- private landowners in areas where it vesting of natural resources, and other wants to establish new national parks. violations of park policies (Hough Private land can now only be acquired 1988; Nepal and Weber 1994). Many for the establishment of parks if the national parks in developing countries

58 The George Wright FORUM are established in areas where commu- lands” (p. 5). It raises fundamental nities are heavily reliant on local questions regarding which among a resource use. As the human popula- country’s resources should be provid- tions in these areas increases, so too ed free of charge and to whom parks does the pressure to utilize natural belong. Laarman and Gregersen resources. Park policies prohibiting (1996) state: traditional activities and restricting access to local peoples results in sig- In many settings, access to public nificant hardships for these communi- wildlands has been everyone’s ties. Thus, it is likely that these repres- right, particularly for dispersed sive policies will be violated. Conflict uses of lands not privately between parks and local peoples due claimed. If the use of public lands to restricted access and other factors is is everyone’s right, then is it justifi- recognized as an on-going challenge in able for a government to deny developing countries (Nepal and access to individuals who cannot Weber 1994; Glavovic 1996). or will not pay a fee? (p. 252). Access and affluence. In the 1990s, the national park systems in Arguments supporting the imposi- North America began implementing tion of user fees fall into one of three economic policies that dramatically categories: equity, revenue generation, affected the accessibility of parks for and efficiency.Parks Canada and other all visitors. Primarily due to an eco- agencies uphold the imposition of nomic recession and the failure of user fees on the grounds that they pro- both national governments to ade- mote social equity (Leclerc 1994; quately fund parks, park agencies Miller 1998). Parks provide services, adopted a multifaceted policy of fiscal such as protecting natural resources restraint. Park agencies adopted a and raising environmental awareness, “corporatist” philosophy based on for all citizens. However, parks also demonstrating fiscal responsibility. As provide services that only benefit park private and public sectors struggled to visitors. According to Parks Canada, adapt to a changing economic milieu, user fees promote equity by shifting the boundaries between these two sec- the burden of financing these activities tors began to blur (Thurston and from taxpayers in general to those who Richardson 1996). Government agen- benefit directly (Leclerc 1994). cies, including Parks Canada and the Additionally, proponents of the user National Park Service in the United fee system assert that user fees recover States, began incorporating competi- costs and provide revenue to improve tive business practices that had previ- overall park services during periods of ously been relegated to the private sec- economic restraint (More 1999). tor (Johnson and McLean 1996). Lastly, user fees enable recreation One option implemented by resources to be allocated more effi- national park agencies was to impose ciently through shifting use between or increase user fees. Charging a user sites and so avoiding user conflicts to fee to enter and/or access park servic- some degree. es evokes a powerful response in the Park user fees discriminate against general public (Aspinall 1964; Lowry those individuals with lower incomes, 1993; Miller 1998). According to since fees constitute an obstacle to More and Stevens (2000): “Few recre- park access (Leclerc 1994; Scott and ation issues are as controversial as Munson 1994). Some park profes- imposing fees for the use of public sionals believe that people with low

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 59 incomes have a greater need for gov- ingly confronted with a diverse clien- ernment park and recreational services tele as a result of shifting demograph- (Taylor 1999; More and Stevens ics and changing societal attitudes. 2000). Constraints on park visitation According to Waldichuk (1989): for those with low incomes include “Planning for the physically chal- distance from parks and limited access lenged is a very new concept. Only in to transportation, fear of crime, and recent years have actions been taken to poor health. Income is the single most allow physically challenged persons to significant constraint to park visitation participate in society both socially and (Scott and Munson 1994). Some who physically” (p. 107). favor user fees state that lower-income Today, there is a rise in the number individuals are already priced out by of active, physically challenged indi- high travel and recreation equipment viduals in society. For example, in the costs and that resource-based recre- United States, approximately 42% of ation ranks relatively low among the the population would benefit from priorities of lower-income individuals services and facilities provided for (More and Stevens 2000). those with physical impairments (Park According to Laarman and 1985). These individuals are increas- Gregersen (1996), a flexible system of ingly vocal and organized politically. different user fees can be instituted Advocates have been successful in lob- that is tailored to fit each situation. For bying for the rights of the physically example, general fees can be main- challenged. In the United States, the tained at a low level to ensure that no rights of the disabled are now guaran- visitor is turned away and individual teed due to recent legislation. In 1990, services and facilities can be priced at the Americans with Disabilities Act cost. However, this system poses con- stipulated that people with disabilities siderable operational challenges. must be allowed to participate in all Access and the physically chal- aspects of life, including employment, lenged. Physically challenged individ- transportation, communication, pub- uals face barriers related to access to lic services, and accommodation. parks—barriers that are both physical Physically challenged persons cannot and metaphorical (Potter 1989). be discriminated against or treated Physical barriers include uneven ter- separately due to their disability rain and steep slopes throughout the (Porter 1994). This act has had signif- park, as well as trails unsuitable for icant ramifications within the National wheelchairs, limited wheelchair acces- Park Service regarding park programs sibility to park facilities, signage that is and facilities. Strict compliance and not interpreted into Braille, and lack of monitoring systems within the hearing devices for the hearing National Park Service ensure that the impaired (Waldichuk 1989). Physi- act is adhered to (Stensrud 1993; Lose cally challenged visitors may also be 2002). constrained by the attitudes of park Despite this legislation, providing planners who may design parks and specialized park access to the physi- park services with the young and able- cally challenged remains a contentious bodied park visitor in mind. issue. Park advocates argue that In recent decades, greater emphasis increased accessibility for the physi- on recreation and leisure planning for cally challenged impacts negatively on the physically challenged has a park’s natural resources, while advo- occurred. Burdge (1996) states that cates for the physically challenged natural resource agencies are increas- assert that accessibility for visitors is of

60 The George Wright FORUM greater or equal priority as conserva- income visitors, and the physically tion. It is unlikely that this debate will challenged. be easily or quickly resolved due to the This examination has focused pri- conflict between values and diverse marily on how attitudes and values attitudes towards park accessibility. shape physical accessibility to national parks. However, as Lindsey et al. Conclusion (2001) state: “Theorists have This article has explored how observed that the degree to which Western societal attitudes and values facilities such as parks truly are public have shaped access to national parks. and accessible depends on metaphori- In adopting a chronological approach, cal as well as physical boundaries” (p. I have demonstrated how access to 332). Further research into how socie- parks has been controlled by powerful tal values and attitudes shape groups representing the dominant metaphorical access to national parks value system. These groups estab- would likely yield interesting results. lished park boundaries and deter- Other questions relating to access to mined how the park would be used parks remain to be answered: How and which individuals could have does accessibility to national parks access to the park. Historically, these vary over the life span of a park visitor? “gatekeepers” emerged from religious How have values and attitudes shaped orders, the monarchy, and the gentry. access to provincial/territorial parks or In the United States, “gatekeeping” parks at other levels? How can “equi- responsibilities later devolved upon table” access to parks be defined and early settlers, whose concept of the achieved? Does the fact that attitudes natural landscape excluded aboriginal and values shape access to national peoples. During the 20th and, now, parks affect the park itself? Ultimately, the 21st centuries, national parks have an examination of accessibility to been managed by park agencies. parks must be reconciled with critical Reflecting societal attitudes and val- questions about the meaning and pur- ues, park agencies have constrained pose of parks in contemporary society. the access of local peoples, low- References Achana, F., and J. O’Leary. 2000. The transboundary relationship between national parks and adjacent communities. In National Parks and Rural Development: Practice and Policy in the United States. G. Machlis and D. Field, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 68–87. Aspinall, W. 1964. Should the outdoors be free? American Forests (April), 832–859. Bailey, P. 1978. Leisure and Class in Victorian England: Rational Recreation and the Contest for Control. London: Kegan Paul. Berg, L., T.Fenge, and P.Dearden. 1993. The role of aboriginal peoples in national park designation, planning, and management in Canada. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada. P. Dearden and R. Rollins, eds. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 225–256. Burdge, R. 1996. Cultural diversity in natural resource use. Society and Natural Resources 9:1, 1–2. Cantor, L., and J. Hatherley. 1979. The medieval parks of England. Geography 64, 71–85. Carter-Edwards, D. 1998. The history of national parks in Ontario. In Changing Parks. J. Marsh and B. Hodgins, eds. Toronto: Natural Heritage/Natural History, 94–106. Chadwick, G. 1966. The Park and the Town: Public Landscape in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New York: Frederick Praeger. Craig Brown, R. 1969. The doctrine of usefulness: natural resources and national parks policy in Canada, 1887–1914. In Canadian Parks and Perspectives. J. Nelson, ed. Montreal: Harvest House, 46–62. Dillard, A. 1993. The Living. New York: Harper Perennial. Emerson, R. 1982. Selected Essays. New York: Penguin.

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 61 Fuller, M. 1982. Woman in the nineteenth century.In Margaret Fuller: Essays on American Life and Letters. J. Myerson, ed. New York: Scribners, 181–290. Glavovic, B. 1996. Resolving people–park conflicts through negotiation: reflections on the Richtersveld experience. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39:4, 483–506. Glick, D., and Alexander, B. 2000. Development by default, not design: Yellowstone National Park and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. In National Parks and Rural Development: Practice and Policy in the United States. G. Machlis and D. Field, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 182–205. Hendee, J., G. Stankey, and R. Lucas. 1978. Wilderness Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication no. 1365. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office. Henneberger, J. 1996. Transformations in the concept of the park. Trumpeter 13:3, 127–133. Hodgins, B., and K. Cannon. 1998. The aboriginal presence in Ontario parks and other protected places. In Changing Parks. J. Marsh and B. Hodgins, eds. Toronto: Natural Heritage/Natural History, 50–76. Hough, J. 1988. Obstacles to effective management of conflicts between national parks and surrounding human communities in developing countries. Environmental Conservation 15:2, 129–136. Johnson, R., and D. Maclean. 1996. Public sector marketing: improving services or compromising values? Parks and Recreation (May/June), 21–24. Kraus, R. 1987. Serving ethnic minorities: a submerged issue? Parks and Recreation 22:2, 46–50. Laarman, J., and H. Gregersen. 1996. Pricing policy in nature-based tourism. Tourism Management 17:4, 247–254. Lawrence, D.H. 1991. Lady Chatterley’s Lover. London: Penguin. Leclerc, A. 1994. User fees in natural parks—issues and management. Parks 4:2, 2–12. Lindsey, G., M. Maraj, and S. Kuan. 2001. Access, equity and urban greenways: an exploratory investigation. The Professional Geographer 53:3, 332–346. Lose, D. 2002. NRPA works to create access for people with disabilities. Parks and Recreation 37:6, 3–4. Lowry, W. 1993. Land of the fee: entrance fees and the National Park Service. Political Research Quarterly 46:4, 823–845. Lusigi, W. 1981. New approaches to wildlife conservation. Ambio 10:2/3, 87–92. Malcolmson, P.1973. Popular Recreations in English Society, 1700–1850. London: Cambridge University Press. McNamee, K. 1993. From wild places to endangered spaces. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. P. Dearden and R. Rollins, eds. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 17–45. Miller, S. 1998. A walk in the park: fee or free? The George Wright Forum 15:1, 55–63. More, T.1999. A functionalist approach to user fees. Journal of Leisure Research 31:3, 1–14. More, T., and Stevens, T. 2000. Do user fees exclude low-income people from resource-based recreation? Journal of Leisure Research 32:3, 3-15. Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Nelson, J. 1993. Beyond parks and protected areas—from public lands and private stewardship to landscape planning and management. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. P. Dearden and R. Rollins, eds. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 45-56. Nepal, S., and K. Weber. 1994. A buffer zone for biodiversity conservation: viability of the concept in Nepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park. Environmental Conservation 21:4, 333–341. Park, D. 1985. Accessibility for disabled persons in the United States National Park System. Unpublished paper. Washington, D.C.: Special Programs and Populations Branch, National Park Service. Porter, E. 1994. All visitors welcome: accessibility in state park interpretive programs and facilities. Sacramento: Park Services Division, California State Parks. Potter, B. 1989. Transportation to and within the site as a basis for access. In Access Heritage Forum Proceedings. Occasional Paper 10. A. Gilbert, J.G. Nelson, J. Carruthers, and P. O’Neill (eds.). Waterloo, Ont.: Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, 49–72. Primm, S., and T.Clark. 1996. The Greater Yellowstone policy debate: what is the policy problem? Policy Sciences 29, 137–166. Rybczynski, W. 1995. City Life: Urban Expectations in a New World. Toronto: HarperCollins. Sax, J. 1998. Mountains without Handrails: Reflections on the National Parks. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

62 The George Wright FORUM Scott, D., and W.Munson. 1994. Perceived constraints to park usage among individuals with low incomes. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 12:4, 79–96. Stensrud, C. 1993. A Training Manual for Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance in Parks and Recreation Settings. State College, Pa.: Venture Publishing. Stevens, S. 1997. The legacy of Yellowstone. In Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. S. Stevens, ed. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 13–33. Stormann, W. 1991. The ideology of the American urban park movement. Leisure Sciences 13, 137–151. Straede, S., and F. Helles. 2000. Park–people conflict resolution in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal: buying time at high cost? Environmental Conservation 27:4, 368–381. Taylor, D. 1999. Central Park as a model for social control: urban parks, social class and leisure behaviour in nineteenth century America. Journal of Leisure Research 31:4, 1–49. Thomas, K. 1983. Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England, 1500–1800. London: Allen Lane. Thoreau, H. D. 1966. Walden, or Life in the Woods. Mount Vernon, N.Y.: Peter Pauper Press. Thurston, L., and P. Richardson. 1996. Revenue generation—making it pay. Journal of Public Sector Management (spring), 45–53. Toth, J., and R. Brown. 1997. Racial and gender meanings of why people participate in recreational fishing. Leisure Sciences 19, 129–146. Waldichuk, T. 1989. Physically challenged people in heritage areas: The possibility for a more systematic area planning approach. In Access Heritage Forum Proceedings. Occasional Paper 10. A. Gilbert, J.G. Nelson, J. Carruthers, and P. O’Neill (eds.). Waterloo, Ont.: Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, 105–120. White, D. 1993. Tourism as economic development for native people living in the shadow of a protected area: A North American case study. Society and Natural Resources 6, 339–345. Joanna Kafarowski, 429 Berg Road, Gabriola Island, British Columbia V0R 1X2 Canada; [email protected] 3

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 63 Ben A. Minteer Robert E. Manning The Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Conservation

From Uncommon to Common Ground n keeping with the deconstructionist movement that has swept broadly across college and university campuses, substantive changes rippled through the environmental community in the 1990s. Of these, perhaps the most significant was the appearance of a set of high-profile critiques ques- tioning the very foundations of environmental thought and practice from the Ivantage point of the end of the 20th century. Led by William Cronon and his now well-known debunking of the American wilderness idea, these arguments generated more than a few sparks across a wide range of scholarly and professional fields associated with natural resources and the environment (Cronon 1996). Indeed, Cronon’s and others’ work seemed to issue an indirect, yet provocative challenge to scholars and practitioners engaged in the study and management of human–environment relationships. Although the revisionist papers ally lazy in its acquiescence to these appearing in Cronon’s oft-cited col- wrongheaded ideas about our place in lection Uncommon Ground were the world. At worst, it had been moral- focused more on coming to terms with ly irresponsible, especially in its neg- the consequences of the cultural medi- lect of urban and rural conditions and ation of our knowledge of nature and the men and women who toiled in the models of ecological change in post- fields and in the factories away from an war environmentalism, Cronon’s own idyllic and imaginary “pristine” dismantling of the meanings and nature. images associated with the American Cronon’s criticism of the wilder- wilderness idea suggested that the ear- ness concept, and, more generally, the lier conservation movement was also deconstructivist assessment of the implicated in the broader critique. In commitments and strategies of late- particular, Cronon singled out the 20th-century environmentalism, are nature-romanticism of Henry David now part of the conservation canon. Thoreau and John Muir, and the prim- They have been joined by a growing itivism of Frederick Jackson Turner, as and broadly sympathetic literature, examples of how American thinking including further interdisciplinary cri- about wilderness had been saddled tiques of the wilderness idea (Callicott with utopian myths that represented a and Nelson 1998), attempts to demys- flight from lived human history and an tify significant contemporary conser- escape from the hard problems pre- vation concepts such as that of “biodi- sented by modern urban and industri- versity” (Takacs 1996), and projects al life (Cronon 1996). If Cronon was exploring the historically neglected right, it meant that our thinking about dimensions of class, culture, and wilderness had been at best intellectu- authority in the management of parks

64 The George Wright FORUM and wildlife (Warren 1997; Spence environment? How shall we “recon- 1999; Jacoby 2001). For the most struct” conservation? part, we believe this critical turn has provided a useful service. It has, for “Practical Intelligence” and example, exposed the previously unre- “Intelligent Practice” flective presuppositions of contempo- To address this matter, we decided rary environmentalism, holding tradi- to do what academics do best when tional and widely accepted interpreta- faced with an intellectual crisis: we tions of concepts such as wilderness organized a symposium. In this we and biodiversity up to the fire of criti- were also following the model estab- cal scrutiny. Even though the academ- lished by Cronon and his colleagues, ic and popular environmental commu- given that the papers appearing in his nity’s response to Cronon and his fol- Uncommon Ground began their lives lowers has been at times overly defen- in a seminar held at the University of sive and less constructive than we California–Irvine in the early 1990s. might have liked, these critiques have For our project, we wanted to create an nonetheless stimulated an important appropriate forum in which both the and potentially transformative debate scholarly and practitioner communi- about the conceptual foundations of ties could come together and attempt conservation as we move into the first to fill the deconstructionist void. We decades of the 21st century. believed it was important to bring Yet, it is also true that these pene- these two groups into an open dia- trating criticisms of modern American logue with each other, and we hoped environmentalism have issued an that the opportunity for increased traf- undeniable challenge to those who fic between the theory and practice of would defend the “classical” conser- conservation would help achieve a bal- vation tradition—the period running ance of “intelligent practice” and roughly from George Perkins Marsh to “practical intelligence” at the sympo- Aldo Leopold (and perhaps to the sium. publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Our primary task was an ambitious Spring)—as practically viable and one: to assess the meaning and rele- intellectually relevant in the new vance of our conservation inheritance “deconstructivist era.” After all, the in the 21st century, and to chart a mostly unquestioned realism about course for revising the conventional nature during this time and the nas- narratives and accounts of the tradi- cent, “modernist” ecological under- tion so that a “usable past” might be standings of the era’s principal uncovered that could inform present thinkers would seem to make the tra- and future conservation efforts. In the dition a prime candidate for systemat- fall of 2001, then, we organized and ic debunking and demythologizing. held an invited, interdisciplinary sym- Nevertheless, we believed that there posium in Vermont focused on the was still much of value in the tradition, challenges of “reconstructing” conser- even if we also conceded its very real vation thought and practice in the philosophical and scientific limita- wake of the earlier deconstructive tions as a template to guide current efforts. The symposium participants and future conservation thought and were a select group of leading academ- practice. How, we wondered, should ics and professionals nationally and we go about reading the conservation internationally known for their work tradition in this new, highly charged, in conservation scholarship or the and seriously self-conscious academic practice of conservation in local com-

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 65 munities and on the landscape. They • Utility versus aesthetics approached our project’s goals with • Efficiency versus equity great intellectual seriousness and cre- • Nature as construct versus nature as ativity, and their energy held steady essence over the nearly five full days of plena- •Moral pluralism versus moral ries, panels, and roundtable discus- monism sions. This enthusiastic response sug- •Urban/rural environmentalism ver- gested to us that we had managed to sus wilderness environmentalism start a conversation not only com- • Eastern (U.S.) versus western pelling in its conceptual scope and ori- (U.S.) perspectives entation, but also timely in its asking of • Regional focus versus national focus hard questions of the conservation tra- •Working/cultural landscapes versus dition regarding its role as a guide for pristine nature a new age’s relationship with its envi- •Stewardship versus “hands off” ronment. management policies •Grassroots action versus centralized “Dueling Dualisms” and the approaches Search for a “Radical Center” • Citizen environmentalism versus By taking part in this project, sym- expert/bureaucratic environmental- posium participants were not only ism stepping into the breach with regard • Models of ecological disturbance to the tensions that have marked the versus models of ecological order deconstructivist debate over wilder- • Conservation theory versus conser- ness and conservation, they were also vation practice entering a larger and, we think, ultimately more important discussion Some of these tensions are cap- about the proper course of future con- tured in the aforementioned decon- servation scholarship and action. This structivist critique, though many larger discussion, however, has also speak to additional commitments and been marked by considerable academ- goals that are debated in academic and ic and professional debate and divi- professional conservation circles. Of siveness in recent years. Any careful course, this list is by no means exhaus- survey of the scholarly and popular lit- tive. We also do not wish to suggest erature in conservation, for example, that a subscription to one or more of will reveal a host of conceptual and the commitments on the left or the methodological polarizations that right entails an endorsement of all the have worked to divide individuals and claims and tenets on that side of the “camps” within the diverse fields of aisle. But we do believe this list cap- conservation thought and practice. A tures some of the major philosophical representative list of these opposition- and strategic disagreements within al elements, or “dueling dualisms,” conservationism, both past and pres- might include the following: ent. And though some of these divisions seem to be slowly disappearing, • Conservation versus preservation or at least moving toward some degree • Conservationism versus environ- of conceptual compatibility (e.g., the mentalism debate over equilibrium-based and • Anthropocentrism versus bio- or “disturbance-based” ecological mod- ecocentrism els), others remain firmly in place and • Instrumental value versus intrinsic even appear to have deepened in value recent years (e.g., anthropocentrism

66 The George Wright FORUM versus bio- or ecocentrism, the con- course through the fields of history, structivist–essentialist debate). philosophy, political theory, sociology, We know that many of our partici- anthropology, conservation biology, pants probably believed they had a economics, and the applied profes- stake in one or more of these debates sions engaged in conservation prac- at the symposium, yet we were struck tice. Clearly,our authors have much to by the degree to which they attempted say about the shape and substance of a to move beyond these imposed cate- reformed conservationism, and they gories and their entailments. Even have provided an impressive pool of when it was apparent that some of the ideas to draw from in our efforts to presenters were interested in working move forward with the larger project along one side of an argument, for of reconstructing conservation. They example, they sought to develop com- have responded to the original chal- plementary rather than adversarial lenge of providing a thoughtful assess- projects, or they worked to shore up ment of the current theoretical and weaknesses and fill conceptual holes methodological trends in conservation in the conservationist literature. This thought and practice, and they have is not to say that the divisions repre- also given us a clear-eyed appraisal of sented in the foregoing list were some- earlier conservation traditions and how magically erased in Vermont, nor their bearing on present and future to suggest that many of these opposing work. ideas do not provide a useful way of Despite the diversity of our authors thinking about some of the real ten- and their subjects—academics and sions in our understanding of conser- practitioners; multiple academic disci- vation thought and practice. We only plines; wilderness, rural/agrarian, point out here that our participants built environments; East and West; were not beholden to “either–or” logic conservation icons and lesser known in the framing of their discussions and voices; domestic and international— proposals for reconstruction. This we are struck by the degree to which independence was probably best the work of the symposium converged demonstrated by the numerous pleas in a number of significant ways. This for philosophical compatibility and unity-amidst-diversity, or common tactical cooperation at the symposium ground, can be best demonstrated and by the participants’ awareness of through a cataloguing of what we see the need to move beyond rigid ideo- as a set of emerging “principles for logical logjams and the constraints of reconstruction” that issue from the historically entrenched positions and symposium. While presented here as arguments in their respective fields. In empirical claims about the structure the words of one of our symposium and content of a revised conservation- participants, we were all committed to ism in the academy and the profes- the search for an inclusive “radical sions, the principles also carry a signif- center.” icant normative weight. Taken together, we believe that they capture the Principles for symposium authors’ collective vision Reconstructing Conservation of the proper course of a reconstruct- Symposium papers (which are ed conservation for a new era of schol- gathered in the book, Reconstructing arship and practice. (The papers and Conservation: Finding Common quotes referenced below all appear in Ground; Minteer and Manning 2003) Minteer and Manning 2003.) chart a wide-ranging but unbroken 1. A reconstructed conservation

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 67 will adopt an integrative under- one that challenges many of our previ- standing of nature and culture. Our ously held conceptual and profession- symposium strongly endorsed a al categories. As historic preservation- model of conservation that recognizes ist Robert McCullough points out in the importance of the linkages his essay,if, as Cronon and others have between natural and cultural systems. suggested, nature is a cultural con- Much of this view may be attributed to struction, then our conservation our improved understanding, in emphasis should be on cultural recent years, of the history (and pre- resources as much as natural history) of human modifications of the resources, or, alternatively, on their environment. As environmental intersection. In fact, McCullough sug- philosopher J. Baird Callicott reminds gests that “the goals are so closely par- us, no landscape is really free of allel and the tasks so enormous that anthropogenic effects. This is ratified one wonders why cultural and natural by anthropologist Louis Vivanco in resource protection have remained his statement that “recent archaeolog- separate for so long.” Yet as Vivanco ical, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic points out, the embrace of culture in research have adequately proven that conservation can be a very complicat- in important instances Western pro- ed move, especially when “culture” jections of unpeopled wilderness are becomes inappropriately instrumen- in fact artifactual landscapes manipu- talized in the service of the conserva- lated by the hands of people.” This tionist agenda. “Thinking of culture as conclusion is clearly supported by his- a mere tool to change behaviors,” he torian Richard Judd’s study of the writes, “may undermine the very rea- Eastern conservation tradition of rural son we might want to bring it to bear New Englanders: “The markers of in conservation, which is for its ability eastern identity are more typically pas- to help focus attention on the highly toral, distinctive not because of their specific and context-dependent natural or cultural attributes, but processes and interactions that help because these two are so inextricably determine why people relate with their combined.” Judd goes on to cite natural surroundings in certain ways.” Henry David Thoreau in support of 2. A reconstructed conservation the linkages between nature and cul- will be concerned with working and ture: “The eastern forest, with its lega- cultural landscapes as well as more cy of disturbance and its explosive “pristine” environments. Many of ecological succession, challenges the our symposium participants warned idea that nature and culture can be us (directly or indirectly) of the dan- viewed as separate entities. Thoreau, gers of embracing a “wilderness first” for example, found the Maine woods view of conservation, one that discred- authenticating in part because it its or ignores cultural and working invoked the lore of logging, hunting, landscapes in favor of an idealized guiding, exploring, and timber-sur- “pristine” nature. The majority of our veying: it was a cultural, as much as participants would presumably agree natural place.” with the sentiments of conservation The fusion of systems of human practitioners and National Park meaning and activity with the cycles Service staffers Rolf Diamant, Glen and processes of the natural world also Eugster, and Nora Mitchell, who sug- has a number of implications for our gest that the concept of cultural land- understanding of the boundaries of scapes “gives value and legitimacy to the larger conservation discussion, peopled places, a fundamentally dif-

68 The George Wright FORUM ferent perspective from nature conser- Judd suggests that “mountain people vation’s traditional focus on wild saw the forest not simply as board feet, areas....” In this sense, Judd’s account but also as a living matrix of plants, of the “long lived-in lands” of the animals, and shared memories,” and Northeast offers a corrective to this that their “folk knowledge in turn cul- wilderness bias in environmental his- tured a sense of ownership,” and ulti- tory, as it elevates “peopled” and mately a sense of stewardship. In the transformed landscapes into the con- agrarian tradition, Thompson notes servationist geography. As he puts it, that peoples’ “actions shape and trans- “the oscillations of deforestation and form [nature] as surely as nature reforestation, depletion and renewal, shapes and transforms them,” and that settlement and abandonment, and pol- communities evolved in this way “will lution and recovery suggest reciproci- see no tension between conservation ty, rather than nature-as-victim.... One of wild nature and the duties of the era’s ecological disaster becomes the steward.” Environmental philosopher next era’s textured landscape.” Jan Ben Minteer suggests that the origins Dizard, an environmental sociologist, of regional planning, as espoused by is even more direct: “Undisturbed Lewis Mumford, Benton MacKaye, nature is an oxymoron.... Put another and others, may offer an appropriately way, to argue that the undisturbed (by expansive model of a reconstructed humans) is to be preferred to the dis- conservation: “The task of regional turbed is to court a serious and dis- planning, according to Mumford, was abling teleology.” The “altered lands” … more culturally and ecologically perspective is also on display in envi- grounded than the approach taken by ronmental ethicist Paul Thompson’s conservationists, which in his view portrait of the agrarian vision, one in merely attempted to protect wilder- which “human beings are hard at work ness areas from intrusion and sought in nature.” Thompson’s account to avoid the wasteful development of shows us how this agricultural modifi- natural resources. Although he cation of the land also transforms indi- thought such a strategy was to be vidual character and community val- praised for protecting the rare and ues, in the process establishing close spectacular environments of the conti- ties between rural producers and their nent and for injecting efficiency meas- supporting environments. ures into resource exploitation, he The contemporary notion of feared it was too limited in scope to “sense of place” and its inherent serve as a guide for a true environmen- blending of nature and culture is at the tal ethic.” Building on their legacy, heart of working and cultural land- Minteer concludes that “a recon- scapes as suggested by a number of structed conservation philosophy symposium participants. Quoting the needs to address the complex whole of geographer E.C. Relph, environmen- human experience in the environ- tal sociologist Patricia Stokowski ment, including the urban, the rural, writes that, “the relationship between and the wild.” community and place is a very power- 3. A reconstructed conservation ful one in which each reinforces the will rely on a wider and more con- identity of the other, and in which the textual reading of the conservation landscape is very much an expression tradition. Several symposium authors of communally held beliefs and values suggested that we already have many and of interpersonal involvements.” In of the intellectual tools and resources the southern Appalachian context, of a new framework for conservation

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 69 embedded in our history and culture; As geographer, historian, and Marsh we need only to adopt a more expan- biographer David Lowenthal writes, sive and more nuanced approach to one of Marsh’s most enduring lessons the conservation tradition for these is that “stewardship, indispensable for ideas and commitments to come into the common good now and in the sharper focus. In his case for an “east- future, needs to be ceaselessly nur- ern” conservation history, for exam- tured.” Although Lowenthal finds in ple, Judd writes that we must adopt a Marsh the notion that we need to take more regional and ethically textured greater control of nature, he suggests understanding of the roots of the that this celebration of human agency American conservation impulse, an is checked by the frank acknowledg- interpretation that stands outside the ment of our ignorance regarding the conventional “western” environmental long-term effects of our actions on the narrative. In his words, “plumbing the land. Yet despite this “imperfect rhetoric of place in long-settled lands knowledge,” Lowenthal concludes, reveals a more nuanced set of motives following Marsh, that restorative behind the use of nature.” Similarly, in actions designed to reverse severe his attempt to recover the lost agrarian human impacts are urgently needed voice in conservationism, Thompson and well-justified. In his essay on concludes that this tradition has been large-scale restoration projects, how- “so thoroughly neglected and forgot- ever, Dizard points out that such ten that it is now possible to see it as restorative activities may actually pres- something new, as an expansion of ent formidable obstacles to effective conservation thought that can play a conservation stewardship, barriers significant role in its reconstruction.” due in part to some restoration advo- Historian, conservation biologist, and cates’ absolutism about the “proper” Leopold scholar Curt Meine’s plea for methods and goals of environmental- another look at the “radical center” of ism. Indeed, as we suggest below, a the conservation vision of the necessarily active and reconstructed Progressive Era, and Minteer’s sugges- conservation requires a pluralistic and tion that we find a way to weave Lewis robustly democratic context. Mumford’s “pragmatic conservation- Other authors illustrate the impor- ism” into the intellectual histories of tance of conservation stewardship not conservation philosophy, are further only for taking care of the land for examples of this multivocal call for a future generations, but for building contemporary rereading of conserva- social capital and shoring up the realm tion icons such as Thoreau, Marsh, of civil society as well. Stokowski Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and Leopold writes that “conservation must also be and for a revision and expansion of about building community, so that our received accounts of the tradition. people will be more likely to value oth- “Any reconstructed conservationism ers as well as value places.” Based on of today,” concludes Minteer, “espe- their wide-ranging program of interna- cially one in search of a philosophical tional work, international conserva- ‘usable past’ to inform and guide tion practitioners Brent Mitchell and future thought and practice, could not Jessica Brown enthusiastically observe ask for a greater intellectual inheri- that “one of the most exciting ele- tance.” ments of stewardship work is that it 4. A reconstructed conservation often leads to advances in other social will require long-range landscape areas. Stewardship helps to build civil stewardship and restoration efforts. society by giving people opportunities

70 The George Wright FORUM to participate in shaping their environ- 6. A reconstructed conservation ment, and therefore their lives.” will be adaptive and open to multi- 5. A reconstructed conservation ple practices and objectives. It is will have “land health” as one of its clear that our authors do not subscribe primary socioecological goals. The to a rigid, “one size fits all” model of notion of health emerges from several conservation. Instead, they describe in of the essays as an important overlap- various ways a more flexible and adap- ping normative goal of conservation, tive approach to conserving the land- suggesting the need to understand and scape. As Vivanco writes, “we need a maintain the linkages between the conservationist culture based on dia- reproduction of ecological and cultur- logue—not domination—that is not al processes over time. The essays by about simply facilitating an exchange Callicott and environmental legal the- of wisdom in order to convert people orist Eric Freyfogle discuss how this to some predetermined expectations unifying concept played a large part in of what conservation ‘should be.’ This Leopold’s thinking about the aims of dialogue should also include a process conservation—that is, a harmony be- of mutual enrichment in which the tween productive practices and eco- means and ends of conservation them- logical processes (or, as Dizard puts it, selves are open to new contingencies “land capable of sustaining a robust and intercultural negotiations.” The variety of living things, including specific practices of a reconstructed humans”). And in the agrarian con- conservation will vary. Thompson’s text, as Thompson notes, “productive agrarian conservationist, for example, practices that cannot be passed down “would endorse parks and museums from parent to child fail to represent a that memorialize farms and farming heritable way of life, which (for an ways of particular note, but would find agrarian) is to say that they are no way it ultimately of greater importance to of life at all.” bring working farms into the conserva- More strategically, Meine sees the tion ideal. Activities, such as farmer’s goal of land health as uniting a broad markets and community supported coalition of interests, professions, and agriculture, which connect those who citizens. In his view, it is an area in do not farm with those who do, could which “where people who care about come to be understood as productive land and communities and wild things conservation activities.” Many of the and places, whatever their political symposium papers also suggest that stripe, may meet to make common we must find ways to accommodate cause.”We should also not be too con- multiple social objectives (as well as cerned that we will continue to grope ecological constraints) in framing sig- for empirical definitions of “land nificant conservation policies. As health” (definitions that might best be social scientist Robert Manning writes formulated at the community level). in his essay, variations in ecological Ecological economists David conditions, cultural patterns, and Bengston and David Iverson note institutional structure may lead to appropriate analogues between the environmental policies and conserva- case of conservation and normative tion models that vary across the natu- notions of “human health” in medi- ral and cultural landscape: “Diverse cine and “justice” in law. Perhaps, as environmental values and ethics offer Leopold anticipated in these matters empirical support for a correspond- of higher aspiration, it is as important ingly ‘patchy’ natural and cultural to strive as to achieve. landscape.” As Manning notes, the

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 71 U.S. public land system offers a model their defense of an evolving ecological of such diversity in the conservation economics against the traditional eco- mission, with national forests display- nomic paradigm, argue that the latter ing more utilitarian commitments and is “inadequate to inform conservation the national parks embodying more thought and practice in the face of preservationist sentiments on the changed ecological and social contexts landscape. Likewise, Callicott’s updat- of the twenty-first century” because it ing of the three “paradigms” of con- is unable to comprehend and incorpo- servation philosophy in light of rate all the diverse values people hold changes in ecological thought sup- for the environment, especially nonin- ports a multidimensional model of strumental moral and spiritual values conservation action, as does conserva- and the value of life-supporting eco- tion biologist Steven Trombulak’s dis- logical services and functions. This cussion of “dominant use” designa- value pluralism toward nature (includ- tions across a spectrum of land uses ing nonmaterial and noncommodity from intensive human development to values) is supported in the empirical ecological lands managed to promote investigations Manning presents in his biodiversity and landscape-level paper, and in developing ecological processes. Diamant, Eugster, and science that, according to Callicott Mitchell’s example of the National and Trombulak, recognizes “ecologi- Park Service river conservation pro- cal services” (e.g., climate stabiliza- gram provides a compelling illustra- tion) as a natural resource as impor- tion of how such a broad-based, multi- tant as timber and other commodities, objective, and multivalue conservation or more so. Such pluralism need not program can meet with great success lead to political gridlock, however. in practice. Further, it seems likely that Indeed, Norton’s articulation of a conservation will continue to evolve, “multi-criteria” approach to environ- for, as Bengston and Iverson write, mental valuation, one in which “good “the history of conservation in the policies are marked by their robust United States is a history of respond- performance over multiple criteria, ing to changing social, economic, which opens opportunities for political, technological and environ- win–win situations when one policy mental conditions.” In this respect, can support multiple values and the process of conservation—its adap- goals,” promises to offer a way out of tive and open character—may be as the ideological logjams between important as the final product. The intrinsic and instrumental values, con- adaptive environmental and policy servation and preservation, and other framework outlined by environmental rigid dualisms. In this way, according philosopher Bryan Norton, a process to Bengston and Iverson, “Natural informed by science but considered resource planners, managers, and pol- within a multivalue, democratic con- icy makers need to grasp and incorpo- text, may be a particularly appropriate rate the full range of environmental model for this larger project. values and learn to manage for multi- 7. A reconstructed conservation ple values rather than multiple uses.” will embrace value pluralism. This 8. A reconstructed conservation endorsement of an integrated diversity will promote community-based con- of land use types and objectives is servation strategies. One of the reinforced by many of the authors’ strongest points of consensus in the advocacy of pluralism in environmen- symposium is that the centralized, tal values. Bengston and Iverson, in command-and-control conservation

72 The George Wright FORUM approach is in many cases giving way zen, and placed increasing emphasis to more grassroots and community- and importance on the latter role as he based conservation models. As matured. In a related manner, Diamant, Eugster, and Mitchell write, Freyfogle instructs conservationists to “The emergence of community-based adopt a robust understanding and conservation has shifted the center of defense of community in the face of gravity from top-down management rampant moral individualism and the strategies toward more decentralized, potential socially and ecologically cor- localized, place-based approaches.” rosive effects of the market economy. An important consequence of this The international arena offers some shift, one that Stokowski notes in her of the most striking examples of suc- essay, is that it affords a more expand- cesses and failures of conservation as it ed conservation vision: “The empha- relates to community involvement. sis on community-based conservation Vivanco writes that “as an applied focuses attention on people as well as concept, culture has become a key ele- on nature, assumes that natural land- ment in international development scapes will not be privileged over his- schemes, based on the recognition torical and cultural settings, and draws that local technologies and social insti- its power from collaboration by local tutions are often uniquely adaptive, leaders and citizens.” and that programs succeed by build- This community-based conserva- ing upon, not sweeping aside, local sit- tionism is a theme picked up by many uations, needs, and traditions.” of our authors. Thompson, for exam- Similarly, Mitchell and Brown caution ple, notes that agrarian thought “holds us against “paper parks,” and suggest great promise for the reconstruction of that “managers of protected areas are conservation and an empowering turning instead to inclusive models, in environmental philosophy emphasiz- which the interests of local communi- ing community-based practice.” ties are considered, resident popula- Minteer’s discussion of Mumford’s tions are not displaced, and there is a approach to regional planning uncov- high degree of local participation in ers the latter’s emphasis on the protec- planning and management of the pro- tion of human-scaled community val- tected area.” ues and institutions in the face of pow- Like most dualisms in conservation erful metropolitan forces in the 1920s and in public policy more generally, and 1930s. In her essay, environmen- there is a productive middle ground to tal historian and Leopold biographer be found between local control and Susan Flader suggests that he would the legitimate interests of scientific have approved of the new grassroots experts, the regional and national con- approaches: “As an inveterate organiz- text, and the financial aid and er of local farmer–sportsmen groups resources of centralized government. and other grassroots efforts at land Conservation at any level should be restoration, [Leopold] would be informed by science, guided by larger- heartened by the myriad watershed scale concerns about ecological health partnerships, community farms and and integrity, and facilitated by gov- forests, land trusts, urban wilderness ernment. As Stokowski observes, how- projects, and other community-based ever, “newer participatory approaches efforts that have been thriving in reorient the work of conservation to recent years.” Leopold struggled pro- local community settings and prac- fessionally and personally with the tices in which public resource protec- tension between “scientist” and citi- tion and private development interests

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 73 intersect.” And on the front lines of ty-based conservation offers unlimited conservation practice, Diamant, opportunities for all environmentally Eugster, and Mitchell like what they concerned citizens to become see: “Local initiative ... in partnership engaged: membership-based organi- with government, has taken the form zations, volunteer projects, informal of land trusts, small watershed associ- consumerism, and the like. ations, greenway and trail groups, 10. A reconstructed conservation friends of parks, ‘Main Street’ organi- will engage questions of social jus- zations and heritage area coalitions.” tice. It is clear that conservation in the Likewise, speaking as conservation 21st century will need to be more practitioners, Mitchell and Brown attentive to fundamental concerns of conclude that “public agencies still justice in environmental protective have a role; it is just different, con- efforts. From the practitioner’s per- cerned more with guiding than with spective, Diamant, Eugster, and dictating, and it is especially con- Mitchell note that such questions of cerned with carefully constructing social equity are indeed becoming institutional frameworks that grant more critical in discussions within the genuine authority to appropriate com- conservation professions. McCul- munity groups while ensuring that lough observes how the growing conservation efforts succeed in their emphasis on community in conserva- primary objectives.” tion activities effectively opens the 9. A reconstructed conservation door for considerations of social will rely on an engaged citizenry. issues related to community welfare, Directly linked with this turn to com- including housing, transportation, munity-level conservation is the grow- education, and social services. It is ing recognition of the relationship clear that issues of social justice are between conservation and citizen par- increasingly recognized as critical ele- ticipation in conservation initiatives. ments of the new landscape of conser- Flader and Meine both find great vation planning and goal setting. inspiration for fostering individual ini- Vivanco’s account of the struggles sur- tiative in conservation efforts in the rounding conservation efforts in Latin thought and work of Leopold, who on America illustrates just how central both professional and personal fronts issues of justice are in these negotia- promoted various levels of citizen tions: “For many peoples of the South, involvement in conservation. nature conservation exists at a cross- Minteer’s account of Mumford’s civic roads. Will it represent domination by model of regional planning suggests a new set of elites, in this case scientif- additional foundations of citizen par- ically-trained natural resource admin- ticipation in the earlier conservation istrators united with government or tradition. Writing from their experi- nongovernmental interests external to ence with the contemporary manage- rural communities, or will conserva- ment scene, Mitchell and Brown, as tion activists find ways to unite their well as Diamant, Eugster, and struggles for nature with local strug- Mitchell, also observe how the central gles for equity, justice, and autonomy role of citizens in environmental stew- at the community level?” Mitchell and ardship builds much-needed social Brown provide one indirect response capital and bolsters civil society, sug- to this question in their essay, observ- gesting that conservation and citizen- ing that the prospects for greater equi- ship are in many respects mutually ty and accountability in international reinforcing. Contemporary communi- protected area management seem to be

74 The George Wright FORUM improving in many cases. As they sions of many emerging conservation write, a new paradigm for the world’s activities work to stimulate organized protected areas is emerging, one cooperation among different parties, “based on inclusive approaches, part- including government, as Bengston nerships, and linkages, in which pro- and Iverson, Mitchell and Brown, and tected areas are no longer planned Trombulak discuss in their papers. against local people, but instead are Furthermore, McCullough’s essay planned with them.” Meine’s impas- demonstrates how the conceptual rev- sioned call for a revived Progressivism elations about the cultural dimensions in conservation—one built around a of conservation also play a part in this “radical center” that appeals to all redrawing (and erasing) of divisions peoples and interests—offers the hope between the academic and profession- that conservationists can construct a al fields involved in conservation more tolerant and inclusive communi- efforts, and supporting his proposal to ty focused on shared goals rather than build “new green bridges of a collabo- partisan values and preferences. rative nature” between the nature con- 11. A reconstructed conservation servation and historic preservation will be politically inclusive and part- communities. nership-driven. In step with Meine’s 12. A reconstructed conservation arguments, many symposium papers will embrace its democratic tradi- describe and defend a “big tent” tions. Diamant, Eugster, and Mitchell approach to conservation, one charac- write that “we will need a conservation terized by multisector approaches, community that is ethical, democratic public–private partnerships, and new and humanistic in the broadest and creative relationships among sense....” We believe that one of the organizations and institutions. Flader most significant conclusions to be notes that Leopold anticipated (as he drawn from symposium essays is that a did many things) this collaborative reconstructed conservation needs to model in the first half of the 20th cen- embody the democratic values and tury. One of the driving forces behind commitments found in the best parts these shifts toward partnerships of its intellectual inheritance. On this appears to be an increased concern score, Flader and Minteer suggest that with producing measurable, tangible Leopold and Mumford provide useful results on the landscape. “It is more models for fashioning a democratic important to be successful in conser- approach to conservation from the vation than it is to be in charge,” write intellectual resources of the tradition. Diamant, Eugster, and Mitchell, sug- But this project is not as easy as it gesting that meaningful collaboration might seem. As political theorist Bob focused on real outcomes is part of Pepperman Taylor points out, “A strong conservation leadership. As reconstructed oppositional conserva- Mitchell and Brown point out, howev- tionism, if such is to be found, must er (and as stated earlier). this shift embrace the imperfections, even the toward cooperative models does not modesty, of democratic political life.” retreat from nor does it preclude the This democratic humility does not role of government in the conservation seem to have been demonstrated by enterprise. There will always be con- Scott Nearing’s conservationism, the servation matters of scale or institu- subject of Taylor’s essay. In fact, tional complexity that require strong Taylor’s conclusions about Nearing’s government leadership. The ecosys- stern moralizing and his failure to tem-oriented and large-scale dimen- engage citizens in a broader, critical

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 75 form of conservationism stands as a Conservation as Process lesson to those conservationists tempt- If our symposium is any indication, ed by either a moral purism or an the conservation tradition is in very overzealous scientism in their work. In good hands during this deconstruc- a related vein, Dizard’s postmortem of tivist moment of conceptual upheaval the controversy surrounding the and skepticism in environmental Chicago Wilderness Habitat Project thought. This does not mean, howev- suggests how the dogmatism of er, that our authors are at all compla- restorationists undercut their political cent about the challenges presented by objectives. “If the goal of environmen- such criticisms. If the percussive force talists is to create as large a constituen- of the deconstructivist critique has not cy as possible committed to environ- completely razed the foundations of mental stewardship,” Dizard writes, conservation, it has certainly prompt- “the Chicago experience should be ed many observers, including our read more as a cautionary tale than as writers, to reconsider the continuing a model. The plain truth is that people appropriateness of the tradition for resented being told that the nature guiding our understandings of they appreciated was bad and that human–environment relationships they were ignorant and misguided. and for shaping our practices on the The Chicago restorationists came to landscape. But the message that sound suspiciously like evangelists emerges from these reconsiderations who knew the one true path and who of conservation is, we believe, a hope- insisted that anyone rejecting that path ful one. For even if we agree that the was an enemy of the earth.” deconstructivists have at times shown To avoid these unproductive situa- the environmentalist emperor to have tions, we might subscribe to Norton’s no clothes (or at least to have a few model of environmental valuation and holes in his socks), the emerging con- policy argument, which focuses not on sensus of our symposium suggests that a defense of specific environmental this by no means warrants a slippery, commitments but rather on “demo- “anything goes” relativism toward the cratic procedures designed to achieve natural world; it certainly does not a reasonable balance among multiple, imply a self-defeating nihilism about competing human values derived our conservation goals and commit- from, and attributed to, nature.” This ments. Rather, we believe our contrib- embrace of a democratic politics in utors have demonstrated that a prop- environmental valuation and goal set- erly reconstructed conservation, one ting finds support in Stokowski’s dis- that is pluralistic in its value dimen- cussion of deliberative approaches in sions, community-oriented in its goals community planning and develop- and methods, pragmatic in its focus ment, and also in Manning’s paper, on conservation coalition-building which concludes that “it may not be and its acceptance of sociophysical productive to advocate any particular change and human fallibility, and environmental value or ethic as a uni- inclusive in its policy agenda and intel- versal principle to be applied across a lectual temperament, possesses the spectrum of people, places, or envi- moral and political resources—and the ronmental problems.” Instead, conceptual robustness—to lead citi- Manning writes, “environmental zens and professionals onto healthier problem-solving must be inclusive and and more sustainable development democratic, not peremptory.” paths in the coming decades. In many respects, then, our sympo-

76 The George Wright FORUM sium may be read as attempts to cope professional. In this, they are advanc- with the increasing democratization of ing not only the main tenets of a new conservation thought and practice. view of conservation, but also some of From their rejection of privileged the substantive content of a new gen- meanings, histories, and values regard- eration’s democratic values and coming nature to their acceptance of multi- mitments. It is our hope that this larg- ple ways of knowing and prizing the er message—the faith in the capacity of landscape, from their elevation of citi- citizens to respond intelligently and zens vis-à-vis experts in the responsi- effectively to the evolving conservation bilities of conservation stewardship to challenge, and the accompanying the celebration of local community judgment that this civic action is a crit- and grassroots action in environmen- ical part of a responsible conservation- tal protection, our authors have pro- ism in the 21st century—will continue vided many of the moral and empirical to resonate from our symposium. In commitments of a more seriously this sense, a reconstructed conserva- democratic conservationism, one that tion in this new era will be as much draws its justification from the many process—open, inclusive, democratic, converging arguments of a wide range adaptive—as philosophy, policy, or of environmental fields, scholarly and product.

Acknowledgment This paper is adapted from the book Reconstructing Conservation: Finding Common Ground. We are grateful to Island Press for allowing us to use this material here. References Callicott, J. Baird, and Michael Nelson, eds. 1998. The Great New Wilderness Debate. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Cronon, William, ed. 1996. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Jacoby, Carl, 2001. Crimes Against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Minteer, Ben A., and Robert E. Manning, eds. 2003. Reconstructing Conservation: Finding Common Ground. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Spence, Mark D. 1999. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks. New York: Oxford University Press. Takacs, David, 1996. The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ben A. Minteer, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287; [email protected] Robert E. Manning, School of Natural Resources, 356 Aiken Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405; [email protected] 3

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 77 78 The George Wright FORUM About the GWS . . . The George Wright Society was founded in 1980 to serve as a professional association for people who work in protected areas and on public lands. Unlike other organizations, the GWS is not limited to a single discipline or one type of protected area. Our integrative approach cuts across academic fields, agency jurisdictions, and political boundaries. The GWS organizes and co-sponsors a major U.S. conference on research and management of protected areas, held every two years. We offer the FORUM, a quarterly publication, as a venue for discussion of timely issues related to protected areas, including think-pieces that have a hard time finding a home in subject-oriented, peer-reviewed journals. The GWS also helps sponsor outside symposia and takes part in international initiatives, such as IUCN s World Commission on Protected Areas.

Who was George Wright? George Melendez Wright (1904-1936) was one of the first protected area profes sionals to argue for a holistic approach to solving research and management prob lems. In 1929 he founded (and funded out of his own pocket) the Wildlife Division of the U.S. National Park Service the precursor to today's science and resource management programs in the agency. Although just a young man, he quickly became associated with the conservation luminaries of the day and, along with them, influenced planning for public parks and recreation areas nationwide. Even then, Wright realized that protected areas cannot be managed as if they are untouched by events outside their boundaries.

Please Join Us! Following the spirit of George Wright, members of the GWS come from all kinds of professional backgrounds. Our ranks include terrestrial and marine scien tists, historians, archaeologists, sociologists, geographers, natural and cultural resource managers, planners, data analysts, and more. Some work in agencies, some for private groups, some in academia. And some are simply supporters of better research and management in protected areas.

Won't you help us as we work toward this goal? Membership includes sub scription to the FORUM, discounts on GWS publications, reduced registration fees for the GWS biennial conference, and participation in annual board member elections. New members who join between 1 October and 31 December are enrolled for the balance of the year and all of the next. A sign-up form is on the next page.

Volume 20 • Number 4 2003 79 The George Wright Society Application for Membership

Name:

Affiliation:

Address:

ZIP/Postal Code:

Workplace phone (work):

Fax:

E-mail:

Please •* the type of membership you desire: L~) Individual: $45/year • Student: $25/year O Institutional: $100/year ("J Supporting: $150/year • Life: $500 G Sustaining Life: Life Member + $45/year • Patron: $1,000 G Here's an additional contribution of$ Dues and contributions are tax-deductible in the USA. S10.00 of your membership goes to a subscription to THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM.

Note: Except for Life Memberships, all dues are good for the calendar year in which they are paid. New members who join between 1 October and 31 December will be enrolled for the balance of the year and the entire year following (this applies to new members only). Special Note to Canadian Applicants: If paying in Canadian funds, please add 40% to cover our bank fees. Optional: Please name your profession or occupation and any specialty or expertise:

Mail payment to: The George Wright Society, P.O. Box 65, Hancock, MI 49930- 0065 USA. Would you rather be billed? Just fax this form to 1-906-487-9405 or e- mail us at [email protected] and we 11 invoice you. Thank you!

80 The George Wright FORUM Submitting Materials to THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM

The Society welcomes articles that bear importantly on our objectives: promoting the application of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to policy-making, planning, manage ment, and interpretation of the resources of protected natural areas amd cultural sites around the world. THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM is distributed internationally; submissions should minimize provincialism, avoid academic or agency jargon and acronyms, and aim to broaden international aspects and applications. We actively seek manuscripts which represent a variety of protected area perspectives. Length and Language of Submission. Manuscripts should run no more than 3,000 words unless prior arrangements with the editor have been made. Articles are published in English; we welcome translations into English of articles that were originally prepared in another language. In such cases we can publish an abstract of the article in the original lan guage, where possible. Form of Submission. We now accept articles in two formats: in manuscript (double- spaced) accompanied by computer disk, or by e-mail. We operate on Macs, and can translate most files from their original format; please indicate the version of the software. If submitting by e-mail, use the e-mail text as a cover letter. Do not embed the document—send it as an attachment. Again, note the version of the software used to create the attachment. For all sub missions, give complete contact details (including e-mails) for each author. Citations. Citations should be given using the author-date method (preferably following the format laid out in The Chicago Manual of Style). Editorial Matters; Permissions. Generally, manuscripts that have been accepted are edit ed only for clarity, grammar, and so on. We contact authors before publishing if major revisions to content are needed. THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM is copyrighted by the Society; written permission for additional publication is required but freely given as long as the article is attrib uted as having been first published here. We do consider certain previously published articles for republication in THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM. Authors proposing such articles should ensure all needed copyright permissions are in place before submitting the article for consid eration. Illustrations Submitted in Hard-Copy. Submit original {not photocopied) line draw ings, charts, and graphs as nearly "camera-ready" as possible. If submitted in a size that exceeds THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM'S page dimensions (6x9 inches), please make sure the reduction will still be legible. Color prints and slides are also acceptable; half-tones and pho tocopies are not. We particularly welcome good vertical photos for use on the cover, either in black-and-white or, preferably, in color. Please provide captions and credits and secure copy right permissions as needed, and indicate whether you wish materials to be returned. Illustrations Submitted Electronically. We accept illustrations on floppy or Zip disk, on CD-ROM, or as e-mail attachments. All graphics must be in TIFF or EPS format {not JPG, GIF, or PICT). Scans must be at 300 dpi or higher. If in doubt, please ask for complete guide lines. Send all correspondence and submissions to: The George Wright Society, ATTN: Editor, THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM, P.O. Box 65, Hancock, MI 49930-0065 USA.

^ 1-906-487-9722. Fax: 1-906-487-9405. E-mail: [email protected] P. O. Box 65 GEORGE Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 WRIGHT USA

SOCIETY www.georgewright.org

Dedicated to the Protection, Preservation, and Management of Cultural and Natural Parks and Reserves Through Research and Education