institutions?This institutional context of changing
human-environment relations is poorly
understood. In many ways, the fault for this
lies with conservation
organisations themselves
which have explicitly or
implicitly set out to alter
human-environment rela-
tions, introduce directed
cultural change and intro-
duce new ideologies of
nature. Rarely, however,
do they effectively trace
how localised institutions
respond to these program-
matic intentions (e.g.,How
have beliefs changed? How
has this affected localised
ecological practice?).
Monitoring and evaluation
exercises are more often
tailored toward the interests of donor agen-
cies than designed as long-term projects
meant to assess the complex outcome of
integrated conservation projects. Research
funds to accomplish such work are also in
short supply. There are any number of rea-
sons for this: a crisis atmosphere surround-
ing conservation directs most funding to so-
called applied projects; competition between
conservation agencies for limited funding
pushes assessment work to the background
and implementation to the fore; for private
foundation funding, there is greater public
exposure and consequent reward in funding
research that is directly related to species or
habitat conservation. Providing the funding
that leads to the protection of an endan-
gered species generates much more
favourable press than unearthing the rela-
tions between historical alterations to belief
systems and the denigration of that habitat.
Yet, as research continues to make clear,
there is a need to recognise that conserva-
tion is inextricably bound to culture both as
a process and a product. Conservation is
cultural practice. So long as conservation isnot the explicit focus of long-term ethno-
graphic studies, we will be left to read
between the lines, to take work out of con-
text and to reach speculative conclusions
regarding relations between culture and
conservation in a diversity of contexts. And
so long as this research is not funded and
conducted, modernist conservation practice
will continue to fall far short of its objec-
tives.References
Alvesson, M., Cultural perspectives on Organisations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Baker, S. Picturing the beast: Animals, identity and represen-
tation, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993.
Berkes, F., C. Folke, and M. Gadgil, Traditional ecological
knowledge, biodiversity, resilience, and sustainability. In:
Biodiversity Conservation. Kluwer Academic Publishing:
269-287, 1994.
Bowen-Jones, E. and A. Entwistle “Identifying appropriate
flagship species: the importance of culture and local con-
texts”, Oryx, 36(2): 189-95, 2002.
Brightman, R., “Forget culture: Replacement, transcendence,
relexification”, Cultural Anthropology10(4): 509-546, 1995.
Brokensha, D., Warren, D.M. & Werner, O. (eds.), Indigenous
knowledge systems and development. Lanham, Maryland,
University Press of America, 1980.
Butz, D., “Resistance, representation and third space in
Shimshal village, northern pakistan”, ACME: An
International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 1(1), 15-
(http://www.acme-journal.org/vol1/intro.pdf), 2002.
Byers, B.A. et al. (2001) “Linking the conservation of culture
and nature: a case study of sacred forests in Zimbabwe”,
Human Ecology, 29(2), 187-
Castro, A. P. & A Tibbetts, Sacred landscapes of Kirinyaga:
indigenous and early Islamic and Christian influences. In P.
P. Arnold & A.G. Gold (eds) Sacred Landscapes and
Cultural Politics. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.: 55-82,
2001.
Chipeniuk, R. “Childhood foraging as regional culture: some
implications for conservation policy”, Environmental
Conservation, 25(3): 198-207, 1998.
Cinnamon, J. “Narrating equatorial African landscapes:
Conservation, histories and endangered forests in northern
Gabon”, Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History. 4(2):
1-15.
Colchester, M., Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples,Conservation aas ccultural aand ppolitical ppractice
Ken MacDonald([email protected]) teaches
in the Dept. of Geography and the Interdisciplinary
Programme in International Development Studies at
the University of Toronto, Canada. For the past 20
years he has conducted ethnographic research in the
Karakoram Mountains of northern Pakistan, most
recently investigating the impact of conservation inter-
ventions by international NGOs on localised environ-
mental ideologies. Ken is a member of the
CEESP/CMWG Steering Committee.conservation iis iinex-
tricably bbound tto
culture bboth aas aa
process aand aa pprod-
uct.... SSo llong aas...
we wwill bbe lleft tto rread
between tthe llines,
take wwork oout oof
context aand rreach
speculative cconclu-
sions... mmodernist
conservation ppractice
will ccontinue tto ffall
far sshort oof iits oobjec-
tives.