““WWe have to doubt the long-term viabil-

ity of approaches that rely heavily on the ...

exclusion of local people from both the land

and associated decision making processes.”

(Roe et al., 2003: 91).

“You know, one has to say thank God some-

body did think of stealing this land from

somebody else, because if they hadn’t we

wouldn’t have it today.” (Leakey, 2003: 11).

Most readers will recognise that the above

quotes represent a fundamental schism

within the conservation movement, between

community-based conservation and the ‘back

to the barriers’ movement. As an anthropol-

ogist, I find this schism interesting because

it demonstrates the contested nature of cul-

ture, as well as its historical contingency.

The schism not only reflects fundamental

differences in the direction that the move-

ment should take, but also fundamentally

different assumptions about how nature

works and the place of human beings within

it. Importantly, these struggles are closely

linked to certain types of prizes: funding,

research opportunities, and prestige to name

a few. The schism also reflects responses to

global historical processes. Following the col-

lapse of the Soviet Union, two new global

imperatives emerged: 1) democratisation;

and 2) free market capitalism.

Democratisation empowered local people,

giving them a greater voice in the conserva-

tion movement. Meanwhile, free market cap-

italism threatened biodiversity in every part

of the world. Some conservationists have

responded to these events by putting up

barriers. Others argue that it will be neces-

sary to adopt flexible, albeit more risky,

strategies if we are to contend with these

complex changes.

If fundamental conflicts about meaning and

values pervade the conservation movement,

it is reasonable to expect that they also per-

History, CCulture, aand CConservation: iin ssearch oof mmore

informed gguesses aabout wwhether ““community-bbased

conservation” hhas aa cchance tto wwork

Jim IIgoe

Summary. Community-based conservation seeks to protect biodiversity by enrolling local people, espe-

cially indigenous ones, in resource conservation. The approach is based on a perceived overlap between

biological and cultural diversity on a global scale. It assumes, therefore, that indigenous peoples are

important partners for conservation, and their environmental knowledge should be valued and applied.

Generally, culture and indigenous knowledge are treated as a coherent bundle of ideas and values that

dictate how people manage natural resources. This view of culture, however, is at variance with current

trends in anthropology, which see culture as essentially incoherent and historically contingent. Importantly,

competing groups appear as constantly struggling to define values and meaning to their own advantage.

Culture, in other words, is seen as constantly contested and never stable. In particular, we should better

understand cultural “change” that occurred under conditions of colonialism and as a consequence of the

imposition of national park style conservation on indigenous communities. Drawing on a survey of national

parks and indigenous communities from around the world, this article identifies and discusses five histori-

cal and cultural variables that exert fundamental influence on the outcome of community-based conserva-

tion interventions, including: 1) colonial histories and conservation encounters; 2) sovereignty and political

clout; 3) civil society and NGOs; 4) historically contingent attitudes towards conservation; 5) capacity and

indigenous environmental knowledge. The article concludes that effective conservation interventions will

need to be flexible enough to recognise and incorporate the complexity of these cultural/historical vari-

ables.

History, cculture aand cconservation