Voices from Durban - The George Wright Society · Voices from Durban: Reflections on the 2003 World Parks Congress [Ed. note: Quite a few GWS members attended the Fifth World Parks

A particularly exciting aspect of theCongress was that broad recogni-tion—and a good deal of discussiontime—was given to the important roleof communities in creating and man-aging protected areas. While this sub-ject has been explored in pastCongresses, in Durban it was on theagenda as never before, integrated intothe workshop streams and addressedin many plenary discussions and inCongress products such as the recom-mendations and Durban Accord.

Rather than a side topic, the role ofindigenous and local communities hasbecome part of the mainstream debateon protected areas and their future.This is a significant development.

Of course, this integration cameabout largely by design, thanks to thevision of the WPC steering committeeand the efforts of several workinggroups. “Communities and Equity”was a cross-cutting theme of theCongress, and the theme drew onexperience from all over the world. Forwell over a year members of the coregroup of TILCEPA (the Theme onIndigenous and Local Communities,Equity, and Protected Areas, an IUCNworking group) had worked togetherto ensure that the theme would be wellintegrated into the Congress plenaryprogram and seven workshop streams.I served as a liaison with Stream 1,

8 The George Wright FORUM

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 WorldConservation Union in September 2003. This is the world’s largest conference onprotected areas, and is held once every ten years. The theme of this Congress,“Benefits Beyond Boundaries,” emphasized IUCN’s interest in highlighting thecontributions protected areas can make to people’s well-being in everyday life, notjust when they are visiting parks. The WPC had an ambitious schedule of meet-ings, 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 BiologicalDiversity, which is emerging as the major international treaty affecting protectednatural 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 mem-bers who were there. We hope you’ll take a few minutes to listen to these “Voicesfrom Durban.”]

z

“I Feel Roots Here”Jessica Brown

QLF/Atlantic Center for theEnvironment

“Linkages in the Landscape andSeascape,” where sessions addressingthe cross-cutting theme included apanel on “The Role of Communitiesin Sustaining Linkages in theLandscape,” and multi-session work-shops on “Human–Wildlife Coexis-tence” and “Protecting Landscapesand Seascapes.”

The participation of so many com-munity leaders greatly enriched theCongress as a whole and our discus-sions. For me the workshops were theheart of the Congress, and I was fortu-nate to be involved in several sessionsthat drew on the experience of indige-nous and local leaders. Our panel onthe first day featured several case-stud-ies by mobile peoples from diverseregions, describing how they practiceconservation in the landscapes theyinhabit. This is a fresh perspective formany of us, requiring a new way of

looking at communities and conserva-tion. Disappointingly, a group ofwomen we had invited from a commu-nity group in Kosi Bay, South Africa,to share their story of co-managingmarine and coastal resources in a pro-tected area could not participate in thepanel because they lacked the photoIDs necessary for entry into theConvention Center. They hadplanned to follow their case studypresentation with singing in tradition-al style. But we heard stories fromother community leaders, includingrepresentatives of the HuaoraniNation in Amazonian Ecuador, andpastoralist communities in westernIndia. There were many nomadic andpastoralist community leaders at theCongress, giving the term “mobilepeoples” a new meaning as they trav-eled from remote communities to theCongress site! Favorite images include

9Volume 20 • Number 4 2003

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

the stately Masai in traditional dress(who I frequently saw talking on hismobile phone—yet another twist onthat term), and “Uncle Sayyad”Soltani, representing the QashqaiTurkic Nomadic Confederation ofTribes (Iran), who spoke none of thethree official languages of theCongress but always greeted one mosteloquently, touching his hand to hisheart and offering a beautiful smile.

A surprising part of my experienceat the Congress was the sense of com-munity I felt there, this despite thelarge number of people participating,and the cavernous feel of theConvention Center! One reason wasthat many of us had spent time togeth-er in preparation for our contributionsto the Congress. Advance meetings,like the ones held by the ProtectedLandscapes Task Force (PLTF) in theU.K. in late 2001, and by theTILCEPA core group in India earlierthis year, helped us to work togethermore effectively across the distance ofgeography and culture. Once inDurban, there was a good deal ofspace for many different communitiesof interest to come together, whetherthrough formalized task forces andworking groups, or ad hoc meetingsbeing held in places like theCommunity Park, or countless sidemeetings. I was delighted to see thePLTF energized by Durban, and towatch new working groups emergefrom the Congress, focusing on topicssuch as Human–Wildlife Coexistenceand Islands and Coastal Areas, alldrawing on members with diverseexperience from many different coun-tries.

An anecdote from our workshopon Protecting Landscapes andSeascapes captures this sense of com-munity, illustrating how people fromdiverse backgrounds can quickly learnhow to solve problems together—atleast small ones. The workshop,

which I co-chaired with Nora Mitchellof the United States and BobWishitemi of Kenya, stretched overtwo days, and had a core of some 30 or40 participants who came to all threesessions, joined by others who camefor one of the sessions. Due to pooracoustics in the workshop rooms, wehad been asked not to applaud afterpresentations. The participants spon-taneously devised a novel way ofexpressing their appreciation, throw-ing their hands up in and giving a flut-tering sort of wave (with variationsincluding an emphatic thumbs up ges-ture favored by a delegate fromIreland). Everyone beamed as theylooked around the room to “hear” theapplause. Apparently other workshopgroups independently had arrived atthe same solution. When I returnedhome I learned that American SignLanguage (ASL) uses this wave ges-ture to indicate applause.

Finally, a particularly excitingaspect of the Congress for my hus-band, Brent Mitchell, and me was theactive participation of some 20 alumniof QLF’s international fellowship pro-grams, many of whom we had nomi-nated to participate in the Congress.Taking advantage of this rare opportu-nity to bring together so many of ourinternational alumni and partners,QLF hosted an alumni reunion dinnerduring the WPC, which broughttogether past Fellows from LatinAmerica, the Caribbean, and CentralEurope. The atmosphere was con-vivial, as past Fellows reconnectedwith each other after many years, whilemeeting colleagues from other regionsfor the first time. There were animatedconversations along the length of thetable, some toasts at the end, and agood deal of laughter. Even in theshort evening together people startedto connect in the way we see at ourlonger workshops. As an alumnusfrom Belize said, “I feel roots here.”


While park managers in the UnitedStates and other industrialized nationsare variously coping with acid rain andsmog, encroachment of second-homedevelopments, an array of motorizedrecreational vehicles, and a host ofother environmental stresses of afflu-ence on the scenic and ecologicalintegrity of our state and nationalparks, our counterparts in less-devel-oped countries of the world are beingcalled upon to help confront a vastlydifferent, yet difficult and immediateset of social and economic conditionsthat arise from poverty. These entailpeople with a low standard of living

who are generally characterized as res-idents of destitute rural villages seek-ing security and equity in the distribu-tion and use of timber, water, land, andwildlife resources from parks or othertypes of protected areas in close prox-imity to their homes.

In the course of identifying thisissue at the opening ceremony of theWorld Parks Congress in Durban,South African President Thabo Mbekiemphasized that people living nearparks must be able to see how theybenefit from protection policies forconservation campaigns to work.“Mere exhortations to poor people tovalue and respect national parks willnot succeed,” he said. “It is criticallyimportant that alternative means oflivelihood be found for the poor of theworld, so when driven by hunger andunderdevelopment, they are notforced to act in a manner that under-mines the global effort to protect theseecosystems.”

The notion that protected areas can


Queen Noor of Jordan, current South African President Thabo Mbeki, and former South AfricanPresident Nelson Mandela opened the Congress. Photo courtesy of Gary Tabor, WilburforceFoundation.

Parks, Poverty,and the Conservation

of BiodiversityTom Cobb

Minnewaska State Park Preserve &Palisades Interstate Park

and should contribute to povertyreduction and sustainable develop-ment was addressed at the Congressby a working group concerned withbuilding broader support for conser-vation. Under the lead of IUCN’sChief Scientist, Jeff McNeely, thisgroup came up with recommenda-tions that would facilitate effectiveinvolvement of the poor in planningand decision-making processes, andcalled upon governmental and non-governmental organizations alike toadopt several principles for advancingconservation and sustainable develop-ment in impoverished areas. Therequirement that “no net loss” of bio-diversity must be balanced with “nonet impact” on the livelihoods of thepoor was the first of these principles.Another was that “Biodiversity mustbe recognized and managed to sup-port local livelihoods as well as a glob-al public good.”

The example of the Makuleke peo-ple in South Africa was seen as amodel for site-level design and man-agement, as well as for enhancing jobopportunities and empowerment ofthe poor. Driven from their ancestrallands in Kruger National Park by theformer apartheid regime in 1969,ownership of 100 square miles wasreinstated in 1998 after negotiationswith South Africa’s new government.Instead of returning, however, the15,000 Makuleke opted to remain intheir villages outside the national park,and to establish leaseholds in the formof safari lodges to be built and largelystaffed by the Makuleke. They wouldalso receive a share of the profits ofthis ecotourism venture, and in 30years gain complete ownership.

Although this is but one example,and a brief outline of an initiative tohelp alleviate poverty and promotesustainable development affecting oneof South Africa’s premier tourist desti-nations, as well as one of Africa’s

greatest wildlife preserves, it serves todemonstrate the type of linkagesbetween parks, poverty, and biodiver-sity conservation that resource man-agers and conservation biologiststhroughout the world should becomemore adept at making. It also suggestsanother rationale for nature conserva-tion and resource management agen-cies to extend their capacity to under-take socially responsible conservationonto the scale of the larger landscapeof which our parklands are not sepa-rate from, but very much a part.

Marine issues emerged throughoutthe World Park Congress program.That’s the good news. The bad newswas that conservation in the ocean lagsa hundred years behind land conser-vation.

Remoteness and apparent isolationno longer protect ocean parks. Recentadvances in marine transportationtechnology have dramatically acceler-ated public access to once remoteocean conservation sites. New“ground effect” vehicles now provideday-use access to the entire 2,000-km-long Great Barrier Reef Marine Park(Australia). When it was established in1975, the speed (8–10 knot) andcapacity of vessels limited day use tosmall groups near major ports. Today,ultra-fast (100–200 knot) ground-effect vehicles departing from thesame ports provide large groups dailyaccess to 95% of the park. While pro-viding wonderful opportunities toconnect people to coral reef environ-


Place-basedOcean Conservation

Has ArrivedGary E. Davis

Ocean Programs,U.S. National Park Service

ments, this new technology requiresthat stewardship strategies explicitlyprotect resources. Traditional relianceon remoteness for passive “protec-tion” no longer works.

The newly human-dominatedEarth is changing faster and in waysnever seen before. Consequently, parkmanagers must plan strategically, whilemaintaining daily operations. Theenvironment, people, and institutionsneed new and greater capacities tocope with these changes or they willlose touch with their heritage andgreatly diminish options of future gen-erations. In that light, the concept of“ecological integrity” needs to beadded to “biodiversity” and “speciesof concern” as a goal of stewardship.Ecosystem resilience is an emergentproperty of systems with high ecologi-cal integrity. It is a symptom of healthyecosystems and a characteristic, or anoutcome, of successful conservationmanagement.

Ocean conservation is in crisis.Triage requires treating symptoms ofenvironmental stress, such as coralbleaching, and acting to prevent extir-pation and extinction as a tactical mat-ter. People must also simultaneouslyincrease understanding of ecosystemsto deal strategically with underlyingcauses of such stress and subsequentchanges recognized as “unhealthy,”such as loss of integrity and resilience.Since so many environmental stressesoperate at global scales, the resolutionof these stresses requires a global net-work or system of protected areas toresolve the issues. It is the only way tolearn how these systems work andhow they will respond to future envi-ronmental stresses.

Parks provide societies with com-mon ground that can help to resolvedifferences generated by “us andthem” perceptions of environmentalissues. At the Congress, we heard howtransfrontier parks in Africa have

helped defuse border disputes andbring nations together by overcomingobjections of military, agricultural,immigration, and health concerns. TheFull Value of Parks, a Rowman &Littlefield book launched at theCongress, explores these intangiblevalues of parks. Presentations and dis-cussions at the Congress showed aremarkable commonality of issuesamong highly diverse parks, park sys-tems, and cultures, as reflected by theprogram streams (ManagementEffectiveness, Capacity, Finance, andNetwork / System Design). Paradoxi-cally, the Congress also revealed awide range of different cultural andpolitical perceptions of national parkvalues among nations. An apparentdivide, driven by social and economicfactors such as poverty, seems to sepa-rate heritage and legacy values fromvalues of parks as local economicengines. In some places, parks that donot generate net income (profit) maybe judged unworthy of preservationand receive inadequate resources toassure protection of heritage and lega-cy values. To assure that all park val-ues are protected, adequacy of pro-tected area budgets needs to begrounded in measures of perform-ance, such as trends in biodiversity,visitor satisfaction, and ecosystemintegrity, and scaled to local (national)standards as established by profes-sional third parties to assure objectivi-ty and to engender trust.

While an inherently inefficientmedium of exchange, the Congressmay be the best way to share observa-tions, experiences, and analyses ofcommon issues and concerns. It sure-ly invigorated participants with a pas-sion for caring for special places byseeing and hearing how many othersare similarly engaged for the commongood.


As several others in this compila-tion of reflections on the Congressmention, there were something like3,000 voices to be heard in Durban—voices from every corner of the world,representing almost every conceivableviewpoint on parks and protectedareas. I spent much of my time inSouth Africa just listening. Here is alittle of what I heard.

I heard Nelson Mandela open theCongress with what was, to my mind,a standard political speech. But thatdidn’t matter. His voice was magnifi-cent—deep and with a touch of gravel,

the vowels sonorous and rounded—and his presence electrifying. He is aperson of immense moral authority,and it added depth to all the subse-quent deliberations just by his havingbeen at the opening ceremony.

I heard one of Mandela’s fellow cit-izens, a Zulu woman living near theHluhluwe–Imfolozi Park, tell us howselling crafts at a specially designedsales center in the game reserve madea big difference to the income of herfamily—an excellent example of a pro-tected area contributing to “communi-ty upliftment,” as our hosts at theEzemvelo KwaZulu Wildlife agencyput it.

I heard Ian Player, a legendary fig-ure in African conservation and thefounder of the wilderness movementin South Africa, after walking slowly tothe podium with the aid of a cane, turn


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

Listening to AfricaDavid Harmon

George Wright Society

to us and say, “We must dispel thenonsense that wilderness is againstpeople. Wilderness does not lock peo-ple out. It unlocks the human spirit.”

In contrast, I heard a professorfrom the social sciences declare,provocatively, that “National parkagencies are too often predatory onlocal communities of people.”

In a major plenary session, I heardthe CEO of one of the largest miningcompanies in the world say—and hewas claiming this as a significantachievement—that many of theworld’s biggest mining companies aregoing to demonstrate their commit-ment to parks and the environment byvoluntarily refraining from mininginside of World Heritage Sites. Then Iheard the person next to me mutter,“Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.” Shewas right.

In the halls or in small-group meet-ings or out in the city I heard peoplespeaking Russian, Catalan, Xhosa,French, Mandarin Chinese, Dene,Swedish, San, German, Afrikaans,Spanish, Swahili ... and many morelanguages I couldn’t even begin to rec-ognize.

I heard numerous indigenous peo-ple embrace protected areas if theyrespect their culture and concerns. Ialso heard several others, speakingwith complete conviction, predict animpending downfall for Western cul-ture and an end to 500 years of domi-nation by Europeans and NorthAmericans—an apocalyptic paybackfrom the Earth for hubris and willfulignorance—and a resurgence ofindigenous power.

On three occasions, I heard beauti-ful community singing by (materially)poor rural Africans who came out togreet us as honored visitors duringfield trips. I heard them ask us toplease help them find more money fortheir local community conservationprojects. I heard several of them tell

us, matter-of-factly, about theHIV/AIDS epidemic that threatenedtheir communities’ existence.

Last but not least, I heard the eeriecall of wild helmeted guineafowl asday broke across the lodge we werestaying at in Hluhluwe—a reminder ofan even more primal set of voices,voices that still can be heard, againstall odds, in the Africa of the 21st cen-tury.

“Only through partnerships canprotected areas be made relevant tosociety and part of a sustainablefuture.... We must ensure that nationalparks are transformed—we need tobreak with traditional thinking, cat-alyze a new vision, and to join hands innew partnerships.” — Nelson Mandela

With these words, Nelson Mandelaopened the Congress, challenging usto craft a new conservation, responsiveto our current challenges with aninspiring vision for the future. Thedeliberations at the conferenceanswered this challenge and the“Durban Accord” describes a newparadigm for protected areas—onethat is inclusive of all stakeholders,links protected areas in a broaderlandscape, and integrates conservationwith sustainable development in anequitable way.

South Africa provided a perfectvenue for these deliberations. Here inthe decade after Mandela’s election,parks have become a cornerstone forreconciliation and a public symbol ofaccess and the re-integration of socie-


Joining Hands in NewPartnerships

Nora MitchellAdjunct Faculty,

University of Vermont

ty. The vision of South AfricanNational Parks is “To be the pride andjoy of all South Africans” and the mis-sion statement for Cape PeninsulaNational Park is simply and eloquent-ly, “A park for all, forever.” The natu-ral and cultural resources of their parksystem are truly outstanding. We visit-ed the fynbos on Table Mountain andthe Cape Peninsula, one of the world’smost diverse ecosystems, and wereastonished by close encounters withpenguins, giraffes, hippos, wilde-beests, springboks, waterbucks, andrhinos in Greater St. Lucia WetlandPark, a World Heritage Site, and atImfolozi Reserve. On the conferencetours, we were introduced to people inthe local communities who are work-ing with the park on restoration of for-est ecosystems and sustainable eco-nomic initiatives such as traditionalcrafts, mussel harvesting, and small-scale ecotourism. This demonstratedon the ground a comment in the open-ing plenary by South Africa’sPresident, Thabo Mbeki: “[W]e needto protect natural ecosystems andensure sustainable livelihoods ... it’skey to combine environmental andsocial goals.” While in Cape Town,Greg Moore (executive director ofGolden Gate National ParksConservancy) and I visited several ofthe townships with Xola Mkefe, a con-servationist and educator who grewup there and has dedicated his careerto bringing conservation home. Wevisited a wetland area that had beenrestored by the township communitiesthrough his leadership and now servesas a park and educational resource forthe surrounding neighborhoods.

This was the most diverse confer-ence I have ever attended—over 2,700people from 154 countries—comingfrom major urban centers and smallvillages, and every environment inbetween. I co-chaired a series of work-shops on protected landscapes and

seascapes (IUCN Category V) withcolleagues Jessica Brown (QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment,USA) and Bob Wishitemi (MoiUniversity, Kenya), designed toexplore linkages with the larger land-scape and with neighboring commu-nities. In these sessions and others atthe conference, I was inspired to seethe commitment, the innovation andquality of work, as well as the progressbeing made by so many people in somany parts of the world, many in verydifficult circumstances. Many speak-ers reminded us that over half theworld’s population now lives in urbanareas. So it was appropriate that, forthe first time, the World ParksCongress included a series of work-shops on urban parks. This track gen-erated a great deal of enthusiasm andparticipants from San Francisco, CapeTown, Sydney, Rio, and other citieswith national parks agreed to form anetwork to share experience in ways toeffectively reach the increasing num-bers of urban dwellers and engagethem in conservation. Her MajestyQueen Noor of Jordan reminded us ofour fragile, war-torn world and thecontribution that protected areas andcollaborative conservation can make:“[T]here is an important role fortransboundary protected areas in pro-moting peace and security ... and Itherefore urge increased internationalcooperation.” Youth delegates fromAfrica provided hope for the futurethrough their comments: “Protectedareas are sacred places important forlife on earth” and “African youth lacknot interest, but opportunities to beinvolved [with protected areas].”Participating in this Congress recon-nected me to a vision of an interna-tional community working togetherfor a sustainable world—and I wasprivileged to be part of it.


As a kid, I grew up hearing storiesof Africa and living in a house filledwith African masks—constantreminders of my father’s Peace Corpsexperience in West Africa in 1963. Myexperience at the World ParksCongress in South Africa forty yearslater brought together my father’slegacy in an adventure of my own.

The World Parks Congress gath-ered over 2,500 people from 154countries with a single mission ofworking toward something better. Imingled with people in all forms ofcultural dress, speaking languages Ihad never heard, and tasted indige-nous African food. These interactionsemphasize the importance of cross-cultural exchanges of ideas, under-standing, and friendships, in a worldwhere these concepts seem foreign indaily news bulletins.

Outside the protective walls of theCongress lay a harsh reality. SouthAfrica is a country barely a decaderemoved from apartheid, ravaged byHIV/AIDS, yet is rich in human spir-it. I felt the racial tensions among thediverse indigenous, Indian, andAfrikaner populations. The statisticson HIV/AIDS are staggering. In theregion we visited, there is a 40% infec-tion rate. We were told that inKwaZulu–Natal Province, naturalresource leaders are training twice asmany students in protected areas man-agement due to the high HIV mortali-ty rate. Protected area managers musteven deal with people poaching tim-ber to build coffins.

The people of South Africa are

some of the most beautiful I have met.Music and dance are an integral part oflife. People such as Hugh Masekelagraced the Congress and played tunesof hope and empowerment His musicinfuses incredible passion and Africanrhythms with remnants of Americanjazz.

But like Masekela’s music, theAmerican park idea has been infusedinto the context and landscape ofSouth Africa, and it has morphed, inmany cases, to deal with external pres-sures such as population growth, cul-tural strife, and equity issues. Many ofmy students from Colorado asked,“How do we even talk about the devel-opment of protected areas in the con-text of disease, inequality, poverty?”This question was a part of most con-versations at the Congress. What Itruly believe is that protected areas area necessity in any context. Basic con-servation biology teaches the need forcore areas to protect our wild fabric.We must also look beyond our ownlifetime and believe that we can restoreand re-wild areas stressed by currentconditions. In establishing protectedareas, we create reservoirs of core eco-logical values as well as core social val-ues that help sustain the cultural andecological landscapes that heal, teach,and provide nourishment for thehuman spirit.

The Vth World Parks Congress(WPC) was an incredible opportunityto participate in and (from politicalscientist’s perspective) watch politics


Looking Beyond OurOwn Lifetimes

Peter NewmanColorado State University

Personal Connectionsand Politics in Durban

David OstergrenCenter for EnvironmentalSciences and Education,

Northern Arizona University

set a protected area agenda. My pri-mary responsibility was to organize athree-day workshop titled “BuildingPolitical Support.” This workshopwas designed to identify particularstrategies to build the political supportfor protected areas. As I sat in my sub-session and watched the ebb and flowof audience participation, severalspeakers started to repeat an observa-tion: “Why aren’t there more peoplein this session?” And I thought tomyself, “Why didn’t many of thespeakers stay for more than 2–3 ses-sions?” In many cases it was becauserather than devising strategies for cre-ating political support, they were outcreating political support.

The WPC was an extraordinaryexample of multiple agendas beingpromoted simultaneously. The overallintention of the Congress was to for-ward the cause of protected areasthroughout the world, but, as anyobserver would agree, that means verydifferent things to such a wonderfullydiverse gathering. For example,humans are only welcome as visitors inthe wilderness areas of many coun-tries, while wilderness (i.e., a wild ornatural area) is “home” and a source ofsustenance in many other countries.Preserving the biodiversity of a parkmay include very specific measures toprotect a species, while forwardingglobal biodiversity may require influ-encing governments. These issues andmany more emerged and re-emergedas forty-plus sub-streams held threedays of talks refining recommenda-tions to the Durban Accord.

I am low on the food chain of peo-ple who influence international policy(any policy for that matter) so I lis-tened for a big, take-home message. Ibelieve the big message is that indige-nous and mobile peoples are a perma-nent part of the political landscapeand will be part of many, if not all, pro-tected area policies and decisions in

the future. In addition, all protectedarea neighbors will be part and parcelto many more plans and practices inthe coming years. As plenary speakerNelson Mandela indicated, restrictingeconomic activity or the distributionof protected area benefits to a few peo-ple will not serve South Africa (norany nation) in the long run. At firstsuch rhetoric may be disquieting tothose who place a premium on biodi-versity values or wilderness character-istics (e.g., pristine and untrammeledlandscapes, solitude). However, as anoptimist, I foresee a opportunity.Regardless of how any culture eventu-ally changes and adopts the practicesof the global socioeconomic forces,indigenous and mobile peoples resistthe imposition of an “outside” cultureupon their own. That is, they resist theforces of global/Western/capitalist cul-tural change washing over those valuesand traditions deemed central to theiridentity. Similarly, protected areasresist the imposition of monoculturecrops, development, exotics, and themyriad threats that challenge ecologi-cal integrity. In the face of largerencroaching forces, both humans andnature stand to lose that which makesthem unique.

My impression is that indigenousand mobile peoples are not an emerg-ing entity on the political landscape,but an emerged entity. The many enti-ties that constitute IUCN will incorpo-rate the humans who most intimatelylive with the consequences of protect-ed area decisions. I also believe thatthe indigenous and mobile peoples ofthe world will find advocates and alliesamong the many interests that supportprotected natural areas for nonhumanspecies. Similarly, those who are advo-cates of preserving biodiversity andfeel that biodiversity must be savedfrom human demands will find thatthe two political entities share much incommon.


Participants at the WPC weredoing politics. Politics is about powerand who gets to share in the decision-making process. The face of protectedarea leadership is changing. When thedirector general of IUCN awarded theYouth Conservation Award he stated(and I paraphrase) that the future ofprotected areas stands before you (hespoke to us the audience). The twoyouths before us were young blackwomen from Africa. The majority atmany head tables were not youngblack women from Africa (or youngpeople from South Asia, SoutheastAsia, South America, or non-Westernnations). The future looks different.Regardless of their origin, the peoplewho will be directing future protectedarea policy will have very differentworldviews than the decision-makersof the 20th century. As we devise newpolitical strategies (as we do politics),

the challenges will demand high levelsof dedication and energy for severalmore decades. The WPC was anexcellent opportunity to witness andparticipate in the continuing struggleto maintain and preserve the remain-ing biodiverse areas and unique cul-tures throughout the world.

I found the Vth World ParksCongress in Durban, South Africa, to


Table Mountain and other sections of Cape Peninsula National Park. Photo courtesy of NoraMitchell, University of Vermont.

Balancing SustainableDevelopment andEcological Values

David J. ParsonsAldo Leopold

Wilderness Research Institute /George Wright Society

Board Member

be a vivid reminder of the differencesin conservation programs and priori-ties between the United States and therest of the world. I have the strong feel-ing that most U.S. land managers aresimply unaware of much of what goeson outside of our boundaries. I washumbled by the magnitude of theissues faced and the interest, sincerity,and dedication of nongovernmentalorganization (NGO) and governmentscientists and conservationists I metfrom such diverse places as Bhutan,Ecuador, Nepal, Pakistan, Trinidadand Tobago, and Uganda. From theimportance placed on the definitionsof IUCN protected area categories(virtually unrecognized by the U.S.land management agencies), to theemphasis on local community involve-ment in park management, to thestruggles to make resource protectionmeaningful in the face of threats posedby extractive industries and even war,I found the international conservationmovement to be largely disconnectedfrom the issues that drive national parkand forest managers in the U.S.

The dominant themes I heard atthe Congress focused on the interfacebetween science, resources manage-ment, and politics. There was abun-dant discussion about the number andsize of protected areas around theworld (generally attributed to now beas much as 10–12% of the Earth’s sur-face), and the Congress includedannouncements of major new parkdesignations in Brazil, Gabon, andMadagascar. But there was generallytoo little discussion of the distributionand effectiveness of existing protectedareas. Elaborate studies of the impor-tance and challenges of preservingbiodiversity, including establishmentof transfrontier protected areas andtransnational corridors (e.g., theMeso-American biological corridor inCentral America), were balanced byabundant discussion of sustainable

development and community involve-ment. These discussions were oftenheated, with ecologists claiming thatthe emphasis on sustainable develop-ment (often explained as essential toattract the funds necessary to supportlarge conservation projects) has com-promised some of the world’s mostvalued natural resources (e.g., therewas passionate debate over the nega-tive impacts of large mining operationson the edges of tiger reserves in India).In addition, numerous sessionsfocused on issues related to culturalvalues and local community involve-ment, including the needs and rightsof indigenous populations. Unfor-tunately, I found the lack of awareness(or sympathy) of some indigenousrepresentatives to the biodiversity val-ues that are critical to so many protect-ed areas posed significant obstacles tothe discussions needed to bring thesediverse interests together.

Many in the United States areunaware of the extent to which inter-national conservation efforts are dom-inated by NGOs, including Conser-vation International, the WildlifeConservation Society, the WorldWildlife Fund, Plant ConservationInternational, The Nature Conser-vancy, and the Global EnvironmentFacility. In Durban, the conservationinterests of these organizations wereoften pitted against the reality of need-ing to attract the funding necessary toprovide even minimal protection forestablished protected areas. This, nodoubt, helps to explain the visible,although controversial, role at theCongress accorded to multinationalextractive industries (e.g., ShellInternational, British Petroleum, andthe International Council on Metalsand Minerals were featured in a fullplenary session).

Based on what I heard in Durban, itis my distinct impression that themajor international conservation


issues of the coming decade will focusaround the inevitable conflicts andcompromises needed to balance (1)biodiversity needs with sustainabledevelopment interests, and (2) cultur-al values and the needs of local com-munities with ecological preservation.There was clearly a concern amongmany delegates that the growing influ-ence of sustainable development andlocal uses threatens to over-ride themore traditional ecological valuesassociated with many protected areas.

Given my special interest in wilder-ness (IUCN category 1b), I was partic-ularly pleased to see the acceptance ofa new IUCN Wilderness Task Force(WTF) under the auspices of theWorld Commission on ProtectedAreas. The WTF (http://wtf.wild.org)sponsored several organizationalmeetings as well as selected presenta-tions during the Congress. Sincewilderness has often been perceived asa largely Western construct, IUCN’sacceptance of the wilderness conceptis significant. It was also encouragingto hear commitments were made fromrepresentatives from the U.S. NationalPark Service, the U.S. Forest Service,and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceto support WTF’s efforts to organizethe 8th World Wilderness Congress,scheduled for September 2005, inAnchorage, Alaska.

The serious opportunities forinformation exchange and delibera-tions on the challenges and trade-offsfacing the future of protected areasthat dominated the Congress weregratefully broken by a series of cultur-al events (music, dance, food, andcrafts) as well as opportunities toescape the confining atmosphere ofDurban (a city of 2.5 million that wasunsafe to wander about) on a variety offield trips. These provided valuableopportunities to visit the magnificentparks of KwaZulu–Natal as well asmeet and mix with colleagues from

around the world (154 countries wererepresented among the over 3,000participants). Despite its social chal-lenges, South Africa provides a greatrole model for the world’s efforts toprotect its natural heritage.

How to describe the World ParksCongress in Durban?

Optimism. There cannot help butbe a pervasive feeling of optimism leftafter such a gathering. Park and pro-tected area people from all over theworld absolutely dedicated to preserv-ing, protecting, and sharing the placesand ecosystems that are so dear tothem. One of the greatest things aboutthe conference was meeting these peo-ple in settings of all kinds, and con-necting their love of these places to mylove, now not just of the places that Iknow but to their places as well.Forming a human ecosystem of caring,understanding, awe and commitmentthat entwines with that of nature.

As an example, I met a SaudiArabian wildlife biologist. I was inSaudi Arabia in 1982. He did notknow of the park we had proposed ...and I was awed to know that there isnow a corps of wildlife biologists therethat did not exist then! Optimism.Positive steps forward. An increasingcadre of professionals dedicated toprotected areas and professionalism inthe name of conservation, growingworldwide.

Relationships. More than partner-ships. Intellectual relationshipsformed magically every day andevening of the conference. The educa-


A HumanEcosystem of Caring

John ReynoldsGeorge Wright Society

Board Member

tional sessions spewed out thoughtful,exciting things being done here, there,everywhere. People, quietly butappropriately proud of their achieve-ments, shared them ... and sharedtheir quest for the next step, the nextevolutionary mutation of ideas toapply to accomplish the goals of con-servation, most often in concert withothers. Relationships. Begun and nur-tured also in the hallways in electricconversations and exchanges of busi-ness cards. Eyebrows raising andinflections changing as realization thata new connection has just been made... intellectually, politically, education-ally ... just by listening and questing.New relationships, all in the spirit ofsaving and sharing our naturalbirthright in this world.

Intellect. What a pleasure to besurrounded by intellect that pours intoyou! From around the world, intellect

brought together to share, to quest fornew beginnings and new approaches.Learning and teaching, all taking placevirtually spontaneously, both in ses-sions and out. Science, politics, edu-cational outreach, sacredness, culture,a kind of nearly automatic consiliencetrying to take place. A wholenessworking to form from the variety ofspecific examples available.

Youth. A pervading theme was forconservation to constantly and seri-ously include youth, both educational-ly and as they grow in our professions.It is they who will carry on. The trustthat they not only can, but will, withpassion and distinction, was deeplyapparent Durban.

Oneness. Bobbie (my wife) leftwith a feeling of oneness with the oth-ers in this world who care enough todevote their lives, their passion, theirminds, their souls to this most pre-


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

cious place in whose ecosystems welive.

Prior to my trip to Durban, SouthAfrica, to attend the Fifth World ParksCongress, a meeting held every tenyears, as a representative of theInternational Ranger Federation(IRF), I was concerned about threeissues about which the rangers of theworld were worried. The first of theseis personal safety and security. Theincidence of rangers and their familiesthreatened, attacked, or killed in theworld’s protected areas is alarming.The conservation community mustfind a way to protect the protectors.The second is that of training and pro-fessional development. In many coun-tries, the rangers are at the absolutebottom of the food chain when itcomes to training. This is curious asthese are the employees who are theears and eyes of park management.They are important links in the inven-tory and monitoring programs. Theyhave the most intimate contacts withpeople living in and near our protect-ed areas. They are our ambassadors tothe visiting public and our firstresponders to emergencies and otherspecial incidents. Yet, they have beenvirtually ignored in many parts of theworld. Finally, I was concerned aboutthe conditions under which many pro-tected area agencies ask their rangersto live and work—poor housing,unsanitary conditions, little or no

equipment, minimal salaries, and littlepublic support.

What particularly troubled me isthat not one of these issues wasaddressed in the draft recommenda-tions posted on IUCN’s website priorto the Congress. I knew that if the IRFwere to ask the delegates to modify therecommendations to address our con-cerns, it would have to be done duringthe Congress itself. As many GeorgeWright Society members know fromour own conference, an individual’sopportunity to shape the outcome of aconference is rather small. Imagine aconference the size of the Fifth WorldParks Congress—2,500 delegates,three times the size of our last meetingin San Diego. Then, add three officiallanguages and who knows how manyother regional or local languages, andyou have some idea of the complexityof IRF’s task.

Luckily, 39 ranger/delegates wereable to attend the Congress in supportof IRF goals and objectives. Thesepeople worked night and day, lobby-ing delegates, staffing the IRF booth inthe exhibition hall, and presentingpapers during workshop and plenarysessions. The response of our fellowdelegates was heartwarming. They lis-tened, and more importantly, theyacted. As one small example of whatthey did, I would like to cite a part ofrecommendation 5.2 from theCongress: The delegates recommendthat those changed with managingprotected areas “provide all protectedareas staff (in particular rangers, war-dens and forest guards, who face hard-ships and threats in carrying out theirjobs) with adequate living, working,health and safety and security condi-tions by providing management sup-port, appropriate equipment andtraining....”

GWS members ought to be happywith this outcome. In much of theworld, rangers provide the logistical


Protecting andRespecting the

ProtectorsRick Smith

International Ranger Federation /George Wright Society Board

Member

and staffing support for on-goingresearch projects in protected areas. Ifthey are better trained and equipped,they will be able to supportresearchers more effectively and effi-ciently. Moreover, since rangers havealmost daily contact with theresources we preserve and protect,they can be valuable allies in our mon-itoring programs. They will be the firstto detect changes in resources or invisitor or local community behavior.Researchers and resources managersneed well-trained rangers. If agencymanagers implement the recommen-dations of the Fifth World ParksCongress, the science and researchcommunity will soon have them.

Durban, South Africa, is abouthalfway around the world from DenaliNational Park and Preserve, Alaska. Itwould be difficult to find a more dis-tant point in the inhabited world. Butwhen it came to discussions aboutmanaging protected areas, I was struckby the similarities as much as by thedifferences. A few examples: theimportance of involving local andindigenous peoples in protected areaplanning and management, the needto strengthen partnerships, and thechallenges in protecting ecologicalintegrity in a rapidly changing world.

I found the World Parks Congressto be fascinating and the best confer-ence I’ve ever attended. I participatedin the workshop stream on “BuildingBroader Support for Protected Areas”and presented a session on resolvingconflicts involving competing values

in parks and protected areas. Equallyeducational, if not more so, were theconversations I had with SouthAfrican park managers in particularand the opportunity to see some of thecountry’s best protected areas, such asthe uKhahlamba–Drakensberg Park, aWorld Heritage Site. The field trip toHluhluwe–Imfolozi Park gave us theopportunity to experience the rich-ness of the Zulu culture. After thesefield trips and more travel after theconference, my major impressions ofSouth Africa were the diversity of thecountry, the incredible disparity inwealth, and the richness of its culture.

These characteristics are inextrica-bly linked with South Africa’s turbu-lent history. Yet despite serious andimmediate problems, the outlook nowis one of hope. This emerged manytimes, such as at the end of the specialceremony on the sacred dimension ofprotected areas at the Congress, and atthe event called “Africa Night.”

A couple of the other delegates andI were checking with some of the localemployees at the Congress about whatwas in store for “Africa Night.” Theyinformed us that Hugh Masekelawould be playing, which for themmeant an event not to be missed. I did-n’t immediately confess to my lack ofknowledge of Hugh Masekela’s music,but my new South African friendswere happy to fill me in that eveningon the “story behind the music.”

When “Bro’ Hugh” and his bandtook the stage that evening, we weregiven a demonstration of some ofSouth Africa’s contributions to themusic world in the past few decades. Iwondered how many others in theaudience knew who he was and of hisbackground: traveling outside hisnative country, because of apartheid,to further his musical career, essential-ly being a “musician in exile.”

Similarly, on the other side of theworld in Denali National Park and


From Denalito Durban

Mike TranelDenali National Park and Preserve

Preserve, the context and the “storybehind the scenery” is what truly givesit meaning. While we have our share ofchallenging issues, we don’t have toworry about removing a military fence,as park managers do in KrugerNational Park in South Africa. In fact,we don’t have fences at all, as do theAfrican protected areas, and we don’tneed them to protect the integrity of anatural ecosystem.

It is equally gratifying to see hopefor Africa’s best—but also most threat-ened—protected areas as to know thatour American national park sites standout among the best in the world.

Among the unforgettable images ofAfrica and the World Parks Congress(WPC) was our field trip to the savan-nah woodlands of Hluhluwe–ImfoloziPark and nearby villages. The park ismanaged by Ezemvelo KwaZuluWildlife (whose acronym, KZN, refersto its being the nature conservationservice of KwaZulu–Natal province)and has an impressive array of “charis-matic megafauna.” We saw giraffesgliding gracefully above the bush,impalas, nyalas, kudus, wildebeest,and zebras herded up on the grass-lands. Then, we came on a pride oflions—with bellies full of the afore-mentioned herbivores—basking lazilyon a river sandbar. One had to smile attheir indolent top-of-the-food-chainposture. We also saw more than ourshare of black and white rhinos (the

park is Africa’s most important sourcefor the reintroduction of both intoother conservation areas and privategame parks), Cape buffalo, and a hugebull elephant. Meanwhile, warthogs,hyenas, baboons, and other support-ing actors added to species richnessand the number of pictures snappedthrough half-clean bus windows. Wetraveled mostly on paved roadsthrough a dry-season countryside thatreminded me of an over-grazed BLMallotment, arriving at one of several“camps” by late afternoon. Each hadcomfortable lodges (total overnightvisitor capacity = 324), electricity, hotwater, good food, and entertainment.We were attended to by hospitableKZN officials.

Even though humans are prey inImfolozi, and not often allowed to getout of their vehicles or leave campunless accompanied by armedrangers, and even though one-third ofthe park is managed as roadlesswilderness, I never felt like I was in thewild or that it awaited me there. Thereason: Imfolozi has a 10-foot-highelectrified fence around its entireperimeter, and just across that fence isrural sprawl as far as the eye can see inall directions (albeit mostly traditionalZulu homes). The combination hadjaundiced my view. The reasons forthe fence and adjacent settlement pat-terns is a complex story for anotherday, but the current reality is that thepark has become a large island of bio-diversity—functional for now—butsurrounded with an abrupt ecologicalgradient that will eventually challengeits integrity. There is no buffering frommultiple-use lands or community con-servation areas, no place to put a corri-dor that might connect to other pro-tected areas or allow flora and fauna achance to flow out into portions of anagricultural landscape for use bylocals. Culling takes place within thepark instead. Hundreds of animals are


Benefits BeyondBoundaries:

Thoughts from the WPCGeorge N. Wallace

Center for Protected AreaManagement and Training,Colorado State University

now rounded up and sold to generaterevenue for the park.

Cut to the local school where Zuluchildren read poetry and sang to us (acappella) with incredibly strong, beau-tiful voices. They danced with tremen-dous energy and athleticism, portray-ing the well-established prowess ofZulu hunters and warriors. They worethe skins of animals that their fathersand grandfathers had traditionallytaken from the Imfolozi savannahs andforests. Later, grim reality broke thespell when one of their teachers askedme, candidly, what should we do aboutthe fact that 40% of them are HIV-pos-itive. I marveled at their spirit in theface of such odds. I wondered howlong that spirit could survive, now cutoff from any real interaction with thelandscape that gave it much of its sub-stance for so many millennia.Although, at the urging of Ian Playerand others, some school children visitthe park and their mothers can sellhandicrafts to (mostly white) visitorsthere, I wondered why the Zulu couldnot be allowed part of the annualculling, a pilot traditional managementarea, or at the very least, the ability tocontinue their ceremonial hunts dur-ing the year where the next generationof young people might be included. AsI pondered this with my colleaguePeter Newman, it occurred to us thatwilderness is also in the heart and theoption to experience it must be pres-ent if it is to engender our long-termsupport and protection.

Fortunately, our conversations withKZN managers proved that the chal-lenges of providing “Benefits BeyondBoundaries,” maintaining geneticdiversity, and landscape-scale processare on their minds as well as ours. Wethank them for sharing their parkswith us and wish them all success astheir strategies evolve. We thank theZulu people for opening their commu-nities to us and openly sharing their

continuing struggle for a sustainablelife. The experience was indelible.

It was Africa Night at the ParksCongress. Three thousand delegatesfrom every corner of the world weretaking a break from a frantic run of ple-nary sessions, workshop streams, sideevents, and book launches. The hostgovernment of South Africa had pro-vided a great venue for the delegates torelax with some of the hottest bands inthe country. Like protected areas, themusic had a universal appeal and thewhole crowd was moved to dance.Arabs danced with Melanesians andNative Americans with Kurds. It wasthe whole world dancing, and like thewhole World Parks Congress, it waspowerful in both symbol and content.

The Congress was a time to cele-brate. Over 11% of the planet’s landarea now has some kind of protectedstatus. The protected areas movementis stronger, more science-based, andmore pluralistic that ever before.Heady announcements for more pro-tected areas, as well as landscape con-nections, were made at the Congressby both government and nongovern-mental organizations. In fact, the non-governmental organizations broughtmuch of the innovation to theCongress, perhaps best embodied byConservation International’s announ-cement to raise 1 billion dollars tosupport their “biodiversity hot spot”initiative.


A Time toCelebrate, a Time to

DespairStephen Woodley

Parks Canada /George Wright Society

Board Member

The Congress was also a time todespair. Despite the achievement of11% of lands in protected areas, therewas the strong evidence that much ofthe gain is on paper only. Many pro-tected areas are designated, but noteffectively managed or, in fact, protect-ed at all. The estimated global shortfallto effectively manage existing protect-ed areas over the next five years is 25billion dollars. The Congress hadmuch to say on management effective-ness and conservation finance, but thepath ahead will be arduous.

Globally, while we have madeadvances on land, we have failed inprotecting the oceans and large fresh-water ecosystems. Only 1% of theoceans is protected and all of that incoastal areas. High seas protection,especially in critical biodiversity areassuch as seamounts, is almost com-pletely lacking.

Perhaps the greatest stir at theCongress was the spirited debate overthe equitable sharing of benefits fromprotected areas, one perspective onthe Congress theme of “BenefitsBeyond Boundaries.” In the gover-

nance stream, there were hours of dis-cussion on the role of protected areasin poverty alleviation, gender equity,and social justice to local, aboriginal,and mobile peoples. To me, thisdebate illustrates how much protectedareas have emerged into the main-stream. They have grown from beingthe passion of a few into the vital inter-est of many. For conservation this mustbe a good thing.

The Congress set a huge agenda forthe future, embodied in the formalconference outputs of the DurbanAccord, the Durban Action Plan, andworkshop stream recommendations.Perhaps the most immediately relevantCongress output is the Message to theConvention on Biological Diversity(CBD). At the 7th meeting of theConference of the Parties to the con-vention (to be held February 2004 inMalaysia), the role of protected areasin conserving biodiversity will be a keypart of the agenda. In the message tothe CBD, the voices from Durban willbe heard, and, I predict, will make adifference.


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

33

Voices from Durban - The George Wright Society · Voices from Durban: Reflections on the 2003 World Parks Congress [Ed. note: Quite a few GWS members attended the Fifth World Parks

Documents