ASPECTOS GENERALES Y CONCEPTUALIZACIÓN

In the former sections I have discussed the image of nature in some popular environmental narratives as they are used by environmental NGOs. Most of these narratives appear to be built on scientific insights. Let us therefore explore in this section the science that lies behind these narratives.

Environmental narratives are largely built on traditional ecological concepts such as ecosystem, carrying capacity and climax vegetation. Some of these terms have been introduced in the language of environmental campaigns building a direct link between the scientific world and society. On the one hand this fusion could be seen as a positive development in which scientists are loosing their image of working in an ivory tower. On the other hand, there are risks when using these terms in a popular way for a wider audience. The main risk is, of course, an oversimplification of the definition of these terms. As a result, a concept such as ecosystem, for example, is used in a wide range of meanings that are often quite remote from original definitions. Concepts such as climax vegetation as well as degradation, sustainability, need and vulnerability are often defined very vaguely (Fairhead and Leach, 1996b; Stott and Sullivan, 2000). The second risk, as a direct result of the first, is that of myth building.

Recently, these risks have been brought to light by several authors (Fairhead and Leach, 1995; Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997; Myers & Simon, 1990; Stott & Sullivan, 2000), who state that many of the concepts that are now used by environmental NGOs have already been seriously revised by scientists. These authors appeal to what I refer to here as ‘the new ecology’.

The most striking difference between the new ecology and traditional theories is probably based in the idea that the environment is not a status quo but a dynamic process. In contrast to the ideas of new ecology, most concepts mentioned above are traditionally built on the premise that there is a stable equilibrium in nature. Climax vegetation, for example, is traditionally known as the vegetation type that appears when the ecosystem is left undisturbed by human intervention. Based on this, each climatological region has its own climax vegetation type and the places on earth were rainforests are supposed to exist have been defined. However, in new ecology the history of the natural environment becomes more and more recognised. New insights, such as palaeontologic research in the south of Cameroon (Maley, 2002), have shown that rainforest patches are not as static as they appear. On the contrary, they have been changing in the period long before there was any human influence. As we have seen in 6.4.2, local stories contradict supra-local stories as far as this

theme is concerned. Local stories as collected in Central Province are not in accordance with the theory of the climax vegetation (tropical rainforest) that has been destroyed by human influence. I will come back to this in section 8.3.

The dynamics of forest and savannah have been extensively worked out by Fairhead & Leach (1996a), who have done fieldwork in West Africa for years. Through case studies in six countries they have shown that forest patches in forest/ savannah mosaic (comparable to Central Cameroon) have traditionally been perceived as last relics of a primordial forest, whereas in reality they are new forest-patches in a former savannah landscape that have been planted and maintained by people. Related to this subject is the book edited by the same authors: The Lie of the Land, about the truths and myths of desertification south of the

Sahara.

New ecology has put the traditional concepts in a different light. The dynamics of nature makes it difficult to perceive something as original and pure. It shatters the illusion of a pristine nature, otherwise called the myth of the wilderness (see e.g. Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997). As we have seen in section 7.2.2, this myth is strongly related to the nature-culture dichotomy. Unsurprisingly, new ecology tends to revoke this dichotomy. The idea of nature as separated from people now longer holds in new ecology, and anthropogenic factors in the dynamics have become recognised. This has, of course, serious consequences for the perception of environment.

The new way of looking at the environment corresponds to the findings of several authors. The concept of wilderness, for example, has been deconstructed in the case of Kenya where the landscape that is called ‘wilderness’ by environmental narratives has in reality been the outcome of a dynamic process in which people played a crucial role (Pierce, 2000). According to the author, the savannahs of Kenya, as we know them today have not existed for more than a few decades. Before that time there was a cohabitation between Masai herders and wildlife (see also Neumann, 1998). Thus, the present situation known as wilderness which excludes people, has in fact been created by the management of outsiders (colonists or whatever they are called).

Probably one of the most controversial authors in the new ecology is Stott who directly refers to the second risk: the process of myth-making. According to Stott, the image of ‘jungle’ only exists in the heads of Westerners as a mere human construct and is thus subject to myth-making on a grand scale. Typical for this myth-making is, according to Stott, the excessive use of many so-called meta-words in its description. With meta-words the author means words which refer to highly desirable characteristics such as exotic, fertile, pure, stable, self-regulating.

It is not only through unashamed myth-making that narratives have gained popularity. In a more subtle way many stories use concepts that are constructions within a certain paradigm. Take for example the concept: ‘biodiversity’, that has gained much popularity in environmental debates including the Convention on Biodiversity determining the areas in the

world that need to be protected. Zerner (1996, Stott and Sullivan 2000, pp.185) states that biodiversity conservation as constructed by natural science is often justified as a redemptive act, an attempt to protect bounded zones of the non-human world described as pristine and undisturbed. Fairhead & Leach (2002) have shown that the determination of biodiversity in a certain area is highly biased by methodologies of research, and underlying presumptions that have been taken for granted.

Although new ecology gradually gains ground and may form useful counter narratives7 it could be concluded from the recent documents of environmental NGOs (see the examples in the former sections) that conservationists still tell mostly the traditional stories.

In the next section I will discuss the second basic question of how nature or the environment is valued in supra-local stories.

7.3

The value of nature and environment