User:The Domer/sandbox

The Quest for Environmental Justice in the National Park System

Introduction
From its inception, the national park system had the dual goal of improving conservation of natural resources and creating places of enjoyment for the public and future generations. Currently, in 2012 there are over 10,000 protected areas around the world, with 365 national parks located in the United States alone (Tilden 1951:13). In light of the prevalence of protected environmental areas worldwide, it is important to assess the social as well as environmental impacts of the creation of national parks. Little attention has been placed on evaluating the extent to which environmental justice is achieved within the park system, which is of particular concern as bioprospecting efforts and forced relocations of indigenous populations increase.

Environmental justice within national parks primarily concerns locals’ access rights, which are dictated by the political and social institutions that govern protected areas. The EPA defines environmental justice as, “The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (Miller et al. 2003:G5). Given the EPA’s definition, environmental justice necessitates the involvement by local populations in the national park system. Yet limited access rights and restricted management participation, in addition to ideological legacies of national parks that stem from Eurocentric views of the environment, have made it challenging to achieve environmental justice fully. To facilitate scholarly discussion about environmental justice within the national park system, the central issues that obstruct justice will be presented, followed by methods to overcome these obstacles to achieve the multifaceted goal of promoting conservation, sustainability, and recreation fairly for all populations.

Motives
There is some debate about the true intentions behind creating national parks. While some historians assert that the national parks were developed with altruistic intentions of ecological preservation and wildlife protection (Kuo 2012:728), biodiversity protection and conservation (Cernea 2006:1809), and out of closeness with nature, the actual motives for creating land preservations may have been much darker. Other historians, ecologists, and anthropologists contend that the national park system arose because certain land was not profitable as a source of agricultural or timber production (Kuo 2012:728).

Warwick Frost and Michael Hall claimed that the motivation for the creation of the national park varied between different countries to fit each country’s needs (Frost et al. 2009:357). While national parks were set up to promote outdoor recreation in countries like the United States and Canada, the underlying factor for creation of the parks however, is purely economic (Frost et al. 2009:357). The notion of the national park relied primarily on the perceptions of “worthless land (for large scale mining or agricultural production), tourism’s economic value on the land, and an acute demand for places for public enjoyment” (Frost et al. 2009:357). Robert Turner, in Market Failures and the Rationale for National Parks, asserts that national parks were established in order to create a sense of national identity, and to protect important historical and ecological resources (Turner 2002:350). Although he notes that national parks successfully preserve ecosystems, conserve biodiversity, protect wildlife, and safeguard native cultures, he ultimately argues that market failures (i.e. unprofitable land) are used as justification for national parks (Turner 2002:347-350).

Western Ideologies of the Environment
Differing views toward the environment and peoples’ role within it, dictates the way that land is utilized and managed. As Dahlberg, Rohde, and Sandell astutely observed, “Conservation of protected areas is primarily about how we perceive such landscapes, how we place differential values on different landscape components, and who gets to decide on these values” (Dahlberg et al. 2010:209). Thus, society’s perception of the environment, as well as the social and political institutions that decide which landscapes to protect, play significant roles in the determination of national park regions. Western ideologies regarding the environment typically neglected the interplay between man and forest, and portrayed nature as pristine and untouched by local populations. The areas that received attention as natural environments worthy of protection were those that were free of human activity, and there was general disregard for the significance of the relationship indigenous populations maintained with the land (Dahlberg et al. 2010:210).

The Eurocentric view of pristine nature and wilderness dictated which lands were ultimately selected as national parks. The National Park Service sought to “Preserve, in a condition as unaltered as is humanly possible, the wilderness that greeted the eyes of the first white men who challenged and conquered it,” said Freeman Tilden (Tilden 1951:417). Tilden’s remarks accurately depict the white elitist views that shaped the park system. Tilden highlights the point that, according to traditional Western ideologies, nature is seen juxtaposed with mankind, and minority populations are considered to be submissive to whites. This tainted perception of the relationship between indigenous populations and the environment severely limited local access to the land, because white elitists looked down upon locals’ dependence on the environment and their use of natural resources (Frost et al. 2009:357). Since the institutions and sectors of society that possessed the most power were predominately white, Western ideologies formed the basis for the national park system and continue to impede environmental justice because the basic principles the park system was founded upon were unjust.

Forced Displacement of Indigenous Populations
One of the most difficult obstacles to environmental justice in the national park system lies in the fact that indigenous populations, who both lived on and shaped the land, are forced to relocate if their territory is selected for a national park citing. This unfair eradication of local communities results in local communities bearing a disproportionate cost of conservation (MacKenzie 2012:93). Displaced populations face a slew of economic, social, and political problems. Compulsory removal processes leave locals without their land, homes, and source of income. The lifestyles of local communities that revolved around hunting and gathering, for example, cannot be altered instantaneously. Compensation for displacement is rarely commensurate with the value of all that is lost during relocation, and this unfairly hurts the livelihoods of locals.

Forced displacements additionally strip locals of their connection with the land and along with it, their cultural identity. Displaced individuals face the risk of marginalization by society, especially when they relocate to regions with different cultural, social, and economic backgrounds (Cernea 2006:1829). In addition to these social ramifications, locals are further disempowered by the denial of both human rights and positions of authority as managers of national parks. Community members are endowed with the right to utilize and live on land that they inhabited for hundreds of years, and they have the right to be justly compensated should they decide to relocate for the creation of a national park. However, the social institutions that protect the rights of local communities are lacking and require improvement (Cernea 2006:1829). Additionally, forced displacement of indigenous populations negatively impact biodiversity. The livelihoods of local communities depends on natural resources found in the park, and there is a tendency for displaced individuals to return to national parks to continue to hunt and gather food, even though it is now illegal for them to do so. Also, evicted persons contribute to unsustainable resource use outside of national parks by putting stress on the environment and ecological resources in already overpopulated regions (Cernea 2006:1828). Given the risks to biodiversity posed by forced relocations, it seems only logical to protect both the human rights of communities and the environment, by halting coerced displacements. As Cernea advocated, the forced relocations, “that destroy people’s livelihood and trample on their human rights should not be done” (Cernea 2006: 1829).

Environmental Racism
Environmental racism occurs when minority populations are unfairly exposed to contamination, pollution, and degraded environments due to their race and inferior political and economic status. In light of current opinions which claim national park land was selected based on the economic uselessness of land and originated from a white elitist perception of nature, it comes as no surprise that environmental racism plays a role in the obstruction of justice in the park system.

The Eurocentric ideologies that shaped the formation of protected areas do not promote local engagement or increase community benefits. Cernea makes this point eloquently; “Science and nationalism have been employed by powerful elites to justify exclusion and control of national parks” (Cernea 2006: 1808). Land belonging to poor and marginalized communities was targeted for situating national parks by elites who disregarded rights of locals, and locals were further disempowered by displacement from their homeland (Cernea 2006:1827). Moreover, while whites benefited from the creation of national parks, other minorities bore disproportionate costs of conservation. “For the white elite, national parks and other protected areas became popular for recreational purposes and access opportunities increased; The management structures of national parks worked to alienate black people from land and landscapes that had previously been part of their identity and knowledge base” (Ramutsindela 2004:1). While some nations including the United States, sought to develop a sense national identity through the development of national parks, minority communities were stripped of identities that they developed over centuries of inhabiting the land.

Locals who are displaced by national parks do not enjoy the same economic and political status, or overall wellbeing as other parts of society. Resettlers face increased morbidity and mortality from exposure to more different diseases, compounded by the fact that they are less able to pay for expensive medical care (Cernea 2006:1826). For example, in the Botwa population in Africa, the child mortality rate was a staggering 47.7% in 2004; triple that of Uganda’s national average of 14.1% (Cernea 2006:1826).

Poverty
Forced resettlements of local populations upon park establishment inflicted poverty and caused negative ramifications for locals, compromising the quest for conservation and biodiversity. Displacement of local populations expels individuals from their source of income and diminishes their standards of living. Studies conducted by Michael Cernea found that the majority of displaced people went on to find marginalized jobs that did not pay well and were further impoverished by lack of compensation by the park system (Cernea 2006:1820-1824). Moreover, research conducted in Africa found that more than 80% of the displaced Batwa population remained uncompensated for their loss of land and did not have homes after six years of displacement (Cernea 2006:1828).

Cernea criticizes the national park system for its lack of regard for the economic and social costs from the creation of preservation areas, and he promotes the concept of double sustainability which entails a dual pursuit of people’s livelihoods and biodiversity (Cernea 2006: 1808-1830). One flaw in the national park system is that it tends to pay attention only to the environment, while it disregards the role indigenous populations maintain with nature and the social and economic effects of park development.

Ecotourism
Ecotourism is touted as a green industry and has its roots embedded in the formation of the national park system (Frost et al. 2009:729). This form of tourism focuses on nature and aims to improve conservation and sustainability while fostering an appreciation for cultural heritage. Despite the potential monetary and environmental benefits of ecotourism, there are also negative impacts that accompany this market practice. Ecotourism’s altruistic goals are often compromised by “demand for access, construction of tourism facilities, and the wide spread ill-behavior of visitors” (Frost et al. 2009:729). The increasing development of land that was set aside for the sake of preservation, defeats the purpose of creating the national park in the first place. Moreover, increasing populations and stresses on natural resources prohibit national parks from fully achieving conservation. This calls into question the “applicability of the national park concept,” because if the system does not adequately further conservation and an appreciation for nature, then the system could be deemed a failure (Frost et al. 2009:729). Despite Burnett and Bulters’ positive views on the national park system regarding conservation, these authors affirmed the inherent problem in using the national park as a development (tourism) tool for its preservation objectives (Burnett et al. 1987:41). Too often, economic incentives overtake ecological goals of conservation thereby defeating the purpose of the park system.

Cernea similarly voices concern over ecotourism. Despite ecotourism’s reputation as something that promotes biodiversity and conservation efforts, it rarely generates benefits that outweigh the costs of increased tourism. “The most recent GEF study recognized about such assumed ecotourism benefits that ‘it is highly unlikely that revenue from wildlife and tourism will ever constitute a particular large source of income for all members of a community’” (Cernea 2006:1827). Furthermore, the stark disregard for indigenous people’s role in the environment and their lack of political influence in developing and managing parks, leave local communities disempowered.

Bioprospecting
Bioprospecting is the commercial use of biological resources and traditional knowledge in the development of new products (Hayden 2003:359). Bioprospecting has become more prevalent worldwide as scientists and pharmaceutical companies endeavor to uncover biological resources and develop new ways to utilize fauna and flora. However, there is often failure by commercial companies and scientists to properly compensate or recognize the contributions from locals’ knowledge. Today, more and more large companies and research groups view national parks as potential bioprospecting sources, which calls into question the role national parks should play in supplying commercially exploitable resources to these entities.

Proponents of bioprospecting in national parks view the parks as a library of environmental knowledge and resources (Jansen et al. 1998:39). The knowledge and information that could be obtained within national parks might, according to bioprospecting supporters, greatly benefit society. Furthermore, in order to properly preserve the geologic features within the parks, it is necessary to have an in depth understanding of its resources and this necessitates scientific research.

In addition to the appeal of scientific information that could provide useful products and tools for society, economic incentives also entice the Park Service to encourage bioprospecting efforts. Poor funding and commercial pressures from companies and research facilities make it increasingly difficult for the Park Service to deny bioprospecting companies’ access to the parks’ biological resources (Jansen et al. 1998:44). These unexpected monetary gains from national parks’ resources appear to be an additional benefit, but in reality, income from bioprospecting is usually small, and by engaging in bioprospecting, national parks fail to uphold their duties as places of conservation and public enjoyment.

The Case of Bioprospecting in Yellowstone
Controversy surrounding bioprospecting in national parks is especially evident in the case of Yellowstone National Park. As the first national park in the world, Yellowstone is expected to provide an example of the qualities a national park should possess. Notably, the goals of the national park system are to preserve scenery, natural resources, and aid conservation in a “natural and unimpaired state for the benefit and inspiration of all people” (Jansen et al. 1998:45). Bioprospecting in Yellowstone however, compromised the aforementioned goals. In 1997 Yellowstone National Park signed an agreement with the biotechnical company, Diversa, to allow Diversa to collect organisms from thermal pools in search of commercially exploitable products (Doremus 1991:407-409). In exchange for access to Yellowstone’s resources, Diversa would pay Yellowstone $20,000 per year plus royalties from revenues generated by the bioprospecting products (Doremus 1991:409). However, the financial costs were twice as much as the cash return to Yellowstone, and in 1998 plaintiffs from the Edmonds Institute sued the Park Service for not preparing an Environmental Impact Statement before allowing Diversa to carry out bioprospecting in Yellowstone (Doremus 1991:411). This private expropriation of public resources was considered inappropriate (Jansen et al. 1998:45), and opponents viewed it as, “the kind of science the Park Service should not permit” (Doremus 191: 477).

Financial incentives from bioprospecting dilute the goals of the national park system. While the argument that bioprospecting encourages conservation and a better understanding of the natural resources in national parks sounds appealing, no economic inducement should be necessary to protect national parks (Doremus 1999:401). National parks were originally created in order to promote conservation and foster a meaningful relationship between man and the environment – not for exploitation of natural resources. The paradigm shift from regarding parks as a place of conservation, to a place of economic gain, defeats the innate purpose of setting aside land as a protected area. Furthermore, it could create a slippery slope where the Park Service has no choice but to sell the parks’ biological resources in order to generate enough revenue to keep the parks up and running. Therefore, bioprospecting should be prohibited in national parks so that they may fulfill their original intentions of preserving the environment and wildlife for generations to come.

Local Access Rights
Local indigenous populations too often lose their access to and ability to utilize land after it has been designed as a national park. Stemming back to the Eurocentric view of the environment as something pristine and untainted by mankind, the institutions that established protected areas sought to curtail locals’ utilization of the land. Unfortunately, this negatively impacted indigenous livelihoods because of the locals’ reliance on natural resources including forests, fish, and other game. “Local communities can perceive the loss of access to these [national parks] lands as limiting their ability to survive and building economies based on natural resource extraction from, or agricultural development, of these protected areas” (MacKenzie 2012:93). While individuals who are forced to relocate obviously have restricted access to cultivatable lands, they can also be prohibited in using the land and its resources in their traditional way. Restricted access, Cernea argues, is another form of forced displacement and severely hurts locals’ livelihoods (Cernea 2006:1809).

Room for Improvement
Despite the aforementioned issues that make it difficult to achieve environmental justice for local populations, there are many ways the National Park Service can improve local’s access to the environment, decrease forced relocations, improve benefit sharing, limit impoverishment of displaced locals, halt bioprospecting, while concomitantly preserving the environment and fostering an appreciation of nature for the general public. These solutions require increased local involvement in the decision-making processes regarding national parks, and a restructuring of the political and social institutions that govern the parks. Environmental justice will only be achieved once a paradigm shift occurs that transitions away from the Eurocentric ideology of pristine nature, toward another that recognizes the interplay between the environment and indigenous populations. The following measures will help achieve these goals:


 * Reform the ideological contexts that dictated the way conservation efforts evolved. Recognize the different ways people view the environment and acknowledge the historical and cultural values of local populations.
 * Safeguard indigenous livelihoods by avoiding involuntary displacement operations that impoverish locals (Cernea 2006:1808).
 * Increase revenue sharing to benefit local communities while improving conservation efforts (MacKenzie 2012:93-97).
 * Provide more benefits to the locals who lost more due to the development of the park, instead of distributing compensation homogenously (MacKenzie 2012:93).
 * Halt bioprospecting in national parks in order to safeguard natural resources and local knowledge, without compromising the National Park System’s original goals to further conservation.
 * Include local communities in the process of establishing, planning, and developing national parks to provide them with the same political and human rights as other sectors of society.
 * Conservation agencies should be denied funds so long as they do not enact social safeguards to protect local communities from forced displacements from parks. These safeguards include policies consistent with those developed by the World Bank (Cernea 2006:1830).
 * Pursue double sustainability that protects both people’s livelihoods and natural resources, instead of focusing solely on the biological side (Cernea 2006:1830).

Burnett, G Wesley, and Lisa Mathis Butler 1987 National Parks in the Third World and Associated National Characteristics. Leisure Sciences, 9(1): 41.

Cernea, Michael M, and Kai Schmidt-Soltau. 2006 Poverty Risks and National Parks: Policy Issues in Conservation and Resettlement. World Development, 34(10):1808-1830.

Davis, CR, and AJ Hansen. 2011 Trajectories in Land Use Change Around U.S. National Parks and Challenges and Opportunities for Management. Ecological Applications, 21(8):3299-3316.

Dahlberg, A, Rohde, Sandell K.    2010 National Parks and Environmental Justice: Comparing Access Rights and Ideological Legacies in Three Countries. Conservation & Society, 8(3):209-240.

Doremus, Holly. 1999 Nature, Knowledge and Profit: The Yellowstone Bioprospecting Controversy and the Core Purposes of America's National Parks. Ecology Law Quarterly, 26(3):401.

Haukeland, JV, K Daugstad, and OI Vistad. 2011 Harmony or Conflict? A Focus Group Study on Traditional Use and Tourism Development in and Around Rondane and Jotunheimen National Parks in    Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 11:13-37.

Hayden, Cori. 2003 From Market to Market: Bioprospecting Idioms of Inclusion. American Ethnologist. 30(3):359-371.

Kuo, IL. 2012 Tourism and National Parks: International Perspectives on Development, Histories and Change. Tourism Management, 33(3):728-729.

MacKenzie, CA    2012 Trenches Like Fences Make Good Neighbours: Revenue Sharing Around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20(2):92- 100.

Ramutsindela, M    2004 Parks and People in Postcolonial Societies. Experiences in South Africa. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Shrepfer, Susan R    1985 The Fight to Save the Redwoods: A History of Environmental Reform, 1917-1978. The Western Historical Quarterly, 16(3):338-339.

Janzen, Dan, Jonathon King, Joseph Mendelson III, Preston T. Scott, Michael Soukup 1998 The Forum: Bioprospecting and Public-Private Benefit Sharing in the U.S.    National Parks. The Environmental Forum, 15(4):38-45.

Tilden, Freeman 1951. The National Parks: What They Mean to You and Me. Pp. xviii-417.

Turner, Robert W   2002 Market Failures and the Rationale for National Parks. Journal of    Economic Education, 33(4):347.