"THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND PARKS MANAGEMENT:

SCIENCE, UNCERTAINTY, COMMUNITIES AND CONSERVATION"

REPORT OF PANEL DISCUSSION

TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 16^TH

ROSIE COONEY

The theme of the IUCN World Parks Congress was "Benefits beyond boundaries", and a central focus of presentations and debate was the relationship of protected areas and local/indigenous people. This side-event focussed on the use and relevance of the precautionary principle in this context. The precautionary principle is a well-entrenched principle of environmental law, policy and management. It is the principle of "erring on the side of caution" when there is scientific uncertainty about the consequences of decisions, emphasising action to counter environmental threats in advance of scientific certainty of the threat. Central questions to be discussed by speakers included:

• Is the precautionary principle a useful/valid principle for conservation and management? Can the precautionary principle be abused or applied inappropriately?
• How does application of the precautionary principle in PA management impact on local/indigeneous people ?
• How are uncertainties and risks identified, characterised and assessed? What are the consequences for people and for conservation?
• How should the precautionary principle be applied in conservation and PA management?

Rosie Cooney (IUCN) introduced the Precautionary Principle Project, a joint initiative of IUCN, FFI, TRAFFIC and ResourceAfrica. This initiative is seeking to increase understanding of the meaning and impacts of the precautionary principle in natural resource management and biodiversity conservation, and develop operational guidance for its implementation. She introduced the precautionary principle itself, contrasting the precautionary approach with an evidentiary approach, which would emphasise taking action only where there was solid scientific evidence of threat. In the context of conservation and PA management, the precautionary principle will often be relied on to restrict access to, use or trade of natural resources in the absence of compelling scientific evidence, and she highlighted the potential for conflicts to arise in these circumstances.

Marcus Colchester (Forest Peoples Programme, World Rainforest Movement) and Lars Andreasson (Nordic Saami Institute) provided perspectives from the Indigenous Peoples’ caucus at the World Parks Congress. Colchester’s presentation placed discussion of the precautionary principle in a broad context of divergent "Western" and indigenous attitudes to the relationship of humans and nature. He began by questioning "Precautionary about what?", characterising "Western" constructions of areas as separate from humanity and as wilderness or sacred, and perceptions of humans as a threat to nature. He noted that many conservationists use science to justify protection of areas that are actually set aside for emotional and spiritual reasons. He indicated several examples in which, as a consequence of the imposition of the wilderness model of protected areas, indigenous peoples had been expelled from their traditional lands and homes. He contrasted these constructions with some indigenous perceptions of natural landscapes not as wilderness but as their home, food supply, "pantry" or "farm". He then suggested that an answer to his initial question, "Precautionary about what?" must include "Being precautionary about other cultures". When applying the precautionary principle in practice, there is a need to balance "Western" visions, based on science and aesthetics, with local visions of land and land management. But how can planners accommodate other peoples’ views of nature? He noted that international human rights regimes have been developed as agreed standards held universally by different cultures. By respecting these principles, notably the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, means are established that ensure that the application of the precautionary principle can take account of different peoples’ perspectives and priorities. Andreasson provided an illustration based on the experience of the Nordic Saami people with the establishment of the Laponia World Heritage Area. After introducing the Saami people and their traditional lands, Andreasson described the Saami relationship to the land, pointing out that for them the conception of this land as wilderness, separate from people, did not make sense. However, the evolution and change of the Saami culture, including adoption of new technologies and ways of life, were perceived as a threat to conservation. The precautionary principle had the potential to be used as an instrument of cultural conservatism, a rationale to "freeze" their culture: the Saami would be allowed to live in their land as long as they maintained traditional customs and ways of life. While not disagreeing with the concept of the precautionary principle, he viewed it as potentially "one more finger on the hand" to take their land, and emphasised that its application had to take into account indigenous cultural values.

Melvin Gumal provided a practical illustration of the interaction of science, precaution, and regulation in the context of wildlife trade in Sarawak, Malaysia, and an example of the adoption of a precautionary approach based on careful assessment of underlying threats. While within the Sarawak Forest Department he participated in the drawing up of a Wildlife Master Plan, a comprehensive strategy aiming to balance and integrate the conservation of wildlife and natural resources with the economic and development needs of the State. As well as being of conservation concern, wildlife is the major source of protein for rural people in Sarawak. One of the major perceived threats to wildlife was hunting. Research was undertaken which showed both that commercial hunting had very significantly increased, and that wildlife was decreasing. Three major precautionary measures were taken to address this threat. First, sale of cartridges was strictly limited. Second, hunting related to timber operations in the Sarawak permanent forest estate was controlled, including banning hunting by forest company employees, closing of logging roads, and prohibiting use of logging trucks for transport of wildlife. Finally, and more controversially, commercial trade of wildlife was completely prohibited. Application of precautionary measures was accompanied by ongoing monitoring to assess impacts of conservation measures and inform further management. Gumal pointed out that adoption of strong precautionary conservation measures in this instance had positive impacts on, and was supported by, rural people. Reducing the pressure of commercial hunting increased the supply of wild meat available for local subsistence use.

• An audience member questioned the emphasis of speakers on, and their critique of, the construction of humans as threats to conservation. He argued that displacement of people from protected areas had to be seen in historical context, and that such displacement took place in a very different social and ethical framework from today. However, in response Colchester and Risby referred to evidence that such practices remained ongoing. While official documents frequently adopted reference to rights and participation of indigenous and local people, they argued little had changed in terms of on-the-ground management.
• Andreasson highlighted that precaution may be applied to counter uncertainties and threats defined at a global scale, such as perceived human threats to global natural heritage values. However, local visions of conservation "risks" may be quite different, and may not view humans as a threat to nature, but as part of it.
• An audience member pointed out that a major problem is that in identifying conservation threats it is dominant groups (often planners or managers) who define what constitutes a real threat, and what action should be taken, not all stakeholders. Where there is uncertainty, a wide range of stakeholders should participate in defining and assessing risk and threat, and developing appropriate action.
• An audience member said that the precautionary principle should be seen as a principle to guide management of human impacts in all areas, including within the 10% of land within protected areas. We should not adopt an artificial division in our thinking, between "strict protection" within PAs, and "sustainable use" elsewhere. He pointed out that humans had been interacting with "natural" landscapes, including those within protected areas, for millennia, and said that to entirely exclude them on a precautionary basis, to avoid uncertain, potential risks, was nonsense.
• An audience member questioned the implicit assumption that local people necessarily had a rich understanding of local resources and their management and sustainable utilisation. She highlighted experience in marine conservation in Tanzania, and suggested that many local people (resource users) had very little understanding of the coral reef, not realising, for instance, that coral was a living organism. In these circumstances she argued that strong enforcement, coupled with education, was essential to counter environmental threats.

• An audience member said it is unclear whether the precautionary principle is an inherently flawed concept, or a good principle which is sometimes applied inappropriately. Many supported this second perspective, including Risby, who agreed that the precautionary principle is not necessarily a bad principle for action, but could be abused.
• An audience member pointed to the need for case studies to examine the unintended effects of applying the precautionary principle inappropriately or uncritically.
• Colchester said that precaution was a valid approach to conservation, but had to be balanced against respect for and recognition of human rights, particularly those of local and indigenous peoples.

• Risby emphasised that the application of the precautionary principle requires proper assessments of risk and threat. Decision-makers should not shirk their responsibilities to assess risks and seek the knowledge needed by relying on the precautionary principle.
• Gumal further emphasised that adoption of a precautionary approach in conservation interventions should be based on careful assessment of underlying threats, and impacts should be carefully monitored to allow assessment of the need for its application.
• An audience member raised the question of how potential negative human impacts should be measured? If we do not assume local peoples’ pose conservation threats, how do we actually monitor to try to assess whether negative impacts are caused?
• Cooney raised the question of whether precaution should be equated with protectionism: does being precautionary mean prohibiting or restricting use of or access to wild resources? What about other risks and threats, such as removal of incentives for conservation or erosion of political or local support for conservation?
• Colchester agreed with a suggestion from the audience that in the context of uncertain environmental risks, the knowledge of any one group should not be seen as definitive. It was therefore important for conservationists to work with local communities rather than against them in defining and managing risk. While these sort of partnerships were not easy and took more time, the right conditions had to be created for them to work.. Likewise, Risby said that decision-makers needed to balance "top-level" and "bottom-level" decision-making: it was not adequate for powerful groups to determine what constituted environmental risks, and what precautionary measures should be taken.
• Gumal emphasised the need to avoid polarisation in debate around contentious topics such as the precautionary principle. Different viewpoints should seek to understand each other rather than to fight.

• The precautionary principle involves taking action to avert conservation threats even where those threats are uncertain. It is widely perceived as an important and valid policy principle, but may also have the potential to be applied inappropriately or illegitimately.
• In the context of protected areas, uncertainty about the conservation impacts of human utilisation of natural resources can lead to significant controversy. Such conflicts over access to and utilisation of resources are often mediated by the precautionary principle.
• The precautionary principle may provide justification for the exclusion of local and indigenous people from access to and utilisation of natural resources, where there is uncertainty about impacts of such use. This is often based on conservation narratives and views of nature which identify humans as constituting a conservation threat, involving uncertain risks, to be controlled or excluded. Inappropriate use of the precautionary principle in these contexts can have serious negative impacts on local and indigenous people.
• The relationship of people, including local and indigenous people, to nature varies enormously across regions, times and peoples, and is not always harmonious. However, indigenous groups often perceive themselves as part of nature, rather than a "risk" or threat to it. In this view the use of the precautionary principle to avert human-induced threats is inappropriate and even nonsensical. Application of the precautionary principle should take into account indigenous cultural values and conceptions of land management.
• Precaution should be based on careful identification and assessment of risks and threats, involving a wide range of stakeholders. Risks should not be narrowly defined by dominant groups, such as PA planners and managers, to the exclusion of competing or divergent perspectives, such as local/indigeneous people.
• In the conservation context science rarely provides certainty, but available science should be assesssed and used to inform and indicate appropriate precautionary conservation interventions.
• Application of precaution should be accompanied by monitoring to assess its impacts and the continued need for its use.