Conservation′s Ambiguities: Rangers on the Periphery of the W Park, Burkina Faso

Abstract

This article demonstrates the central role of ambiguity in the (re)production process of conservation practice. It argues that some current political economy as well as environmentality approaches to research conservation practice fail to capture the complexity of the lived experience of local conservationists. The article focuses on the multiple identities of rangers in interaction with other residents at the periphery of the W Park in Burkina Faso, as rangers are local conservationists who simultaneously submit to and produce conservation practices. Park rangers are village men who are recruited under the banner of community participation in conservation projects and state forestry. On a day-to-day basis, these rangers help the foresters with the management of the natural resources on the one hand, and guide tourists, especially in the hunting concessions, on the other. They occupy ambiguous positions at the crossroads of conservationist, state, political, economic, spiritual, social, and cultural practices, inherent to their conservation occupations at the lowest echelon, where residents have to transform conservation policies into practices. It is precisely this ambiguity that turns out to ensure the conservation implementation.

Conservationland: Toward the anthropology of professionals in global nature conservation

“…Conservationists work at the science departments of zoos, keeping, breeding and researching members of endangered species. My paper here, too, overrepresents encounters that happen at protected areas, rather than elsewhere (Leejiah Dorward, personal communication; Redford, 2011).…”

“…Conservation biology and sociocultural anthropology increasingly converse (Brosius, 2006; Orlove and Brush, 1996; Redford, 2011). Similarly to the relationship between development and anthropology, the interactions between conservation and anthropology can be divided into academic (scholars publishing ethnographies and critiques of conservation) and applied (practicing anthropologists who work for and with conservation organisations) (Larsen, 2016).…”

“…Such ethnography can end up representing conservation through the field’s boldest or most outrageous ideas, movements and famous advocates. It can thus turn conservation into a caricature, or, as Redford (2011: 328) puts it, ‘a misreading that appeals to other like-minded [social scientists] and becomes self-perpetuating’. When the world of conservation becomes understood primarily through its advocacy discourse or popular media representations, we miss, for example, that the conservationists’ economistic rhetoric may often be strategic – namely, it tries to ‘sell’ to the public the ideas of saving animal populations – rather than heartfelt (Holmes, 2018; Rival, 2012; Takacs, 1996; Toussaint, 2005).…”

“…Familiarising ourselves with broader conservation realities helps us see heterogeneity and specificity (Larsen and Brockington, 2018; Redford, 2011). Let me offer some examples.…”

Der prekäre Park

“…Die Autorin beschreibt die Bedeutung von Uniformen und das Misstrauen zwischen unterschiedlichen Kategorien der Überwachungsakteure. Ihre Ausführungen deuten darauf hin, dass Herausforderungen in der Umsetzung partizipativer Maßnahmen nicht nur das Parkmanagement in Opposition zur Bevölkerung betreffen, sondern auch innerhalb der Reihen der Parkangestellten zum Tragen kommen (Poppe 2012(Poppe , 2013.…”