1

Title:

ProtectedAreas,ConservationStakeholdersand the ‘Naturalization’

ofSouthernEurope

Author:

JoseA.CORTES‐VAZQUEZDisciplineofGeography,SchoolofGeographyandArchaeology,NationalUniversityofIrelandGalway,Galway,Irelandjacorvaz@gmail.comWordcount:10.247

2

Abstract:

The critical analysis of conservation conflicts in Protected Areas (PAs) raises

interestingquestionsabouttheredefinitionofhuman‐environmentrelations in

thecurrentecologicalcrisis.Inrecentyearsthesedebateshaveunveiledthat,in

theattempttodefinethe‘proper’placeofhumansinnature,PAshaveembodied

moderndualisticworldviews,whichunderstandnatureasarealmdifferentfrom

society, culture and ’civilisation’. In this paper, I suggest that the utilisation of

theseworldviewsshouldbeunderstoodaspartoftheconceptualapparatusthat

enablesatransitioninmanagementrolesinProtectedAreas,throughwhichnew

empoweredgroupsaregrantedtherighttocontrolandusenaturalresources.By

analysingthepracticesanddiscoursesofconservationstakeholdersattheCabo

de Gata‐Níjar Natural Park, in southern Spain, I show that modern ideas of

nature are essential to the collective appropriation of Cabo de Gata by new

empowered groups because these ideas justify a new way of managing local

resourcesinaccordancewiththeirowninterestsanddesires.Iconcludethatthis

has deep implications for the study of people‐park conflicts and the problems

associatedtothepromotionofmoreenvironmentallyfriendlywaysofmastering

theenvironment,whichmustbeapproachedinthelightofthepowerrelations

associated to the appropriation of territory and natural resources. I also

conclude that, in order to understand how the nature‐society dualism still

dictates the way we should relate to the environment, we must trace the

practices of those who bear this worldview and unveil the strategies and

mechanismsthatareused.

Keywords

Protected Areas, Conservation Policies, Ecotourism, Nature/Society, Europe,

ConservationStakeholders

3

Introduction

Central to the constitution of current ecological crises are modernist

environmentalviewsthatseparatenaturefromsocietyandwhichmakepossible

large‐scale exploitation and despoliation of natural resources (Latour 1993,

Arnold 1996). This ontological separation is also integral to the emergence of

modern environmentalism and many attempts to redress the ecological

problems caused by capitalism (Pepper 1996). The tensions surrounding this

separationandattemptstodealwiththemarevisibleinnumerousconservation

conflicts, fromdisputesbetweenbiodiversityconservationand farming, fishing

andgrazingpracticestothematerialandsymbolicevictionoflocalgroupsfrom

conservation‐targeted areas (Redpath et al 2013). Critiques of these conflicts

contend that, despite promoting new environmental attitudes, most

conservation initiatives have failed to question the nature‐society separation

inherenttoecologicallydepredatoryinitiatives.

Critical Social Sciences studying conflicts in Protected Areas (PAs) have

producedespeciallyincisiveanalysesofthelinksbetweenconservationpolicies

andthenature‐societydualism(Westetal2006).Theyareindebtedtothequery

of the US National Park model and its connection to a Western rhetoric of

wilderness,authenticityanduntouchednature(Cronon1995),whichhaslargely

inspiredaState‐centredconservationmodel inmanyother countries inAfrica,

Asia and Latin America (Adams 2004). This model hinges on the coercive

utilisation of State’s force and technologies of governance upon some social

groups in order to create ‘islands’ of supposedly untouched nature; its most

extrememanifestationsbeingtermed‘fortressconservation’(Brockington2002,

Igoe2004).

Although this model has had a limited impact on the design of PAs in other

regionssuchasWesternEurope,wherelocalinhabitants’presenceandinterests

aretoacertainextentacknowledgedinconservationplans(Redford2011),their

critical examination reveals that, in the attempt to define the ‘proper’ place of

humansinnature,thesePAshavealsoembodieddualisticenvironmentalviews.

DrawingonanontologynamedbyDescola (2005) ‘WesternNaturalism’, these

4

conservation policies have incorporated ideas of nature and society in binary

opposition, extending the belief that conservation depends a great deal on

limitingthetransformationofnaturalresourcesbyhumans(Santamarina2009).

The counterintuive utilisation of these ideas of nature in areas broadly

accreditedashighlytransformedandshapedbyhumanbeings,suchasthosein

the European Mediterranean Basin (Grove and Rackham 2001), converts

European Protected Areas in unique places for the study of how Western

naturalismisstrategicallyutilisedwithintheconceptualapparatusthatjustifies

theintroductionofconservationpolicies.

Thispaperseekstomakeacontributiontothisfieldbyfocusingonkeymembers

of the network of actors that support conservation policies in European PAs.

Through the study of their situated interests, intentions, practices and

environmentaldiscourses,myanalysis engageswith twomainbodiesofwork.

The first is the study of the drivers of conservation policies and development

initiatives,whosenarrativesareusuallyportrayedasapoliticalintheprocessof

decision‐making(Ferguson1990,Escobar1998,Robbins2004,Peetetal2010)

andassociateddebatesabouttheroleofscientists,economiclobbiesandexpert

bureaucracies in policies of environmental governance (Scott 1998, Jasanoff

2004, Brockington and Duffy 2010). The second is the study of Western

naturalism(Descola2005)andthequestioningithasbeensubjectedtoinrecent

decades (Haraway 1988, Latour 1993, Castree and Braun 2001, Whatmore

2001).Inparticular,Iengagewithongoingdebatesthatqueryifnaturalismcan

become an empirical object of study for ethnographers, which would involve

studying those who bear and enact this particular ontology (Candea and

Alcayna‐Stevens2012).

Myanalysiscentresonaparticularcase:theCabodeGata‐NíjarNaturalPark,in

the Region of Andalusia, southern Spain. The story of conservation in this

extremelydry, coastalplace featuresdecade‐long socialdisputes regarding the

introduction of a more environmentally friendly way of managing natural

resources,whichhas tried to hamper the expansionofmass tourism, industry

and intense irrigated agriculture and to redress the ecological impact of non‐

intensive, customary practices, such as fishing, grazing and dry farming. I

5

examine thekeyrole thatcertain local stakeholdersplayed in thisprocessand

howmodern ideas of nature were utilised to transform Cabo de Gata from a

historical farming, grazing and fishing area to a biodiversity reserve and

ecotourismdestination.ForreasonsthatIwillexplaininduecourse,myanalysis

willcentreontwospecificgroups:scientistsandnewex‐urbaninhabitants.

My examination of the Cabo de Gata‐Níjar Natural Park draws on a growing

literature about the links between the nature‐society dualism, people‐park

conflicts and issues of territorial reintegration and land‐use reorganisation

across Europe (Green 2005, Vaccaro and Beltran 2008, Ruiz et al 2009,

Santamarina2009,Valcuendeetal2011,Cortes‐Vazquez2012).Forexample,in

AndalusiatheestablishmentofnewPAsinthelastquarterofacentury,covering

up to twenty per cent of the territory, has paralleled the promotion of new

economic practices based onWestern rhetoric of wilderness, authenticity and

untouchednature,mainlyecotourism(Escalera2011).Thishasintroducedland‐

use changes not only informed by environmentalist concerns but also by EU

macroeconomic interests, which aim to promote the growth of a service

economywithineconomicallymarginalareas,replacingcustomaryfarmingand

fishing practices whose reliance on subsidies makes them clearly deficient

withinaglobalisedeconomy(Gonzalez1993,Coca2008).

In order to conceptualise similar processes of ecological redefinition,

environmentalgovernanceandland‐usereorganisationandtheirconnectionto

the actions and interests of empowered groups, usually with an urban

background, some scholars have proposed such terms as ‘re‐territorialisation’

(VaccaroandBeltran2008)and ‘heritagisation’ (FrigoléandDelMarmol2009,

Quintero2009).Moreorlessexplicitly,thesetermshingeonanapproachtothe

idea of territory as an area that a particular group claim to be of their own,

grantingsomeofitsmembersthecontrolandmanagementofnaturalresources

(cf.Godelier1986).Withasimilarrationale,Iwillrefertotheissuesanalysedin

thispaperusingtheterm‘naturalization’1foritstressestheessentialroleofthe

1There isan important issuehere, identifiedbyonereaderofanearlierversionof thispaper.The word ‘naturalization’ has other meanings, some of them much more popular, which cangenerate some confusion. The Oxford Dictionary defines the term naturalize, from whichnaturalization derives, as 1) admitting (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country; 2)

6

ideaofnatureinjustifyingtheintroductionofconservationpolicies,whichIwill

approachasthecollectiveappropriationofaterritoryanditsresourcesbynew

empoweredgroups2.

ThispaperstartswithahistoricalreviewoftheCabodeGata‐NíjarNaturalPark.

I will describe the collaborations in which scientists and new ex‐urban

inhabitantsengagedinsupportoftheestablishmentofthisNaturalParkduring

the1970sand1980s.Iwillthenanalysetheconceptualapparatusthatunderlies

thediscoursestheseconservationstakeholdershaveenacted;discourseswhose

aim is both to justify their support and to delegitimize those that oppose

conservationplansinCabodeGata.Iwillparticularlyemphasisetheirstrategic

utilisationofthenature‐societydualismamidstnotionsof livelihood,valueand

land‐use rights. Finally, Iwill show the extent the Park policy embodies these

interestsandenvironmentalnarratives.

Thisanalysiswillpermitmetoreflectabouttheimpactsconservationinitiatives

haveonvastareasacrossEuropeandtheinfluenceofcertainideasofnaturein

thematerial and symbolic reshaping of these territories. This will allow for a

more empirically‐based examination of the political dimensions of modernist

ideasofnature,theintimaciesbetweentheseideasandcertaininterestsandthe

challenges this poses to the ethnographic study of people‐park conflicts,when

establishing(aplantoranimal)sothatitliveswildinaregionwhereitisnotindigenous;and3)regardingasorcausingtoappearnaturalandexplaining(aphenomenon)inanaturalisticway.Althoughthemainstreamuseofthetermregardsthefirstdefinition,theothertwomeaningsarecloselyrelatedtothemainsubjectofthispaper.Despitetheconfusionthatthismightgenerate,thereasonforusingthetermnaturalizationconcerns itsexplanatorypower. Ibelievethetermsummarisestheprocessofmaterialandsymbolicproductionofaspaceinaccordancewiththeparticular environmental views that are inherent to Western Naturalism, which is the mainphenomenon I study here. As such, I defend that the term is a much more precise of theparticularities affecting Natural Protected Areas than those more general ones, including re‐territorialisation and heritagisation. Whether there might be connections between thisphenomenonandotherscoveredby the termNaturalization, it isbynomeansmy intention toexploretheminthispaper.2ThisreflectsthelargeextentmyanalysisisinfluencedbyFoucauldianandMarxianapproachestothesociety‐environmentnexusandtheproductionofnature(Castree2000,2002)aswellasby related analysis about the links between conservation policies and the distribution ofprivilege,fortuneandmisfortune(AndersonandBerglund2003,Brockingtonetal2008).

7

we approach themas conflicts over the control of certain territories and their

naturalresources3.

TheBirthofaNaturalPark

TheCabodeGata‐NíjarNaturalParkisa495‐km2coastalprotectedarealocated

within one of the driest regions in Western Europe. A long history of scarce

rainfalls,erosionandresourcemisusehasgeneratedextremelypoorsoilsinthe

area.Todateonlyanimalandplantspeciesfullyadaptedtoitsdesertconditions

are able to growwild.Barrenplains andhills, characterisedby the absenceof

trees and shrub, dominate the landscape. These are interspersed with small

farming fields,wherewheatandbarleyaregrown for the feedingofgoatsand

sheepherds(around300animalsperherd).Theprotectedmarinearea,which

coversalmost25%ofthePark,comprisesasandyseabedwithsmallgroupings

ofseaweedandsomereefs. Ithostsasmallbutdiverse in‐shore fishery that is

exploitedbylocalfishermen.OtheractivitiesintheParkincludeecotourismand

smallinitiativesoffishfarmingandintenseagricultureinplasticpoly‐tunnels.

LikemostruralregionsinAndalusia,overthelasthalfofacenturythisareahas

undergonemajor changes: the 1950s and 1960s agricultural crisis, an intense

de‐agrarianisation process, strong rural‐urban migrations, transformations

linked to the political and economic integration within the EU, interventions

derived from a growing concern about environmental problems and changes

related to the incorporation into global markets (cf. Delgado 2010). These

3ThefindingsIampresentingherearetheresultofasix‐yearresearch,workingwithmembersof theDepartmentofSocialSciencesat thePablodeOlavideUniversity(Spain)ontwoappliedresearch projects involving ethnographic fieldwork in several protected areas in Andalusia,southernSpain(projectreferences:SEJ2004/SOCI‐06161andP06‐RNM‐02139).Icarriedoutmyown research at the Cabo de Gata‐Nijar Natural Park alongside these two projects. Using anethnographic approach based on semi‐structured interviews and participant observation, Ifocused on social conflicts following the introduction of the park’s management and land‐usezoningplan.Ioptedforqualitativedatasincemyintentionwasnottosurveydifferentpositionstowardsconservationinitiatives,buttoobtaina‘thickdescription’–inGeertz’s(1973)terms‐ofthe senses andmeanings given to the changes occurring in Cabo de Gata from the day‐to‐dayexperiences of different groups. For this paper, I am using data gathered via semi‐structuredinterviews and participant observation with Park Managers, scientists, NGO members,ecotourismentrepreneursandothernewexurbaninhabitants,aswellasthoseobtainedfromanin‐depth literature review and the analysis of Park’s conservation plans and other secondaryinformationsources.

8

phenomena have deeply influenced Cabo de Gata’s socio‐economic conditions,

moving from decades of deep economic crisis, impoverishment and

marginalisationtoagrowingdependenceofaserviceeconomy,theintervention

ofglobaliseddiscoursesanddisputesoverconflictingdevelopmentstrategies.As

Iwillexplaininthenextfewparagraphs,thesechangesshowdifferentaspectsof

a transition in management roles over natural resources, which at times has

becomearoughanddrawnoutprocess.

IntheearlypartofthetwentiethcenturymostinhabitantsinCabodeGatawere

small landownersandlandlesslabourersthatwereworkinginthelocalmining

industry and in the estatesof just a fewbig andpowerful landowners.Adeep

economic and social crisis was starting to affect this place. Intense mining,

farmingandgrazingactivities in theprevious centurieshad caused severe soil

degradationanddecreasingyields(Sánchez1996).Moreover,thedependenceof

smalllandownersandlandlesspeopleonwagelabour4madethelocaleconomic

situationquicklyworsenfollowingtheendingofbothminingactivitiesandthe

exploitationoflargeplantationsofespartograssintheestatesofbiglandowners.

This crisis alsodraggeddown local in‐shore fishing activities,whichdepended

on the commercialisation of their catches in the nearby farming and mining

towns(Compán1977).Bythe1950sand1960stheareawasalreadyrenowned

asoneofthepoorestandmostmarginalinSpain;farmhouses,villagesandlands

wereprogressivelybeingabandonedasmigrationbecameunavoidableforthose

withfewereconomicresources(Goytisolo2004[1960]).

The1970sand1980sbroughtaboutaseachange.Intenseirrigatedagriculture

underplasticpoly‐tunnelsandmass‐tourismquicklyspreadfromneighbouring

areas,wheretheywerebecomingextremelysuccessful.Populationlevelsbegan

togrow;thearea’seconomicpotentialattractedbothnewinvestorsandsomeof

the people that had emigrated years before (Fernández and Egea 1991)5.

4Thisdependenceonwagelabouristobeunderstoodinrelationtotheprivatisationofcommonlands, which mostly benefited big landowners (Gongora 2004) and which transformed thelivelihoods of most small landowners and landless people, who relied on the utilisation ofcommon lands as a source of fodder, graze and fuel. As Provansal andMolina (1991) analyse,these activities were essential economic complements because of the poor yields that wereobtainedfromagriculture.5Between1900and1970populationleveldecreasedastriking38percent.Thistrendchangedfromthe1980sonwards.Thenumberofpeople living inCabodeGatahasdoubledsince then

9

Another extremely important phenomenon was taking place alongside these

changes.AgrowingnumberofpeoplefrombothSpanishandnorthernEuropean

urbanareasstartedtosettledownintheregion.Thestrongurbandevelopment

experiencedinmostcoastalareas inSpaingrantedthebarely inhabited,desert

landscapeofCabodeGatanewmeaningsandvalues.Theseex‐urbaninhabitants

‐mostlyartists,studentsandyoungentrepreneurs‐interpretedtheabandoned

condition of the place in a ‘naturalistic’ way. They felt they had discovered a

‘remote and natural’ space ‐ the ‘ideal’ place to start a new, ‘alternative’ and

‘genuine’lifefarfromthe‘artificiality’ofmodernityandcitylife6.

Furthermore,amuchmorepowerfulphenomenonwasalsotodeeplyimpactthe

region in thoseyears.Followinganationwidepolitical swift that tried to leave

behind the environmentally exploitative policies introduced during the early

Francodictatorshipandtocomecloser toEuropeanpolitical trends, the1970s

and1980switnessedtheestablishmentofmultiplenewProtectedAreasacross

Spain7.Biologists,geologistsandbotanistsplayedakeyroleinthisbyinforming

theselectionof thoseareaswithremarkableecologicalvalues thatwereworth

protecting (Mulero2002). InCabodeGata, these scientists joined thenewex‐

urbaninhabitantsintheirefforttostoptheexpansionofpoly‐tunnelsandmass

tourism,which theybothdeemeda threat to the local ecological andaesthetic

qualities. As a result, a local environmentalist movement emerged, requesting

theintroductionofconservationmeasures(CastroandGuirado1995).Favoured

by this ‘greening’politicalshift, theirdemandswerequicklysuccessfuland the

AndalusiaRegionalGovernmentestablishedtheCabodeGata‐NíjarNaturalPark

in1987.

Thedevelopmentofa‘green’tourismindustrywithintheParkbecameoneofthe

main priorities for policy‐makers,with the aim to provide an environmentally

friendlyeconomicalternative for local inhabitants (Castro1989).However, the

(from 2700 to around 5700) (Source: Andalusia Statistic Institute.http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/institutodeestadisticaycartografia/Lastaccess:July2011).6Similarpopulationmovements,whichVaschetto(2006)terms‘utopianmigrations’,havebeenstudiedinotherpartsoftheWorld,forexampleinSouthAmerica.7Although some conservation initiatives in Spaindateback the early twentieth century, it hasbeen from the 1970s onwards that the number of new PAs increased as never before. InAndalusiatheywerecoveringalmostaquarteroftheterritoryinjustafewyears.

10

goal was not only to address concerns about the local populations’ means of

living but also EU macroeconomic interests. The latter were seeking the

promotionof a service economy inmarginal regionsacross theEU inorder to

develop multifunctional rural areas and reduce their dependence on highly

subsidisedfarmingandfishingpractices.Anothercontinent‐wideaffairwasalso

at stake as new Parks were expected to play a part in the territorial

redistribution that sought to compensate exceeding externalities from highly

industrialised and urban areas in central Europe with a protected periphery,

whererecreationalpracticeswerebeingfostered.Asaresult,CabodeGata,like

many other locations across ‘peripheral’ Europe, witnessed a deep land‐use

reorganisation process, led by supra‐local and supra‐national institutionswith

thelocalsupportofincreasinglyempoweredgroupswithanurbanbackground8.

However,mostofthesmall landowners, farmers,shepherdsandfisherfolkthat

still inhabited this areawere reluctant to accept these transformations,whilst

those aspiring to capitalise on irrigated agriculture and mass tourism totally

opposed them. The conservation policy introduced in the area not only

promoted ecotourism but also banned poly‐tunnels, industrial developments

and mass tourism and restricted customary uses in many areas, including

grazing,dryfarmingandin‐shorefishing.Asdiscussedelsewhere(Valcuendeet

al2011,Cortes‐Vazquez2012,Cortes‐VazquezandZedalis2013)atroublesome

relationshipbetweenthesedifferentgroupsandconservationsupporterswasto

condition social life in Cabo de Gata to present times, especially as the Park

mostlyoccupiedprivatelands.

Furthermore, the argument that these farming plots, oldmining areas and in‐

shore fishing grounds were natural areas worth protecting from human

aggression, contradictedwhatmost farmers, shepherds andother local groups

believed tobe the ‘proper’wayofusing local resources in a region they judge

historically poor and ecologically hostile. A closer look at the conservation

measures introduced in the Park will help us understand the source of these

conflictsandtheroleplayedbytheenvironmentalredefinitionthataccompanied8FormoreinformationatEUlevelseeBakeretal(1994).ForspecificdetailsonhowthisaffectedtheframeworkRegionofAndalusia,seeMarchena(1993).SomenotesaboutitsinfluenceinCabodeGatacanbefoundinProvansal(2003).

11

thecreationof thisNaturalPark9.Butbeforedoing this,weneed toanalyse in

moredetail the interestsanddesiresof thosesocialgroups thatsupported the

transformation of this historically farming, grazing and fishing area into a

biodiversityreserveandecotourismdestination.

ConservationandLocalStakeholders

As previouslymentioned, in the late 1970s amidst a greeningpolitical context

the SpanishGovernment asked a group of scientists to produce a catalogue of

areas that could be worth protecting within the Almeria Province, where the

NaturalParkislocated.Oneoftheactivitiescarriedoutbythisgroupofexperts‐

mainly geographers, geologists and biologists from different University

DepartmentsandNationalResearchCouncils‐wastostudyCabodeGata’smost

outstanding features: itsvolcanicrocks,rarespeciesof floraand faunaandthe

functioning of its uncommondesert ecosystems. Their intentionwas to assess

the natural value of this region10. Like in many other contexts where expert

knowledge ‐ uncritically portrayed as objective and apolitical (Franklin 1995,

Jasanoff2004)‐hasbeenusedinsupportofpoliticallydrivendecisions(Fairhead

and Leach 1996, 2003), these experts’ research findingswere instrumental to

changing the perception of Cabo de Gata from a barren land to a biodiversity

hotspotandthereforekeytosupportingtheideathatitwasworthprotecting.

Fuelled by these findings, in less than a decade environmentalist ambitions

quickly expanded from theprotectionof only a fewhundred squaremetres of

coastallagoonsin1978toamuchlargerareaalmostthecurrentsizeofthePark

9 Although in this paper I focus exclusively on conservation supporters, I believe furtherclarificationsaboutlocalpopulation’spositionagainsttheParkwouldbewelcome.AsIanalyseelsewhere(Valcuendeetal2011,Cortes‐Vazquez2012,Cortes‐VazquezandZedalis2013),ithasbeensmalllandownerswhohavemorefiercelyopposedconservationmeasures.Reasonsbehindthis concern the nature of irrigated agriculture in poly‐tunnels, which report substantialrevenueswithout requiring large states.Moreover, this positioning also concern the historicalrelationshipmaintainedwith big landowners. These have been able to capitalise both inmassandnaturetourismatthesametimethatbenefitedfromtherevalorisationoflandsfollowingtheParkestablishment.Inaddition,inrecentyearstheAndalusianGovernmenthasbeenpurchasingprivatelandsinCabodeGataasastrategytoimproveconservationmanagement.ParkManagersacknowledgethatacquiredlandsmostlybelongtobiglandownerswhowereabletoofferlargerplotsatalowerprice.Smalllandownersperceivethiswithdistrust.10MoredetailsaboutthisprocessinCapel(1980).

12

in198711.Someofthesescientistssettleddownintheareaandstartedtowork

intheParkOfficeandotherregionalandmixedenvironmentalagencies.Someof

those that remained at their home universities and research institutions also

keptcloselinkswiththisplacebybecomingauthoritativemembersofthePark

GoverningBoard12.

Two particular aspects of expert influence on this area appeal tomy analysis.

Firstly, their findingsnotonlysupportedtheestablishmentof theNaturalPark

but have also informed conservationmanagement up to this time. The values

they have identified, which include endemic plants, communities of migrant

birdsandexceptionalmarineecosystems,arekeyargumentstodefiningwhich

partsoftheParkdeservestricterprotection.Furthermore,theyarealsoessential

to deciding which human‐related elements must be preserved. These include

some archaeological and ethnologic items because of their architectural

singularity(18thcenturycoastaltowers,constructionslinkedtooldminingand

farmingactivitiessuchas farmhouses,watercisterns, terraces,wellsandmills)

or because of their historical contribution to the maintenance of present

ecologicalconditions(forexample,thelinksbetweendryfarmingandrarebirds’

nestinghabits)13.

Secondly, someof these scientists and experts, in their role of ParkManagers,

officers, rangers and guides, have become responsible for meeting the Park’s

conservation goals. As such, their views about the ‘proper’ place of humans in

nature–basedon theWesternmodernnature/societydualism‐permeate their

11TheParkextensionincreasedonceagainin1994.12TheParkGoverningBoard(JuntaRectora,inSpanish)isanadvisoryconsultantpanelformedof different groups of stakeholders (scientists, NGOs, farmers, fisherfolk, local and regionalgovernmentandtourismentrepreneurs,amongothers).Theyperiodicallymeettodiscussissuesconcerning theParkmanagement.However,despite itsname, theironly function is toprovideadvice, lacking any management capability or power to change the Park policy. These areexclusivelyon thehandsofParkOfficersand thedifferentenvironmentalbureaucraciesof theAndalusiaRegionalGovernment.13What isparticularly interestingof thesehuman‐relatedcomponents is that theyaredeemedtheremainingsignsofthe‘traditional’ inhabitantsofCabodeGata,whoareconsideredtohaveheld a ‘wise’ know‐how that permitted them to adapt to a dry environment in an efficient,environmentally friendly way. This form of regarding local inhabitants has acquired greatimportanceintheParkpolicyincurrentyears.Behindit,thereisaseriousattempttointegratehuman presence within the conservation landscape (see similar cases in Anderson andBerglund’s2003editedvolume).Yet,asIwilldiscussinforthcomingsectionsandtheseauthorshavealsostressed,thedepictionof‘traditional’humansandtheirrole,inastylethatrecallsthekindofahistoricalnarrativesanalysedbyWolf(1982),raisesfurtherproblems.

13

decisionsandstronglyinfluencethewaytheParkismanaged.Thenextquoteis

agoodexample:

‘TheroleofParkManagersistodecidewhichconservationinitiativesmust

be implemented. For example, if there is an interest in restoring a

watercourse,we need to take into account itsmultiple functions. As key

components of traditional mechanisms for the collection of rainwater,

watercoursesprovideanessentialservicefortheirrigationoforchardsand

domesticwatersupply.Assuch,theymustbekeptfreeofweedandshrubs.

This makes sense, right? But if we study a particular watercourse and

discover that it has now become a preying area for Bonelli’s eagles, for

example,ourdecisionwill thenconsider thisnewecological functionand

prioritise it,because it ismore important than thatofa traditionalwater

supplier’(Male,biologist,memberoftheParkmanagementteam)14

Expertsandexpertcriteriahavealsobeeninstrumentaltothedevelopmentofa

‘green’ tourism industry inCabodeGata.Thismirrors aworldwide trend that

regards tourism as the key to overcome the contradictions between nature

conservation and economic development. New modalities of tourism

(ecotourism, sustainable tourism,nature tourism)have caught theattentionof

institutions andpolicymakers all around theWorld (Ceballos‐Lascuráin 1996,

WestandCarrier2004).InCabodeGata,expertshaveembracedecotourismas

thebesteconomicalternativeforlocalinhabitantsbecauseitsupposedlypermits

themtoliveinthisNaturalParkbymeansofa‘low‐impacting’humanactivity15.

In recent years, ‘visiting a natural place’ has become a powerful gimmick that

attractsthousandsoftouriststoCabodeGata.Thishasrequiredtheintervention

ofParkofficers,whohavedevelopedseveralinitiativestoguaranteethat‘nature’

14Tofacilitatereading,thisandtheotherofquotationsinthispaperhavebeentranslatedfromSpanishintoEnglish.15 The literature specialising in tourism and Protected Areas has questioned this supposedlyflawlessrelationshipandhavestressedtheinfluenceexertedbytouristexpectations‐basedonaWestern rhetoric of wilderness, authenticity or primitive life (Vivanco 2001, Wels 2004)‐ onconservationmanagementbecausetheyurgeParkManagerstotakeactionssothattheseareasbecomeattractive topotential consumers (West andCarrier2004). Inotherwords, to achievethiswin‐winpartnershipbetween conservation anddevelopment through tourismParksmustremainattractiveandaccessiblefortourists,whicheventuallymakeconservationtobesomehowdependantonthesuccessoftourisminitiatives.

14

is attractive and accessible for visual consumption. For example, one of the

Park’sattractionsisthatitprovidestouristswiththepossibilityof‘beingcloser

tonature’throughquietcountrysidewalksfarfromnoisy,crowdedandpolluted

urbanenvironments.Tomakethispossible,ParkManagershaveworkedtoward

the design and construction of a network of pathways,with access to vantage

points,signsandanefficientrubbishcollectionsystem.Furtherexamplesinclude

the construction of costly infrastructure (Visitors Centre, Information Points,

Campsites,BotanicGardens)andtheeditionofinformationmaterial(Maps,Park

Guidebooks).Thenextquoteshowsthe importanceParkManagersgive to this

role:

‘In relation to tourism, we do several things: environmental reports,

projects related topublicuseandconservation.Weshouldn’t talkstrictly

about tourism, but about infrastructure, projects and dissemination

materialthatenhancetheParkpublicuse.[…]Forexample,westartedby

building up a Visitors Centre that, like in other Parks, provides a broad

overview of this space. Then we established a few Information Points

alongside the coast, which are open during the high season. We also

workedtowardthecreationofanetworkofpathwaysthatspanalongthe

Park and covers itsmost salient particularities: inland pathways, coastal

pathways and other theme pathways that focus on geological values,

ethnographicorculturalaspects…[…]Alltheseareelementsthatfacilitate

theParktouristicuseandthatdifferentiatethisplacefromanyotherthatis

not a Natural Park’ (Female, biologist, member of the Parkmanagement

team).

The importance of ecotourism gives those that engage with this economic

activityaprotagonistrole inconservationefforts.Ononehand,ParkManagers

havegoodreasonstoaddressecotourismentrepreneurs’requestsbecausethey

have become conservation’s best allies at local level. On the other hand, these

entrepreneurs, a vast majority new ex‐urban inhabitants16, have also good

16 Some other local inhabitants (old farmers and fisherfolk and their descendents) have alsoinitiated some tourism activities, although in a significantly lower proportion. This is clearlymanifested in the marginal position they occupy in the main association of ecotourismentrepreneursthatexistinthePark(ASEMPARNA).

15

reasons to give their support to the Park’s policy for nature protection is

essentialtopreservingtheirownlivelihood.Assuch,ecotourismhasprompted

theemergenceanewsenseofownershipandbelonging,which,asIamaboutto

explain,hasdevelopedduringthelastfewdecades.

The number of new ex‐urban inhabitants in Cabo de Gata has steadily grown

since the first few started to arrive in the late 1960s and 1970s. Fleeing from

urban areas in Spain and other parts of Europe ‐ France, UK, Denmark,

Switzerland,Germany‐ theywere in the look for ‘natural’ locations ‘untouched’

byurbandevelopmentandmodernity,where they sought to commenceanew

‘alternative’ lifestyle. Although they first came as tourists, some of this people

endedupsettlingdown in thearea,purchasingor rentingold farmhousesat a

relativelylowprice17.Asalreadymentioned,theylobbiedwithscientistsforthe

establishmentoftheNaturalPark.Buttheyalsoplayedanimportantpartinthe

development of ecotourism and, through this, in the definition of the Park’s

conservationpolicyandthetransformationofthisarea.

Thedevelopmentofthefirstfewecotourisminitiatives,mostlyaccommodation

andoutdooractivities,waskeyforthesenewgroupstosettledowninthearea.

These initiatives hinged on the utilisation of new images and narratives that

portrayedthisperipheralregionasaplacethatremainedtraditional,naturaland

untouchedbymodernisation; imagesandnarrativesthaturgedtourists tovisit

the area while it stayed authentic and unspoiled18. The establishment of the

Natural Park soon became essential to maintaining these activities since the

quick development of intensive agriculture, mass tourism and industry were

threateningthearea’smainattractions.Infact,itwasbyvirtueoftheParkpolicy

that thisplacebecamean ‘islandofuntouchednature’ anda ‘naturalparadise’

surroundedbyplasticpoly‐tunnels,factoriesandseasideresorts;aphenomenon

thatparadoxicallyincreasedthearea’sappealandattractedmorenewex‐urban

17Housingpriceshadplummeteddue to thedeepeconomiccrisis inpreviousdecadesand thehighlevelsofemigrationthatwerebeingexperiencedatthattime.Furtherparticularitiessuchasexchange rates between national currencies (Deutsche marks or British pounds being muchstrongerthanSpanishpesetas)alsoexplainthis.18Itisinterestingtonotethereferencestoamodernist,linealsenseoftimeintheseimagesandnarratives.Foranexplanationoftherelationshipbetweendualistideasofnature‐societyandthissenseoftimeseeLatour(1993).

16

inhabitants. The next quotation is an example of how thiswas experienced in

firstperson:

‘We opened this hotel in 1988. There were very few people working on

tourismhereby then. Ihadstudied inGermanyandwhenIwasabout to

finishmydegreeandwritemydissertation,Icameheretospendawhole

winter. Itwas the first time I saw this abandoned farmhouse [the actual

hotel]. After asking some people, I finally got hold of the owner andwe

endedupbuyingit.Thefirstthingwedid,asIhadstudiedlanguages,was

offeringSpanishcoursesforforeigners.ThenwestartedTaiChiandYoga

courses.Wegotintouchsoonwithatravelagencywhowereinterestedin

promotingthiskindofinitiatives.Theyincludedusintheircatalogue.You

know,therearelotsofpeopleinGermanythatlookfor‘different’placesto

go on holidays, places outsidemass tourism circuits… people that travel

during low season. Those are the kind of people that come tomy hotel.

Theyareusuallymiddleclassteachers,doctors…whoarelookingforquiet,

original, authentic places. The kind of places you find in Natural Parks.’

(Male,naturetourismentrepreneur,originallyfromGermany)

Throughthedisseminationof these imagesandnarrativesaboutCabodeGata,

thesenewex‐urban inhabitants have also conditioned theway local resources

are managed. The rhetoric that they use in printed vouchers, advertisements,

postcards, websites, blogs and oral communications has contributed to the

definitionofwhat is ‘proper’and ‘improper’ in thisNaturalPark.Assuch, they

place uninhabited valleys and endemic plant species in opposition to cities,

plasticpoly‐tunnelsandirrigatedcrops;ageingmills,oldfarmhousesandsmall

hotels versus factories and tourism resorts. Furthermore, this rhetoric also

differentiates between ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ Park users and inhabitants,

featuring traditional peasants, ecotourists and scientists in sharp contrast to

mass tourism, poly‐tunnel farmers and urban developers. Take Figure 1 as an

example.

Aswewill see in the last section of this paper, the analysis of the Park policy

permitsustoidentifytheextentconservationmeasuresembodythesepeople’s

17

interestsanddesires.However,acloserexaminationofthedifferentdiscourses

that conservation stakeholders enact in relation to conflicts with other local

groups (farmers, fishermen, shepherds, landowners, urban developers) will

furnish us with further evidence of the extent conservation supporters

collaboratetowardsmeetingcommongoalsandtheideasofnaturetheyuseto

doso.Wefocusonthisissueinthenextsection.

People­ParkConflictsandDifferentIdeasofNature

TheestablishmentoftheCabodeGata‐NíjarNaturalParktriggereddecade‐long

conflictswith some local groups. For example, in the late 1990s social tension

escalated when many farmers and landowners tried to install plastic poly‐

tunnels. They had witnessed the successful development of this activity in

neighbouring areas and were determined to capitalise on it. But, to their

surprise, theydiscoveredthat thiswas forbiddensince1987.Theyarguedthat

the Natural Park had been established without a proper and broad popular

consultation and that this had made many landowners oblivious to the new

regulations.Theyreactedwithangerandcreatedapressuregroup(theARROPE

association)tooverturntheParkpolicy.Evenworse,intheheatofthemoment

somedecidedtodisregardthebansandbuiltuppoly‐tunnelsontheirownlands.

Conservation stakeholders witnessed these issues with horror and decided to

take action. An environmentalist NGO19 and an ecotourism association20

emerged in this context to join forces. They organised meetings and

demonstrations, denounced illegal practices ‐such as new poly‐tunnels‐ on

websites and newspapers21 and urged Park Managers and governmental

agencies to take exemplary actions against offenders. They decried that the

growingpresenceofintenseirrigatedagricultureintheParkwasathreattoits

19AmigosdelParqueNaturalCabodeGata­Nijar(FriendsoftheCabodeGata‐NijarNaturalPark):http://www.cabodegata.net/20 Natural Park Tourism Entrepreneurs Association (ASEMPARNA in Spanish initials):http://www.cabodegata‐nijar.es/21Seeforexample:‘EcologistasenAccióndenunciaenelTSJAinvernaderosilegalesenCabodeGata’,ElPaís,4/2/1999;‘EcologistasdenuncianblanqueodedineroconinvernaderosilegalesenCabodeGata’,ElPaís,28/3/1999.

18

natural values and accused local farmers and landowners of putting personal

gain before public assets. They lamented that these groups had forgotten the

supposed‘know‐how’thatallowedtheirancestorstomakealivingoffthisplace

withoutharmingtheenvironment.Takethefollowingquoteasanexample:

“Those thathada smallplot,where theyused togrowwheatandbarley,

nowwanttoinstallpoly‐tunnels.Youcan’tevenbreedapairofgoatswith

theyieldsyougetfromdryfarming,butyoucanmakeafortuneoutofpoly‐

tunnels.Thatisgoodbusiness.So,whentheygetintroublewiththePark,

theycan’tcomesaying:‘Oh,wearesopoor!’No,wearenotthatstupid…”

(Male,freelanceandNGOmember,originallyfromAlmeriacity)

Likewise, thesupportgivenbysome localgroups to thedevelopmentofmass‐

tourism in the Park has also raised similar conflicts with conservation

stakeholders. Especially controversial have been certain initiatives developed

within or near the border of the Protected Area. Because of its international

notoriety, the Algarrobico Hotel case is perhaps the best example. The

constructionofthishotelontheAlgarrobicobeach,nexttothetownCarboneras,

in the earlier part of the 2000s sparked the outrage of conservation

stakeholders. They vilified it and accused it of trespassing the red line that

separatestheParkfromitssurroundings,whilecriticisingthedamageitwould

causetovaluableecosystems.Theytooktheiractionsevenfurtherthis timeas

they brought the case into court and initiated an international campaign to

denouncethatthishotelwasillegallyconstructedwithinaProtectedArea22.

Finding out legal responsibilitieswas to become a drawn‐out judicial process.

Meanwhile multiple demonstrations organised by both hotel supporters and

hoteldetractorsrevealedwideningsocialdivisionswithin thePark.Some local

groupsdefendedthatthehotelwasessential tocreatingmuch‐needed jobs.On

the contrary, conservation supporters alleged that localpeoplewereunable to

22 Different news items appeared in several international newspapers are evidences of this:«Building blight on Spanish coastline», The Guardian (7/7/2006); «Costas turn back tide byblowingupanewhotel»,TheTimes (12/6/2006); «Espagne:Greenpeace recouvred’une toilegéante une construction illégale» Le Monde (12/2/2009); «Naturpark in Spanien: GreenpeaceverhulltillegalgebautesHotel»,DerSpiegel(12/2/2009).

19

appreciatethenaturalvalueandbeautyofthisarea,itsexceptionalfeaturesand

thenecessitytoavoiditsdestruction.

Theanalysisoftheseconflicts,aswellasmanyoftheothersthathaveemerged

in relation, for example, to land ploughing, in‐shore fishing, grazing and fish

farms23,revealsunderlyingaspectsofconservationstakeholders’argumentsthat

gobeyondthevalueofnaturalassetsandthatrelatetonewsensesofownership

and belonging. As such, it is frequent to encounter the opinion among these

stakeholders that nature conservation is also a way of preserving people’s

livelihood.Forthem,theconstructionofnewhotelsandpoly‐tunnels,aswellas

thegrazingofendemicspeciesorfishinginmarinereserves,threatenthevalues

onwhich ecotourism relies.They reprimand those in favourof these activities

for damaging nature and impairing the successful development of a green

tourismindustry.Inotherwords,theyreproachthelocalsforgoingagainsttheir

meansofliving,whichdependontheprotectionofnaturefromcertainformsof

humanexploitation.Thefollowingquotesillustratethis:

‘Theydon’t care that this is apublic asset... Theydon’t care that this is a

Natural Protected Area… With the Algarrobico Hotel, the illegal poly‐

tunnels, urbandevelopments… theyare just looking to fiddle the system!

There iswhere you realise howweak this is…This is aNature Park and

herebothnatureandhumansareprotected:thosewholiveinsidethePark

andwhosemain activities depend on the Park being just theway it is…

WiththeAlgarrobicoHotel,whatkindofshamelesspersonwouldsellthis

hotelonthebasisthatit’sinaNaturalPark?ThisisthemostAnti‐Natural

Park thing I’ve ever seen!’ (Female, ecotourism entrepreneur, originally

fromMadrid)

‘This [place]hasabigproblemwithovercrowding.Andall thesenewbig

hotels are only bringing more and more tourists. This place has very

sensitive areas where even walking might cause a great impact on rare

plantandanimalspecies,becausetheycanbesoeasilydamaged.Youcan23Seeforexample:«EcologistasenAcciónprotestacontralacreacióndeuncriaderodelubinasenCabodeGata‐Níjar»,ElPaís (14/3/1999); further examples canbe found in theAmigosdelParque NGO’s self‐edited journal El Eco del Parque: «Roturaciones ilegales en La Isleta y LosEscullos»(32/2004);«RoturaciónenSanMiguel»(40/2006).

20

killalltheseendemicspeciesifyouarenotcarefulenough.Andifweruin

this,weruinournaturalheritageandourmainsourceofincome.Theysay

we [ecotourism entrepreneurs] are environmentalists, like in a negative

way…But,apartfromoureducationandideology,Ialwaysanswer:Those

of us who live off this Park are its main defenders, because it not only

concerns our ideals but also our way of subsistence, our life!’ (Male,

ecotourismentrepreneur,originallyfromAlmeriacity)

Likewise, scientists and experts also acknowledge this problemandagree that

conservationmeasures are justified not only because they preserve the Park’s

natural values but also because they preserve the livelihood of the Park

inhabitants.Takethefollowingquoteasanexample:

‘Tourismplaysavery importantrole inthePark,especiallybecausemost

other activities [farming, fishing] are currently a minority. The main

incomefortheParkinhabitants istourism,butthis isthreatenedbecause

most touristsonlycome inhighseasonandalsobecause theyallwant to

havetheirownsummerhouseintheParkandthatdamagesnature.Thatis

incompatible.’(Female,biologist,memberoftheParkmanagementteam)

Despite some punctual internal disagreements between Park Managers,

ecotourismentrepreneurs,NGOmembersandscientists24,theprotectionofCabo

de Gata has always remained a common and shared goal. As we have seen

throughout this and the previous section, different and multiple situated

interests and desires are behind the support given to the Park policy. What

remainstobeexaminedishowtheParkpolicyhasaddressedtheseinterestsand

desiresandhowmodern ideasofnaturehavebeenused inorderto justify the

transition inmanagement roles thatmadepossible the transformationofCabo

de Gata from a farming and fishing area to an ecotourism destination and

biodiversityreserve.

24Furtherclarificationisrequiredatthispoint.AlthoughforthesakeofclarityandbrevityIhavemade an effort to present the position of all these different conservation stakeholders assomehowhomogeneous,therealsituationisnotsoneat.Overthelasttwodecades,therehavebeen several conflicts between them, in particular as NGO members and ecotourismentrepreneursurgedParkManagerstotakemoresevereactionstostoptheinstallationofpoly‐tunnels,illegalploughings,fishfarmingandtheconstructionofnewhotels.

21

ConservationMeasuresandtheNaturalizationofCabodeGata

Themost importantmanagement tool in the Park is the land‐use zoning plan.

Thefirstplancameintoforcein1994anddividedthePark’stotalextensioninto

four zones (A,B,C,D) and ten subzones,boundingeachof them toadifferent

degree of protection.Whilstmost activitieswere forbidden in Zones A and B,

manywereallowedinZonesCandD.Thiszoningplanwasinforceforfourteen

years, until a new one was approved in 2008 without major differences. I

summarisethe2008planinTable125.

What isparticularlyrelevant tomydiscussion ishowthePark land‐usezoning

plansmakeuseofcertainenvironmentalnarrativesbasedonthenature‐society

dualism inorder to justifydifferent levelsof restriction.Forexample,ZonesA,

where the most restrictive measures apply, are deemed virgin natural areas

barelytransformedbyhumanaction.Onlyconservationpracticesandscientific

research are allowed in them. In Zones B the Park policy allows some non‐

intensive farming, fishingandgrazingpracticesaswell asecotourism.ZonesB

areregardedassemi‐naturalareas,where‘traditional’practiceshaveshapedthe

local ecosystems in such a non‐aggressive way that there are still significant

values in them. In Zones C and D most practices are allowed, even intensive

agriculture,althoughunderthesupervisionofParkManagers inordertoavoid

any harm to those natural values found in other parts of the Park. Thismore

permissive regulation is justified because Zones C and D are said to lack

significantnaturalvalueduetoyearsofhumanexploitation.

Thisdivisionintocompletelynatural,partiallynaturalandbarelynaturalareas

showstheinstrumentaluseofdualisticideasofnature‐societyinthejustification

of land‐use changes. Themodern,Western ontological premises that underpin

theseideas,asdiscussedbyLatour(1993),explainthatthemoretransformedby

humansanarea is judged, the lessnatural it is considered,which involves less

restrictivemeasures.However, a closer look into thekindofactivities thatare25 The original documents can be acceded at the environmental section of the AndalusianGovernmentwebsite:http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/site/portalweb/Lastacceded:June2011.

22

eitherallowedorforbiddenineachzoneunfoldsaparadox:thecounterintuitive

utilisationofmodernist ideasofnature, inasmuchastheland‐usezoningplan

renders certain activities either essential or compatible with nature

conservation.As Iwillexplain in theremainingparagraphsof thissection, this

suggeststhattheseideasofnatureareutilisedtograntcertaingroupstheright

tousenaturalresourcesaswellastodisenfranchiseothers,insteadoftoprotect

theParkfromhumanintervention.

AnanalysisofthemechanismthatmakestheabovepossibleshowsthatthePark

land‐usezoningplannotonlyconveysaredefinitionofthephysicalenvironment

but also of social relations. This redefinition of social relations is articulated

around a new social hierarchy, which hinges on a new categorisation and

classification of human‐environment relations into: 1) modern and intense

activities, suchasagriculture inplasticpoly‐tunnels,mass tourism,miningand

industry, which are regarded as potential destroyers of the Park’s assets; 2)

customary, non‐intensive farming, grazing and fishing practices, which are

considered somehow respectful to the environment because they have

historically produced valuable semi‐natural ecosystems by making use of an

ecologically wise know‐how; 3) modern, environmentally friendly activities,

such as ecotourism, that make conservation and economic development

compatible because they exclusively rely on the visual consumption of nature;

and 4) scientific research, environmental education and conservation

management, which are considered essential to the correct preservation of

nature. For the sakeof clarity, I simplify this in fourdifferent roles, defined in

terms of the relationship they are said to maintain with nature: 1) nature

destroyers,2)natureproducers,3)natureconsumersand4)natureprotectors,

respectively.

Table2summarisesthecompatibilitiesandconflictsassociatedtotheserolesin

the different parts of the Park, according to the land‐use plans. The table also

permits us to visualise the new social hierarchy that regulates land‐use rights

and distribute uneven access to natural resources among the different local

groups. As such, it becomes the most important mechanism to meeting

conservation goals, including not only the supra‐local concerns that aim to

23

protectEuropeanperipheralregionslikeCabodeGatawhilepromotingaservice

economy, but also the situated interests and desires of local conservation

supporters.

Scientists and experts are on top of this hierarchy. Their research and

administrationactivityareallowedallalongtheProtectedArea,eveninZonesA,

whichshouldsupposedlybekept free fromhumanaction.Astepbelowin this

hierarchywefind‘traditional’farmersandfishermenaswellasecotouristsand

ecotourismentrepreneurs.Thepeoplebelongingtothesegroupsareallowedto

carryouttheirpracticeswithinsomepartsofthePark(ZonesB,CandD)butnot

in Zones A. However, they are not completely free to decide how to use local

resourcesfortheiractivityisalwayseitherdirectlyorindirectlymonitoredand

controlledbyexpertsandscientists.Finally,atthebottomofthishierarchythere

are those who engage with modern, intensive activities (poly‐tunnels, urban

developmentandindustry).Theiractivitiesarebannedwithinmostpartsofthe

Park,and,intherarecasetheyareallowed–mostlyinthoseareascataloguedas

non‐natural‐,theyneedtoadjusttothemultiplerequirementsimposedbythose

peopleatthetopofthishierarchy,sothattheseactivitiesdonotimpactnatural

orsemi‐naturalareas.

A final critical examination of this hierarchy in relation to the issues analysed

throughout this paper permits us to identify the intimacies between the Park

conservationpolicyandthesituatedinterestsanddesiresofthosestakeholders

that this paper centres on. Although both ‘nature producers’ and ‘nature

consumers’havetherighttouse localresources inmanypartsof thePark, the

analysiscarriedoutinabovesectionssuggeststhattheyhaveadifferentcapacity

toinfluencetheParkpolicy.AsIhopetohavealreadydemonstrated,therelation

betweenexperts,Parkofficers,ecotourismentrepreneursandthenewex‐urban

populationatlargeiscloseenoughtodenythat‘natureconsumers’holdamuch

moreprivilegedpositionthan‘natureproducers’inwhatconcernstheircapacity

toinfluencetheParkpolicy.

Furthermore, the role of ‘nature producers’ compel farmers, shepherds,

fishermenandlandownerseithertobehavethewayconservationsupporterssay

24

that ‘traditional’ inhabitants should behave or to engagewith ecotourism and

become ecotourism entrepreneurs. Otherwise, if they attempt to capitalise on

poly‐tunnels ormass tourism, theywill beputting themselves at riskof facing

prosecutionforcontraveningtheParkplans.Thisshowstheirlackofinfluencein

resource management for the Park plans relegate them to a position that is

actuallyclosertothatof‘naturedestroyers’thanto‘natureconsumers’,because

theybothenduphavinganullcapacitytoinfluencetheParkpolicyandtogive

voicetotheirowninterestsanddesiresintheParkland‐useplans.Assuch,the

‘Naturalization’ of Cabo de Gata has less to do with the limitation of human

impactontheenvironmentandmorewitharedefinitionofland‐userightsthat

grant the control of natural resources to conservation stakeholders, while

disenfranchisingthoseothergroupsthatopposeorquestionconservation.

Conclusions

Ihavetriedtodemonstrateinthispaperthattheutilisationofmodernistideasof

nature is essential to the collective appropriation of Cabo de Gata by certain

social groups because it justifies a new way of managing local resources in

accordancewith their interests and desires. This suggests that conservationist

argumentsdonotmerelyhingeon theunquestioned capacityof scientists and

experts to protect nature from human aggressions neither on the ontological

premises ofWesternnaturalism that has historically been so influential in the

conservationfield.Thesearejustpartoftheconceptualapparatusthatenablesa

transition inmanagementroles, throughwhichnewempoweredgroupswhose

livelihood and desires are rooted in keeping places sparsely populated, barely

urbanisedandvisuallyattractiveforecotourists,aregrantedtherighttocontrol

andusethisterritory,allowingforitstransformationintoabiodiversityreserve

andecotourismdestination.

The ethnographic analysis of people‐park conflicts in the Cabo de Gata‐Níjar

Natural Park provides clear evidence of this phenomenon and permits us to

identify some of its political and economic drivers. Any questioning of the

naturalizationofthisplace,suchasthatsupportedbyfarmersandlandowners,

25

is deemed a threat not only to natural values but also to many stakeholders’

livelihoods because it hinders the successful development of ecotourism. To

ensurethefutureofthisactivity,theParkpolicyrelegatesconservationobjectors

to a powerless role so that their demands and land‐use rights ‐whether

stemmingfromlandownershiporhistoricalbonds‐aresuppressed.Insteadthe

Park policy grants these rights to those who, despite lacking either land

ownershiporhistoricalbonds,havegainedsignificantpowerfromthesupportof

supra‐local institutions (EuropeanUnion), thespurofa fast‐growingeconomic

activity (ecotourism) and the moral justification provided by a globalised

greeningrationale.

Theabovehasdeep implications for thestudyofpeople‐parkconflictsand the

problemsassociatedtothepromotionofmoreenvironmentallyfriendlywaysof

mastering the environment. The establishment of this Natural Park is to be

understood within a context where new actors intervened in a space that

became ‘naturalized’. Animals, plants and ecosystems acquired newmeanings

and values,which justified the introduction of conservationmeasures and the

development of ecotourism as an alternative to activities such as intensive

agricultureandmass tourism.As such, this storymustbe read in termsof the

powerrelationsthataccompaniedaprocessofterritorialappropriation;anditis

in this sameway that we need to frame the disagreements and contestations

articulatedbyotherlocalgroups,suchasfarmers,fishermenandlandowners.

This is especially important if we consider that one of the main critiques

emerging fromtheexaminationof conservationpractices inProtectedAreas is

that they distribute fortune andmisfortune among different social groups and

even different members of a particular group (Brockington et al 2008).

Sometimes this is caused directly, through physical evictions, sometimes

indirectly,throughsymbolicalienation.Thismeansthatmostsocialproblemsin

conservation‐targetedareas–problemsthatarepronetothreatenconservation

goals‐havelesstodowithenvironmentaleducationandmorewiththedifferent

aspectsofatransitioninmanagementrolesovernaturalresources,whichtend

todisregardtheinterestsanddesiresofmanylocalinhabitants.

26

Finally,whatalsoseemsclearfromtheanalysisIcarriedoutinthispaperisthat,

fifteenyearsafterArturoEscobar(1999)foresawtheendofWesternnaturalism,

rather than giving way to less essentialist accounts of the reality ‘out there’,

modernideasofnatureprevailandinsomecaseshaveevenbecomereinforced

forpoliticalandeconomicreasons.Theanalysiscarriedoutinthispaperaddsto

thosesuggestingthatnaturalismisstillapowerfulworldviewthatdictateshow

we should relatewith the environment and thatProtectedAreashavebecome

one of the main material and discursive means to achieving this (West et al.

2006).Italsoshows,asYates‐DoerrandMol(2012)suggest,thatifwewantto

make naturalism the object of ethnographic research, we need to trace the

practicesofthosewhobearthisworldviewandexaminewherethepowerthat

fuelsitsexpansionemanatesfrom.

27

Bibliography

Adams, W.M. (2004) Against Extinction: the story of conservation, Earthscan,

London

Anderson, D.G. and Berglund, E. (2003) (eds.) Ethnographies of conservation.

Environmentalism and the distribution of privilege. New York [etc]: Berghahn

Books.

Arnold, D. (1996) The Problem of Nature. Environment, Culture and European

Expansion.Oxford:Blackwell

Baker,S;Milton,K.andYearly,S.(1994)Protectingtheperiphery.Environmental

PolicyinPeriphericalRegionsoftheEuropeanUnion.Ilford:FrankCass.

Brockington, D. (2002) Fortress conservation: the preservation of the Mkomazi

GameReserve,Tanzania.Oxford:JamesCurrey.

Brockington, D; Duffy, R. and Igoe, J. (2008) Nature Unbound. Conservation,

capitalismandthefutureofProtectedAreas.London:Earthscan.

Brockington, D. and Duffy, R. (2010) ‘Capitalism and Conservation. The

Production and Reproduction of Biodiversity Conservation’, Antipode 42(3):

469–84

Candea, M. and Alcayna‐Stevens, L. (2012) ‘Internal Others. Ethnographies of

Naturalism’.CambridgeAnthropology30(2):36‐47.

Capel, J. (1980) ‘Un intento pionero ecológico de ordenación del territorio:

ProvinciadeAlmería’Paralelo37,4:209‐212.

Castree,N.(2000)‘Marxismandtheproductionofnature.’CapitalandClass,72

(1):1‐20.

Castree, N. (2002) ‘False antitheses? Marxism, nature and actor‐networks.’

Antipode,34(1):111‐146

Castree, N. and Braun, B. (2001) Social Nature. Theory, Practice and Politics.

Malden,etc:Blackwell.

28

Castro, H. (1989) ‘Turismo y Medio Ambiente, dos realidades sinérgicas:

PlanificacióndelParqueNaturalCabodeGata’Paralelo37,11‐12:47‐55.

Castro,H.andGuirado, J.(1995) ‘Lagestióndelmedionaturalyhumanoenun

sistemamarítimoterrestrenoinsular:ElcasodelParqueNaturalCabodeGata‐

Níjar’. InJ.S.Guirado(ed.)LagestióndelosespaciosmarinosenelMediterráneo

Occidental, Actas de la VII Aula de Ecología. Almería: Instituto de Estudios

Almerienses,187‐226.

Ceballos‐Lascuráin, H. (1996) Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. Gland,

Cambridge:IUCN.

Coca, A. (2008) Los Camperos. Territorios, usos sociales y percepciones en un

espacionaturalandaluz.Sevilla:FundaciónBlasInfante.

Compán,D. (1977) ‘La Isleta (Níjar). Evolución de unapequeña comunidadde

pescadores almerienses en el proceso de desarrollo español’. Actas del V

CongresodeGeografía:571‐580.

Cortes‐Vazquez, J. (2012) Naturalezas en conflicto: Conservación ambiental y

enfrentamiento social en el Parque Natural Cabo de Gata­Níjar. Valencia:

Germania&AVA.

Cortes‐Vazquez, J.A. and Zedalis, M. (2013) ‘Identity and Native Species

Conservation:SimilarHistoricalEcologiesfromIdahotoSpain’.HumanEcology,

41(6):

Cronon, W. (1995) (ed.) Uncommon Ground. Rethinking the Human Place in

Nature.NewYork&London:W.W.Norton&Company.

Delgado, M. (2010) ‘El sistema agroalimentario en Andalucía’ PH Cuadernos,

26:19‐39.

Descola,P.(2005)Pardelànatureetculture.Paris:Gallimard.

Escalera, J. (2011) (ed.) Consumir naturaleza. Productos turísticos y espacios

protegidosenAndalucía.Sevilla:AconcaguaLibros.

29

Escobar, A. (1998) ‘Whose Knowledge, Whose nature? Biodiversity,

Conservation,andthePoliticalEcologyofSocialMovements’JournalofPolitical

Ecology,5:53‐82.

Escobar,A. (1999) ‘AfterNature: Steps to anAntiessentialistPoliticalEcology’.

CurrentAnthropology,40(1):1‐30.

Fairhead, J.andLeach,M.(1996)MisreadingtheAfricanLandscape.Societyand

ecologyinaforest­savannamosaic.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Fairhead, J. and Leach, M. (2003) Science, Society and Power. Environmental

KnowledgeandPolicy inWestAfricaand theCaribbean. Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Ferguson,J.(1990)TheAnti­PoliticsMachine:"Development,"Depoliticizationand

BureaucraticPowerinLesotho.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress

Fernández,D.andEgea,M.(1991)‘Dimensióneconómicayecológicadelmodelo

dedesarrollodeAlmeríaenelcontextodelaOrdenacióndelterritorio’Paralelo

37,14‐15:55‐68.

Franklin, S. (1995) ‘Science as Culture, Cultures of Science’ Annual Review of

Anthropology,24:163‐184

Frigolé, J. and Del Mármol, C. (2009) ‘La localización de discursos globales:

patrimonio cultural, naturaleza y autenticidad en los Pirineos catalanes’

Quaderns­edel’ICA,14/b.

Geertz,C.(1973)TheInterpretationofCultures.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Godelier,M.(1986)Thementalandthematerial: thought,economy,andsociety.

London:Verso.

Góngora, F. (2004) ‘La desarticulación del régimen comunal en la Comarca de

Níjarenelcambiodesiglo’.InC.RozalénandR.M.Úbeda(eds.)Lacrisisdefinde

sigloenlaProvinciadeAlmería:Eldesastredel98.Almería:InstitutodeEstudios

Almerienses,129‐141.

30

Gonzalez, I. (1993) (ed.) Parques Naturales Andaluces. Conservación y cultura.

Sevilla:JuntadeAndalucía.

Goytisolo,J.(2004[1960])CamposdeNíjar.Barcelona:SeixBarral.

Green, S. (2005) ‘From Hostile Backwater to Natural Wilderness: On the

Relocationof‘Nature’inEpirus,NorthwesternGreece’ConservationandSociety,

3(2):436–460

Grove, A. T. & Rackham, O. (2001) The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: an

ecologicalhistory.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

Haraway,D.(1988)‘Situatedknowledges:theScienceQuestioninfeminismand

theprivilegeofpartialperspective’.FeministStudies14:575‐609.

Igoe, J. (2004) Fortress conservation: A social history of national parks. In

Conservation and Globalization: A Study of National Parks and Indigenous

Communities from East Africa to South Dakota. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth /

ThompsonLearning.

Jasanoff, S. (ed) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co­Production of Science and

SocialOrder.London:Routledge.

Latour,B.(1993)Wehaveneverbeenmodern.London:PrenticeHall.

Marchena, M. (1993) ‘Desarrollo Sostenible y Espacios Protegidos: La

Explotación del Recurso Turístico’. In I. González (ed.) Parques Naturales

Andaluces.Conservaciónycultura,Sevilla:JuntadeAndalucía,79‐85.

Mulero,A. (2002)LaproteccióndeespaciosnaturalesenEspaña :antecedentes,

contrastesterritoriales,conflictosyperspectivas.Madrid[etc.]:Mundi‐Prensa.

Peet, R; Robbins, P. and Watts, M. (2010) Global Political Ecology. London:

Routledge.

Pepper,D.(1996)Modernenvironmentalism:anintroduction.London;NewYork:

Routledge

31

Provansal,D.(2003)‘Productores,depredadoresyconsumidoresdelpaisaje:de

laagricultura intensivaaldesarrollo sostenible’. InA.M.Nogués (ed.)Culturay

turismo.Sevilla:SignaturaDemos,111‐138.

Provansal,D.&Molina,P. (1991)EtnologíadeAndalucíaOriental I.Parentesco,

Agriculturaypesca.Barcelona:Anthropos.

Quintero, V. (2009) Los Sentidos del Patrimonio. Alianzas y conflictos en la

construccióndelpatrimonioetnológicoandaluz.Sevilla:FundaciónBlasInfante.

Redford,K. (2011) ‘Misreading theConservationLandscape’.Oryx, 45(3):324–

330.

Redpath,S;Young,J.;Evely,A;Adams,W;Sutherland,W;Whitehouse,A;Amar,

A; Lambert, R; Linnell, J;Watt, A. andGutiérrez, R. (2013) ‘Understanding and

managingconservationconflicts’.TrendsinEcology&Evolution,28(2):100‐109.

Robbins,P.(2004)PoliticalEcology.Malden[etc]:BlackwellPublishing.

Ruiz‐Ballesteros,E;Valcuende,J.M;Quintero,V;Cortes,J.A.andRubio,E.(2009)

‘Naturalizingtheenvironment:Perceptualframes,sensesandresistance’Journal

ofMaterialCulture,14:147‐167

Sánchez, A. (1996) (ed.)Historia y Medio Ambiente en el territorio almeriense.

Almería:UniversidaddeAlmería.

Santamarina, B. (2009) ‘De parques y naturalezas. Enunciados, cimientos y

dispositivos’,RevistadeDialectologíayTradicionesPopulares,LXIV(1):297‐324.

Scott, J. (1998) Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human

conditionhavefailed.NewHaven,Conn.;London:YaleUniversityPress

Vaccaro, I. & Beltrán, O. (2008) ‘Consumiendo espacio, naturaleza y cultura.

Cuestionespatrimonialesdelahipermodernidad’, inO.Beltrán,J. J.Pascual&I.

Vaccaro(eds.)Patrimonializacióndelanaturaleza.Elmarcosocialdelaspolíticas

ambientales.Donosti:Ankulegi,45‐64.

Valcuende, J.M.; Quintero, V. and Cortés‐Vázquez, J.A. (2011) ‘Naturalezas

discursivasenespaciosprotegidos’AIBR,6(1):34‐62.

32

Vaschetto,A. (2006) ‘Lamigraciónutópica: recorridosmigratorios, fronteras e

identidadesde los europeosenelpueblodeTezpoztlán,México’.Maguaré, 20:

99‐124.

Vivanco,L.(2001)‘SpectacularQuetzals,EcotourismandEnvironmentalFutures

inMonteVerde,CostaRica’.Ethnology,40(2):79‐92.

Wels, H. (2004) ‘About romance and reality. Popular European imaginery in

postcolonialtourisminSouthernAfrica’.InM.HallandH.Tucker(eds.)Tourism

andPostcolonialism.London&NewYork:Routledge,76‐94.

West,P.andCarriers,J.(2004)‘EcotourismandAuthenticity.GettingAwayfrom

itall?’CurrentAnthropology,45(4):483‐498.

West,P;Igoe,J.andBrockington,D.(2006)‘ParksandPeople:TheSocialImpact

ofProtectedAreas’.AnnualReviewofAnthropology,35:251‐277.

Whatmore,S.(2001)HybridGeographies.London:SAGE.

Wolf,E.(1982)EuropeandthePeopleWithoutHistory.LosAngeles:Universityof

CaliforniaPress.

Yates‐Doerr,E.andMol,A.(2012)‘CutsofMeat:DisentanglingWesternNatures‐

Cultures’CambridgeAnthropology,30(2):48‐64.

1

Acknowledgements:

Anearlierversionofthispaperwaspresentedatapanelentitled‘Masteringthe

environment?’ (Knut G Nustad and Signe Howell, organisers) at the 2012

biannualmeetingoftheEuropeanAssociationofSocialAnthropologistsinParis,

France. Iwant to thank theorganisers for their encouragement topublish this

workaswellasAlexandraTowersandMartinaPrendergastfortheirediting.

1

Table1:ZoningCategories

Zonescategories

Subcategories Name Extension(ha)

PercentageofPark

ZonesA1 InlandreserveA ZonesA2 Marinereserve 6479 13,6%

ZonesB1 NaturalAreasofGeneralInterest 19438 39,3%

ZonesB2Semi‐naturalAreaswithTraditional

Uses7129 14,4%

ZonesB3 Leisurecoastalareas 154 0,3%

ZonesB4 UrbanBeach 27 0,1%

B

ZonesB5 Fishingandleisuremarinearea 9614 19,4%

ZonesC1 Areaofagriculturalcrops 2831 5,7%

ZonesC2Areaofintensiveagricultureunder

plastics551 1,1%C

ZonesC3 UrbanArea 269 0,5%

D ZonesDZonesoutofenvironmentalregulation

Rest Rest

1

Table2:SummaryofConservationCompatibilitiesandConflicts

NatureProtectors:Scientificactivities,

environmentaleducation,conservationmanagement.

NatureProducersandConsumers:Traditional,non‐intensiveactivities,ecotourism.

NatureDestroyers:Modern,intensiveactivities

Naturalareas(ZonesAandsomeZonesB) COMPATIBLE CONFLICTIVE CONFLICTIVE

Semi­naturalareas(MostZonesB) COMPATIBLE COMPATIBLE CONFLICTIVE

Non­naturalareas(ZonesC&D) COMPATIBLE COMPATIBLE COMPATIBLE