82
3
discourses focus primarily on consequences of external interventions for local
resource users. In contrast to win-win discourses, radical discourses do not regard
partnership between local and external actors generally as positive. Instead, there
is a focus on unequal power relations, so that local actors have little influence.
Moreover, radical discourses are concerned about imbalances in the distribution of
economic costs and benefits from such partnerships between various external
actors on one hand, and local actors on the other. In addition, attention is often
put on consequences for the most disadvantaged as well as for indigenous people
and other marginalized groups.
Radical discourses regard sustainable governance of land and natural resources
as important. Local actors are considered capable of managing land and resources
sustainably, provided that they are not subjected to external pressure or interference from markets, businesses or conservationists. In the next chapters we will see
how the precursor of a radical discourse on protected areas is in accordance with
the radical discourse type.
Among the roots of the academic contributions to radical discourses, we find
ideas of self-reliance in developing countries and dependency theory that were
strong in the 1970s and 1980s. Since the 1990s, some radical discourses have
acquired elements both from the globalization resistance movement as well as from
post-structuralism. In the following chapters, we provide examples showing that
radical discourses continue to be produced on various topics.
The third type consists of preservation discourses where the focus is on maintaining natural assets such as areas and species. This discourse does not include
concern for local resource users. Consequently, it is not seen as important to establish partnerships between external and internal actors. It is the national and international organs that must ensure conservation, and local actors are regarded as
impeding such conservation.
This discourse type reflects viewpoints held by many of the earliest conservationists. Preservation discourses comprise the precursors of many win-win discourses on environment and development. Some have argued for a revival of
preservation, with its defence of conservation combined with neglect of local livelihoods (Hutton et al. 2005). At the same time, in many cases preservation can be
argued to constitute the basis for practises of conservation in poor countries, even
though practitioners may tend to tell about their activities in line with the win-win
discourse (see 7 Chap. 4).
The fourth and last of the discourse types we have found on environment and
development is what we, in line with Dryzek (1997), call a Prometheus discourse
type. In Greek mythology Prometheus stole fire from Zeus and thereby enabled
people to exploit nature. In this discourse type it is seen as unnecessary to worry
about conservation. Every problem that arises—degradation of biodiversity, climate change or any other problem—will be solved by new technologies. From the
Industrial Revolution up to the last few decades, modern societies have been dominated by a Promethean understanding (Dryzek 1997).
Today Promethean claims and discourses play a minimal role related to many
environment and development topics. There are, however, important exceptions.
Chapter 3 · Discourses and Narratives on Environment and Development: The Example…
3
discourses focus primarily on consequences of external interventions for local
resource users. In contrast to win-win discourses, radical discourses do not regard
partnership between local and external actors generally as positive. Instead, there
is a focus on unequal power relations, so that local actors have little influence.
Moreover, radical discourses are concerned about imbalances in the distribution of
economic costs and benefits from such partnerships between various external
actors on one hand, and local actors on the other. In addition, attention is often
put on consequences for the most disadvantaged as well as for indigenous people
and other marginalized groups.
Radical discourses regard sustainable governance of land and natural resources
as important. Local actors are considered capable of managing land and resources
sustainably, provided that they are not subjected to external pressure or interference from markets, businesses or conservationists. In the next chapters we will see
how the precursor of a radical discourse on protected areas is in accordance with
the radical discourse type.
Among the roots of the academic contributions to radical discourses, we find
ideas of self-reliance in developing countries and dependency theory that were
strong in the 1970s and 1980s. Since the 1990s, some radical discourses have
acquired elements both from the globalization resistance movement as well as from
post-structuralism. In the following chapters, we provide examples showing that
radical discourses continue to be produced on various topics.
The third type consists of preservation discourses where the focus is on maintaining natural assets such as areas and species. This discourse does not include
concern for local resource users. Consequently, it is not seen as important to establish partnerships between external and internal actors. It is the national and international organs that must ensure conservation, and local actors are regarded as
impeding such conservation.
This discourse type reflects viewpoints held by many of the earliest conservationists. Preservation discourses comprise the precursors of many win-win discourses on environment and development. Some have argued for a revival of
preservation, with its defence of conservation combined with neglect of local livelihoods (Hutton et al. 2005). At the same time, in many cases preservation can be
argued to constitute the basis for practises of conservation in poor countries, even
though practitioners may tend to tell about their activities in line with the win-win
discourse (see 7 Chap. 4).
The fourth and last of the discourse types we have found on environment and
development is what we, in line with Dryzek (1997), call a Prometheus discourse
type. In Greek mythology Prometheus stole fire from Zeus and thereby enabled
people to exploit nature. In this discourse type it is seen as unnecessary to worry
about conservation. Every problem that arises—degradation of biodiversity, climate change or any other problem—will be solved by new technologies. From the
Industrial Revolution up to the last few decades, modern societies have been dominated by a Promethean understanding (Dryzek 1997).
Today Promethean claims and discourses play a minimal role related to many
environment and development topics. There are, however, important exceptions.
Chapter 3 · Discourses and Narratives on Environment and Development: The Example…