Let me start by making my position clear: since I did my obligatory field study among fishermen in twa Valley, Zambia - I have been deeply fascinated by 'the wild' and I have been wondering about this strange phenomenon called "nature conservation with local participation". In 1995, I conducted fieldwork in Ballum, Denmark with the purpose of studying the ways in which 'the local people' (which is a very diverse group of people) involved themselves in the protection of nature, and what principles directed the representation of local people in national decision-making. In February 1997, I did a similar but much shorter study, on Texel in The Netherlands.

CONSTRUCTIVE DISAGREEMENTS, AND THE SURVIVAL OF A LOCAL COMMUNITY

Allow me to quote from the Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan 1997, p. 4 Para 13:"Through this Plan inhabitants, users, visitors and all stakeholders in the Wadden Sea region are invited to provide their ideas and inputs to the implementation of the Ecological Targets." As far as I can see, there is a unique opportunity when targets are stated - and then the effected parties are invited to involve themselves in implementing these targets/this "direction towards the desired situation." In this process, all parties need to formulate their perceptions of the landscape and its values - explicitly (as far as possible). The parties discuss where they and their actions/utilization are positioned on the continuum between conserving, using and abusing.

Some decisions that planners/authorities - be they local, regional, national or international - make,

might sound strange, foreign - perhaps even plain stupid - to the people "having a stake" in the Wadden Sea area. And here, it is the responsibility of the authorities to inform people of the reasoning behind their decisions. On the other hand: many decisions that the users make seem unreasonable from a broader time, space and systems perspective. Therefore, these people also need to explain themselves - or to be explained.

This is my analysis of the explicit manifestations of the local users relation to their landscape. Basically, my point is this: within the locally bound community, there are ongoing negotiations about how to shape the landscape a¦as the right to do it. These negotiations are essential for 'the role of the local people in the protection of the Wadden Sea region' - as I have been invited to talk about. Currently, it seems that the possibility of continuing landscaping is the core of the existence of a local community.

INTRODUCTION: WHY ARE LOCAL PEOPLE IMPORTANT?

The Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan states that the public should be involved in protecting the region, but the term 'local' is not used. The term appears when we reach the paragraphs on traditions and wishes for safety (p. 5). Thus, the 'local' is a recognized factor and we intend to respect it; but it is not a qualification in itself in the cooperation between authorities and the public - on nature protection.

During my fieldwork, I mainly spoke to the 'involved locals' among the farmers, hunters, and nature conservationists - all with explicit attitudes towards nature protection. But, I also spoke to a number of local people, less conscious of the management of their area.

And, without having done statistical research, I will dare to claim that the government is supported by a majority - also locally - when aiming at securing the Wadden Sea area as a beautiful and enjoya` to pass through.

So why worry about 'locals' at all? I see the following four reasons why a international, national, regional or local authority should want to cooperate with 'local peoples':

- practical, the 'locals' (in the literal sense of the term) are the final decision makers when it comes to shaping a landscape;

- juridical, in the Wadden Sea area, a number of 'locals' simply own the land(scape);

- normative, because authorities in a democracy respect the people who are affected by their decisions;

- knowledge, local people often know things about fluctuations and seasons in the area; things that 'we others' do not necessarily know. And, they naturally know what it is like living in the area...

THE MISUNDERSTOOD MARSH INHABITANTS

My original research project was to compare the Danish and the Zambian involvement of 'locals' on nature protection. When I introduced my project in the Ballum area, most people just shrugged their shoulders, but one man was very happy to hear that the government had finally realized that they knew as little about Danish marsh inhabitants as they do about the 'Zulus'. He was happy that I could explain their qualities to the world. Later, I learned that he had transformed my intentions into results in an interview in a local newspaper. He had said something like: We have had an anthropologist here, and she says that our condition is similar to Zambians in their nature protection areas. - to be interpreted as: we are being colonized by the government and the international society and their different (imperialistic) ideas of how nature ought to be protected.

Though this man was not the kind of man whom I would prejudge to enjoy comparison with black people, still he pinpointed a central problem in a cooperation between groups of people with very different backgrounds and motivations. I have been criticized for my representations of the Danish authorities, the main problem being that I have not grasped their individual motivations when working with nature protection. Of course, I never intended to offend anyone, but my point is that to the people in the Wadden Sea area it is very hard to identify the individuals among the authorities. Therefore, most people accuse the officials (as a category) of being mostly interested in securing their jobs by continuous suggestions for new legislation, while their heartfelt interest for the local people is negligible. This illustrates the problem of the cooperation: it takes time to realize what is at stake among 'the others' - both for the locals and for the authorities - at present, it seems as if neither of the parties feel understood.

But, what are 'stakeholders' for the people living in the Ballum area? I will present some of the local people's own descriptions and explanations of their uniqueness; and then, I will give my analysis of these 'locals' relation to their surrounding environment.

NATURE AS EXEMPLARY TO HUMANS

There can be no doubt that all the people involving themselves in the protection of the Wadden Sea area feel the pride of this rich and dynamic wetland. The local inhabitants loudly appreciate their forefathers as the true protectors of the Wadden Sea area. They try to demonstrate that the local people have always taken good care of the Wadden Sea - and further, that the values of the area have always had their attention - otherwise it would have been destroyed like the rest of the industrialized world has been. But we suspect that it is only because people haven't had the technology to radically change the area, whereas now they are alarmingly close to being able to transform the natural processes in the Wadden Sea into economically sensible, cultivated, useful human (dead) artifacts.

The Texelers and Ballumers described their dependency on the landscape by explaining that the landscape functioned as the model for human interactions - first of all, one learned to act correctly in the natural environment - and then one would know how to act among other humans. In this way, nature was protected and good citizens evolved. This is clearly an example of how peoples self-presentations are adapted to the requirements from external parties of different kinds. Another anthropologist who had made a field study in the area in the 70s, told me that, at that time, people emphasized their political and economical affiliations, their class. But now, things have changed; landscape, nature, ecology and sustainability are the present keywords.

ARE PEOPLE TO BE PROTECTED?

On Texel in 1997, the local party 'Texels Belang' (6 out of 15 seats in the municipal council) presented the most thoroughly prepared description, I have heard of, of the (original) local peoples' close connection to the natural environment on the island:

"Historical joint use is of paramount importance for the local people. They have become very attached to their island. Century after century, they [the original Texelers] have been experiencing the feeling of a certain freedom. Their independence on this matter is of great value and should on no account be ignored. After all, it is their historical background and cultural history. For that reason, local people are genuinely concerned. Not setting rules, in particular, is definitely a matter of concern in this case.

Over the years a huge amount of knowledge has been gained by the local people regarding nature and landscape. (..) Knowledge and experience are transferable and therefore can be a sole interest for others. That way, historical joint use will have an educational value." (no author, no date, their translation)

It is recognized that in the world of today, the 'historical joint use (historisch medegebruik)' is only an option for the chosen few. The authors appeal to the solidarity between humans and towards nature to accomplish the preservation of these exceptional humans. The manifestation concludes that 'historical joint use' is not some kind of favor that we could do the 'locals' - it is the wisest way of acting under the circumstances, since one type of human: the ones closely connected to nature, with a living, empirical knowledge is about to be lost forever. And when they are lost, we will only have 'spectators' left.

The two representatives from the 'Texels Belang' (both islanders for more than two generations) were proud to let me know, that their concept had been included in both the municipal and the provincial plans. Their hope was that this would be an indication of a general change in the Dutch attitude. Perhaps the authorities would finally realize that if nature protection was to be accomplished, they would have to redirect the attention from nonhuman species and their habitats, towards one kind of humans and their relation to the natural environment.

THE DYNAMICS OF 'LANDSCAPING' IN BALLUM

Nature protection is usually designated to the areas that we - outsiders - believe have preserved some of their natural characteristics - unmolded by human interference. Against this, stands the history of the local people: the landscape in the Ballum meadows is considered to be Denmark's largest uninhabited area, but still the landscape is filled with symbols of name-given individuals. To the marsh people the meadows are shaped by Lorenzen, Christensen, Hansen and others. These individuals are depicted in the dikes, he streams, the wind mills etc. - I have called 'the faces of the land scape'. In t0ngly untouched area, the landscape tells of numerous past-time conflicts and decisions - visible only to the trained eye. The landscape tells the trained person of the ongoing negotiation of the beauty of the landscape,

of the cultural values of the marsh inhabitants, and of the social positions of the honorable individuals that dared risk their family names on an innovation in the landscape.

Only very special individuals that take the liberty of shaping or reshaping the landscape. Even though you feel convinced that your local status allows you to make changes, you still have to act according to the values and history of the marsh people: it is still within living man's memory that the Ballum dike was built to protect humans, animals and crops. Older people also remember the first harvest in the meadows, it was richer than any man could have dreamed of. Men in their forties remember their fathers cultivating the land with horses etc.. Together, all this results in a highly appreciated ability of humans to control the land for human benefit. Shaping the landscape in Ballum still has to be functional, directed towards increasing the welfare of the farmers.

The continuation of a special, local identity is dependent on a continuous shaping and reshaping of the area, in a dynamic relation between the local humans and the landscape. The landscape functions as a shared symbol of a local community - a group of people connected by the landscape they inhabit.

Lecture given at the trilateral workshop on Landscape and Cultural Heritage in the Wadden Sea Region, Ribe, Denmark, September 10 - 12, 1997.

"LOCALS' AS NATURE PROTECTORS

Most people in Ballum - and in Denmark - smile at the marsh peoples' attempts to express the basis of their local identity explicitly. But still, the Ballumers live according to the values and codes of behavior; they negotiate, change and invent new traditions and values. Under the present situation, 'local' isincreasingly becoming an identity based on a negative attitude towards formalized nature protection measures. The local people try to demonstrate that they have taken good care of nature in the past and will continue to do so - in their own way. But does the local concept of nature correspond with the overall intention of protecting nature in a global perspective?

It seems that technological development has created an immanent problem to nature protection with local participation in the Western world: the local people simply have too many and too far reaching opportunities to alter the face values of the Wadden Sea area. Still, attitudes change, and farmers and their sons discuss the beauty of a fallow field, the function of windmills, the green colors of the sprouting crops etc. and this dynamic might be worth protecting in itself. One thing is for sure: local people are hard to involve in any type of decision-making, if we - the outside party - are in a constant hurry because of an atmosphere of ecological crisis, or because of too narrow, formal deadlines.

Authors address:

Ingeborg Svennevig
Ringkjøbing County Council
Teknik- og Miljøområdet
Damstrædet 2
DK - 6950 Ringkjøbing