“The park is the people”: World heritage as antipolitical and neocolonial environmental governance in mulu park,Malaysia

Abstract

Mainstream conservation practices are commonly rooted in capitalist logics of valuing nature for human use or enjoyment. Often facilitated by “big international non-governmental organizations” (BINGOs), environmental governance of land in conservation frequently drives adverse impacts on local communities in and around protected areas. The World Heritage Convention as a department of UNESCO, for example, uses technical and scientific justifications to conserve land for the “world” to enjoy, while neglecting and avoiding Indigenous participation. Using the example of Gunung Mulu National Park in Malaysia, this article shows how the site selection and evaluation process divorces the natural from the cultural and the global from the local in conservation. In so doing World Heritage uses anti-political strategies to neutralize opposition to land grabs, normalize “global” values in place, and displaces Indigenous residents and their values from the land.

Keywords

Environmental conservation World Heritage neocolonialism anti-politics Malaysia Penan Indigenous people Gunung Mulu National Park

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

JAR

Jermy

Cranbrook

GGH

(1982) Gunung Mulu National Park: A Management and Development Plan, Report. London: Royal Geographical Society.

Arney

Henderson

DeLoach

, et al. (2023) Connecting across difference in environmental governance: Beyond rights, recognition, and participation. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 6(2): 1164–1190.

Bending

(2001) Telling stories: Representing the anti-logging movement of the Penan of Sarawak. The European Journal of Development Research 13(2): 1–25.

Borras

Franco

(2010) Towards a broader view of the politics of global land grab: Rethinking land issues, reframing resistance. Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies Working Paper Series 1: 1–39.

Brockington

Duffy

Igoe

(2008) Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism, and the Future of Protected Areas. London: Earthscan.

Brosius

(1997) Prior transcripts, divergent paths: Resistance and acquiescence to logging in Sarawak, East Malaysia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 39(3): 468–510.

Brosius

(1999) Green dots, pink hearts: Displacing politics from the Malaysian rain forest. American Anthropologist 101(1): 36–57.

Bruno Manser Fonds (2022) Sarawak’s indigenous communities celebrate historic win against palm oil development and thank Premier. Available at: https://bmf.ch/en/news/sarawaks-indigenous-communities-celebrate-historic-win-against-palm-oil-development-and-thank-premier-213 (accessed 16 November 2024).

Buergin

(2001) Contested Heritages: Disputes on People, Forests, and a World Heritage Site in Globalizing Thailand. Working Group Socio-Economics of Forest Use in the Tropics and Subtropics. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.

10.

Bulan

(2006) Native customary land: The trust as a device for land development in sarawak. In: Cooke

(eds) State, Communities and Forests in Contemporary Borneo. Canberra: ANU Press, 45–64.

11.

Büscher

(2010) Anti-politics as political strategy: Neoliberalism and transfrontier conservation in Southern Africa. Development and Change 41(1): 29–51.

12.

Buscher

Fletcher

(2020) The conservation revolution: radical ideas for saving nature beyond the Anthropocene. London: Verso Books.

13.

Carpenter

Bennett

Peterson

(2006) Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecology and Society 11(1): 1–14.

14.

Colchester

(1993) Pirates, squatters, and poachers: The political economy of dispossession of the native peoples of Sarawak. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 3(4/6): 158–179.

15.

Colchester

(1997) Salvaging nature: Indigenous peoples and protected areas. In: Ghimire

Pimbert

(eds) Social Change and Conservation. London: Earthscan, 97–130.

16.

Colchester

(2003) Indigenous peoples and protected areas: Rights, principles and practice. Nomadic Peoples 7(1): 33–51.

17.

Coombe

(2012) Managing cultural heritage as neoliberal governmentality. Heritage Regimes and the State: Gottingen Studies on Cultural Property 6: 375–389.

18.

Corson

(2011) Territorialization, enclosure and neoliberalism: Non-state influence in struggles over Madagascar's forests. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(4): 703–726.

19.

Coulthard

Simpson

(2016) Grounded normativity/place-based solidarity. American Quarterly 68(2): 249–255.

20.

Coulthard

(2014) Red skin, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

21.

Debord

(2024) The Society of the Spectacle. Oakland, CA: PM Press.

22.

Di Giovine

(2009) The heritage-scape: UNESCO, world heritage, and tourism. Lanham: Lexington Books.

23.

Duedahl

Stilling Blichfeldt

(2020) To walk the talk of go-along methods: Navigating the unknown terrains of being-along. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 20(5): 438–458.

24.

Escobar

(1995) Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

25.

Ferguson

(1994) Anti-politics machine: Development, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

26.

Gomez-Pompa

Kaus

(1992) Taming the wilderness myth. BioScience 42(4): 271–279.

27.

Gunung Mulu National Park (n.d.) The Team. Available at: https://mulupark.com/about-us/the-team/#:∼:text=Sarawak%20Forestry%20Corporation%20(SFC)%20is,90%25%20of%20the%20Park%20area (accessed 23 March 2025).

28.

Hanbury-Tenison

(2017) Finding Eden: A journey into the Heart of Borneo. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

29.

Haraway

(1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.

30.

Harrison

(2013) Heritage: critical approaches. London: Routledge.

31.

Holmes

(2011) Conservation's friends in high places: Neoliberalism, networks, and the transnational conservation elite. Global Environmental Politics 11(4): 1–21.

32.

Horowitz

(1998) Integrating indigenous resource management with wildlife conservation: A case study of Batang Ai National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia. Human Ecology 26(3): 371–403.

33.

IUCN (2017) Gunung Mulu National Park: 2017 Conservation Outlook Assessment. Available at: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/explore-sites/gunung-mulu-national-park (accessed 16 April 2020).

34.

IUCN (2020) Gunung Mulu National Park: 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment. Available at: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/explore-sites/gunung-mulu-national-park (accessed 16 April 2020).

35.

IUCN (n.d.a) Methodology and Consultation. Available at: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/more/methodology-and-consultation#:∼:text=The%20consultation%20process%20is%20indispensable,part%20in%20the%20consultation%20process (accessed 04 April 2020).

36.

IUCN (n.d.b) Understanding Ratings. Available at: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/more/understanding-ratings (accessed 4 April 2020).

37.

Labadi

(2013) UNESCO, cultural heritage, and outstanding universal value: Value-based analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions. Lanham: AltaMira Press.

38.

Larsen

(2016) The good, the ugly and the dirty Harry’s of conservation: Rethinking the anthropology of conservation NGOs. Conservation and Society 14(1): 21–33.

39.

Latulippe

Klenk

(2020) Making room and moving over: Knowledge co-production, indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42: 7–14.

40.

LeCompte

Schensul

(2013) Analyzing & interpreting ethnographic data. Vol. 5. Plymouth: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.

41.

(2007) The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

42.

(2009) To make live or let die? Rural dispossession and the protection of surplus populations. Antipode 41(1): 71–72.

43.

MacDonald

(2018) Business, biodiversity and new ‘fields’ of conservation: The world conservation congress and the renegotiation of organisational order. In: Larson

Brockington

(eds) The Anthropology of Conservation NGOs: Rethinking the Boundaries. Germany: Springer Verlag, 71–119.

44.

Masuku Van Damme

Meskell

(2009) Producing Conservation and Community in South Africa. Ethics, Place & Environment 12(1): 69–89.

45.

McAfee

(1999) Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green developmentalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17(2): 133–154.

46.

McCann

Ward

(2012) Assembling urbanism: Following policies and ‘studying through’ the sites and situations of policy making. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 44(1): 42–51.

47.

McCreary

Milligan

(2021) The limits of liberal recognition: Racial capitalism, settler colonialism, and environmental governance in Vancouver and Atlanta. Antipode 53(3): 724–744.

48.

Merino

(2018) Re-politicizing participation or reframing environmental governance? Beyond indigenous’ prior consultation and citizen participation. World Development 111: 75–83.

49.

Mosse

(2004) Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of aid policy and practice. Development and Change 35(4): 639–671.

50.

Myers

Larson

Ravikumar

, et al. (2018) Messiness of forest governance: How technical approaches suppress politics in REDD+ and conservation projects. Global Environmental Change 50: 314–324.

51.

Nader

(1972) Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying up. ERIC.

52.

Nelson

Muhammed

Rashid

(2016) Native customary rights: Does it hold the future of Sarawak's natives? Journal of Forest and Environmental Science 32(1): 82–93.

53.

Nichols

(2020) Theft is Property! Dispossession and Critical Theory. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

54.

Ojeda

(2012) Green pretexts: Ecotourism, neoliberal conservation and land grabbing in Tayrona National Natural Park, Colombia. In: Fairhead

Leach

Scoones

(eds) Green Grabbing: A New Appropriation of Nature . London: Routledge, 131–150.

55.

Peluso

Vandergeest

(2001) Genealogies of the political forest and customary rights in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The Journal of Asian Studies 60(3): 761–812.

56.

Perreault

Martin

(2005) Geographies of neoliberalism in Latin America. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 37(2): 191–201.

57.

Phoek

ICA

Tjilen

Cahyono

(2021) Analysis of ecotourism, culture and local community empowerment: Case study of Wasur National Park-Indonesia. Macro Management & Public Policies 3(2): 7–13.

58.

Pocock

Lilley

(2018) Who benefits? World heritage and indigenous people. Heritage & Society 10(2): 171–190.

59.

Raj

(2013) Who is King of Sarawak’s rainforest? An insight to Sarawak’s land corruption led by its Chief Minister and his family. Earth Common Journal 3(1): 14–30.

60.

Ritzer

(2007) A Brief History of Neoliberalism . By David Harvey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Pp. 247. American Journal of Sociology 113(1): 286–288.

61.

Sachs

(2019) “One World.” The Development Dictionary: a Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed.

62.

Salemink

(2016) Described, inscribed, written off: Heritagisation as (dis) connection. In: Taylor

(ed.) Connected and Disconnected in Viet Nam: Remaking Social Relations in a Post-Socialist Nation . Canberra, Australia: ANU Press, 311–345.

63.

Salleh

Bettinger

(2007) Indigenous peoples and parks in Malaysia: Issues and questions. In: Sodhi

Acciaioli

Erb

Tan

AKJ

(eds) Biodiversity and Human Livelihoods in Protected Areas: Case Studies from the Malay Archipelago. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 289–310.

64.

Sarawak Report (2010) Taib Share Shock ! – Exclusive. Available at: www.sarawakreport.org/2010/11/taib-share-shock-exclusive/ (accessed 25 May 2019).

65.

Sarawak Report (2014a) Berawan Victory At Mulu-End Taib's Landgrab Laws! Available at: www.sarawakreport.org/2014/05/berawan-victory-at-mulu-end-taibs-landgrab-laws/ (accessed 26 May 2019).

66.

Sarawak Report (2017) The Garden Of Eden Was Turned To Desert - Hanbury Tenison On Sarawak. Available at: www.sarawakreport.org/2017/09/the-garden-of-eden-was-turned-to-desert-hanbury-tennison-on-sarawak/ (accessed 26 May 2019).

67.

Sarawak Report (2019b) Same Old Story In Sarawak. Available at: www.sarawakreport.org/2019/02/same-old-story-in-sarawak/ (accessed 26 August 2019).

68.

Sarawak Report (2019c) Who Is Representing Who In The Mulu Standoff? - SPECIAL SARAWAK INVESTIGATION. Available at: www.sarawakreport.org/2019/05/who-is-representing-who-in-the-mulu-standoff-special-sarawak-investigation/ (accessed 28 August 2019).

69.

Sarawak Report (2019d). Sarawak's Mulu Scandal Is A Symptom Of World Class Corruption. Available at: www.sarawakreport.org/2019/05/sarawaks-mulu-scandal-is-a-symptom-of-world-class-corruption/ (accessed 28 August 2019).

70.

Simpson

(2014) Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life across the Borders of Settler States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

71.

Star Online (2019) Sarawak natives bringing Mulu forest dispute to Unesco's attention. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20190316213707/https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/03/14/swak-natives-bringing-mulu-forest-dispute-to-unescos-attention/ (accessed 14 January 2020).

72.

Stoler

(2009) Along the archival grain: Epistemic anxieties and colonial common sense. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

73.

Taylor

(2009) Cultural landscapes and Asia: Reconciling international and Southeast Asian regional values. Landscape Research 34(1): 7–31.

74.

UNESCO (2009) Gunung Mulu National Park. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/636 (accessed 17 October 2019).

75.

UNESCO (2010) Gunung Mulu National Park. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/486 (accessed 14 October 2019).

76.

UNESCO (2023) Policy on engaging with indigenous peoples. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/indigenous-peoples/policy (accessed 20 October 2024).

77.

UNESCO (2024) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ (accessed 10 January 2025).

78.

UNESCO (n.d.a) World Heritage. Available at: whc.unesco.org/en/about/ (accessed 12 April 2020).

79.

UNESCO (n.d.b) World Heritage List. Available at: whc.unesco.org/en/list/ (accessed 12 April 2020).

80.

UNESCO (n.d.c) The Criteria for Selection. Available at: whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/ (accessed 12 April 2020).

81.

UNESCO (n.d.e) World Heritage List Nominations. Available at: whc.unesco.org/en/nominations/ (accessed 12 April 2020).

82.

UNESCO (n.d.f) Gunung Mulu National Park. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1013/ (accessed 14 October 2019).

83.

Verschuuren

(2016) Re-awakening the power of place. In: Verschuuren

Furuta

(eds) Asian Sacred Natural Sites: Philosophy and Practice in Protected Areas and Conservation . New York, NY: Routledge/Earthscan, 1–14.

84.

Wedel

Shore

Feldman

, et al. (2005) Toward an anthropology of public policy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600(1): 30–51.

85.

Winchester

Rofe

(2016) Qualitative Research and its Place in Human Geography. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

86.

Youdelis

(2016) “They could take you out for coffee and call it consultation!”: The colonial antipolitics of Indigenous consultation in Jasper National Park. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 48(7): 1374–1392.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

4.71 MB