Comments

Indigenous Peoples and Conservation

JANIS ALCORN B.
Biodiversity SupportProgram % WorldWildlifeFund 1250 24th StreetNW D.C. 20037, U.S.A. Washington,

Forest-dwelling peoples' organizations continueto express concern about destructionof theirforests. The International Alliance of the Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forestsissued The ForestPeoples Charterin February 1992 (available from WorldRainforthe in est Movementin the U.K and CulturalSurvival the U.S.A.).The Charter setsout a conservation policybased on recognition indigenous of peoples' rights conserve to their forests and to regulatedevelopment activities currently imposed upon themwithouttheirconsent.It is thefirst such statement from global network foresta of dwellingpeoples' organizations. At the local level, forest-dwellers around the world have repeatedly made declarations deploringoutsiders' destruction forests at least 500 years.The Forest of for Peoples Charteradds its weightto other international forest-dwellers' declarations, includingthe 1988 statementofthe Coordinating Body forthe IndigenousPeoples' Organizations the AmazonBasin (COICA) highof lightedin the essay by Redfordand Stearman(1993). forest Many conservationgroups are now supporting peoples' struggles recognitionof theirrights.The for Global Biodiversity Strategy (World ResourcesInstitute et al. 1992) supportsrecognition ancestraldomains. of Redford and Stearmanalso conclude thatit is wise for conservationists work with indigenouspeoples. But to and likeClad (1984), theyarguethatthe interests agendas of the two groups are "partially completelyin or conflict." is Conservation a social and politicalprocess.Conserin interested achieving conservationists on-the-ground have to choose among real opvation of biodiversity tions,not idealized academic options.Conservationists in an increasingnumberof countriesare choosing the option of workingwith local peoples' organizations. Redfordand Stearmanare correctin stating thatcompromisesare being made,but decisionsabout goals and deserve further compromises thought.
424
Conservation Biology Volume 7, No. 2, June 1993

A decade ago, U.S. and European-based conservationistsfocusedon supporting protected-areas imstrategies plemented throughstate governments.Park departwithstaff ments, trained academic centersthatteach by strategies based on protected areas, still espouse the conservationists' goals and agendadescribedby Redford and Stearman. But,despite the confluenceof those two agendas, parkdepartments otherstateagencieshave and at failedmiserably conserving biodiversity, globallyand in Amazonia.Instead,paper parksabound,and deforestationrates have increased.While states have pleased conservationists announcing creationofparks,a by the carefullook at stateperformance shows a generalpatternwherebystate-linked elites are continuingto log and mine in protectedand reservedareas. Not only have park strategies failed,but they have undermined forest-dwelling communities' ability proto tect forests. They have been implementedat costs to local people in order to achieve global benefits (Wells 1992). The expected conservation benefits have not accrued, but local costs have been considerable (see Ghimire1991). Conservationists' recognitionof their of "myth the noble savage" (Redford1990) is coupled withtheirrecognition what I call their"myth the of of noble state."Conservationists becomingmoreaware are of real-world optionsand theircosts and trackrecords. And they are seeking to create positive partnerships withreal indigenouspeoples and real states. Redford and Stearman pursue a question thatmerits further discussionin Conservation Biology:What interests do indigenous people and conservationists have in common?Redfordand Stearmanidentify major differences in the two groups' conservation goals, based on theirunderstanding those goals. I would like to purof sue theirquestionfurther. I First, will focus on theirdefinitions goals. The of definition conservation, indigenous of based on Redford and Stearman's shouldbe expanded.Based experiences,

Alcorn

Indigenous Peoplesand Conservation 425

upon my own experiences in the Amazon, Central America,Asia, and the Pacific,and corroboratedby otherethnobiologists theethnobiological and literature, Redford Stearman's and definition inadequateand misis leading. Redford and Stearman accurately note that thereis greatheterogeneity withinand between indigenous groups.Nonetheless,there are generalpatterns thatprovide a definition beyond the one theyprovide: means "In the indigenousview,preserving biodiversity preventing large-scaledestruction." myknowledge, To there is no direct translation the word "conservafor It transtion"in anynon-European language. is generally or lated as "respecting Nature,""taking care of things," "doing things right." Indigenouspeoples oftenfindthe Westernidea of "conservation" something be sepas to A aratedfrom restoftheir the activities strange. Karen as man recentlyasked me why we always "put thingsin he boxes." It makesthings difficult, said. To him,and to is conservation manyothersI've metin othercountries, a just partof making living.Indigenousgoals are different fromthe conservationists' goals characterizedby Redford Stearman. thegoal expressedin IUCN's and But updated World ConservationStrategy, "Caringfor the Earth"(IUCN et al. 1991) is a close matchforindigenous ideas of conservation. a Indigenouspeople demonstrate concern formaintainingthe ecological processes and the species that mediate those processes (Alcorn 1989a 1989b). They oftendemonstrate keen interestin the locations of a rare plant species. Withinany given community, there are usually several people who bringrare plants into in them.There are fewer cultivation orderto maintain publishedexamplesofindigenous peoples' activeefforts to maintain mammals. Manyindigenous groupsin Africa and Asia have a tradition maintaining of sacred forest More areas where animalsand plantsare not disturbed. commongloballyare community-enforced offorrules est and game use. In traditionalsocieties, nature is viewed as part of human society,and proper relations withnatureare necessaryin orderto have properrelationsbetween people, includingpast and presentgenerations.The commitmentof indigenous peoples to conservation complex and veryold. is I strongly and Stearman's statedisagreewithRedford mentthatindigenous people havepresentedthemselves as conservationists "only because they recognize the power ofthisconcept in rallying supportin theirstruggle forland rights" [emphasisadded]. When indigenous people enterinto discussionswith powerfuloutsiders, terms and use their vocabtheymustmeeton outsiders' New use of the outsiders' ulary. conceptof conservation withtheriseofinternational conservationists as coincides a new playeramong powerfuloutsiders; this does not is meanthatconservation new to indigenous peoples. Most conservationists have broadergoals thanthose condefinedby Redford and Stearman. Most U.S.-based servation biologists do seem to share the narrower

thiscontinuesto be debatedwithinthis goals,although journal.Conservation notoriginate did amongbiologists (as statedby Redford Stearman), and unless one accepts the narrowgoals definedby Redford and Stearman that conservationists are to maintainecosystems isolated from humanbeings(except the biologists who want to studythem). Indigenouspeoples' goals, as I have described them, don't completelymatch those narrow conservationists' goals. They more closely match the broadergoals espoused by manyconservationists who recognizethatmostoftheworld'sbiodiversity found, is and will continueto be found,in landscapes occupied by people. RegardingRedfordand Stearman'sconcern for the loss ofthetraditional conservation ethic,I would like to returnto Chapin's comment quoted in their essay. Chapin notes thatthe modernconservation ethic may not be adequate to maintain biodiversity, compared to the traditional conservation ethic.I agree.I have argued elsewherethatthe modernapproachis too narrowand thatconservationists have two goals: to stabilizethe traditionalconservation ethic whereverit stillexists,and to improve modemconservation the ethic(Alcorn1991). Redford and Stearman characterize developmentas a threat biodiversity warn thatindigenous to and peoples will cease to conserve biodiversity theypursue deas velopment.There is evidence both to supportand to contradict their Some indigenous warning. peoples pursuingeconomic and social developmentare movingto adopt the modernreserveconcept to protectbiodiversityfromthreats commercialization. by They are seeking the state'sassistanceto defendbiodiversity. exFor ample, in Mexico, rural communities sought and achieved establishment "campesino ecological reof serves" (Toledo 1992). Throughthe Union of Indian Nations,BrazilianXavante sought assistancefromthe WorldWildlife Fund to use scientific methodsto monitorgame populationsin orderto preventpoachingby outsiders and betterregulatetheirown hunting (Butler 1992,personalcommunication). Likewisethereis widefor traditional spread evidence that, centuries, peoples around the world have intensified land use in certain areas of theirterritories order to maintain in in forests otherareas. Large-scale,outsider-driven development projects wreak devastating effects levels of biodiversity. on But examinationof the range of developmentactivitiesin thebroaderlandscape shows thatconventional wisdom abouttheimpactofdevelopment often is wrongin areas where strong non-Western cultural rootsare stillintact. Forhundreds years, of local communities have fought to keep commercial Now they loggersout of theirforests. also fight "reforestation programs"thatthreaten reto forests withplantations. place existing The tradition of forest defensecontinuesaroundthe world. community One of the main threatslinked to developmentis commoditizationof land and disruptionof common
Biology Conservation Volume 7, No. 2, June 1993

426

Indigenous Peoplesand Conservation

Alcorn

property regimes. Redford As and Stearman note,indigenous patternsof communal land use offer"greater promiseforconservation thanWesternsystems indiof vidual property rights." Indigenouspeoples have held forestunder complex, often-overlapping tenurerights thatsharebenefits and across theircommunity exclude noncommunity members. Overlappingrightsprotect the community from outsideacquisitionof theirforests and fromexclusive use by any one entity who might are destroy Traditional it. systems in effect partnerships between individuals and theircommunity. Partnerships with indigenouspeoples offer the best both inoption for achievingon-groundconservation side and outside parks.An internal World Bank evaluation of Latin Americanefforts found that even when indigenous landshave been demarcatedand recognized by governments, theyare stillbeing exploited by setThe stateis not defending tlersand loggingoperations. indigenouspeoples' propertyrights, despite the facts that the state has recognized those rightsand that a primary function theideal stateis to defend of property. This is particularly problemamong the smallerAmaa zonian groups described by Redford and Stearman. withthe statewill be necessary for Strong partnerships continued conservationof indigenousgroups' forests. Buildingappropriatepartnerships between states and indigenouscommunitiesmay require new legislation, and policies,institutional linkages, processes.It requires creatingcommunicationnetworksand research linkof ages. It also requiresadequate monitoring biodiversityand institutional processes,an area where the collaboration of nongovernmental organizationscan be particularly helpful. is One barrierto partnerships the attitudethatconservationists in a position of authority "cede" are to to to land,to "grant" rights others, speak forothers, or to define others' knowledge.The 1988 COICA statementwas itself issued in responseto thisproblem.The COICA declaration specificallystates, "We are conus cernedthatyou have left IndigenousPeoples and our out organizations of the politicalprocess which is dethe termining futureof our homeland.... [W]e never to delegatedany power of representation the environmentalistcommunity.... We want to representourin selves and our interests condirectly all negotiations of cerningthe future our Amazonianhomeland."When Redfordand Stearmanwrite about indigenouspeople "claimingstanding"to enter conservation discussions, their statementimplicityacknowledges the problem noted by COICA: "conservationists" actingas gateare to tablethat keepers a discussion does nothavea place set forthosewhose homeland's future hangsin thebalance. Untilwe recognize the authority indigenouspeoof ples as equals at the discussiontable,we cannotjoin in with them.Chhatrapati partnerships Singh(1986) has noted: "Amongst externalities, most destructive ... the [to nature] is injustice or adharma ... [T]he conseBiology Conservration Volume 7, No. 2, June 1993

quences ofsuch adharma have been borne by the rural poor, the tribals, and the floraand fauna"(Singh 1986: 1). "[T]he issues actuallyat stakein the forest question and nondwellers; justice to nature(trees,wild life, (b) etc.); and (c) justice to coming generations"(Singh 1986:7). In the real world,conservation forests of and justiceforbiodiversity cannotbe achieveduntilconservationistsincorporate other peoples into their own moraluniverseand share indigenouspeoples' goals of justice and recognition humanrights. of
... are three: (a) justice to the people, forest dwellers

Acknowledgments
I thankKent Redfordand AllynStearmanfor sharing theirmanuscripts with me. I thankJohn Butler,Mac Chapin,Alejandrode Avila,Owen J. Lynch,and Toby MacGrath comments for and suggestions. The views expressed in this paper are my own and should not be attributed the WorldWildlife to Fund,the Biodiversity SupportProgram, the Agencyfor International or Development.
Literature Cited Alcorn,J.B. 1989a Process as resource. Advances in Economic Botany7:31-63. Alcorn, B. 1989b. An economic analysisof Huastec Mayan J. forestmanagement. Pages 182-206 in J.0. Browder,editor. Fragilelands of LatinAmerica.WestviewPress,Boulder,Colorado. Alcorn, B. 1991. Ethics, J. economies,and conservation. Pages 317-349 in M. L. Oldfieldand J.B. Alcorn,editors.Biodiversity:culture,conservation, and ecodevelopment.Westview Press,Boulder,Colorado. Clad,J.1984. Conservation indigenous and peoples: A studyof convergent interests. CulturalSurvival Quarterly 8:68-73. K Ghimire, B. 1991. Parksand people. Discussion Paper No. 29. UnitedNationsResearchInstitute Social Development, for Geneva,Switzerland. IUCN,UNEP,WorldwideFundforNature.1991. Caringforthe earth. International Union for the Conservationof Nature, Gland,Switzerland. Redford, H. 1990. The ecologicallynoble savage. Cultural K Survival Quarterly 15(1):46-48. K Redford, H., and A.M. Stearman.(1993). Forest-dwelling nativeAmazonians and the conservation biodiversity. of Conservation Biology7(2):248-255. Singh, 1986. Commonproperty C. and common poverty:India's forests, forestdwellers,and the law. OxfordUniversity Press,Oxford, England. Toledo, V. 1992. Biodiversidad campesinado:La modernizay La cion en conflicto. Jornada Campo 9:1-3. del Wells,M. 1992. Biodiversity conservation, affluence povand erty:Mismatchedcosts and benefitsand efforts remedy to them.Ambio21(3):237-243. World Resources Institute, IUCN, UNEP. 1992. Global BiodiWorld ResourcesInstitute, versity Strategy. D.C. Washington,