Eighty percent of Earth’s biodiversity is in tribal territories, disproportionately affecting indigenous groups. Maasai, Batwa, Basarwa, Mursi, Karen, and Hmong have been displaced from their native lands as the proactive protection of said lands becomes increasingly necessary. During the 1990’s, upwards of 600,000 people were displaced for the very reason of conservation protection forcing these people to desperately seek new homes. This trend has caused a move toward weighing the interests of the environment against those of indigenous people, the article argues, unnecessarily.
Plans labeled as “conservation protection” are put forth with the aim of keeping wildlife away from unwanted human contact. In other words, in order to achieve conservation protection, over aspects of biodiversity must be prioritized over the human use of the land. However, this occurs within government offices, without the consideration of the groups already sharing the territory. John Muir, a revered forefather of the American conservation movement, stated that “wilderness should be cleared of all inhabitants and set aside to satisfy the urbane human's need for recreation and spiritual renewal.” He influenced national policy with the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, which defined wilderness as a place 'where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.’
However, the eviction of people from their native lands disrupts a centuries long way of living not easily replicated elsewhere. Should not these people be considered a part of the biodiversity or even the original conservationists of their homelands? How do we balance their right to use the land with the protection of the land and its natural environment? In essence, how do we balance their rights to use their lands with the need to protect those same lands in their natural state?
According to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, scientists have determined that in Africa “90 percent of biodiversity lies outside of protected areas, most of it in places occupied by human beings.” This finding as regards African biodiversity would challenge the notion that the eviction of people is an appropriate or necessary solution, particularly as these refugees must then also be relocated. It was recognized by Conservation International Chairman and CEO Peter Seligman, that indigenous people have a deepest understanding of the Earth’s living resources,” adding that, “we firmly believe that indigenous people must have ownership, control and title of their lands.” Indeed, further scientific study has led to the recognition that it is ideal to allow people to remain in their milieu because,” history is showing us that the most idiotic thing we can do is kick them out of it.” This sentiment reflects the growing recognition that it is counterproductive if not illogical to people from their lands in the name of conservation.
It is well documented and logical to understand that indigenous people have been conserving their native lands in a manner consistent with biodiversity for centuries. But new, government plans to conserve the land have implicitly embraced the perception that the presence of any people is inherently adverse to conservation. Tribal communities that have been evicted from their lands have gone from being “the original conservationists” to “enemies of conservation” overnight, as Maasai leader Martin Saning’o succinctly put it. This is often done without regard for the existing presence of balance between the people and the land. In contrast, conservationists accuse human rights defenders of being “complicit in the decline” of biodiversity.
Mark Dowie, an investigative historian, argues that by removing indigenous communities from protected areas, “a symbiosis between indigenous peoples and their environment is disrupted.” Consequently, their expulsion decreases biodiversity while simultaneously they are “poor additions to the over-populated areas surrounding the park.” (Igoe 2005) Ignoring the human factor in the conservation of biological diversity is overly generalistic and often counterproductive. Evicting communities from their lands in the name of conservation newly causes poverty, resentment, and anger, as well as the disruption of culture.
Conservation refugees have centuries’ long history and attachment to their lands before becoming conservation lands or national parks, severing the culture from its roots. Mark Dowie's Conservation Refugees describes Africa's Batwa Pygmies. He observes that by minimizing or not taking into consideration the human factor in the process of land conservation, conservationists contribute to the extinction of populations. The way that people live and reproduce in their original environment tends to be different when they are displaced to another environment. Kwokwo Barume, a member of the Maasai community in Kenya, observed that "we are heading toward extinction." Bans from cultivation, hunting or gathering, and sacred sites and burial grounds negatively impact indigenous peoples’ daily life and impede their human rights. There are also ripple effects to this approach to conservation. People who are forcibly displaced or voluntarily and relocated must be compensated or accommodated in their new way of living, requiring financial and other resources. Around the park there are overcrowded populations where poverty prevails, affecting the surrounding communities. It is obvious that indigenous people must be considered within the process of conservation.
Dr. Darrell A. Posey, an anthropologist and ethnobiologist, rightly suggested in his writings about the Kayapo people of the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil, that traditional societies must be considered as helpers in conservation. He emphasizes that indigenous people truly understand their environment as the land’s natural guardians and co-habitants for centuries. He further indicates the symbiotic nature of the balance, as biodiversity is also beneficial for indigenous peoples' lives. The example of South American countries that have recognized this balance should be replicated, where indigenous groups willing to practice conservation have been connected with technical resources from conservation groups. In Brazil, the Federal Environmental Conservation Act protects their rights to remain on the land and use its natural resources.
Though the notion that protected areas should be freed from humans continues, new recognition is emerging that expelling peoples from their lands has historically been “not only a moral, social, philosophical, and economic mistake, but an ecological one as well.” Indeed evidence shows that despite peoples ‘eviction, it has been observed in that biological diversity continues to decline in parks and reserves. In order to protect all aspects of biodiversity, it is crucial that conservation be redefined to acknowledge the necessity of balance. True protection of biodiversity cannot succeed if indigenous’ rights are undermined.
As Aristotle said, “nature abhors a vacuum.”
