PROFILE Involving Indigenous Peoples in Protected Area

PROFILE DOI: 10.1007/s00267-002-2710-y Involving Indigenous Peoples in Protected Area Management: Comparative Perspectives from Nepal, Thailand, and China

SANJAY K. NEPAL* peoples in protected areas. This paper attempts to compare Resource, Recreation and Tourism Program efforts in partnership between indigenous peoples and pro- University of Northern British Columbia tected area authority in three Asian countries: Nepal, Thailand, 3333 University Way, UNBC and China. It shows that the involvement of indigenous peo- Prince George, British Columbia ples is more successful where park planning is participatory V2N 4Z9 Canada and where political and socioeconomic reforms are underway. Indigenous peoples are in conﬂict with park authorities where ABSTRACT / Despite over two decades of efforts towards park management is centralized and nonparticipatory. Unless involving indigenous and traditional peoples in protected area concrete efforts are made to address livelihood issues of in- management, there are few successful examples. Several indigenous peoples living in and around protected areas, park ternational principles and guidelines on indigenous peoples’ management aimed to protect wildlife will rarely succeed. Par- involvement in protected areas exist. However, because of the ticipatory park management that involves indigenous peoples lack of evaluation of whether or not these principles and and that addresses livelihood issues of indigenous communi- guidelines have been put into practice, there is hardly any in- ties will ultimately succeed in its efforts toward wildlife conser- formation that indicates the actual involvement of indigenous vation.

It is estimated that there are 5000–6000 distinct violence, depopulation, and poverty among indigenous groups of indigenous peoples living in more than 70 communities throughout the world (West and Brechin countries. Their numbers total about 250 million per- 1991, Nepal and Weber 1995a, Stevens 1997). sons, which is roughly 4%–5% of the world’s popula- While the protection of nature is the primary con- tion (Cohen 1999). Heavily dependent on forest re- cern in national parks and protected areas, it is also sources, many indigenous peoples inhabit areas in or recognized that meeting the needs and priorities of adjacent to parks and protected lands. For the purpose local, often indigenous residents is vital to ensure long- of the discussions here, indigenous peoples are the term survival of protected areas (Ghimire and Pimbert original or oldest surviving inhabitants of an area, typ- 1997). Due to this realization, several international ef- ically living in a traditional homeland for many gener- forts are underway to involve indigenous peoples in ations, and who identify themselves on the basis of the protected area management (McNeely 1995). Coman- language, history, values, and customs (Stevens 1997). agement agreements between indigenous peoples and Many examples of indigenous resource manage- park authorities, formal and informal consultations ment systems and conservation practices are found with indigenous peoples, and indigenous controlled throughout the world (Nepal and Weber 1995a). How- and managed protected areas are now the focus of ever, indigenous conservation methods and livelihood conservation in many developing and developed coun- systems have not been favored and are affected by tries. While Canada and Australia are the leaders in national conservation policies. Establishment of pro- comanagement of protected areas in the developed tected areas is an example of such a policy that has world, many developing countries in Asia (Nepal), Af- severely impacted indigenous customary rights, values rica (Zambia, Zimbabwe), and Central America (Hon- and beliefs, and livelihood support systems. As a result, duras, Nicaragua) have adopted various forms of co- conﬂicts over natural resources have led to dislocation, management of protected areas (McNeely 1995, Stevens 1997, Beltran 2000). Given the above background, this paper examines KEY WORDS: Indigenous people, Indigenous involvement; Comanage- the involvement of indigenous peoples’ in protected ment; Protected areas; Institutions; Conservation areas in three countries: Nepal, Thailand, and China. Three protected areas, of which two are national parks *email: [email protected] and one is a nature reserve, are compared to evaluate

their success in building and strengthening the part- the country inherited from our ancestors, with a lan- nership between indigenous peoples and the protected guage of our own, and having certain essential and area authority. These include the Sagarmatha (Mt. unique characteristics which confer upon us the strong Everest) National Park (SNP) in Nepal, Doi Inthanon conviction of belonging to a people, who have an iden- National Park (DINP) in Thailand, and Xishuang- tity in ourselves and should be thus regarded by others” banna Nature Reserve (XNR) in China. The review (IUCN 1997, p. 7). presented here is based on the author’s several years of Many recent international conventions acknowledge field research experience in local community involve- the important role of indigenous communities and ment in parks and protected areas (Nepal and Weber their knowledge systems in international conservation. 1995b, Nepal 1999, 2000). Field research in XNR and The Convention on Biological Diversity, signed at the DINP were conducted in 1995, and that in SNP during UN Conference on Environment and Development 1996 and 1997. The paper first provides relevant back- (UNCED) in June 1992, recognizes the “close and tra- ground information on the protected areas and indig- ditional dependence of many indigenous and local enous peoples covered under this study; it then dis- communities ...onbiological resources, and the desir- cusses various forms of indigenous participation and ability of sharing equitably arising from the use of their implications for protected area management, fol- traditional knowledge, innovations and practices . . .” lowed by some concluding remarks. (IUCN 1997, p. 41). National and international orga- Although volumes have been written on indigenous nizations have stressed the need to adopt a partnership peoples and their involvement in protected area man- approach when making decisions about protected ar- agement, specific case studies presented in a compara- eas. However, “partnership” has been notably skewed in tive perspective are lacking. Recent literature has at- favor of governments’ terms of political power, eco- tempted to fill this gap (Stevens 1997, Beltran 2000); nomic resources, and cultural domination. Indigenous however, it is necessary to exmaine how various political communities are increasingly hostile towards the his- and institutional structures and cultural and socioeco- torical notion of partnership and are interested in de- nomic conditions dictate the level and intensity of in- veloping their own community-controlled sustainability digenous participation in protected area management. strategies. Empowering indigenous peoples is essential This paper aims to fulfill this goal by comparing three if equal partnership is sought. Agenda 21 clearly artic- Asian protected areas, which illustrate the range of ulates international recognition that community em- issues, differences in level of partnership between park powerment is necessary for sustainable development authority and indigenous peoples, and emerging con- (Robinson 1993). Provisions for legal and institutional cerns in comanagement initiatives. rights for indigenous communities, collaborative research, and monitoring efforts, and a mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the strategies are crucial aspects of this process (IUCN There is no universally accepted definition for indig- 1997). enous peoples. In its most literal sense the term “indig- Recent principles and guidelines as provided by in- enous” implies only long-term residence in a given ternational agencies such as IUCN and World Wide area. In international law, the term applies to culturally Fund for Nature (WWF) also reflect the above positions distinct ethnic groups, who have a different identity and resolutions. In its “Statement of Principles on In- from the national society, draw existence from local digenous Peoples and Conservation,” WWF has de- resources, and are politically nondominant (ICIHI clared that it would not endorse or support any activi- 1987 cited in Colchester 1997). The International La- ties that are proposed in protected areas without prior, bor Organization (ILO) Convention 169 identifies in- free, and informed consent of indigenous and local digenous and tribal peoples as socially, culturally, and communities. These activities may include economic or economically distinct from other sections of the na- other development projects, natural resources exploi- tional community and whose status is regulated wholly tation, commercially oriented or academic research, or partially by their own customs or traditions or by resettlement of indigenous communities, creation of special laws or regulations (IUCN/WWF 1999). The protected areas or imposition of restrictions on subsis- World Council of Indigenous Peoples identifies indig- tence resource use, and colonization within indigenous enous peoples as “population groups who from ancient territories (WWF 1996). The recently formulated “Prin- times have inhabited the lands where we live, who are ciples and Guidelines on Protected areas on Indige- aware of having a character of our own, with social nous/Traditional Peoples” provides five main princi- traditions and means of expression that are linked to ples and 22 guidelines concerning indigenous rights 750 S. K. Nepal

and knowledge systems, consultation processes, agree- munity-based conservation, collaborative management, ments between conservation institutions, decentraliza- and comanagement are increasingly applied in pro- tion, local participation, transparency, accountability, tected areas. In many countries, concern for indige- sharing benefits, and international responsibility nous control and management of protected areas are (IUCN/WWF 1999). These principles and guidelines reflections of changing times and developments at the state that indigenous people be recognized as the right- national scale. For example, in Canada, during the ful owners and equal partners in the development and 1980s and early 1990s there was increasing empower- implementation of conservation strategies that affect ment of indigenous communities, which was brought their lands, territories, waters, coastal seas, and other about by closely interconnected developments. These resources, and, in particular, in the establishment and stemmed not just from constitutional developments but management of protected areas (principle 1). Simi- court decisions, government policy changes, the politi- larly, agreements drawn up between conservation insti- cization of indigenous communities, and the land tutions and indigenous peoples should be based on the claims process. As a result, indigenous communities territorial rights and knowledge systems of the latter. have had more opportunities to determine their future Such agreements also should be based on the recogni- in terms of what is legally possible, economically feasi- tion by indigenous peoples of their responsibility to ble, socially acceptable, and culturally appropriate conserve biodiversity, ecological integrity, and natural (Notzke 1994). Indigenous involvement in protected resources harbored in protected areas (principle 2). In area management is now encouraged and there are all matters pertaining to the mutual interests of pro- many cases of comanagement projects involving protected areas and indigenous people, decentralization, tected area authorities and groups of indigenous peo- local participation, transparency, and accountability ples such as those in Auyuittuq, Kluane, Nahannii, Iv- should be considered as the key principles (principle vavik, and Gwaii Haanas parks. In developing countries 3). Sharing fully and equitably the benefits associated such as Nepal, political reforms and appropriate with protected areas, with due recognition to the rights changes in land and forest resource policies in the of other legitimate stakeholders is emphasized (princi- 1990s have given a boost to successful indigenous con- ple 4), and it is recognized that the rights of indigenous trol and management of parks and protected areas peoples in connection with protected areas are often an (Nepal 1999). In China, political and economic re- international responsibility (principle 5). forms of the 1980s and 1990s have recognized the Coownership of protected areas and self-determina- significance of indigenous involvement in natural re- tion are key issues in indigenous involvement in pro- source management. There is some degree of flexibility tected area management, the lack of which has resulted on resource extraction from protected areas when this in violence, disruption of traditional lifestyles, erosion involves indigenous communities. The tourism industry of cultural values, and unsustainable resource extrac- is even capitalizing on indigenous culture and custom- tions. Conflicts between parks and indigenous peoples ary practices. The Communal Areas Management Pro- have been widely reported (West and Brechin 1991, gramme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Nepal and Weber 1995a). Very few national parks and Zimbabwe and South Africa is innovative in its ap- protected areas established before the 1960s recog- proach to participatory conservation of parks and pro- nized continuing indigenous settlements and subsis- tected areas (Nepal 1997). In contrast to the above- tence practices. Except for few examples of Maori in- mentioned positive trends, the plight of Akha hill tribes volvment in New Zealand’s parks, park management in northern Thailand, where tribal minorities continue worldwide had been basically under the control of non- to face threats of eviction from their homeland and are indigenous peoples, exclusionary, nature-focused, and subject to violence and coercion by the Thai military, authoritative (Nepal and Weber 1995a, Stevens 1997). illustrates the enormous challenges indigenous people Humanistic and participatory approaches to parks and are facing in that country. As the Thai case study dis- protected area management were first espoused during cussed in this paper suggests, protected area authorities the Third World Congress on National Parks and Pro- in many parts of the developing world have still not tected Areas held in Bali, Indonesia in 1982 (Nepal and abandoned their policies to exclude indigenous in- Weber 1993). Since then efforts to include local com- volvement in park management and continuation of munities and indigenous peoples in park management traditional livelihood strategies. This is true in Ethiopia have gradually intensified and have resulted in various where, despite recent reforms in decentralization, the forms of partnership between park authority and indig- policy of securing strictly protected wildlife habitats (in enous peoples. national parks) has precluded indigenous participation Global examples indicate that concepts such as com- in protected area management (Hurni and Ludi 2000). Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas 751

Given the above context, the following section ex- tional Park (SNP) is approximately 1150 km2 (Figure amines and compares the challenges and opportunities 1). The park consists of rugged landscape of high for indigenous involvement in three protected areas in mountains, glaciers, hanging valleys, and constricted Nepal, Thailand, and China. fluvial terraces. Some of the world’s highest peaks, such as Mt. Everest (8850 m), Lhotse (8501 m), and Cho Comparative International Perspectives Oyu (8153 m) are within the park boundary. Desig- nated as a World Heritage Site, the park has a varied It is important to note that all three protected areas topography, climate, vegetation, and supports rich wild discussed here are in developing countries in Asia; animal population and bird species (Jefferies 1985). therefore, any comparisions between the protected ar- Most commonly sited animals are the Himalayan tahr eas should consider the similarities and differences in (Hemitragus jemlahicus)—a species of wild goat, and the political, institutional, and socioeconomic condi- musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster). Other animals known tions in these countries. A brief review of these condi- to exist include the Himalyan black bear (Selenarctos tions is provided in the discussions of each protected thibetanus), snow leopard (Unica unica), and varieties of area. Indigenous peoples resident in the three pro- rodents and reptiles. At least 118 bird species are tected areas are dependent on subsistence agriculture found, including resident birds, summer nesters, and and forestry practiced within parklands. Poverty; lack of winter migrants. SNP is also home to the Impeyan education, access to health, and other government ser- pheasant (Lophophorus impejanus), the national bird of vices; low level of infrastructure development; and lim- Nepal, blood pheasant (Ithaginis cruentus), robin accen- ited local-level institutional development are the main tor (Prunella rubeculoides), and white-throated redstart characteristics. The level of political and instituional (Phoenicurus schisticeps). commitment varies between the countries. Compared Present-day inhabitants of the park are mostly the to Thailand and China, Nepal is well ahead in its com- indigneous Sherpa community, believed to have mi- mitment to involve local communities not just in pro- grated from an eastern province in Tibet some four tected area management but also in other aspects of centuries ago. Originally nomads, Sherpa began to set- conservation. It is interesting to note here that the tle permanently after the introduction of potato in history of protected area establishment in these coun- 1850, while maintaining transhumance migration tries started almost at the same period. For example, (Bjønness 1980). Local residents also include a small the modern era of conservation in Nepal began with population of recent migrants from other middle hills the publication of the first wildlife law in 1957 (Heinen and lowland areas of eastern Nepal. There are eight and Kattel 1992), and the first national park was estab- major settlements and more than 60 subsidiary settle- lished in 1973. Thailand introduced its Wild Animals ments (Stevens 1993), some of which have been trans- Reserve and Protection Act in 1960, and the National formed to permanent or semipermanent tourist vil- Park Act in 1961, subsequently creating the first na- lages. All the settlements are technically excluded from tional park, Khao Yai in 1962. China established its first the park. The latest statistics show that the total popu- Nature Reserve in 1956; however, there was no signifi- lation within the park is 3064, which had increased cant growth in protected areas due to political and from 2688 in 1991 (Nepal 1999). After the first success- social upheaval unleashed by the Cultural Revolution. ful ascent of Mt. Everest by Tenzing Norgay and Ed- Recent political and economic reforms in Nepal and mund Hillary on 29 May 1953, mountaineering and China have influenced polices on indigenous peoples trekking flourished in the region, bringing profound and protected areas; this is not the case in Thailand, changes in the Sherpa economy, which had tradition- where protected area management continues to be ally relied on agriculture, animal husbandry, and trade. exclusionary and authoritative. Today, tourism is the mainstay of the majority of Sherpa In the following sections, a brief introduction of the people. More than 20,000 trekkers and mountaineers protected areas is provided followed by a discussion on visit the park every year. It is estimated that tourism may issues of indigenous involvement, and implications for have provided income and employment opportunities protected area management. for 60%–80% of the local population.

Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal Issues in Indigenous Involvement Historically, Sherpa have developed a strong sense The Setting of community stewardship, as the whole community Located in the northeastern highlands of Nepal, took responsibility for protecting common properties along the Nepal–China border, the Sagarmatha Na- such as forests and grasslands. The relative stability of 752 S. K. Nepal

Figure 1. Map of Sagarmatha National Park, Nepal.

the forests in the park has been attributed to the indig- ment were denied, undermining the local management enous systems of forest protection and management regulations and institutions. While this accelerated for- practiced under the shiingi nawa institution. The shiin- est destruction in many parts of the country, particu- gii nawa is composed of a powerful group of local larly in the lowlands, it is reported that in the Everest people who annually select villagers to act as forest region, it was a gradual process, contrasting with the guardians. Stevens (1993) has reported different types widespread deforestation reported by several authors of protected forests and secular preserves and local elsewhere in the country (Stevens 1993). However, with variations of the shiingi nawa. Forest guards ensured the rapid development of tourism in the late 1960s and that villagers observed the rules and regulations and early 1970s, there was increased use of fuelwood, result- were also given the authority to penalize them when ing in highly visible tree felling in many areas. Evalua- regulations were violated. Such a system of controlled tions made in 1972 by government ofﬁcials and in 1974 use based on local interests ensured that forest prod- by a team from New Zealand led to the establishment of ucts were harvested in a sustainable manner. a national park in 1976. Today, the responsibility for With the passage of the Forest Nationalization Act of planning and managing SNP falls with the Department 1957, all forest cover within the country became gov- of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), ernment properties. Any local rights to forest manage- which is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas 753

and Soil Conservation. The National Parks and Wildlife would not be secured, the decision was taken to draw Conservation Act of 1973 excludes any forms of human the boundaries so as to exclude all settlements from the use, except tourism, scientific research, and education. park. It was also decided to involve local people in park Since the establishment of the park, important management. These steps helped to reduce suspicion achievements have been made in wildlife conservation, and ill feelings. Park management focused on respond- promotion of alternative energy sources and energy- ing to local people’s need for fuelwood, timber, and saving devices, and in local involvement in park man- grazing pasture, and also on environmental concerns as agement. While the declaration of SNP may have saved dictated by the funding agencies. In 1981, the DNPWC this region from further environmental disruptions, the took charge, and recruited local Sherpa for park man- rapid development of tourism has created many prob- agement: at one time, both the chief warden and assis- lems for the park management. The park has no juris- tant warden were local Sherpa. In 1993, His Majesty’s diction and control of tourism-related activities. The Government of Nepal (HMG) passed the Wildlife Con- result has been haphazard development of tourism giv- servation Act, with a provision to return up to 60% of ing rise to problems such as accummulation of garbage, the park revenues to local community-based develop- trail damage, pollution of drinking water sources, and ment. Similarly, the Buffer Zone Management Act al- other sociocultural anomalies. Despite the availability of electricity in some tourist villages such as Namche, lowed the designation of forests outside the park as a and the adoption of various alternative energy sources buffer zone, although its objectives are vague and less and energy-saving devices by the lodges, the demand understood by the park officials and local people. for fuelwood and timber continues. Even today, fuel- Several local institutions have emerged to tackle the wood constitutes a major source of energy for most problems related to environment and tourism. One lodges, while timber is the main construction material. such institution is the Sagarmatha Pollution Control Energy demands in the Everest region have gone up Committee (SPCC), which was established in 1991 with significantly, as both the numbers of visitors and the initial support from WWF-USA. Run by local Sherpa, lodges have increased dramatically. During the peak this local NGO started receiving substantial funding tourist seasons, Khumbu lodges consume over 9 metric support from the Ministry of Tourism, which provides tons of fuelwood per day (Nepal 1999). Since cutting the institution with almost 4% of the climbing fees trees inside is prohibited, forested areas outside are collected from the Everest region (SPCC 1997). SPCC increasingly under stress to meet the growing demands. started an ambitious project to clean up garbage and Furthermore, local people facing government-imposed raise local awareness of environmental issues. The im- restrictions on fuelwood collection and timber har- pact of the garbage clean-up campaign is clearly evi- vesting inside the park boundary have very little ap- dent, as tourist trails in the park are much cleaner than preciation for government-sponsored conservation in the past when the route to Everest was infamously activities. labeled “the garbage trail.” Although SPCC has now SNP’s early management was in the hands of park started building alliances with other local and foreign specialists supported by the New Zealand government. agencies, its future depends much on the support that The New Zealanders had an ambitious goal of making it receives from the government, outside agencies, and the park a world-class natural heritage site. Their efforts local community. were mainly focused on forest protection and regener- Other indigenous institutions active in improving ation; however, they also realized the potential and the the environmental conditions include the monasteries importance of linking park management with local located in the park. One of the most important of these Sherpas. During its formative years, the park was is the Tengboche Monastery, located on the main trail strongly opposed by the local people. As part of the government’s protection policy, military personnel to the Everest Base Camp. This monastery works for were deployed in the park causing further concern local-level community development, with plans to ad- among local Sherpa. Indeed, Hillary (1982) reported dress issues such as drinking water supply, electricity, that in the 1976 village council elections in Khumbu, all and porters’ shelter. Indigenous efforts to improve en- the chief candidates were opposed to the national park. vironmental conditions, tourism management, and bet- Khunjo Chumbi, one of the candidates and Hillary’s ter livelihood are supported by various governmental friend is reported to have said that “Hillary first and international agencies, including the Himalayan brought sugar to the lips of the Sherpas, but he is now Trust, O¨ ko-Himal, WWF-USA, and local village devel- throwing salt in their eyes” (Hillary 1982, p. 702). Re- opment committees represented by locally elected alizing that without local support the park’s future Sherpa. 754 S. K. Nepal

Implications for Management macaque (Macaca assamensis), white-handed gibbon SNP has limited its activities to protection and sur- (Hylobates pileatus), tiger (Panthera tigris), and represen- veillance, with almost no community-oriented activities. tatives of Himalayan mammal species such as Pere Dav- The main goal of the park is biodiversity conservation; id’s vole (Eothenomys melanogaster) and mole-shrew little attention has been given to tourism management (Anourosex squamipes) (Sayer 1981). A recent study of and local community development. However, DNPWC springtails reported 112 species at the summit of the has made some efforts towards overcoming the con- mountain, of which 90 were new to science (Dearden flicts with the Sherpa community. For example, the and others 1996). traditional shinggi nawa forest management system was The resident human poulations in the park include reinstated in 1983, under which, two village-elected the Karen, ethnic Thais, and Hmong, Karen and forest guards would be responsible in each settlement Hmong are considered hill tribes. Additionally, 8000 for protecting the local forests. However, the new sys- people live in 14 villages within 5 km of the park tem did not appear to be effective and lacked universal (Hvenegaard and Dearden 1998). A high proportion of support, since the guards were seen more as park em- households use the park for collecting plants (77%), ployees than village folks (Stevens 1993). Attempts have fuelwood (88%), construction materials (66%), and also been made to balance the impact of the park hunting (47%) (Dearden and others 1996). The cen- through the introduction of the buffer zone concept tral government perceives the hill tribes as a source of and community approaches toward forest conservation. problems, because they contribute to deforestation and Recent political change in the country has encouraged soil erosion, grow opium poppies, are thought of as an local people to speak out about their grievances against unstable political factor, and often do not consider the park-imposed regulations. As a result, many deci- themselves to be Thai nationals (Cooper 1979). sions regarding forest management have now been en- DINP is managed by the National Parks Division of trusted to local people, and monasteries have been the Royal Forestry Department, which falls under the given authority to manage forests within their jurisdic- jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooper- tion. While the local community appreciates these de- atives. The National Park Act of 1961 states that the velopments, conflict over forest management seems main objectives of a national park is to protect the area certain to continue as the goals of the park and the in a primitive state where human impacts are not per- local communities are very different. mitted, except for education and scientific purposes (Pipithvanichtham 1997).

Doi Inthanon National Park, Thailand Issues in Indigenous Involvement DINP was established without regard to the presence The Setting of hill tribe populations within the park areas. The Located about 60 km west of Chiang Mai in north- population in the area of the then newly established ern Thailand, the Doi Inthanon National Park (DINP) DINP was reported in 1974 to be low (1700), but had is one of the most popular parks for birding and nature increased to 2500 by 1982 (Dobias 1982 cited in Dear- study (Figure 2). Designated as a Reserve Forest in 1959 den and others 1996), and by 1993 there were 3000 and as a National Park in 1972, DINP has a total land residents living in 30 villages inside the DINP bound- area of 482 km2. It is well known for montane forest aries (RFD 1993). Between 1971 and 1983, the average birds, supporting Thailand’s only population of ashy- annual growth of Karen population was around 2.5%. throated warbler (Phylloscopus maculipennis) together Due to immigration, the number of Hmong grew more with an endemic race of the green-tailed sunbird rapidly (Mischung 1986 cited in Dearden and others (Aethopyga nipalensis) (Round 1988). Over 382 bird spe- 1996). The indigenous communities in DINP are very cies have been recorded in the park. Doi Inthanon is a poor and face food shortages. Compared with the large granite batholith and the highest mountain (2565 Karen, however, the Hmong have beneﬁted from their m) in Thailand. DINP has a monsoon climate with a early engagement in opium cultivation and from gov- variety of natural habitats, most notably hill evergreen ernment-sponsored development projects to replace forests. Epiphytes, lichens, and lianas are abundant at this with other income-generating activities. higher altitudes where precipitation exceeds 2,000 Since 1975, more than 40% of DINP area, and 34% mm/per yr. Areas above 1800 m are covered by virgin of the surrounding forest are reported encroached groves of orchids and rhododendrons. DINP is the only (Dearden and others 1996). Illegal hunting and habitat location in Thailand where Rhododendron delavayi is encroachment have resulted in the elimination of many found. DINP has a unique fauna including Assamese mammals such as tiger (Panthera tigris), elephant (El- Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas 755

Figure 2. Map of Doi Inthanon National Park, Thailand.

ephas maximus), banteng (Bubalus javanicus), and gaur Hmong were, however, compensated by a Royal (B. gaurus), and birds including most hornbills and Project, initiated by the King in 1979, to improve the white-winged duck (Cairina scutulata). Many other pro- livelihoods of local people and preserve forests. Villag- tected highland areas in Thailand are located in areas ers were encouraged to grow temperate cash crops to that the Karen people have long occupied. Compared replace opium. Thus, the government policy in north- to other ethnic groups, the Karen’s methods of agricul- ern Thailand has been to support the opium growers tural and forestry are conservation-oriented. Neverthe- (mainly Hmong) rather than the conservation-minded less, these traditional practices do have appreciable karen, even though many NGOs and academic institu- ecological impacts. Even though much forest remains tions have appreciated the resource management prac- in northern Thailand, there has been an enormous loss tices adopted by the Karen. of wildlife. Thailand’s laws governing national parks assume When DINP was established, the traditional form of that human use and nature preservation are incompat- slash-and-burn agriculture was seen as damaging to the ible and are therefore particularly strict on habitat ecology of the park. In many areas, shifting cultivation protection. However, their enforcement has often been was brought to an end rather rapidly, with no income- against local villagers seeking to use the resources to generating projects to compensate local people for the which they previously had access rather than against the loss of land: this was true particularly for the Karen. The rich and inﬂuential. While the Royal Forestry Depart- 756 S. K. Nepal

ment (RFD) considers park inhabitants to be “illegal ment of villagers in forest replanting. The villagers were occupants,” this claim is disputed (Sturgeon 1999). keen to explore the possibilities of reintroducing gib- Karen and Hmong residents believe that they had been bons into the area, from which they had apparently living in DINP for over 100 years and challenge the been hunted out ten years ago. RFD’s assertion that the local communities have in fact Implications for Management migrated more recently into the park. RFD officials now admit that when an inventory of national forest reserves Indigenous communities around DINP do not con- was originally undertaken to determine their suitablility sider that they are seeking favors from the park author- for protected areas, inhabited areas were mistakenly ity, but the right to adhere to customary practices and included within the proposed protected area bound- to maintain a sustainable livelihood. To address the aries (Pipithvanichtham 1997). Many hill tribe people issue of alienation of local people, several strategies are were evicted by force from the park and the relation- needed. Park management needs to engage in a serious ship between the indigenous peoples and the park discussion over property claims of indigenous commu- authorities remains difficult. For example, the indige- nities within DINP, especially as much of the land now nous communities are given hill tribe identification classified as protected includes land and resources cards, which makes it impossible for them to secure which local people believe belonged to them before the formal rights to use or own land. More recently, the park’s designation. The management of the park Thai cabinet has resolved to relocate hill tribes living in should aim to create local benefits through conserva- ecologically “sensitive” areas, thus reversing the previ- tion-related activities, such as ecotourism, and to link ous government’s undertaking to respect the land traditional resource management practices with mod- rights of communities established before protected ar- ern conservation approaches. This would stand a better eas were gazetted (Corner House Briefing 1999). chance of success than resorting to coercive measures, DINP management policies largely preclude local such as relocation, which bring insecurity to the people involvement or empowerment, and there is little con- concerned and often lead to violent protests. The hill sultation with the indigenous communities. The re- tribes complain that government officials often give cently formulated master plan for DINP has proposed contradictory directions, depending on the agencies clear demarcation of boundaries, removal of villages approached. For example RFD and DINP are con- from certain watersheds, restoration of old agricultural cerned about the protection of park resources, the clearings, establishment of a “special use zone” for Department of Agriculture focuses on agricultural de- other agricultural holdings that can be closely super- velopment and maximizing crop productivity, while the vised by park officials, control of future expansion of Department of Interior oversees programs for the wel- human settlements, restriction on the use of pesticides, fare of the hill tribes. None of the agencies appreciates more attention to the tourism potential of the hill the whole range of issues and severity of conflicts. tribes, and education aimed at understanding the na- There is, therefore, a need for a common management ture and function of a national park. However, imple- plan, or agreement, based on clearly articulated prior- mentation of these proposals has been slow, mainly ities to guide all the agencies’ programs. because of disagreements over the role of the indige- A strong argument can be made in favor of local nous populations. community involvement in park management. For ex- The development of tourism offers some potential ample, monitoring the activities of 4500 residents in the for comanagement. Between 1983 and 1993, visitor park with a protection staff of 25 rangers is almost numbers to the park had increased threefold—from impossible (Dearden and others 1996). Moreover, 312,000 to 936,000 (RFD 1993). Tour operators see the many illegal activities affecting DINP arise from the hill tribes as important cultural assets. Plans are under- 12,000 people who live in local communities around way to create a community-based ecotourism destina- the park, not necessarily the Karen and Hmong resi- tion in Karen village so as to replace the existing de- dents. DINP therefore urgently needs to develop strat- pendence on flower plantations, which involve heavy egies that provide the indigenous communities with chemical use (Emphandu and Chettamart 1997). A incentives to support the park’s protection. Empower- management board to oversee tourism linked conser- ing indigenous communities should be based on co- vation projects is planned. This would include village management between local communities and the gov- representatives, RFD officials, and representatives from ernment, although within the context of Thailand’s hill NGOs and academic institutions. Another project in tribes such an approach will be challenging for a highly DINP plans to augment villagers’ incomes through a centralized government system. Given the lack of trust community-based tree nursery and the active involve- between the government and the hill tribes, it is un- Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas 757

Figure 3. Map of Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve, China. likely that the government will soon be willing to accept biodiversity (IUCN 1993). The reserve consists of ﬁve park planning and management based on local empow- separate subreserves: the Mengyang, Menglum, Men- erment and comanagement. However, consultative dia- gla, Shangyong, and Mengao reserves. Ninety percent loges should be initiated to break the ice: a starting of the landscape is mountainous with rock formations point would be discussions and negotiations leading to of limestone, granite, and sandstone. XNR supports the formulation of a multistakeholder management rich ﬂora and fauna. It has 3500 species of higher plan. plants of which 300 are reported to be rare. There are 200 species of food plants, 100 species of oil plants, 20 Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve, China species of aromatic oil plants, 100 species of rapid- growing trees, 50 bamboo species, and 300 species of The Setting medicinal plants. XNR protects a number of threat- Established in 1958, the Xishuangbanna Nature Re- ened mammal and bird species, and some economically serve (XNR) is located in the southern region of the important plant species. There are 102 mammal species Yunnan Province (Figure 3). Sharing its border with including tiger (Panthera tigris), and Asian elephant Laos and Myanmar at the extreme southwest corner of (Elephas maximus). Around 427 bird species have been mainland China, XNR has a total area of 207,000 ha recorded from the area, with several species of conser- covered with tropical and subtropical forest rich in vation concern. 758 S. K. Nepal

XNR is home to several minority ethnic groups in- some parts, in return for the villagers’ cooperation in cluding Dai, Han, Hani, Lagu, Bulang, Jino, Bai, Yao, protecting the remaining areas (Albers and Grinspoon Miao, Hui, Zhuang, Va and Yi communities. Dai con- 1997). The management plan has three basic compo- stitute the largest group (35%) followed by the Han nents: recognition of the rural people’s economic de- (30%). These groups have strong cultural identities pendence on, and historical relationship with, re- and maintain traditional beliefs and customs. The total sources in XNR; activities to promote economic population within the XNR is over 14,000, which had development outside XNR; and a system of permission doubled within the past 20 years. Land use in the XNR and negotiation to allow some activities within XNR. prefecture mainly consists of forest: natural forest, com- Issues in Indigenous Involvement munity forest, fuelwood tree plantation, and sacred forest grounds; and agricultural areas: permanently cul- For over 100 years, the indigenous communities, tivated areas, shifting cultivation areas, and tea planta- particularly the Dai ethnic group, have lived on and tions. farmed some of the land, which is now in XNR. These XNR’s management responsibility is vested in the indigenous people traditionally relied on a wide variety Yunnan Provincial Forestry Bureau, which falls under of products, including timber, fuelwood, thatch-grass, the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forestry (IUCN meat, vegetables, and medicines for domestic use and 1993). For management purposes, XNR is divided into for sale. Harvesting timber in XNR is not a major the core and experimental zones. Strict protection is traditional activity for these ethnic minorities, nor is it observed in the core zone. Previously 18 villages were profitable given market regulations (Albers and Grin- located in this zone, of which 10 were later relocated spoon 1997). Although villagers reported that some elsewhere. There are 86 villages in the experimental products, such as butterflies and mushrooms are abun- zone, where limited agriculture and subsistence hunt- dant despite high extraction levels, there are also short- ing is permitted. There are two types of land within the ages of some useful products, such as the leaves used XNR perfecture: state owned land (reserve land), and for storing and serving food. Hunting is still practiced communal land (agriculture and forestry). Although it by the villagers (Santiapillai and others 1990 cited in has a restrictive classification equivalent to IUCN’s Cat- Nepal and Weber 1995b) and there is no shortage of egory IV Habitat/Species Management Area, XNR homemade guns. Wildlife is hunted for food, but also managers are not bound by the same regulations on to meet the demands of traditional Chinese medicine. resource access. This is because Chinese national reg- Shifting cultivation and permanent agriculture extend ulations, while banning the extraction of some prod- over 13,000 ha while much of the forest below 900 m ucts from protected areas in general, permit it in spe- has been converted to rubber plantations. cial circumstances. The management objectives of XNR With the growth in human population, an increasing are geared towards maintaining a balance between pro- incidence of hunting and forest encroachment has tection and use of resources. For instance, the first been reported in XNR. Indeed, between 1949 and objective states that any form of human use of the 1980, forest cover in XNR declined from 69% to 30% resources inside its boundaries is strictly prohibited, but (Nepal and Weber 1995b). In the past, the XNR offi- the second objective directly contrasts with this, allow- cials were involved in routine protection tasks only. The ing some forms of human use (Nepal and Weber concept of integrating rural development in park man- 1995b). XNR managers note the practical impossibility agement is new not only in XNR but in other protected and political difficulty of enforcing restrictions in an areas in China. The centralized system of government area populated by many ethnic minorities. They there- virtually ruled out local participation in park manage- fore follow more flexible rules than is the case in other ment. This has changed significantly in recent years. protected areas in China. Moreover, following the reg- While the economic activities promoted outside ulations in 1994, which encourage managers to con- XNR are important and have received attention, the sider the “needs of local economic construction, the recognition of historical rights and the negotiation sys- production activities and the everyday lives of local tem appear fundamental in establishing a long-term residents” (Grinspoon 1996), park managers have positive relationship between XNR managers and indig- taken the view that conserving resources within the enous communities. The enforcement of regulations, reserve depends in part on good economic prospects such as those relating to the extraction of vegetables, is for the neighboring villages. XNR’s management plan impractical and will face strong resistance from indig- thus rests on a system of negotiations to balance the enous groups. Such activities are widespread but, while needs of local people with the goals of conservation. It they provide benefits to rural people, they do little is based on a trade-off: a lower level of conservation in damage to the ecosystem. The reserve managers also Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas 759

consider that using some reserve land for income-gen- Implications for Management erating activities may be essential, as a way of taking Before 1990, the national policy on ethnic minori- pressure off other resources. In response, villagers col- ties was to assimilate them into the mainstream society, lect a wide variety of products from XNR land, with no a legacy from the times of Mao. Since 1990, a less fear of fines or other punishment. repressive stance has been adopted towards most mi- XNR managers require villagers to seek permission norities, and there has been a certain growth in the when collecting wood in the reserve, and require that a strength and vitality of minority traditions in areas of fee be paid for this right. This, however, becomes a religion, art, and language (Sofield and Li 1998). disincentive to requesting permission, and thus results in illegal tree harvesting. Enforcement against such XNR’s management reflects this new policy. Since illegal harvest does not appear effective and few people 1994, XNR management has taken a people-centered have been caught red-handed (Albers and Grinspoon approach to achieve conservation based on economic 1997). XNR managers support or tolerate some in- realities. This is very different compared to that fol- come-generating activities, the conversion of shifting lowed in other protected areas in China where park cultivation land to rubber and tea plantations, and the management is still based on more rigid rules. As a production of grains and other products on reserve result, indigenous communities are now more support- land, for example, the cultivation of Amomum villosum ive towards the XNR management. This liberal attitude (a medicinal herb) within XNR, which occupies much towards indigenous communities may jeopardize the of the shady riparian land in the reserve the reserve. As protection of threatened and endangered species. well as providing income for the local community, the However, given the changing realities in China, and cultivation of this plant also has ecological value; it because ethnic minorities have long been economically requires tree cover and consistent water flows, and disadvantaged, the current management policy in XNR therefore depends on the protection of nearby forest. may be justified in terms of opportunities for improved Thus, a policy to provide economic benefits can de- livelihoods and building support for strict conservation velop support for certain conservation objectives. A policies in parts of the reserve. Furthermore, because of similar approach has been taken in the conversion of the new economic opportunities, such as rubber and shifting cultivation land to rubber and tea plantations, camphor plantation, indigenous communities now de- which both generate more income than shifting culti- pend less on the resources available inside the reserve. vation, and incorporate soil management techniques Indeed, many villagers have reported that, because of (Nepal and Weber 1995b). To support this conversion, their engagement in plantations, they find very little XNR offered land for grain production in parts of the time to venture inside the reserve in search for forest reserve so as to offset the loss in grain production from products (Albers and Grinspoon 1997). The same ap- reducing shifting cultivation. plies to subsistence hunting, although illegal hunting In a more direct attempt to address the economic continues to be a problem in XNR. Problems have also needs of indigenous groups, the XNR authority has arisen over the adoption of certain conservation activ- established a negotiation and permission system, based ities by the indigenous communities. For example, on need, which grants limited access to agricultural XNR provides seedlings to the communities for agro land in the reserve, while maintaining control over the forestry on village land so as to meet subsistence needs extent and location of that land (Tisdell 1995). This for fuelwood and timber (Tisdell 1995). Despite warn- allows concessions for rubber and fruit trees on land in ings by village elders of future shortages of fuelwood, the reserve; a tractor road and reservoir in the reserve have also been constructed to improve the productivity local communities have shown little enthusiasm for tree of the agricultural plots within and outside of XNR. planting. Being close to the reserve and its forests, they Ecotourism programs have also been planned outside do not have a sense of forest resources being scarce. the reserve areas, including a joint venture between the They prefer instead to use their own land to earn reserve and the indigenous peoples. The negotiation income. Because the new rubber plantations increase system in XNR incorporates local people’s needs into the value of land, there also is little incentive to convert management decisions, although local people are not to fuelwood production. involved in most of the decision process. XNR manage- Despite the commitment of XNR management to ment uses village-level social pressure to protect the improving relations with indigenous communities, remaining reserve environment. The XNR manage- questions of sharing power and decision-making have ment also envisages the employment of local villagers not yet been addressed. Given the Chinese context, it is from outside the reserve as guards. perhaps unlikely that this will happen soon. 760 S. K. Nepal

Table 1. Indigenous peoples and protected areas: case study comparisons SNP DINP XNR Attitude of park management Indifferent Negative Positive toward indigenous peoples Attitude of indigenous peoples Indifferent Negative Positive toward park management Indigenous knowledge incorporated Some forest None None in park management management Indigenous involvement in park management: Policy Exists None Almost none Actual Involvement Some None None Programs beneﬁting indigenous Tourism, pollution Tourism plan proposed Limited fuelwood peoples control, collection, wild community edibles forests Other programs from outside Community forests Community based nursery, Income agencies agriculture generating activities proposed Future prospects for improved Limited potential Negative Good potential relations between PA and IC Overall adherence to Principles and Low None Very low Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas

Source: Nepal (2000, p. 5)

Conclusions issues are further complicated due to the lack of inse- cure and insufficient management, inter- and in- Involving indigenous peoples in park management traagency conflicts, and lack of adequate funding for means appreciating their values, ethics, and attitude local development (McNeely 1995). While these are towards nature and incorporating these values into na- universal problems, solutions for which are not easy to tional policies and agendas. At the core of the issue are find, it is essential to acknowledge indigeneous peo- the wilderness ethic and differing concepts of nature ple’s settlement and subsistence rights. Only then are between the native and mainstream societies. The constructive dialogs possible leading to successful co- mainstream society has a romanticized view of the na- management and similar other forms of partnerships. tional parks, seeing them as devoid of human habita- tion: places which people may visit for the recreation Indigenous control and management of protected ar- and enjoyment but where there should be no perma- eas is the ultimate degree of local participation in pro- nent residents or occupants. In contrast, indigenous tected area management and represents full sover- societies place humankind at the center of the natural eignty, self-determination, and decision-making world-subordinate to the whole, but an essential part of authority (Stevens 1997). Given the current climate of it. This, in essence, is the dilemma facing many national political and economic uncertainties worldwide, ulti- parks and protected areas around the world, but there mate indigenous participation as mentioned above may is some cause for optimism. There is increasing recog- be diffcult if not impossible in the short-term. There- nition in society at large that traditional methods of fore, a gradual transition from partial to full involvment resource management can be sustainable, and this is may be more desirable and practical. reflected in recent government policies such as those in It is clear from the above discussions that the inter- Nepal and China. national principles and guidelines mentioned earlier Not only in the above-mentiond countries but in are only partially applied in the management of SNP other Asian countries such as India, Indonesia, Malay- and XNR. DINP management clearly does not conform sia, Myanmar, and the Philippines too, issues of local to these principles and guidelines. Table 1 provides a participation, coownership, and comanagement are synthesis of various aspects of indigenous involvement hotly debated (McNeely 1995, Nepal and Weber 1995b, in the three protected areas discussed. Ghimire and Pimbert 1997). Effective solutions to these Without the designation of a national park, it is Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas 761

reasonable to assume that the landscape in SNP would ple on park resources and so minimizing conflicts and have been much more degraded by the pressures of the need to enforce park rules and regulations. Issues tourism. The establishment of the park is therefore to that need to be addressed include education for hill be welcomed, even if it has resulted in some tension tribe people, economic incentives such as community- between the authorities and the local communities. based ecotourism, training of park staff on local liveli- SNP should continue to be at the center of efforts to hoods and indigenous knowledge systems, and the promote and manage tourism in Nepal on ecologically identification, formulation, and implementation of and socially sustainable lines and to achieve sustainable suitable management strategies (Dearden and others rural development in the Himalayan region. 1996). It is also important that resource use patterns, Recent developments in XNR indicate some positive and the impacts of the various ethnic groups be care- trends in community-oriented resource management. fully investigated and analyzed before policy decisions XNR’s “interactive management” approach is better are taken to create incentives and disincentives for positioned to deal with conflicts over access to re- conservation. Given the current policies in Thailand sources in the reserve. Since only a small amount of and the attitude of RFD officials towards hill tribes, a China’s land area is protected in its reserve system, the participatory and integrated approach to protected value of XNR is particularly important. Unfortunately, area management is unlikely to happen in the near it is also at risk. The question now is whether the future, although there are indications elsewhere that reductions in the level of protection in XNR, which this might be the only alternative. have been permitted in order to encourage economic Overall, two main conclusions can be derived from development, will create enough economic growth and the case studies. First, there is acceptance to increase goodwill to enable XNR managers to prevent further the level of commitment and support to indigenous conversion of reserve land to nonpreservation land peoples in their efforts toward improving livelihood uses. The outcome may be affected by China’s borader conditions and incorporating their ideas into park economic reforms, which will create a different context management. This will help in resolving conflicts be- in which to assess the incentives needed to persuade tween state agencies and indigenous people. Second, people to respect the reserves’ resources. In any case, involvement of indigenous people is now deemed es- successful protection of the reserve will ultimately de- sential for the long-term sutainability of protected ar- pend on a mix of incentives (local involvement, com- eas. Real efforts are limited to countries where political munity resource management, ecotourism) and disin- and economic reforms are under way, such as in Nepal centives (strict enforcement of certain regulations). and China. There is limited comanagement, for exam- DINP illustrates the complex dilemma of reconcil- ple, the development and management of tourism in ing conservation with development in a region of great SNP and harvesting of forest products in XNR. How- rural deprivation and poverty. In such a situation, pro- ever, true involvement of indigenous peoples in park tected area management with a strong remit for pro- planning and decision-making and local empowerment tection but without a concern for human development are issues that need to be properly addressed. In a is no longer a valid approach. Many protected areas are centralized governmental system, such as in Thailand, now making efforts to reverse earlier trends and share park management is exclusionary, as exists in DINP. benefits with local communities. Through sustainable One way to begin the process is to initiate informal forms of tourism, for example, income and employ- consultations and discussions between government ment opportunities have been made available to local agencies and indigenous peoples, perhaps facilitated by communities who are beginning to appreciate the sig- international conservation organizations. nificance of the protected area. Such a prospect is not impossible in DINP, as some recent trends suggest, but this requires local involvement in resource manage- Acknowledgments ment and park planning, and empowerment in decision-making, which are considered as effective strate- This paper is based on a report submitted by this gies in enlisting local support for conservation. The author to the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Gland Swit- ideals of a park can never be achieved if local commu- zerland. An edited version of that report has been nities are antagonistic towards it. Resource conflicts in published elsewhere (see Beltran 2000). The author DINP can be addressed successfully only through a wishes to thank the three anonymous referees for their holistic approach to park management. Such an ap- constructive comments and suggestions, particularly proach would need to improve local livelihood condi- from one of the referees whose comments have greatly tions, thereby reducing the reliance of indigenous peo- improved this paper. The author also wishes to thank 762 S. K. Nepal

his wife Stella Nepal for her earlier contributions to the velopment and Environment (CDE), Institute of Geogra- paper. phy. University of Bern, Bern. Hvenegaard, G., and P. Dearden. 1998. Ecotourism versus tourism in a Thai National Park. Annals of Tourism Research Literature Cited 25(3):700–720. ICIHI (Independent Commission on International Humani- Albers, H. J., and E. Grinspoon. 1997. A comparison of access tarian Issues). 1987. Indigenous peoples: a global quest for restrictions between Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve (Chi- justice. A report for the Independent Commission on In- na) and Khao Yai National Park (Thailand). Environmental ternational Humanitarian Issues. Zed Books, London. Conservation 24(4):351–362. IUCN (The World Conservation Union). 1993. Nature re- Beltran, J. (ed). 2000. Indigenous and traditional peoples and serves of the Himalayas and the mountains of Central Asia. protected areas: principles, guidelines and case studies. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. IUCN and WWF, Gland and Cambridge. IUCN (The World Conservation Union). 1997. Indigenous Bjønness, I. 1980. Ecological conflicts and economic depen- peoples and sustainability. Cases and actions. International dency on tourist trekking in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) Na- Books, Utrecht, The Netherlands. tional Park, Nepal. An alternative approach to park planning. Norsk Geografisk Tiddskrift 34(3):119–138. IUCN/WWF. 1999. Principles and guidelines on indigenous and traditional peoples and protected areas. Unpublished Cohen, A. 1999. The mental health of indigenous peoples: an draft, 15 pp. international overview. Cultural Survival Quarterly 23(2):18– 20. Jefferies, M. 1985. Sagarmatha mother of the universe—the story of Mt. Everest National Park. Cobb/Horwood Publi- Colchester, M. 1997. Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples and protected areas. Pages 97–130 in K. Ghimire and M. P. cations. Auckland. Pimbert (eds.), Social change and conservation. Environ- McNeely, J. (ed). 1995. Expanding partnerships in conserva- mental politics and impacts of national parks and protected tion. Island Press, Washington, DC. areas. Earthscan, London. Mischung, R. 1986. Environmental adaptation among upland Cooper, R. G. 1979. The tribal minorities of northern Thai- peoples of northern Thailand: a Karen/Hmong case study. land: problems and prospects. Pages 323–332 in Southeast Report to the National Research Council of Thailand, Asian affairs. Institute for Southeast Asian Studies, Singa- Bangkok. pore. Nepal, S. K. 1997. Sustainable tourism, protected areas, and Corner House Briefing. 1999. Forest cleansing: racial oppres- livelihood needs of local communities in developing coun- sion in scientific nature conservation. Discussion article tries. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and posted on the Internet (http//www.icaap.org/corner- World Ecology 4(2):123–134. house/). 25 pp. Nepal, S. K. 1999. Tourism induced environmental changes in Dearden, P., S. Chettomart, D. Emphandu, and N. Tanakan- the Nepalese Himalaya. A Comparative Analysis of the Ever- jana. 1996. National parks and hill tribes in northern Thai- est, Annapurna, and Mustang Regions. PhD Dissertation land: a case study of Doi Inthanon. Society & Natural Re- submitted to the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Institute of sources 9(2):125–141. Geography, University of Bern, Switzerland. Dobias, R. J. 1982. The Shell guide to the national parks of Nepal, S. K. 2000. Indigenous communities and protected Thailand. Wacharin, Bangkok. areas-overview and case studies from Canada, China, Ethi- Emphandu, D., and S. Chettamart. 1997. What makes for a opia, Nepal, and Thailand. Unpublished report to WWF, viable ecooturism site? Pages 61–70 in J. Bornemeier, M. Gland, 36 pp. Victor and P. B. Durst (eds.), Ecotourism for forest conser- Nepal, S. K., and K. E. Weber. 1993. Struggle for Existence: vation and community development. Proceedings of an Park-People Conflict in the Royal Chitwan National Park, international seminar held in Chiang Mai, 28–31 January Nepal. Division of Human Settlements, Asian Institute of 1997. RECOFTC and FAO, Bangkok. Technology, Bangkok. Ghimire K., and M. Pimbert. (eds). (1997) Social change and Nepal, S. K., and K. E. Weber. 1995a. Managing resources and conservation. Earthscan, London. resolving conflicts: national parks and local people. The Grinspoon, E. 1996. The political ecology of forest conserva- International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecol- tion in Xishuangbanna, China (parts I and II). Chinese ogy 2(1):11–25. Environmental History Newsletter 3(1):16–19, 3(2):6–9. Nepal, S. K., and K. E. Weber. 1995b. Managing protected Heinen, J. T., and B. Kattel. 1992. A review of conservation areas under conditions of conflict. Selected case studies legislation in Nepal: past progress and future needs. Envi- from China, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, and Thailand. ronmental Management 16(6):723–730. Unpublished research report submitted to the Interna- Hillary, E. 1982. Preserving a mountain heritage. National tional Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Can- Geographic 16:696–702. ada, 225 pp. Hurni, H., and E. Ludi (with the assistance of other contrib- Notzke, C. 1994. Aboriginal peoples and natural resources in utors). 2000. Reconciling conservation with sustainable de- Canada. Captus Press, North York, Ontario. velopment. A participatory study inside and around the Pipithvanichtham, P. 1997. Issues and challenges of ecotour- Simen Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. Centre for De- ism in the national parks of Thailand. Pages 72–81 in J. Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas 763

Bornemeier, M. Victor and P. B. Durst (eds.), Ecotourism Sofield, T., and F. M. Li. 1998. Tourism development and for forest conservation and community development. Pro- cultural policies in China. Annals of Tourism Research 25(2): ceedings of an international seminar held in Chiang Mai, 362–392. 28–31 January 1997. RECOFTC and FAO, Bangkok. Steven, S. (ed). 1997. Conservation through cultural survival: Robinson, N. A. (ed.). 1993. Agenda 21: Earth’s action plan— Indigenous peoples and protected areas. Island Press, annotated. IUCN Environment Policy and Law Paper No. Washington, DC. 27. Oceana Publications, New York. Stevens, S. F. 1993. Claiming the highground. Sherpas, sub- Round, P. D. 1988. Resident forest birds in Thailand: their sistence, and environmental change in the highest Hima- status and conservation. International Council for Bird laya. University of California Press, Berkeley. Preservation, London. Sturgeon, J. 1999. State policies, ethnic identity, and forests in (RFD Royal Forestry Department). 1993. Annual report of Doi China and Thailand. Email version of an article posted to Inthanon National Park—1993. National Parks Division, the Mountain Forum (originally published in the Common Royal Forestry Department, Bangkok. Property Resource Digest, January 1998). (SPCC Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee). 1997. An- Tisdell, C. A. 1995. Issues in biodiversity conservation includ- nual report for the fiscal year 1996–1997. Publisher and ing the role of local communities. Environmental Conserva- place not specified. tion 22(3):216–222, 228. Santiapillai, C., Y. H. Dong, and Y. Li. 1990. Management of West, P. C., and S. R. Brechin. (eds). 1991. Resident peoples elephants in Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve, P. R. China. and national parks: social dilemmas and strategies in inter- WWF Report No. 3194, September. national conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Sayer, J. A. 1981. A review of the nature conservation and (WWF World Wide Fund for Nature). 1996. Indigenous peo- policies of the Royal Forest Department, Thailand. FAO, ples and conservation: WWF Statement of Principles. Un- Rome. published draft, WWF, Gland.