The Relationship Between Protected Areas and Indigenous Peoples Raymond F. Dasmann University of California Santa Cnz, California, USA ABSTRACT. "Wilderness"-pnatural areas untouched by the really wildest lands. Americans still want to believe man-has alwaiys been rare, but onl, recently have people :hat those places are still remote and wild, just as they started drawing lines on inaps and preventing people from want to beliexe that there are "Pacific paradises" that using resources thim hav-e traditionil1y exploited. But without they have not yet spoiled. They are encouraged in this the support local people, the future of any protected area is myth by television, with its never-ending wild animal insecure, since in tire " ;earchfor the means of their own sur- series which hover near "prime viewing time" and oc­ vival, the temptation t., e ploit reserued resourcesmau be irres- casionallv even invade it. istable. Such support should not be difficult to obtat,,, provided Unfortunately, in those "marc places" for Ameri­ tire proper approach is used: but nature conservatioi is not to cans, the pecple who have always lived there believe be accomplished onhI bya the esrablishing of specially protected the myth also, even though in their latest excursion into natural areas-it must be practice4 in all places at all times. the rainforest or the desert they have encountered the Guidelines on how to prov'ide for long-terv' positive interactions villages or the herds of those who had moved in from between local people and the natural environment are provided, the other side. People cannot accept the rate of change or the disappearance of natural abundance. It is too fast and it takes place within the lifetimes of adults who 1. INTRODUCTION spent their growing .years in a seemingly changeless land. Nobody before had to worry about taking care Lf Perhaps the most difficult problem faced today in our the forest or the wild animals--they took care of them­ efforts to accomplish conservation of nature is the ina- selves, or God watched ever them. They had not been bilit' of people to recognize and comprehend the rates human concerns. It is asking much for pe,-ple to accept at which the world is changing. For as long as people that in just five, ten or twentv years all the rules have have been on earth there have always been wild areas- changed, and that what "always has been" is no longer. the land across the river, the other of the mountain, Now we are drawing lines on the map, attempting the frontier. Throughout the human story there has to separate the wild from the tamed. We designate laids areas, been a backdrop of wilderness before which the acts of as nature reserves, national parks, or wilderness civilization were played. There seered to be always and we say that these are no longer places where people the more lands, more timber, more pastures, more wild can live, or take from, or use in any way except to inter­ *nimals to give substance to the myth of inexhaustible way of the visitor who comes to look, but not lived esources. fere. This is difficult for people who have always In the United States, even after most ,f the country in wild country and consider themselves part of it. were rich had been :ettled by Europeans, there were still areas There may have been areas on earth that that seemed untamed-wild mountains, southern and teeming with life but not permanently occupied by call wilderness. But it seems more swlmps, deserts. But beyond these were the more magic people, what we now areas were visited at least seasonally or p;aces, names to excite the adventurous spirits of young likely that such by hunting or gathering parties, or were people-Africa, the Arctic, the Himalayas, th Amazon, occasionally 667 to which We used by the shamans or byyourg people on a "vision been in a particular place, and thle degree quest." The really barren and lifeless areas of tile poles, have adapted our ways of life to that area. Some can back over cen­ not trace their ancestry in a particular area the most arid deserts, the highest mountains, were to stay. they, turies, others have just arrived and don't intend occupied by people, and probably not visited. But par­ Some are entirely dependent on the resources of a pretty much that way today. Most of the land are still area, others come to visit, to trade, or to raid, as formal wilderness or set aside in na- ticular we designate source of livelihood elsewhere. Attitudes passed on to us by people who and have their tional park; is land rcsources can differ depending on at least, their homeland. We toward land and considered it to be, in part of allegiance to a par­ quality because they background, tradition and degree consider it tW be of national park real differences land. Too often ticular living area. Thee are therefore did not treat it the way we have treated to the need our war- between people in relatin to their response they have gone, and our legal designations, These, to to manage, or protect th. resources of an area. dens and patrols, take their place. Something seems however, cannot be resolved by a simple native'non­ have gone wrong, somewhere along the way. native dichotomy. Some natives only wish to go some­ We are nc.v attempting to find ways to put things where else; some non-natives deeply desire to become back together, to integrate the conservation of human natives and to cherish and care for the land they occupy. cultures with the conservation of the natural world. Wre In an earlier paper (Dasmann, 1974) 1attempted to do this in part to encourage those wlho have cared for distinguish ecosystem people, a; those who live within an the land in the past to continue to do so, and in part ecosystem or several adjacent and related ecosystems to encourage those who have not cared to begin to take and are dependent on those resources for their exist­ an interest in conservation of nature, to realize that their ence. Such people must over time learn to Ii.e within future is tied in with the future of the natural environ- the ecological limitations of their home area if they are ment and with the proper use of the lands and resources to survive. Although individually they may not have a on which they depend for their livelihood, strongly developed ecological consciousness, culturally We realize that the national parks, nature reserves the' are committed to sustainable ways of life that are and other protected areas of the world have most com- essentially sound in ecological terms. By contrast, bios­ monv been established without either the advice or phere people are those tied in to the global economy, whose consent of the people most likely to be directly affected livelihood is not necessarily dependent on the resources by their establi-hment Without the support, or at worst of any one particular ecosystem. I did not intend to set acceptance, by these people, the future of an\ protected up a dichotomy with this terminology, but rather to area cannot be considered secure, since in their search indicate the extremes of a cultural continuum. Much of for the means for their own survival the temptation to the difficultv encountered in attempting to achieve eco­ take wildland resources from the area, or to encroach logically sustainable ways of life comes from people who upon its boundaries, will tend to be irresistable. Fur- are in transition from one extreme to the other-their thermore, the prospect for extending any system of pro- cultures have been disrupted or destroyed, and with tected areas to take in new lands or waters becomes that their means of working with the natural environ­ increasingly dim where popular support for protection ment to which their ancestors were adapted, but they of nature is lacking. have not yet achieved any firm foothold in the global economy. From the viewpoint of cultural conservation, it is 2. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE obvious that the ecosystem people are the most likely to be adversely affected by contact with representatives In attempting to work with people who live in or near of the more dominant culture, including those who come to areas that have been designated as having protected with the intention of establishing nature reserves. The' status by the government of the country concerned, or are also the people who have in the past maintained areas that are considered vorthy of some form of legal the ecological conditions that today are 'avourable to protection, there is dange, that we will confuse our- the establishment of nature reserves. However, does selves by our own terminology. If we designate some this mean that ihey should be given favoured status? people as "indigenous" and consequently worthy of Does their past record of occupancy of the area, includ­ special consideration, we leave other people in the cat- ing care for the wild species within it, entitle them to egory of "non-indigenous" and consequently not wor- remain in place even when the interests of the national thy of special consideration. I do not believe we can risk government and the international community dictate such a dichotomy, which from the outset establishes that nature conservation should be given first priority tvo classes of citizens, one with special privileges, and in that area? If the answer is yes, should this entitlement the other presumably to be kicked around as usual. remain even after they adopt the ways of the dominant In one sense there are no indigenous people: all society-when automatic weapons replace bows and have ancestors who have come from somewhere else.