…but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

HHumanuman rrights,ights, conservationconservation andand thethe privatizationprivatization ooff sovereigntysovereignty inin Africa—Africa— a discussiondiscussion ofof recentrecent cchangeshanges inin TanzaniaTanzania

JJimim IgoeIgoe

Abstract. While states do not always guarantee human rights, human rights cannot be guar- anteed without a viable state. Paradoxically, many conservationists see the state as a central obstacle to effective community-based conservation. The central contention of this article is that the neoliberalization of African conservation, leading to the privatization of African states, has led to a situation in which it is extremely difficult to promote human rights via conservation or vice versa. Not only have human rights been narrowly redefined according to free market priorities, but the mechanisms whereby rights can be articulated and understood have largely disintegrated. This situation is both reflected in, and perpetuated by, current conservation interventions. This article draws on examples from around the African Conti- nent, but focuses primarily on the author’s research in Tanzania in 2005-2006. It concludes with a discussion of how to bring the question of human rights to a more central place in transnational conservation. Most importantly, it emphasizes that everyone involved in inter- national conservation is equally culpable in the field of human rights, not just the govern- ments of the countries in which specific groups of people happen to reside. As such, there is a pressing need for the institutionalization of independent reporting and structures of over- sight and accountability at all levels of international conservation.

against the socially and environmen- rawing from my research in Tanzania tally destructive spread of neoliberal, D 1 (2005-2006) and recent observations free market capitalism. In their seminal of other researchers across the conti- article on communities and conservation nent, this article outlines some of the Agrawal and Gibson wrote that advo- fundamental aspects of human rights cates of community-based conservation and conservation in Africa today. Its saw states and markets as the main central argument is that the ‘neoliber- obstacles to their agendas.3 In the pur- alization’ of African states and societ- suit of economic growth through foreign ies has overshadowed organic linkages investment, states do often facilitate between conservation and human rights enterprises and interventions that vio- activism. late people’s basic rights while harming the environment. Getting rid of states, In the wake of the Soviet Collapse at however, is probably not our best bet the turn of the 1990s, human rights for promoting human rights or the envi- came to the center of development and ronment. For better or for worse, states governance discourses. Conservation remain the ultimate guarantor of rights quickly followed suit and for a few years in our current global system. NGOs and in the 1990s some were predicting a multi-lateral institutions may educate global convergence of human rights people and help them advocate for their and conservation agendas.2 These two rights, but ultimately it is states that agendas appeared as a crucial bulwark must legislate and enforce those rights.

15, July 2007 241 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

Until some other global institutions that each of us examine our own culpa- are able to guarantee people’s rights, bility, both personally and institutionally. therefore, the current decline of states Most critically, these types of changes is probably bad for human rights and will require new types of institutional conservation. oversight, which should be modeled after existing bodies, such as the World Furthermore, the relationship of con- Bank Inspection panel.6 I will return to servation to markets and private enter- these points in the conclusion of this prise has shifted dramatically since the article, following a discussion of the im- turn of the millennium. pacts of these changes on human rights NNGOsGOs aandnd mmulti-ulti- The role of corpora- and conservation in Tanzania and other llateralateral institu-institu- tions in conservation parts of Africa. ttionsions maymay educateeducate has become increas- 4 ppeopleeople andand helphelp ingly prevalent. These transformations have tthemhem aadvocatedvocate forfor significant implica- ttheirheir rights,rights, butbut tions for both human uultimatelyltimately itit isis rights and conserva- tion. Understanding sstatestates thatthat mustmust them, as well as their llegislateegislate andand en-en- continuity to previous fforceorce thosethose rights.rights. arrangements, requires looking at current conservation, development, and gover- nance discourses. It also involves look- ing beyond and behind these discourses to the actual practices of conservation Picture 1. View from Paul Tudor Jones’ and human rights and their implications exclusive Grumeti Lodge. for future action and conceptualization.5 (Courtesy Beth Croucher) While many observers have noted the types of practices I will outline below, The neoliberalization of African they are often dismissed as temporary conservation and its implications and/or anomalous. One of the central for human rights contentions of this article, however, The opening up of African economies is that they are quite ‘normal’ in the in the late 1980s went hand-in-hand experiences of rural Africans in their with the opening up of African political day-to-day lives. They should, there- systems. This reflected the widespread fore, be taken much more seriously if assumption that free markets and free we are serious about promoting human elections would naturally lead to a free rights through conservation or even vice society. Totalitarian states were seen as versa. the problem. They restricted free trade, free assembly, free speech, and free In fact, these fundamental changes press. If states were less intrusive in all demand a fundamental reconceptu- of these matters, peoples’ lives would alization of the relationships between naturally improve. Smaller states, a conservation and human rights. Most vibrant NGO sector, and the promotion importantly, we need to recognize that of private enterprise became the pre- everyone involved in transnational con- scribed solution to these problems.7 servation is culpable and it is essential

242 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

State-sponsored protected areas were involves reregulation as much or more the mainstay of conservation during this than deregulation.11 States play a cen- period, and by no means would most tral role in redefining natural resources conservationists like to see them de- in ways that make them available to regulated. In fact, during this period of private investors. This is often achieved deregulation, Tanzania continued ga- through privatization, but can also be zetting national parks achieved through a variety of other ar- NNeoliberalizationeoliberalization and the state-sponsored rangements, including those that osten- iinvolvesnvolves rreerregu-egu- protected areas prolifer- sibly give local people more control of ated on a global scale.8 natural resources. llationation asas muchmuch At the same time, out- oorr moremore tthanhan side of protected areas, One of the key elements of “neoliber- ddeerregulation.egulation. deregulation, decentral- alization” for conservation and human ization, and privatiza- rights is the idea of “more and more tion were increasingly heralded as the actors becoming self-governing within key to conservation success. Private centrally prescribed frameworks and Game Reserves began to proliferate. rules”.12 Individuals must be freed from Transnational conservation NGOs began the shackles of traditional social bonds, openly brokering conservation business so that they can become owners of ventures between foreign investors and private property, which can be used as local communities. For the most part, collateral for loans, which can be invest- benefits accruing to those communi- ed in new types of business ventures. ties have been much smaller than those This in part reflects the impact of Her- accruing to their “senior partners”, nando de Soto’s highly influential book, while maldistribution of benefits within the Mystery of Capital. De Soto argues communities has also been a common that poor people actually control a great problem. Moreover, little care has been deal of wealth, but that they are unable taken to measure whether the costs of to realize the value of that wealth be- local people foregoing access to the re- cause of inefficient state bureaucracies sources that they “invest” in conserva- and lack of legally guaranteed property tion enterprises is offset by the benefits rights. It is essential that these ob- that they receive.9 stacles to the poor realizing the value of their capital be removed, so that they These events and processes are best can take out loans and join the capitalist understood with reference to neoliberal economy.13 policy reforms. Rather than thinking of neoliberalism as a unified concept, it is While “rights” still enjoy a central place more useful to think of it as a process of in de Soto’s works and in neoliberalism neoliberalization.10 Although experiences in general, they are substantially dif- of neoliberalization vary from location ferent than in the classical sense of the to location, they revolve around certain term, which revolves around the idea key experiences readily visible in Africa. of a “social contract” between the state While neoliberalization is popularly per- and its citizens. Rather, they are nar- ceived as the deregulation of economic rowly defined as guaranteed rights over activities and the withdrawal of states property, which qualify people for loans, from social and economic spheres, criti- which in turn allow them to enter the cal observers argue that it is neither. global economy as investors, producers, In a comprehensive literature survey, and consumers. Investments, of course, Castree concludes that neoliberalization carry no guarantee. It is possible, even

15, July 2007 243 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

probable, that people will lose their Zimbabwe and Mozambique.17 capital due to limited opportunities on the bottom rungs of the investment lad- The first case was a program coordi- der. Poor people are also more likely to nated by GTZ to the north of Selous consume capital due to the numerous Game Reserve in the central part of the emergencies in their lives.14 Moreover, country, and the second was a program poor people have little capital and little coordinated by the AWF (African Wild- experience of how to effectively invest life Foundation) to the west of Tarangire it. The reregulation of resources, even National Park in the northern part of the when ostensibly for their benefit, often country. Local people in both the cases works to their detriment. They often were certain their rights had been vio- find themselves divested of their prop- lated, but they were not sure to whom erty even when that property is puta- they could bring their grievances. Maa- tively protected by law. sai herders to the north of Selous found themselves excluded from an area in which they had made substantial infra- structural investments. Kutu farmers complained that they were excluded from areas where they used to farm and prohibited from subsistence hunting. Arusha farmers west of Tarangire were angry and confused about the wildlife management area ostensibly being implemented on their behalf. The pro- cess of setting aside land for the wildlife management area had entailed the evic- tion of 63 households, while those living nearby found their farms swallowed up by the new boundaries. Elected village Picture 2. Jim Igoe and faculty from the officials claimed that they were at a loss College of African Wildlife Management to understand how their village land had participate in a community meeting con- come to be taken from their control.18 cerning conflicts with the AWF and the All felt that a handful of elites were Manyara Ranch. (Courtesy Beth Croucher) reaping benefits, while they were paying the price. In Tanzania, I observed communities that had been given legal rights to When officials from the villages near their land so that they could enter into Selous took these grievances to the re- wildlife management areas with trans- gional government, they were invited to national conservation NGOs and private a “special seminar”. They returned with investors. Once communities had en- a message for their constituents, “We tered into legal contracts as “property have no authority. We are only consult- owners”, they found themselves ex- ed.”19 Informants who described these cluded from their own property, while events, believed that these officials local elites, government officials, pri- had been threatened, bribed, or both. vate investors (both foreign and Tan- A group of elders representing the 63 zanian), and outside NGOs reaped the families evicted from the wildlife man- benefits.15 Similar patterns have been agement area near Tarangire went to observed in Zambia,16 as well as in complain to the district offices and were

244 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

promptly arrested. Evictees claim that they then received a message from the detainees to comply with the eviction order as quickly as possible so that they would be released.20 Village officials who traveled to the capital to find out how their land was enclosed without their consent claim to have discovered forged village assembly minutes.21

People in these communities often won- dered aloud whether they actually had any rights at all or if they were simply going to be shunted around to make room for conservation enterprises from which they had little hope of benefiting. Picture 3. A meeting of Villagers near Even we as researchers began to won- Tarangire National Park to develop a strategy of how they might withdraw from der about the question of rights when the wildlife management area, which they we were called before the district game felt they were brought into without their officer who had played a central role knowledge or consent. in the creation of the wildlife manage- (Courtesy Beth Croucher) ment area near Tarangire. During the seeking their rights as their natural re- meeting he told us that the AWF and sources are alienated for conservation, the Tanzanian Government had put a lot economic development, and private en- of money and energy into creating the terprise. First people need to know their WMA… it was a big success for them, rights. The highly technical language of and they weren’t going to allow it to be reregulation makes this difficult. Once undermined by local people and outside people know their rights, it is then agitators. necessary for the state to enforce those rights, which often entails protracted He then went on to tell us that he al- legal battles, which usually do not go most had us arrested for attending in favor of local people.23 All this entails village meetings concerning the wildlife a great deal of expense for people who management area. At this point, one of can scarcely afford basic necessities. In my Tanzanian research assistants in- the era of free markets and free elec- formed him that this would have been tions, scarcely anything else is free. a violation of our rights. He responded Human rights must be bought and paid that the government and the police for— practically leaving poor people with were not concerned about the ques- no rights.24 tion of rights. “When we arrest people,” he told us, “our job has nothing to do The privatization of sovereignty with their rights. That is a question for Representatives of international con- the courts. We arrest you and later the servation organizations, to the extent courts decide whether we have violated that they acknowledge these kinds of your rights. In between, however, you problems, tend to lay the blame on cor- will suffer to a certain extent.”22 rupt African governments. These have become a standard scapegoat for just This discourse is highly consistent with about everything that goes wrong in the experience of rural Tanzanians Africa, which unfortunately is quite a

15, July 2007 245 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

lot. Donors and foreign investors can of control they previously enjoyed.26 claim that they had nothing to do with the negative impacts of their activi- Lest we swing too far in the other direc- ties. Ideally their interventions would tion, letting African elites off the hook have benefited local people, were it not and blaming outsiders, a more nuanced for the interference of corrupt African perspective suggests that both groups Governments. Unfortunately, corrupt as are equally culpable. The hollowing out they are, these governments are also of African states by neoliberalization has sovereign. Donors and investors could diminished their ability to govern. Sov- never meddle in the internal affairs of a ereignty and control in such situations is sovereign state. highly fragmented and decentralized— deployed in different ways by different This is a disingenuous position, since state-actors, in different contexts, with anyone involved in conservation and/ very little centralized control. For state or development in countries like Tan- actors, this fragmented sovereignty zania can’t help but know that donors often becomes an important commod- and investors habitually meddle in the ity that they can use to broker strate- internal affairs of sovereign states. Of gic alliances with private investors and course sovereignty in a post-colonial donors. Both groups bring important setting is very dif- resources to these alliances. Outsiders IInn thethe eraera ofof freefree ferent from sover- bring money and other external re- mmarketsarkets aandnd ffreeree eignty in the global sources on which officials from impover- eelections,lections, scarcelyscarcely north. European ished states are highly dependent. State colonies in Africa actors bring sovereignty— “the means aanythingnything elseelse isis were expressly de- of coercion that make it possible to gain ffree.ree. HHumanuman rrightsights signed to facilitate advantage in struggles over resources mmustust bbee bboughtought aandnd outside influence traditionally the exclusive purview of the 27 ppaidaid for—for— practi-practi- on the inner work- state”. Outsiders wishing to directly ings of colonial control, or otherwise define the use of ccallyally leavingleaving poorpoor states. Keeping these resources, depend on state actors ppeopleeople withwith nono rights.rights. such arrangements for this commodity. This does not usu- in place was a ally mean that state actors cede sov- major concern of European powers at ereignty to these outsiders— although independence. This can be seen in the this sometimes does sometimes hap- active role that the AWF, WWF, and pen. The relationships that emerge from IUCN took in this transition: starting these dynamics are usually of mutual the College of African Wildlife Manage- dependence, characterized by a great ment, establishing national parks, and deal of strategic negotiation and oc- developing management plans and casionally intense antagonisms. These conservation policies. Europeans con- relationships are difficult to discern, tinued to hold positions in African gov- obscured as they are by discourses of ernments through the early 1970s.25 official prerogatives.28 Garland argues that Africans made some gains in controlling conservation The impacts of these developments are and natural resource management in visible in conservation across the Conti- their countries during the period of nent. Witness the recent activity within state-centered development (roughly TILCEPA concerning the clearances of 1967 to 1985), but with neoliberaliza- Omo and Nech Sar National Parks in tion white outsiders regained the kind Ethiopia.29 Although these clearances

246 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

were undertaken by the Ethiopian Gov- between 2001 and 2003. The village ernment, they were closely associated also received benefits of approximately with African Parks Foundation, an NGO $70,000 per year through partnerships indirectly bankrolled by with three private safari companies. AAllianceslliances ofof in-in- SHV Gas in the Neth- Above the door to the village office is a tternationalernational con-con- erlands and Wal-Mart hand painted sign that reads: “We must sservationervation NGOs,NGOs, in the United States.30 stand united. Wildlife Management Area pprivaterivate enterprise,enterprise, African Parks Foundation is the key to our future.” The benefits has been at the center helped the village to purchase a tractor, aandnd sstatetate actorsactors of similar controversies which helps local people to farm instead aarere iincreasinglyncreasingly around Africa, including of hunting for a living. ccommonommon tthrough-hrough- in South Africa.31 Alli- ooutut AAfrica.frica. ances of international This situation changed abruptly in 2003, conservation NGOs, when American futures investor Paul private enterprise, and state actors are Tudor Jones infused approximately $20 increasingly common throughout Africa. million into a flagging company known These kinds of alliances are actively as VIP Safaris with a promised total in- excluding people from landscapes in the vestment of $40 million,33 used to build name of conservation throughout the an airstrip, clear migratory habitat, es- continent, including in Cameroon, Chad, tablish anti-poaching activities, provide Central African Republic, Equatorial development assistance to neighboring Guinea, Mozambique Republic of Congo, villages, and construct a $1500/night Zimbabwe.32 luxury lodge.34 The company, which be- came Grumeti Reserves Ltd., took over These dynamics are also clearly vis- 340,000 acres of hunting concessions ible in Tanzania, as illustrated by two to the north-west of Serengeti National examples: 1) Robanda Village, on the Park, including the Grumeti and Ikoron- western boundary of Serengeti National go Game Reserves.35 The company also Park; and 2) Manyara Ranch, to the runs an NGO called the Grumeti Fund. north-west of Tarangire National Park. Here we have three entities: 1) a trans- During my time in Tanzania, events national company; 2) an NGO; and 3) surrounding Robanda were a matter of a state-sponsored Game Reserve; all national interests, and a topic of fre- sharing the same name, and in fact run quent discussion of faculty at the Col- by the same funding. lege of African Wildlife Management. In January 2006 I spent ten days in In 2005, the Grumeti Fund became and around Robanda as part of the involved in the planned reintroduction College’s Community-Conservation field of rhinos to the Grumeti and Ikorongo safari. Appropriately, we visited the Game Reserves. The plan was launched Manyara Ranch as part of the College’s at a stakeholder workshop under the Conservation Conflict safari. Between auspices of the Tanzania National Parks February and June of 2006, I worked Authority and sponsored by the AWF extensively in the communities border- and the Frankfurt Zoological Society.36 ing the Manyara Ranch. Grumeti Ltd’s interest in these relo- cations was to create a landscape in At Robanda the Western Serengeti which their clients could see all of the Regional Conservation Project, spon- “big five”.37 Similar reintroductions of sored by NORAD, succeeded in gen- species from South Africa to the Mkom- erating local support for conservation azi Game Reserve in the late 1990s

15, July 2007 247 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

were associated with the eviction of local people from the reserve in 1988 and their continued exclusion through the 1990s.38 Local people were also forcefully evicted from both the Gru- meti and Ikorongo Game Reserves in 1994.39 The clearing of the reserves, though not directly sponsored by out- siders, has opened up these areas for major investments and conservation interventions, which benefit outsiders and Tanzanian elites at the expense of local people. As a matter of fact, Gru- meti Reserves Ltd. did attempt to relo- cate Robanda Village, which it viewed as a final obstacle to the creation of its Picture 4. Jim Igoe with Senior Instructor Teresia Ole Mako (second from right hold- private game reserve. It also sought to ing book) and students from the College force out the three tour companies that of African Wildlife Management. have business agreements with the vil- (Courtesy Beth Croucher) lage government.40 Villagers also claim to have been harassed and beaten by tions, and the government are hardly private game guards working for the raised. company. The Manyara Ranch, in contrast to Gru- During my time in Tanzania there was meti Reserves Ltd., is a much smaller also significant discussion about Gru- and less funded intervention. Neverthe- meti’s plans to build an international less is has been established by a net- airport, film a Hollywood-style movie, work of NGOs, state elites, and private and relocate Serengeti Park Headquar- enterprise to set aside significant tracts ters just north of Robanda, to prepare of land for conservation and investment the area for tourism.41 Grumeti Reserves purposes. The ranch is controlled by Ltd. also received significant media a Trust set up by the AWF with fund- 44 coverage. Both National Geographic and ing from USAID. One of its central the New York Times travel magazine goals is for an out- described the company and its initia- side investor, which TThehe llands’ands’ origi-origi- tives in mostly glowing terms.42 An the Trust has already nnalal ownersowners areare notnot interview with Concession Director Rian identified, to build a ddescribedescribed aass rrightsights luxury lodge in the Labuschagne in the Tanzania Daily News bbearingearing ccitizens,itizens, carried the headline, “We Sell Tanzania ranch once the neces- to the Outside World,” while the New sary improvements bbutut aass jjuniorunior sstake-take- York Times article43 carried the Headline have been made. The hholdersolders whowho areare inin “Your Own Private Africa”—unambigu- official history of the ranch, as told by the nneedeed ooff gguidanceuidance ous messages that Africa and African aandnd ooversightversight soso Countries are now commodities. People AWF, describes its occasionally appear in these narratives takeover by the Trust tthathat theythey won’twon’t dodo as dreaded poachers or needy recipients as a nearly inevitable 46 tthehe wrongwrong things.things. of corporate largesse, but the realities option. Annexing of their lives are seldom addressed and the area into nearby Manyara National their rights vis-à-vis investors, founda- Park was ‘deemed unacceptable,’ be-

248 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

cause it would meet with too much series of meetings to which they were local resistance. Giving the land back to not invited, it was decided that the the community, although it was origi- ranch would be taken over by the Trust. nally theirs, was also “deemed unac- After leaving office, Benjamin Mkapa ceptable”, because local people might was invited to join the AWF board of farm in the ranch, thereby fragmenting trustees. Edward Lowassa, then MP important wildlife habitat and migration for the district and subsequently prime routes. The only reasonable arrange- minister, was named to the Board of ment, therefore, was for the Trust to the Trust. Local people feel that these take over the ranch, on behalf of local appointments represent a conflict of people and for their benefit. The land interests, since they also feel that these would still belong to the communities elected officials were meant to protect and they would derive benefits from their rights and interests before those of the tourist developments that would outsiders. In addition to feeling robbed occur in the ranch and by being able of land they feel is rightfully theirs, they to continue grazing their cattle in the feel that they have not received ade- ranch according to the permit system. quate benefits from the ranch, that they are not adequately represented on the Conspicuously absent from this narra- Board, and that they are not kept ap- tive is any discussion of people’s rights. prised of what the Trust is doing at any The fact that the land originally be- given time.46 longed to these people, and was taken from them first by trickery and then The Trust also has authority to negoti- by administrative fiat, appears to be of ate for easements or purchase of land. little consequence. Of primary concern It has recently initiated Kwa Kuchinja is the possibility that these people will Easements for the Environment Through do something to fragment habitat and Partnership (KKEEP), which seeks to block wildlife migration routes. They are induce local people to move from wild- not described as rights bearing citizens, life migration corridors with one-time but as junior stakeholders who are in monetary compensations. When we need of guidance and oversight so that visited the Ranch they won’t do the wrong things. with students from ……humanhuman rrightsights byby the College of African ddefinitionefinition areare pre-pre- This account of events is also much dif- Wildlife Management, mmisedised oonn a ssocialocial ferent than those of local people. The the Ranch’s Tanzanian ccontractontract betweenbetween narrative that I collected from them community outreach goes as follows: local people gave up person told us: “This ccitizensitizens andand a the land for the ranch under the mis- is not a safe place for sstate–tate– notnot betweenbetween taken impression that this was a tem- people to live. Our sstakeholderstakeholders andand porary arrangement. When they heard job is to help people ootherther stakehold-stakehold- that the land was being privatized they in these villages to began to lobby the government to re- understand that they eersrs oorr betweenbetween a turn it to them. At one point it appeared are not safe here.” ccommunity-basedommunity-based that these efforts would be successful, The Ranch’s former oorganizationrganization andand as community leaders began to hear manager told us that through their networks that then Presi- the AWF was also a pprivaterivate investor…investor… dent Benjamin Mkapa was favorable to exploring the pos- the idea of the land being returned to sibility of relocating people. He further the community. Shortly thereafter, in a indicated that they were exploring the

15, July 2007 249 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

option of them moving to Hanang, 75 an explosion of new types of conserva- miles south. tion across the African continent. It has also coincided with the proliferation of Unfortunately, Hanang is also be- state-sponsored protected areas. These set with land conflicts that have their have in turn have been closely associ- roots in state-sponsored wheat farms. ated with the identification of tourism As these farms are privatized, local as one of the key economic opportuni- people are fighting with each other and ties in rapidly privatizing African coun- outsiders for access to newly reregu- tries. Tanzania, already a major tourist lated land. The relocation of people to destination, has created more parks to Hanang would exacerbate these con- increase the absorptive capacity of its flicts.47 We also encountered households tourist sector. Meanwhile countries that displaced from Hanang to our research have not previously been thought of as area, which were on the verge of be- tourist destinations (e.g. Chad, Ethiopia, ing displaced again. The reregulation Gabon, and Mozambique), have jumped of land throughout Tanzania, combined on the protected area bandwagon in an with population growth, has led to effort to capture their share of the tour- repeated internal displacements and ist market and more aid dollars. migrations that appear as localized land conflicts.48 The situation is captured in These changes have created signifi- the words an informant who was dis- cant opportunities for private investors placed from Hanang, then evicted from and international conservation NGOs, the wildlife management area described the lines between which are becoming in the previous section (also sponsored increasingly blurred. In the case of the by the AWF), and currently facing pos- Manyara Ranch, the AWF has repeat- sible displacement by KKEEP: “It’s like edly stated that it already has found an we aren’t Tanzanians and this isn’t our investor to build a lodge in the ranch country. Wherever we go, we are told, just as soon as it is ready. One of the you can’t stay here.”49 main justifications for KKEEP is that it will attract additional Conclusion investors to the vil- WWithith thethe privatiza-privatiza- This statement, the sentiment of which lages bordering the ttionion ofof sovereign-sovereign- was echoed by many other respondents, ranches. These op- tty,y, thethe questionquestion ofof goes straight to the heart of the ques- portunities have not tion of human rights and conservation. only attracted inves- hhumanuman rrightsights hashas As I mentioned at the beginning of this tors, but also other bbecomeecome mmuchuch llessess article, human rights by definition are conservation NGOs. sstraightforward.traightforward. Most recently the premised on a social contract between EEveryoneveryone involvedinvolved citizens and a state– not between stake- Nature Conservancy holders and other stakeholders or be- has announced its iinn transnationaltransnational tween a community-based organization plans to begin ease- cconservationonservation isis and a private investor. The respondent ment interventions in cculpable.ulpable. quoted above recognizes that he is not Africa, modeled after a citizen by this definition. There is no the AWF experience— envisioning sev- social contract that protects from being eral million acres of key African habitats 50 displaced by more powerful interests. under conservation easements.

The downsizing of states and the decen- The central argument of proponents tralization of state power has facilitated of these kinds of interventions is that

250 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

they also create economic opportuni- local people to clear wildlife migration ties for Africans. Since I have already corridors; and researchers/consultants addressed this argument at length, I who reproduce they types of narratives will not say much more here, only that that keep the question of human rights benefits rarely accrue to those who pay out of focus. the biggest costs for these interven- tions and there is little evidence that As Chambers writes, everyone in these potential local benefits can begin to networks has both the efficacy and the offset local opportunity costs for con- responsibility to bring about positive servation. Most business opportunities change and to help undo the relation- available to local people entail high risk ships of inequality that exist within and low returns Most jobs generated by these networks.52 Restoring sovereignty investment and intervention do not go to African states in a way that they to local people (most Tanzanian lodges can (and will) uphold the rights of their prefer to hire Kenyans and South Af- citizens is a tall order. However, creating ricans), and the ones that do are usu- accountability and oversight through- ally the lowest paying. Anyway, a job out the networks is not strictly a benefit. It is an eco- that engage and [[WeWe nneed]eed] iindepen-ndepen- nomic exchange in which an individual interpenetrate with ddentent rrapporteurs,apporteurs, sincesince sells their labor to a firm and the firm these states would makes a profit from that labor.51 Part be an important oourur ccurrenturrent iinforma-nforma- of the reason that ecotourism is such first step. A key ttionion isis dominateddominated byby a growth industry is because of its low element of such tthehe reportingreporting ofof thethe labor costs. Tourists can enjoy services a transformation vveryery peoplepeople whowho areare and experiences that they could never would be indepen- enjoy back home for a fraction of the dent reporting of uundertakingndertaking andand cost. Most fundamentally, it is neces- events and out- bbenefitingenefiting fromfrom tthesehese sary to keep in mind that the problems comes, perhaps by [[“conservation”“conservation” andand outlined in this article are not “outli- independent rap- ers”. Such problems are a common fea- porteurs, since our ““development”development” ] in-in- ture of conservation across the African current informa- tterventionserventions oror fromfrom Continent. tion is dominated ppeopleeople hiredhired byby themthem … by the reporting Lost in all of this is the question of of the very people who are undertaking rights. It is tempting to place the blame and benefiting from these interventions for human rights abuses (both large and or from people hired by them. We also small) on corrupt African governments, need institutional structures of over- which obviously have a great deal to sight, like the World Bank Inspection answer for. As I mentioned at the outset Panel, and an enforceable code of ethics of this article, however, the privatization for individuals and institutions involved of sovereignty has rendered the ques- with transnational conservation. tion of human rights much less straight- forward. Everyone who is involved in Jim Igoe ([email protected]) is a member of CEESP and WCPA, with TGER and TILCEPA. He is Assistant transnational conservation networks or Professor of Anthropology at the University of Colorado at who benefits from such involvement is Denver, President of BRIDGE (Bridge for Indigenous Devel- culpable: private tour companies that opment and Grassroots Empowerment), and a senior fellow of the Environmental Leadership Program. He is author of take over land from local people without the book Conservation and Globalization, which examines adequate compensation; international conflicts between indigenous communities and national NGOs that support the displacement of parks in Tanzania and South Dakota, with examples from around the world.

15, July 2007 251 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

Notes February 23, 2007. 1 As a Fulbright lecturer at the College of African 31 http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?articleid= Wildlife Management, Mweka. 131438&area=%2finsight%2finsight__national%2f, accessed February 23, 2007. 2 Igoe, 2005. 32 Ferguson, 2006; McDermott-Hughes, 2006; Cernea 3 Agrawal and Gibson, 1999. and Schmidt-Soltau, 2006; Igoe and Croucher, 4 See Dowie, 1995; Chapin, 2004; Igoe and Crouch- forthcoming. er, forthcoming http://www.id21.org/insights/insights57/art02.html, 5 See Hibou, 2004, p4. accessed February 23, 2007. 6 http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EX- 33 Special Team, The East African, January 31 2005, TINSPECTIONPANEL/menuPK:64129249~pagePK: “Mr. Jones Takes 25 Kenyan Rhinos to a Tanzanian 64132081~piPK:64132052~theSitePK:380794,00. Reserve.” html, accessed 5 April 2007 34 Poole, R., “Heartbreak on the Serengeti,” National 7 See Igoe and Kelsall, 2005. Geographic, http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ 8 West and Brockington, 2006; and West, Igoe, and ngm/0602/feature1/index.html, accessed February Brockington, 2006. 23, 2007. 9 Igoe, 2007. 35 From Singita web site http://www.singita.com/site/ 10 Heyden and Robbins, 2005; and Castree, in press. about/news.asp, accessed on February 21, 2007, also see 11 Castree, in press. http://www.africanconservation.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/ 12 Castree, in press. dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=4387&forum=DCF 13 De Soto’s ideas have been very influential in Africa, orumID3, accessed February 21, 2007. especially in Tanzania where the President’s Office 36 Special Team, the East African, as in footnote 20 hired him as a consultant for the countries informal above. sector policy and national poverty alleviation strat- egy. 37 The “big five” include elephant, rhino, buffalo, lion, and leopard. A colonial-era big game hunt was not 14 e.g., Brett, 2006. considered a success unless the hunter returned 15 Neumann, 2001; Igoe and Croucher, forthcoming. with at least one head from each of these animals. 16 Brown, 2005. These are coincidently the animals that present the biggest threat to rural communities. Crop dam- 17 McDermott-Hughes, 2006. age caused by elephants near Tarangire has made 18 For a full discussion see Igoe and Croucher (forth- it nearly impossible for local farmers to harvest coming). enough food to feed their families from year-to- 19 Translated from Swahili by the author. year. Over the past ten years, habituated elephants 20 This is very similar to the experience of Parakuyo have even begun pulling the roofs off of people’s activists who complained to district authorities houses and village storage facilities and eating the following the evictions from the Mkomazi Game relief food that has been stored within. Many farm- Reserve in 1988 (Brockington, 2002). ers have responded by seeking new places to live in other parts of Tanzania, but with little success (Igoe 21 For a full discussion see Igoe and Croucher (forth- and Croucher, forthcoming). coming). There are two sets of minutes. One, on file in Dar 38 Brockington, 2002. es Salaam, says that the village agreed to join the 39 Nelson, 2004. wildlife management area. The other, on file in the 40 See J. Lawi, “Land Wrangle Threatens Serengeti village office, says that villagers would like more Village with Loss of Millions,” IPP Media, October information before making a decision. Of course it 10th 2005, will not be easy to prove which one of the two is the http://www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guard- forged document. ian/10/10/51527.htlm, accessed February 22, 22 Translated from Swahili by the author. 2007. Grumeti Ltd. does not hunt in its exten- 23 See for instance, Igoe, 2003; Igoe, 2005. sive hunting concessions, but still pays the full complement of trophy fees to the Department of The notable exception being the recent court victory of Wildlife— about $300,000 per year, http://www. San People against the Government of Botswana, africanconservation.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard. which will allow San groups to return to their tradi- cgi?az=read_count&om=4387&forum=DCForumID3 tional homeland inside the Kalahari Game Reserve. , accessed February 22, 2007. 24 cf. Mamdani, 1996. 41 Shortly following the election of President Jakaya 25 Bonner, 1993; Neumann, 1998. Kikwete in December of 2005, a government official 26 Garland, 2006. confided to me that Grumeti was now going to have to renegotiate all its connections within the newly 27 Mbembe, 2001. reshuffled government. The following year the gov- 28 For a full discussion see Brockington and Igoe ernment finally announced that there were no plans (2006). to relocate Serengeti Headquarter, to the relief 29 http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/alert.htm, ac- of park employees and the Chief Park Warden E. cessed February 23, 2007. Chacha, “No Relocation, Government Reassures SE- NAPA Workers, September 28, 2006, http://www. 30 http://conservationrefugees.org/apf, accessed ippmedia .com/ipp/guardian/2006/09/28/75311.

252 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

html, accessed February 23, 2007. resettlement,” World Development 34 (10): 1808- 42 “Heartbreak on the Serengeti,” http://www7. 1830, 2006. nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0602/feature1/ Chambers R., Rural Development: Putting the Last index.html, accessed February 22, 2007 and First, Longman Publishers, Essex (UK), 1983. “Your Own Private Africa,” http://travel.nytimes. Chambers, R., “The Primacy of the Personal,” pages com/2006/09/24/travel/tmagazine/24tanzania. 241-253, in Edwards, M. and D. Hulme (eds), Beyond html, accessed February 23rd, 2007. the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountabil- 43 http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/travel/ ity in the Post-Cold War World, Kumarian Press, West tmagazine/24tanzania.html, accessed February 23, Hartford (CT), 1996. 2007 Chapin M., “A challenge to conservationists,World http://www.dailynews-tsn.com/page.php?id=3217, ac- Watch November/December,17-31, 2004. cessed February 23, 2007. Dowie M., Losing ground: American Environmental- 44 USAID, 2006. ism at the end of the Twentieth Century., MIT Press, 45 Sunba, Bergin and Jones, 2005. Cambridge (MA), 1995. 46 These assertions are consistent with the observa- Ferguson, J., Global shadows: Africa in the Neo-Liberal tions of consultants hired by USAID to assess the World Order, Duke University Press, Durham (NC), situation of the ranch in 2006. The exception being 2006. their assertion that “all stakeholders” support the Galaty, J., “Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Migration Tan- Trust and the ranch. zania: Factors of Ecology, Economy, Ecology, and 47 http://www.landcoalition.org/pdf/kpsidconrpt. Demography in Cultural Perspective,” pages 163-183 pdf#search=%22hanang%20land%20conflicts%22, in Bennet, J. and J. Bowen (eds.), Production and Au- accessed September 2, 2006. tonomy, University Press of America, Lanham (MD), 1988. 48 cf. Galaty, 1988. Garland, E., State of Nature: Colonial Power, Neo-Lib- 49 Translated from Swahili by the author. eral Capital, and Wildlife Management in Tanzania 50 http://www.nature.org/magazine/spring2007/fea- [dissertation], University of Chicago, Chicago (IL), tures/art20038.html, accessed February 23, 2007. 2006. 51 cf. McDermott-Hughes, 2006. Goldman, M., “Partitioned nature, privileged knowl- 52 Chambers, 1996. edge: community-based conservation in Tanzania”, Development and Change. 34(5): 833-862, 2003. Heynen, N. and P. Robbins, “The Neoliberalization of References Nature: Governance, Privatization, Enclosure and Agrawal, A. and C. Gibson, “Enchantment and dis- Valuation”. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 16(1):5-8, enchantment: The role of community in natural 2005. resource conservation”, World Development 27(4): Hibou, B., “From Privatizing the Economy to Privatizing 629-49, 1999. the State: an Analysis of the Continual Reformation Alcorn, J., A.R. Kajuni and B. Winterbottom, Assess- of the State,” pages 1-46 in Hibou, B (ed.) Privatizing ment of CBNRM Best Practice in Tanzania, Final the State, Colombia University Press, New York (New Report, USAID Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, 2002. York), 2004. Bonner, R., At the Hand of Man: Peril and Hope for Afri- Igoe, J., “National Parks and Human Ecosystems,” ca’s Wildlife, Knopf, New York (NY),1993. pages 77-96, in Chatty, D. and M. Colchester (eds) Bond, P., “Neoliberalism in Sub-Saharan Africa: from Conservation and Mobile Indigenous People, Berghan Structural Adjustment to NEPAD,” pages 230-236 in Press, New York (New York), 2002. Saad-Filho, A. and D. Johnston (eds.) Neoliberalism: Igoe, J., “Scaling-up civil society: donor money, NGOs, a Critical Reader, Pluto Press,Ann Arbor (MI) and and the pastoralist land rights movement in Tanza- London, 2005. nia,” Development and Change 34(5): 863-85, 2003. Brett, J., “We sacrifice and eat less: the structural Igoe, J., Conservation and Globalization: A Study of complexities of micro-finance participation in Bolivia,” National Parks and Indigenous Communities from Human Organization 65 (1), 8-19, 2006. East Africa to South Dakota, Wadsworth/Thompson, Brockington, D., Fortress Conservation: the Preserva- Riverside (CA), 2004. tion of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania, James Igoe, J., “Global Indigenism and Spaceship Earth: Con- Currey Publishers, Oxford (UK), 2002. vergence, Space, and Re-entry Friction.” Globaliza- Brockington, D. and J. Igoe, “Eviction for Conservation: tions 3(2):377-390, 2005. a Global Overview,” Conservation and Society 4 (3): Igoe, J., “Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Conser- 424-470, 2006. vation to Local Communities. Journal of Ecological Brown, T. ,“Contestation, confusion and corruption. Anthropology,” 10:72-77, 2007. Market-based land reform in Zambia” in Evers, S. et Igoe, J. and B. Croucher, “Poverty Reduction Meets the al,. Competing Jurisdictions: Settling Land Claims in Spectacle Nature: Does Reality Matter? Transnational Africa, Leiden, Boston (MA), 2005. Influence in Large-Landscape Conservation in North- Castree N. “Neoliberalizing nature: the logics of de- and ern Tanzania, Conservation and Society, forthcoming. re-regulation.” Environment and Planning, in press. Igoe, J. and C. Fortwangler, “Whither Communities and Cernea, M. and K. Schmidt-Soltau, “Policy risks and Conservation,” International Journal of Biodiversity national parks: policy issues in conservation and Science and Management, in press.

15, July 2007 253 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

Igoe, J., and T. Kelsall, “Introduction: Between a Rock Neumann, R., “Disciplining Peasants in Tanzania: From and a Hard Place,” pages 1-34 in Igoe, J. and T. Kel- State Violence to Self-Surveillance in Wildlife Con- sall (eds.), Between a Rock and a Hard Place: African servation,” pages 305-327in Pelosi, N. and M. Watts NGOs, Donors, and the State, Carolina Academic (eds.), Violent Environments, Cornell University Press, Durham (NC), 2005. Press, Ithaca (NY), 2001. McDermott-Hughes, D., From Enslavement to Environ- Soto de H., The mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Tri- mentalism: Politics on a Southern African Frontier, umphs in the West and Fails everywhere Else, Basic University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, Books, New York, 2000. 2006. Sumba, D., P. Bergin and C. Jones, Land Conservation Mamdani, M., Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa Trusts: A Case Study of the Manyara Ranch Tanza- and the Legacy of Late Colonialism. Princeton Univer- nia. AWF Working Papers, African Wildlife Foundation, sity Press, Princeton (NJ), 2006. Washington, DC, 2005. Mbembe, A, On the Post-Colony, University of Califor- USAID, African Wildlife Foundation/Manyara Ranch nia Press, Berkeley (CA), 2001. Situation Assessment, USAID Tanzania, Dar es Sa- Nelson, F., The Evolutions and Impacts of Community- laam (TZ), undated. Based Ecotourism in Northern Tanzania, International West, P. and D. Brockington, “An anthropological Institute for the Environment and Development, perspective on some unexpected consequences of London, 2004. protected areas,” Conservation Biology 20 (3): 609- Neumann, R., Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over 616, 2006. Livelihood and Nature Conservation in Africa, Univer- West, P., J. Igoe and D. Brockington, “Parks and peo- sity of California Press, Berkeley (CA), 1998. ple: the social impacts of protected areas,” Annual Review of Anthropology 35, 251-277, 2006.

DDerechoserechos humanoshumanos y conservaciónconservación ambiental—ambiental— eerrores,rrores, hhorroresorrores y terroresterrores JJoséosé SánchezSánchez PargaParga Resumen. Si se respetaran los derechos civiles de las personas no sería necesario recurrir a los “Derechos Humanos”, ya que estos son transgredidos, se denuncias y reclaman, cuando ya los seres humanos han dejado de ser tratados como personas y ciudadanos. Al medio ambiente le ocurre lo mismo: se denuncia su devastación en la misma medida que se vuelve irrecuperable. Frene a ambos fenómenos se adoptan posiciones defensivas y de protesta, porque falta el poder político para impedir las transgresiones tanto a los derechos humanos como a la conservación del medio ambiente.

Abstract. If every person’s civil rights were respected, it would not be necessary to resort to “Human Rights”, as these are violated, denounced and claimed only when people have already ceased to be treated like persons and citizens. The same happens with the environment: we denounce the disasters when they are already well under way. In the face of both phenom- ena, defensive and protesting positions are being adopted because the political will is lacking to prevent both violations of human rights and disastrous impacts on the environment.

ado tarde. Hay una suerte de brecha A las víctimas, los derechos humanos insalvable entre los discursos densa- o nunca les llegan o les llegan demasi- mente inflacionarios, interpelativos o

254 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

doja terminal es que estos derechos son humanos no por otra razón sino porque son los mismos para todos; siendo precisamente esto lo que hace sus trasgresiones más impunes y uni- versales. Por eso resulta tan urgente y necesario precisar cuándo y cómo se comienza a atentar contra los DDHH de personas y pueblos.

A la conservación de la naturaleza o del medio ambiente le ocurre algo muy sim- ilar a las infracciones contra los DDHH: no sólo se llega tarde para evitar sus daños y destrucciones sino también, y peor aún, para repararlos. Sólo cuando los efectos devastadores son inevitables y irremediables, suenan las alarmas ecológicas, para intentar proteger lo que todavía nos queda, pero no siempre para impedir que las fuerzas e intereses depredadores sigan actuando. Foto 1. A las víctimas, los derechos humanos o nunca les llegan o les llegan demasiado tarde. Muy curioso que exactamente lo mismo (Cortesía Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend) suceda con la “lucha contra la pobre- declamatorios sobre los “Derechos Hu- za”: una guerra equivocada y perdida manos” (DDHH), y la poca eficacia para de antemano, pues lo que no se puede, garantizar su respeto o su ejercicio. La porque no se quiere, es evitar la pobre- paradoja es que de los Derechos Huma- za: es decir el colosal enriquecimiento nos sólo somos sujetos cuando nos con- de unos pocos a costa del masivo vertimos en víctimas de su trasgresión; empobrecimiento de muchos. Costaría es decir casi de manera póstuma. Ha- mucho más evitar la pobreza y la de- bitualmente los hombres o ciudadanos, strucción de la naturaleza que todo el sujetos de derechos civiles, sólo ex- dinero invertido y todavía disponible traordinariamente se vuelven sujetos de para luchar contra el “efecto inverna- derechos humanos. Por consiguiente no dero”, contra la pobreza o contra todo habría mejor defensa y protección de atentado a los DDHH.1 los derechos humanos que evitar tales situaciones extremas, cuando las perso- Por muy aparentes que parezcan las nas, por el simple hecho de encontrarse diferencias entre estos fenómenos, son despojados de sus derechos civiles, demasiado similares y actuales como resultan ya víctimas de una trasgresión para no tener algo en común: la activi- a los derechos humanos. dad depredadora del moderno desarrollo del capital y del mercado. Es tan voraz Si el Estado y el Derecho Internacio- la actual producción de riqueza hoy en nal garantizaran los derechos y lib- el mundo, que no sólo genera una con- ertades civiles e impidieran su despojo stante y colosal masa de miseria, sino o trasgresión, nadie necesitaría ser que además tiene un irreparable efecto sujeto de derechos humanos. La para- devastador en la naturaleza, y en los

15, July 2007 255 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

derechos humanos de los hombres.2 (incluso los más redistribucionistas y progresistas como Amartya Sen), crean Derechos humanos y que la desigualdad es resultado de una desigualdades sociales comparación y de una diferencia entre Los derechos como la desigualdad son personas, y hayan olvidado completa- una relación social. Pero no se podrá mente la obra de Rousseau Sobre el comprender que la desigualdad social origen de la desigualdad. Olvido nada es no sólo una infracción contra los inocente, ya que encubre la naturaleza DDHH sino la trasgresión más radical socio-política de la desigualdad y su 3 y total contra ellos, mientras se siga atentado contra los DDHH. reduciendo la desigualdad a simples comparaciones y diferencias económi- El origen de la desigualdad se establece cas, de riquezas o recursos materiales. (en otras palabras, toda desigualdad En contra de toda una tradición que se se origina) con toda eliminación de lo remonta a Aristóteles, pasa por Maqui- común por medio de una apropiación avelo y culmina en Rousseau, según privada. No porque la propiedad pri- la cual la desigualdad es una relación vada signifique una diferencia entre social entre personas, grupos sociales o quienes poseen y quienes no poseen, pueblos, ya desde el liberalismo hasta sino porque al eliminar lo común se la actual sociedad de mercado se ha liquida la igualdad. Ya que lo común confundido la desigualdad, y se ha en- sólo es posible entre iguales, y al no cubierto su sentido original y originario, existir nada común entre desiguales, convirtiéndola en una se excluye toda posibilidad de relación, ……todatoda ddesi-esi- mera comparación comunicación e intercambio entre el- los. Esto implícitamente constituye ggualdadualdad ssee oori-ri- económica entre per- sonas y grupos que un desreconocimiento efectivo de su gginaina concon todatoda poseen o no poseen condición humana; en otras palabras eeliminaciónliminación dede riquezas o recursos, la desigualdad es una negación o su- entre quienes tienen presión de la misma relación social lloo comúncomún porpor 4 más o menos o nada. entre personas. Un segundo grado de mmedioedio ddee uunana desigualdad se establece, como con- aapropiaciónpropiación pri-pri- En una sociedad de secuencia del anterior, con las rela- vvada..ada.. […][…] pporqueorque mercado, donde ya ciones de sometimiento, dominación y explotación entre personas o grupos aall eliminareliminar lolo no es politically cor- rect pensar y tratar desiguales. El nivel extremo o termi- ccomúnomún ssee lliquidaiquida políticamente nada, y nal de la desigualdad, expresado en llaa igualdad.igualdad. YaYa menos aún los mismos la fórmula del amo— esclavo (que qqueue lloo ccomúnomún ssóloólo hechos políticos, la después de Rousseau elabora Hegel), se produce cuando la dominación y eess pposibleosible entreentre desigualdad en cuanto realidad y relación explotación terminan por despojar a iiguales…guales… profundamente políti- los seres humanos de su condición de ca sólo puede y debe ser pensada y personas, de sus derechos y libertades, tratada económicamente; ya que sólo reduciéndolos a la condición de cosas, es politically correct pensar económica- convirtiéndolos en mercancías en una mente cualquier realidad. sociedad de mercado, objeto de oferta y demanda, de consumo y destrucción. Nada casual por ello, que tanto la opinión pública como los cientistas Según esto, la trasgresión de los sociales y más aún los economistas DDHH en cuanto despojo de la con-

256 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

dición humana de los hombres, o de rores ambientales y contra los DDHH: la condición de personas de los seres el mercado no tiene conciencia y su humanos, corresponde siempre y de lógica nada tiene de razonable. manera equivalente llaa trasgresióntrasgresión dede a un progreso de la Derechos humanos y medio llosos DDHHDDHH […][…] ccor-or- desigualdad; hasta ambiente rrespondeesponde siempresiempre y el extremo que el ser La destrucción de la condición humana humano despojado de ddee mmaneraanera eequiva-quiva- de las personas, hombres y mujeres, su condición de perso- de su reducción al estado de cosas, llenteente a uunn pprogresorogreso na es reducido a la de no sólo es análoga a la devastación de ddee llaa ddesigualdad;esigualdad; objeto o cosa y mer- la naturaleza o del medio ambiente, cancía. Los hombres sino que además responde a una idén- hhastaasta elel extremoextremo no son dominados qqueue eell sserer hhumanoumano tica causa; a las mismas fuerzas y a y destruidos porque los mismos intereses del mercado. En ddespojadoespojado dede susu son esclavos, sino al primer lugar, también en este caso se ccondiciónondición dede per-per- contrario: es porque trata de un movimiento de apropiación no poseen ni se les y de privación privatizadora de algo ssonaona eses reducidoreducido a reconoce la condición llaa dede oobjetobjeto o ccosaosa fundamentalmente común y compar- humana, de personas, tido, espacio y objeto de los intercam- y mercancía.mercancía. que pueden ser con- bios y relaciones entre los hombres. sumidos y destruidos, Por eso la devastación de la naturaleza como si fueran cosas. Por consiguiente, y del medio ambiente no sólo quiebra una sociedad de mercado, donde nada y vuelve hostiles las relaciones ente puede ser común y todo ha de ser pri- los hombres sino que profundiza las vado, objeto de oferta y demanda, se desigualdades entre ellos; sus mutuos funda en la desigualdad y se reproduce sometimientos y dominaciones. produciendo desigualdad, y atentando constantemente contra la condición La relación del hombre con el medio humana de hombres y mujeres. ambiente ha tenido a lo largo de la historia la forma de una “producción Es obvio que los genocidios, los terror- destructora”.5 Pero este proceso en la ismos de Estado, las torturas judiciales actual fase del de- NNadaada mmásás y policiales ejercida sobre prisioneros, sarrollo capitalista, las violaciones de niños o prostitución debido al colosal iilusoriolusorio queque infantil son todos casos extremos por desarrollo de las rreducireducir ttodosodos estosestos más o menos frecuentes que sean, fuerzas productivas pero a estos casos extremos se llega hhorroresorrores contracontra (nucleares, genéticas, llosos DDHHDDHH a unauna cada vez con más frecuencia por una tecnológicas...), ha progresiva desigualdad y progresivo alcanzado así mismo ccuestiónuestión dede ééticatica despojo de los derechos civiles primero extraordinarios efectos y humanismo;humanismo; y después de los derechos humanos. destructivos. Con la ddetrásetrás ddee eellos,llos, y Nada más ilusorio que reducir todos particularidad de que estos horrores contra los DDHH a una estos efectos destruc- ddelel bbeneficioeneficio queque cuestión de ética y humanismo; detrás tivos adquieren un rreportan,eportan, estáestá de ellos, y del beneficio que reportan, carácter tan irrevers- está la voracidad del mercado. llaa voracidadvoracidad deldel ible como irremedia- mmercadoercado ble, que no pueden ya Por eso nada más erróneo que acusar ser compensados por los efectos pro- de irracionales e inhumanos los hor- ductivos. Nunca antes el poder destruc-

15, July 2007 257 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

tor hombre sobre la tierra había sido tan extraordinariamente superior a sus poderes productivos.

Este fenómeno sólo ha sido posible a causa de la apropiación privatizadora del medio ambiente por parte de dichas fuerzas productivas del mercado; por una creciente y masiva acumulación de recursos energéticos de la naturaleza. Y en la medida que el medio ambiente ha sido objeto de una creciente concen- tración y acumulación por parte de las fuerzas productivas y del mercado, de Foto 2. Hoy el consumo del medio am- manera simultánea el medio ambiente biente y de dichos recursos energéticos ha ido dejando de ser un bien común, tiene costos militares y etnocidiarios. (Cortesía Christian Chatelain) compartido, objeto de una participación más o menos equitativa. Y por consigu- sido despojados de lo que era común. iente se ha vuelto presa de una voraz Tal relación de desigualdad adopta la devastación. Más aún, en cuanto que forma de una dependencia y someti- el medio ambiente, la naturaleza y sus miento proporcionales a la necesidad recursos naturales, han dejado de ser de sobrevivencia que supone el acceso compartidos, en lugar de generar vín- a lo que se convierte en propiedad culos y relaciones de intercambio entre privada. Esta situación se agrava y se los hombres, grupos sociales y pueblos, vuelve mortífera, cuando la propiedad se convierten en un objeto de disputa privatizada es consumida irreparable- y conflicto, de luchas encarnizadas, de mente sin posible reproducción. En guerras de “destrucción masiva”; de este sentido la destrucción del medio terrores terroristas y antiterroristas. ambiente tiene un efecto indirecto y Muy cínico o miope sería no relacionar secundario en la lenta e invisible de- en la actualidad el terrorismo ecológico strucción de la humanidad. con el terrorismo bélico y militar. La fórmula, programa o slogan del De esta manera la “devastación” del desarrollo sostenible o sustentable, medio ambiente y sus recursos en- responde a una ideología de com- ergéticos no es más que la contraparte pensación, que pretende encubrir el de una devastación geopolítica. Hoy el carácter insostenible del modelo de consumo del medio ambiente y de di- desarrollo impuesto por el actual creci- chos recursos energéticos tiene costos miento económico, basado en una sos- militares y etnocidiarios. Antes la dev- tenida concentración y acumulación de astación de la naturaleza se limitaba a riqueza. El mercado capitalista actual la devastación de un hábitat; actual- ha transformado el natural e ilimitado mente en cambio acarrea la liquidación deseo de poseer del hombre en un de los mismos pueblos que la habitan. modelo de sociedad, el cual funciona (no racional pero sí) irrazonablemente La apropiación por parte de un poder como un automatismo devastador e interés privado de lo que era común, tanto del medio ambiente como de la establece una relación de desigualdad misma condición humana del hombre. entre los propietarios y quienes han

258 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

La única manera de frenar dicho cre- póstumos o demasiado tardíos, quienes cimiento económico es forzar (políti- promueven y promocionan los derechos camente) procesos y procedimientos humanos y la conservación del medio distributivos, que limiten su lógica de ambiente, los organismos encargados acumulación y concentración (esen- o responsables deberían abandonar sus cialmente no-distributiva). No se trata actuaciones y disposiciones defensivas de introducir un decrecimiento, lo que o de mera denuncia de los atentados y sería algo contradictorio, sino de im- transgresiones en contra de ellos, para poner al modelo un mecanismo con- ejercer un poder y unas facultades, trario a sus efectos tanto acumuladores que eviten tales atentados y transgre- y concentradores de riqueza como siones. generadores de desigualdades y devas- tación del medio ambiente. Distribución Esto significa un desplazamiento de la y redistribución comienzan restaurando problemática de los DDHH y del medio unas relaciones de igualdad, de inter- ambiente desde los ámbitos ético-mo- cambio, que además limitan la lógica y rales o exclusiva- las fuerzas de la acumulación concen- mente judiciales, IInclusoncluso AristótelesAristóteles tradora de riqueza. para situarla en el cconsiderabaonsideraba queque eell campo específica- hhombreombre y llaa sociedadsociedad Se trata de un problema fundamental- mente político, y hhumanaumana nnoo hhubieranubieran mente político, ya que hoy son precisa- donde los poderes mente los países subdesarrollados, los políticos demás de ppodidoodido existirexistir nini más pobres o “emergentes”, los que apoyar los judicial- ttampocoampoco podríanpodrían más buscan y requieren un crecimiento es se someten a el- ssobrevivirobrevivir “sin“sin algoalgo económico, aún a los. De lo contrario eenn ccomún”…omún”… Y ssinin llaa devastacióndevastación dede costa de las desigual- seguirá sucediendo llaa naturalezanaturaleza y deldel dades y devastación lo que ha ocur- eembargombargo hhoyoy elel mmedioedio aambientembiente ambiental que produ- rido hasta ahora: o mmercadoercado [[…]…] aasaltasalta cen a su interior. El juicios y sanciones lloo másmás comúncomún e nnoo sólosólo quiebraquiebra y caso chino o de la In- póstumas y tardías vvuelveuelve hhostilesostiles laslas dia son un ejemplo. o una doble medida iinalienable:nalienable: elel mediomedio rrelacioneselaciones enteente loslos Lo que representa judicial de conde- aambientembiente hhombresombres ssinoino queque la situación extrema nas, dependiendo de quienes tienen de la desigualdad y o no tienen el poder sobre el orden pprofundizarofundiza laslas devastación: cuando jurídico internacional. Así, genocidios ddesigualdadesesigualdades entreentre los mismos hombres cometidos por unos (norteamericanos) eellos;llos; sussus mutuosmutuos y pueblos confunden no son judiciables a diferencia de los ssometimientosometimientos y las desigualdades cometidos por otros (tras haber sido que sufren con las derrotados). Idéntica situación afecta ddominacionesominaciones diferencias económi- al medio ambiente: más que medidas cas, y creen que reduciendo éstas sería defensivas y denuncias tardías sería posible eliminar aquellas; cuando en re- necesario atajar y atacar las causas y alidad lo que ocurre es dramáticamente amenazas, cuando surgen y no cuando todo lo contrario. sus daños ya son irreparables.

Conclusiones: Se trata de redefinir y restituir lo que ¿póstumas o postreras? es común entre los hombres sin necesi- Si eso es precisamente, lo que no dad de incurrir en comunismo alguno. deben ser los DDHH, ni postreros ni Incluso Aristóteles, para quien era peor

15, July 2007 259 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

demasiado en común que menos en tribución de sus efectos en el Norte y común, consideraba que el hombre y la en el Sur: mientras que la devastación sociedad humana no hubieran podido ecológica se pro- existir ni tampoco podrían sobrevivir duce y aprovecha NNadaada rrevelaevela mmejorejor “sin algo en común”.6 Y sin embargo en el Norte, se ttantoanto loslos presupues-presupues- hoy el mercado, para el que todo ha sufren en el Sur ttosos comocomo loslos alcancesalcances de ser privado, objeto de oferta y de- sus más nefastas manda, y nada soporta común, asalta consecuencias; tterroristaserroristas deldel mer-mer- lo más común e inalienable: el medio las víctimas de los ccado,ado, queque ssuu ddobleoble eejeje ambiente. DDHH se acumulan ddee ddevastación:evastación: elel dede y concentran en el llaa igualdadigualdad entreentre loslos El problema en ambos casos es que Sur, pero sus cau- nunca los poderes políticos fueron tan sas y consecuen- hhombresombres y susu ccon-on- débiles y se mostraron tan sometidos a cias benefician al ddiciónición humana,humana, y elel las fuerzas de otros poderes no políti- Norte; la riqueza ddee ssuu mmedioedio aambi-mbi- cos que los atraviesan. Y en el caso de producida por acu- los DDHH como en la devastación del mulación y concen- eente.nte. [[…]…] eesteste tterror-error- medio ambiente hay que partir de un tración en el Norte iismosmo deldel mercadomercado nono principio fundamental: en el mundo genera exclusión y ssóloólo sese haha convertidoconvertido no hay buenos y malos sino quienes empobrecimiento eenn eell nnuevouevo oordenrden tienen el poder y la fuerza para ejer- en el Sur; el crec- cerlo sin control, y quienes carentes de imiento económico ggloballobal deldel mundo,mundo, fuerza y poder sufren las consecuen- allí arriba cor- ssinoino queque ademásademás cias. A ello hay que añadir el rasgo responde inequi- aacusacusa y combatecombate actual de que nunca las víctimas de los dades aquí abajo; ccomoomo terroristasterroristas to-to- DDHH y la devastación del medio ambi- las defensas ter- ente fueron tan rentables y produjeron roristas del Norte ddasas laslas resistenciasresistencias beneficios tan colosales. se vuelven ataques o ataquesataques a dichodicho antiterroristas en el oordenamiento.rdenamiento. Nada revela mejor tanto los presu- Sur; y mientras el puestos como los alcances terroristas Norte corre riesgos y gana con ellos, el del mercado, que su doble eje de dev- Sur los sufre. astación: el de la igualdad entre los hombres y su condición humana, y el Y es que el mundo supuestamente cada de su medio ambiente. Pero lo peor, lo vez más globalizado nunca fue tan dif- más difícil de tratar y resolver, es que erente visto desde el Norte como lo es este terrorismo del mercado no sólo visto desde el Sur. se ha convertido en el nuevo orden José Sánchez Parga ([email protected]) es doctor global del mundo, sino que además en filosofía, antropólogo, profesor universitario, investigador acusa y combate como terroristas to- del Centro Andino de Acción Popular, ex-Director del Centro das las resistencias o ataques a dicho de Estudios Latinoamericanos (PUCE) de Quito y primer Director de la revista Ecuador Debate. ordenamiento. Notas Finalmente, este complejo fenómeno, 1 Por ejemplo, el Alcalde de la ciudad de Quito, en el que convergen DDHH, medio Capital del Ecuador, en funciones en 2007 ha de- ambiente, concentración y acumulación clarado “la lucha contra la contaminación ambien- de riqueza y crecimiento económico, tal”, demostrando así su incapacidad y falta de vol- untad política para evitarla; si quisiera y pudiera ordenamiento global del mundo, se impedirla no necesitaría de esa lucha imaginaria divide brutalmente en una desigual dis- contra ella.

260 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

2 En el actual modelo de desarrollo basado en la 5 Schumpeter, 1969. concentración y acumulación de capital, el crec- 6 Política, II,i, 1260b. imiento no es posible sin creciente inequidad: cfr. Sánchez Parga, 2005. 3 En su obra Inequality Reexamined, Amartya Sen Referencias (1992) no tiene una sola referencia al texto clásico Sánchez Parga, J. “Sin (creciente) desigualdad no hay de Rousseau. crecimiento económico (posible)”, en Socialismo y 4 Que la desigualdad social no es posible en una Participación, n. 99, Lima, 2005. sociedad basada sobre lo común (koinon), todo lo Schumpeter, J., Capitalisme, socialisme et démocratie, que puede ser compartido, y sobre el vínculo social Payot, Paris, 1969. de una tal participación, constituye un principio Sen, A., Inequality Reexamined, Clarendon Press, fundamental de la Política de Aristóteles. Por eso lo London, 1992. común es lo primero que destruye la desigualdad.

PParksarks aandnd ppeopleeople inin NorthNorth America—America— oonene hhundredundred aandnd tthirtyhirty fivefive yearsyears ofof changechange RRobertobert GG.. HHealyealy

Abstract. The three large and diverse countries that make up the North American continent— Canada, Mexico, and the United States — differ substantially in terms of how their protected areas have been selected and managed, how indigenous and other local people have been treated, and how government policy toward local populations has changed over time. This paper traces the history of park creation and management in North America, with an em- phasis on when and why the “anti-resident” policy in Canada and the US began to change, and the consequences that have come from that change, as well as the issues that Mexico has faced as a result of its long tolerance for human settlement in and around its protected areas. The paper also raises questions regarding the putative property rights (in A.K. Sen's terminology the "entitlements") that residents of park gateway communities establish as the park and the communities grow up together.

United States two years after the creation of the US When the land that would become Yel- Park Service. Nearly all of the “crown lowstone National Park was set aside jewels” of the US national park sys- by the US government in 1872, one tem, including Yosemite, Mesa Verde, of the first acts of active management Olympic and Glacier N.P., are on former was to use the army to remove squat- Indian land, and their continued use of ters and stop hunting by migratory the land was strictly prohibited by park 2 American Indians.1 A contingent of the managers. When Glacier Bay National US cavalry provided law enforcement in Monument (Alaska) was designated in the park until it was removed in 1918, 1925, considerable attention was paid

15, July 2007 261 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

over time.4

Although the first century of US park history was marked by a policy of excluding residents from park units, tourists were welcomed. Many man- agement actions were taken to encour- age visitors, including allowing railroad spurs and roads into the most scenic parts of the parks, permitting construc- tion of elaborate hotels within park boundaries, and training park rangers not only to ensure the safety of visitors but also to provide educational and in- terpretive programs. As a result of this Picture 1. Sloan Canyon (Nevada) has policy, park tourism boomed. Visitation been called the “Sistine Chapel” of Ameri- to national parks rose especially rap- can Indian rock art. It is less than one idly after World War II, as widespread mile from the expanding suburbs of Las Vegas. (Courtesy Robert Healy) automobile ownership combined with improved highways, higher incomes, to making sure the boundaries ex- and longer paid-leave time to make a cluded many mining claims and areas park vacation, particularly in the brief of interest to timber interests, but the summer season, one of the most popu- subsistence land uses of the native lar activities for American families. Tlingit people were simply not part of National park visits totaled 37 million 3 the debate. in 1951, but had climbed to 172 million by 1970. The policy of removing humans from parks persisted into the 1930s, when Because hotels and eating facilities small farmers were ousted from the within the parks could not accommo- AAlthoughlthough thethe new Great Smoky date the visitor hordes, tourist-oriented Mountains National “gateway communities” sprang up at or ffirstirst centurycentury ofof Park, the Blue Ridge UUSS pparkark historyhistory near the entrances of many of the most Parkway, and Shenan- popular parks: Gatlinburg, Tennessee; wwasas mmarkedarked bbyy a doah National Park. West Yellowstone, Wyoming; Flagstaff, ppolicyolicy ofof exclud-exclud- In most cases, park Arizona; Springdale, Utah. Residents of managers took pains to iingng residentsresidents these communities developed an eco- remove old farmhouses nomic interest in how the parks were ffromrom pparkark units,units, and allow fields to re- managed— they wanted the parklands ttouristsourists werewere turn to forest, erasing to remain attractive, but they did not wwelcomed.elcomed. all traces of past hu- support restrictions on the numbers of man use of the land. In tourists nor the recreational uses they Everglades National Park, conceived in wanted to pursue. the 1930s and designated in 1947, a small population of Seminole Indians Most Americans were extremely proud was persuaded to move to reservations of their system of national parks. How- outside park boundaries, and their ever, groups of environmental advo- traditional hunting, fishing and other cates, often organized at a state or activities inside the park were curtailed local level, wanted more parks. They

262 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

pointed out that very few of the exist- boundaries.5 At present, of 150,000 ing parks were near large cities, limit- acres in the park, only 22,000 are ing access by poor and minority peo- owned by the National Park Service. ple. They also noted that almost none Another 55,000 acres are owned by of the pre-1960 parks protected the the California state parks department, nation’s extensive beaches or barrier local governments or land conservan- islands. Creating new parks close to cies. Nearly half of the land within park cities and along attractive stretches of boundaries belongs to private owners. coastline was, however, quite different The use of the private land is subject to from creating them from remote fed- regulation by local governments, and eral lands or buying out near-bankrupt in some cases, the California (State) mountain farmers. Many of the most Coastal Commission. However, this ar- attractive areas for park expansion rangement does pose challenges for already were occupied—often by land- conservation objectives; the park’s owners who were prosperous, politi- 2002 management plan points out that cally mobilized, and very unwilling to “human construction and intrusion have move. By the 1960s, it became clear resulted in the loss or degradation of even to ardent park advocates that resources, including threatened and en- the view that human settlement was dangered species habitat.”6 The report completely inconsistent with good park also notes threats by development to management would have to change if cultural resources, as well as fire, flood new park units were to be created. and earthquake dangers to structures built within the park. Nevertheless, very Creation of Cape Cod National Seashore high land prices and opposition to use in 1961 specifically allowed some lo- of eminent domain by the Park Service cal residents to permanently occupy almost guarantee that the Santa Monica BByy thethe 1960s,1960s, residential parcels mountains park will remain a mixture of within park bound- public and private land. iitt becamebecame cclearlear aries, subject to eevenven ttoo aardentrdent federal and state After the 1970s, increasing pressure pparkark advocatesadvocates land use controls. was also experienced by the Park Parks following the Service to recognize rights of Native tthathat thethe viewview thatthat Cape Cod model Americans.7 For example, in Alaska’s hhumanuman ssettlementettlement are often termed Glacier Bay, changed from a National wwasas ccompletelyompletely “greenline parks” in Monument to a National Park in 1980, iinconsistentnconsistent recognition of the the use rights of the Tlingit had never fact that all activity been defined. Sometimes their hunting wwithith goodgood parkpark within the boundary and fishing activities were allowed by mmanagementanagement wwouldould (the “greenline”) Park managers, at other times prohib- hhaveave toto changechange ifif is regulated, even ited. The Park Service tried to make a nnewew pparkark uunitsnits wwereere though it is not distinction between subsistence use of necessarily owned seals, fish and other wildlife resources, ttoo bebe ccreated.reated. by the author- which would be permitted, and com- ity responsible for park management. mercial use, which would be prohibited In 1978 the Santa Monica Mountains for native and non-native alike. How- National Recreation Area, one of several ever, this distinction has proved very new “urban national parks” in the US, difficult in practice, as Tlingit wildlife envisioned a preponderance of private harvesting has been part of the cash (though regulated) land within park economy for at least a century. More-

15, July 2007 263 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

over, even subsistence use has run by the railroad. Over time tourism, into objections from ecologists that it strongly promoted by long-time Domin- exceeds the carry- ion Parks Branch AAfterfter tthehe 1970s,1970s, ing capacity of some director James B. TThroughhrough mostmost ofof iincreasingncreasing wildlife stocks.8 Harkin, became CCanada’sanada’s historyhistory ofof ppressureressure wwasas more and more im- pparkark creation,creation, thethe in-in- Another complex is- portant in Canada’s eexperiencedxperienced bbyy tthehe sue that arose in the slowly growing park tterestserests ofof aboriginalaboriginal PParkark SServiceervice toto 1970s was Native system. In 1930, a ppeopleeople werewere givengiven nono rrecognizeecognize rightsrights ofof American religious new National Parks sspecialpecial considerationconsideration NNativeative Americans.Americans. use of the parks. Act prohibited hunt- This was addressed ing, mining and most timber cutting in by Congress in the American Indian the national parks. Religious Freedom Act of 1978, but Native American organizations argue Through most of Canada’s history of that protection of some sacred sites is park creation, the interests of aborigi- inadequate even when they are includ- nal people were given no special con- ed within national parks. For example, sideration. For example, designation of there is a long-running controversy the Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario at Devil’s Tower National Monument in 1893 (a park of world-class size and (Wyoming). The huge rock formation importance) included prohibition of is popular among expert rock climbers, hunting, fishing and trapping by native and the National Park Service features people. “The failure to consider aborigi- a climber on the park’s web page. How- nal rights [in the Algonquin Park] says ever, the Park Service also notes that Killian “contributed to a sense of injus- “It appears to many American Indians tice that would smoulder for decades.”11 that climbers and hikers do not respect Wood Buffalo National Park, in Alberta, their culture by the very act of climbing is Canada’s only national park with “a on or near the Tower.”9 The solution, long standing tradition of native sub- not satisfactory to many Native Ameri- sistence use and involvement.”12 But cans, is a voluntary closure to climbers even there “during the first 50 years during the month of June, when certain of its existence, government officials sacred rites take place.

Canada In its early national parks, Canada had a much more tolerant policy toward resource exploitation (mining, logging, grazing) than did the United States.10 However, tourism, particularly when managed by the new and powerful Canadian Pacific Railroad, was given priority. Creation of Canada’s Rocky Mountain National Park in 1885 was directly related to the government’s Picture 2. On the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, enormous crowds of visitors are desire to block individual land claim- efficiently managed by the Niagara Parks ants who might develop the local hot Commission, a self-supporting parastatal springs in a chaotic manner, rather corporation created by Ontario in 1885. than in the organized fashion preferred (Courtesy Robert Healy)

264 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

managed WBNP according to what for 47 kilometers along the ocean coast they perceived as the best interests of Vancouver Island. The Quu’as West of indigenous peoples” and rules were Coast Trail Group, composed of people made “with little consultation with the from the three local First Nations com- native population and enforced without munities, provides trail maintenance, much consideration of traditional har- visitor orientation, and “Trail Guard- vesting practices.”13 ians” who do foot patrols looking for trail problems and injured hikers. The Recognition of the land rights of indig- Parks Canada contract with the Trail enous people (First Nations) in Canada Group is funded by a US$80 fee paid was given a major boost by a 1973 de- by all overnight hikers.15 cision by the Supreme Court of Canada (“Calder Case”) in which the Nisga’a Another example of co-management is people of British Columbia asserted the 1993 agreement of Parks Canada that aboriginal land titles had not been to collaborate with the Haida nation in extinguished by historical actions of managing Gwaii Haanas National Park the Canadian government. Although Reserve and National Marine Reserve. the Nisga’a actually lost the case 4-3, Gwaii Haanas is a portion of a large the fact that three justices agreed with island lying 100 miles off the central their position created a movement to British Columbia coast. The agreement re-visit the question of First Nations set up an Archipelago Management land rights.14 The impetus increased Board composed of two representatives with the 1977 report of the Berger of the Government of Canada and two Commission, an inquiry into a proposed from the Haida Nation.16 It specifies pipeline across native lands in the far resource use rights for the Haida, pro- north that called for greater attention vides for identification and protection of to the people affected, and the Consti- sacred sites, and gives encouragement tution Act of 1982, which gave explicit to Haida to become park employees. status to aboriginal rights. This management scheme (as well as the fact that Gwaii Haanas is lightly vis- The combined impact of these legal de- ited and quite pristine) helped make the velopments was to make Parks Canada park rank #1 of 55 Canadian and US much more will- national parks in a magazine poll that VVariousarious legallegal develop-develop- ing to negotiate asked tourism experts to rank areas on mmentsents mmadeade PParksarks with First Nations attractiveness and sustainability.17 CCanadaanada mmuchuch mmoreore and to include them in planning Native rights have also become very wwillingilling toto negotiatenegotiate and sometimes important in the designation of new wwithith FirstFirst NationsNations in on-the-ground parks in Canada. Unlike the United aandnd ttoo includeinclude themthem management. One States, which has to date created iinn planningplanning andand of the most inter- national parks on an ad hoc basis, esting examples Canada has in recent years been fol- ssometimesometimes iinn on-the-on-the- of what has come lowing a deliberate plan that envisions ggroundround mmanagement.anagement. to be called “co- new parks in biomes not represented management” is in in the current system. However, sev- Pacific Rim National Park (British Co- eral of the areas on the Parks Canada lumbia). The Park’s main feature is the wish list are located in areas where West Coast Trail, a rugged and some- government has not yet concluded times dangerous footpath which extends a land treaty with one or more First

15, July 2007 265 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

Nations groups. The size and boundar- the twin volcanoes (one active and one ies of the park thus become part of a dormant) above the city of Colima. negotiation involving On the other hand, some were essen- NNativeative rightsrights land in other areas, tially urban recreation areas, such as hhaveave becomebecome vveryery cash settlements, and the streamside park that runs through iimportantmportant inin other considerations. downtown Uruapan, Michoacan, today New major parks (all in a bustling city of 625,000 people. tthehe designationdesignation the far North), such as ooff newnew pparksarks iinn Kluane, Vuntut, Tuktut- Like the United States, and unlike CCanada.anada. Nogait and Auyuittuq, Canada, Mexico prohibited timber cut- have been created as ting in its national parks. But unlike part of native claims settlements.18 the other two North American nations, The Canadian government is currently Mexico did virtually nothing to either negotiating a land settlement with the set up a land management system or Dene people of the Northwest Ter- to promote tourism. There were lim- ritories that would include a park in a ited recreational facilities in some of huge pristine area, four times the size Mexico’s urban and historical parks, of Yellowstone, where the boreal forest but the “crown jewels” were simply meets the Arctic tundra.19 not promoted as tourist destinations, nor were tourist facilities provided. The Mexico great park hotels built by railroads in The park history of Mexico is quite dif- Canada and the US were never created ferent from that of Canada or the US. in Mexico’s parks. Even today, most of Mexico’s first protected natural area the large and dramatic nature parks in was established very early (first given Mexico may be featured in photographs protection in 1876, declared a national on tourist brochures, but arranging to park in 1917) but, unlike parks in Can- actually visit them can be quite dif- ada and the United States, it did not ficult. (Mexico’s magnificent archeo- protect a large “natural wonder” distant logical sites, managed by the National from most of the population. Rather, Institute for Archeology and History, a the Desierto de los Leones National separate agency than the one manag- Park protected a 1900 hectare area of ing natural areas, tend to be strictly slopes and forests just outside Mexico protected and have well-developed City, which served as a water supply facilities for tourists, who visit them in area and site for urban recreation. Not enormous numbers.) until the 1930s did Mexico experience a burst of park designation when reform- Another difference between Mexico’s ist president Lazaro Cardenas, advised early national parks by pioneering Mexican forester Miguel and those in Canada MMuchuch ooff thethe landland Angel de Quevedo, created 40 new and the US is that nnominallyominally inin national parks. Many of these areas they were not created on federal land, but nnationalational parksparks were historical or archeological sites, wwasas aactuallyctually but a few were “true national parks”.20 often included large For example, several of the new parks areas of private prop- oownedwned bbyy protected the magnificent volcanoes of erty. Particularly after ccommunalommunal bbodies,odies, President Cardenas’ Central Mexico: Ixtaccihuatl and Po- ccalledalled eejidosjidos. pocatepet, just outside Mexico City; historic and immense- Orizaba in Veracruz; Nevado de Toluca, ly popular program of breaking up large near the city of the same name; and rural estates and giving property rights

266 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

to landless peasants, much of the land make use of plants or animals in cultur- nominally in national parks was actu- ally specific ways. Ironically, the lands ally owned by communal bodies, called occupied by some of Mexico’s most ejidos. Simonian observes that “since traditional and land-dependent groups— Mexican law prohibited the buying of the Raramuri of Copper Canyon (Chi- communal lands, public officials had to huahua), the Huicholes (remote areas of enlist the support of peasants in pro- Jalisco and Nayarit) and the Lacandon tecting their resources within national Maya (Chiapas)— were not included in parks. Despite a combination of per- Mexico’s pre-1970 park system. suasion and fines, cooperation from the ejidos was not always forthcoming.”21 Lara Plata notes that of several Mexi- In a review of the state of Mexico’s can national laws protecting natural re- national parks, Vargas Marquez docu- sources, none “gives particular empha- mented the sorry condition of virtually sis to the right of indigenous people to every unit in the park system.22 Of 55 manage their resources or participate park units studied by Vargas Marquez, in the planning, administration and 29 had little to no on-the-ground man- management of the protected natural agement. Seventy percent had human areas, [and] by no means specifies in settlements inside them. In the major- a formal way their opinion regarding ity of the parks, Vargas found illegal its establishment when it takes place timber cutting, hunting, and grazing, near or within their territory.”23 How- and found that wildlife was scarce. ever, he notes that indigenous cultures, which he considers highly endangered Many of the ejido residents of Mexico’s themselves, depend on use of natural parks could be considered indigenous resources. This spatial coincidence of people by virtue of their long residence indigenous people and localized re- in a particular area. However, relatively source dependence could provide the few practice earth-centered religions or conditions for future protected areas that might support both natural values and endangered cultures.

In the mid-1970s, Mexico began to set up a system of biosphere reserves, selected to preserve representative ecosystems.24 Several of the largest reserves were in such remote, economi- cally unpromising parts of the country that their human population was quite small. However, some do follow the usual biosphere reserve model of in- corporating development programs for local people into the management plan for the area. One of the most successful Picture 3. Dwelling of a Raramuri Indian is Sian Ka’an, a 1.3 million acre reserve in Mexico's Barancas del Cobre (Copper along the Caribbean coast. Set up in Canyon). The Raramuri fled to this remote 1986, it contains about 2,000 inhabit- area centuries ago to avoid the Spaniards. ants. Fortunately for reserve manage- They now must deal with rapidly increas- ment, almost all are relatively prosper- ing tourism. (Courtesy Robert Healy) ous lobster fishers, who primarily use

15, July 2007 267 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

the offshore area and have made only Rights claims and the future limited, agricultural use of the interior of of Parks and people in North the reserve. Programs run by Mexican America NGOs and financed by international or- The narrative offered above demon- ganizations have tried to give the local strates that the interaction of park cre- residents an economic interest in keep- ation and management ing the reserve pristine, for example with various rights of OOnene ooff tthehe mmostost by providing boat tours to tourists from people has a long his- sstrikingtriking featuresfeatures the booming Cancun corridor just to the tory in North America, north.25 There has also been a program ooff propertyproperty rightsrights and one which differs to increase agricultural productivity so from place to place cclaimslaims inin andand as to avoid slash and burn practices.26 and which has changed aaroundround PPAsAs iiss greatly over time. In Less successful has been the reserve set ttheirheir diversity.diversity. general, the direction of up in 1987 to protect the habitat of the change has been toward greater formal Monarch butterfly. It occupies a densely recognition of human rights, whether populated forested area in central Mex- the people involved are neighbors, in- ico, where land belongs to ejidos that holders or displaced persons. Technical- had heretofore made their living by tim- ly, the human rights involved are prop- ber cutting. The government has tried erty rights—the right to benefit from the to involve local people in tourism—which use of land, wildlife and other natural is booming. But most of the benefits are resources and the attendant right to de- being received by only one of eight eji- cide when and how those rights will be dos.27 The ejidos not receiving tourists, exercised. But in many cases some or but subject to controls, have created all of these rights have no legal recogni- an organization that seeks to have their tion. They can perhaps be better viewed land excluded from the reserve. Mean- as what A. K. Sen has termed “entitle- while, illegal logging continues, severely ments”—moral or political claims to use damaging the butterfly habitats.28 resources for one’s own benefit.29 New management models, including Mexico’s biosphere reserves, Canada’s co-man- agement areas, and the greenline parks of the US, are all intended to recognize either legal or moral property rights claims while still providing adequate protection to the park’s natural and sce- nic resources.

One of the most striking features of these property rights claims is their diversity. Some involve rights of indig- enous people, such as the First Nations in Canada. Others involve rights claims Picture 4. Gros Morne, a Canadian Na- by non-indigenous, and often impov- tional Park in Newfoundland. The small gateway community near the entrance to erished, people with long associations this rugged park has moved from depend- with the land, such as ejido residents ence on a declining fishing industry to an in Mexico whose farm or forest lands expanding tourism sector. had been incorporated into national (Courtesy Robert Healy) parks by decree. Still others are claims

268 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

by people living in gateway communi- ger term context of park management. ties whose economic existence depends In the next several decades, the na- on a park. Some property rights claims tional parks of all three North American involve a mix of people. For example, countries are likely to face a common creation of Cape Cod National Seashore set of serious threats. They include: affected landowners whose families had demands for new types of recreational been in the area since the 17th cen- uses; overuse of certain park areas; tury and others who had bought their air, water and even light pollution beachside homes only a few years ago. coming from beyond park boundar- Some rights claimants are very poor, ies; invasive plant and animal species; others quite wealthy. Even the claims problems with reintroduction of native of indigenous people can involve dilem- animals; and climate change. This last mas. For example, do traditional hunt- threat, which may be the most serious ing and fishing rights extend to people of all, requires some elaboration. using modern harvest methods? The species and ecosystems protected It is frankly impossible to come up with in parks, which in many cases contrib- blanket statements about which rights ute greatly to the areas’ attractiveness claims should be validated and which for tourism and outdoor recreation, rejected. Moreover, depend on specific combinations of TThehe qquestionuestion ooff the question is of- temperature and rainfall. If future wwhosehose propertyproperty ten rendered moot if global climate change affects local con- the persons with the ditions, the ecological characteristics of rrightsights claimsclaims weakest moral claims the park could be altered greatly.30 For sshouldhould bebe on property rights are example, rising sea levels can cause vvalidatedalidated isis oftenoften those with the great- erosion and change salinity regimes at rrenderedendered mmootoot iiff est political power coastal parks and the temperature and or with the greatest rainfall characteristics of species-rich tthehe personspersons withwith possibility of thwart- mountain slopes may be altered. The tthehe weakestweakest mmoraloral ing the purposes for parks, in their present location, will cclaimslaims onon propertyproperty which the park was simply be unable to perform many of created. One might their functions. rrightsights areare thosethose assert with some wwithith thethe greatestgreatest confidence that ev- Many of these problems are inter- ppoliticalolitical power.power. ery potential rights related. Eradication of invasives and claimant should be reintroduction of native species is made afforded due process and a right to be more difficult when the local human heard, whether or not their claim is population feels injured by the park ultimately accepted. As we have seen and hostile to park managers. The ex- from the history of parks in all three perience of the US National Park Ser- North American countries, it is only vice in reintroducing the grey wolf to recently that this kind of participation Yellowstone in the face of local opposi- has become regularly incorporated into tion is illustrative.31 Similarly, the sup- park designation and management. port or opposition of locals can be very important if park managers seek to ban Beyond affording procedural due pro- certain recreational activities or even to cess, I believe that the best way to take direct measures to limit crowding. deal with property rights claims is to And if climate change affects our pres- put them into a much broader and lon- ent systems of parks, provision must

15, July 2007 269 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

be made for changing park boundaries ing that affords absolute protection to or for connecting one park to another. part of the reserve, but permits con- trolled human use in buffer zones. One approach to dealing with all of the above problems—an idea actively Gateway communities can play an pursued by a number of scientists and important part in this larger park-re- environmental advocacy groups—is lated landscape.33 They are urban areas to manage individual parks as part of where park managers have little direct much larger landscapes—systems of power and are unlikely to obtain it. In parks, biosphere reserves, and large these places, it is probably best for scale ecosystems. A pioneer in this the park authorities to work with lo- approach has been the Greater Yellow- cal economic interests concerned with stone Coalition, which since 1983 has the long-term viability of the tourism advocated managing Yellowstone and industry. Today, many business inter- Grand Teton National Parks as part of ests in gateway communities are suspi- an 18 million acre “ecosystem” com- cious of park managers. But they could prised of federal, state, private and become some of the strongest regional Native American lands.32 advocates of park values. National Geographic has recently created a Looking at individual parks within this very useful on-line “Gateway Commu- much larger landscape or ecosystem nity Toolkit” with links to case studies, context may not only help parks re- policy literature, and sources of techni- spond to changing climatic conditions, cal assistance.34 The toolkit responds but could help with to concerns raised in a survey of park LLookingooking atat parksparks problems of in-hold- management and tourism experts wwithinithin thethe largerlarger ers, indigenous that indicated that the attractiveness llandscapeandscape maymay people and the parks’ of many parks as tourism destina- many “neighbors”. tions was being seriously degraded by nnotot onlyonly helphelp What may be needed activities undertaken in the gateway pparksarks respondrespond toto is a more flexible communities just outside their bound- cchanginghanging climaticclimatic system of property aries.35 There seems to be growing ap- cconditions,onditions, rights, which would preciation within the tourism industry include rights not of the fact that tourist demand depends bbutut ccouldould hhelpelp only within the park on the totality of the visitor experience, wwithith problemsproblems itself but also over including both time spent in the park ooff in-holders,in-holders, the much larger area. and time spent in the gateway.36 Gate- iindigenousndigenous peoplepeople The Canadian model way communities represent threats to of co-management of parks, but also major sources of politi- aandnd tthehe pparks’arks’ park units with local cal and economic support. mmanyany “neighbors”.“neighbors”. people provides les- sons for what might If parks are to be managed as part be done inside park boundaries. US of much larger landscapes, the gate- park units such as Cape Cod and Santa way communities can be regarded as Monica Mountains show how regulatory a concentration of interested parties, systems can be used to allow private but not the parks’ only constituency. ownership of land in or near parks while It is useful to observe that the rights reducing the impact of development on asserted by these people are not con- park resources. The biosphere reserve stant over time. Ranchers who object model offers a vision of large-area zon- to the impacts of park wolves on their

270 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

livestock may be replaced by owners 25 Centro Ecological Sian Ka’an, 2007. of rural recreational homes, who may 26 Simonian, 1995. harbor positive feelings toward wolves, 27 Simonian, 1995; Chapela and Barkin, 1995. though perhaps with a little wari- 28 Gomez Mena, 2004. ness. Indigenous people may discard 29 Sen, 1983. 30 Lovejoy and Hannah 2006; Saunders and Easley old cultural practices, then reinvent 2006. them in altered form. Climate change 31 McNamee, 1998. will affect not only the park, but also 32 Greater Yellowstone Coalition, 2006. the economics of land use outside the 33 Howe, McMahon and Propst, 1997. park. In this changing landscape, old 34 National Geographic Society, 2007. rights demands may be terminated, 35 Tourtellot, 2005. and new rights claims may be asserted. 36 Howe, McMahon and Propst, 1997. The challenge for park managers is to balance these changing rights claims References against the changing needs of the Brown, M.L., The Wild East: A Biography of the Great parks. It will not be an easy job. Smoky Mountains, University of Florida Press, Gainesville (Florida), 2000. Robert Healy ([email protected]) is Professor of Environ- Catton, T., Land Reborn: A History of Administration mental Policy at the Nicholas School of the Environment and and Visitor Use in Glacier Bay National Park and Earth Sciences, Duke University, North Carolina, USA. He Preserve, An administrative history prepared for the teaches a course entitled "Protected Areas, Tourism and Lo- National Park Service, 1995. Accessed on-line Janu- cal Development". Among his research interests are how to ary 30, 2007 at http://www.nps.gov/archive/glba/ link tourist purchases of handicrafts and local food products adhi/adhit.htm (coffee, honey) to sustainable land use in protected area Centro Ecologico Sian Ka’an, 2007. Website accessed buffer zones. Healy holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the February 1, 2007. University of California, Los Angeles. Chapela, G. and B. David, Monarcas y campesinos : estrategia de desarrollo sustentable en el oriente de Michoacán, Centro de Ecologia y Desarrollo, Notes Mexico City, 1995. 1 Jacoby, 2003. Conservation Foundation, National Parks for a New 2 Keller and Turek, 1998. Generation: Visions, Realities, Prospects, The Con- servation Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1985. 3 Catton, 1995. Gomez, M, “Piden ejidatarios a la Profepa perseguir 4 Keller and Turek, 1998. a talamontes”, La Jornada (Mexico City) Decem- 5 Conservation Foundation, 1995. ber 9, 2004. Accessed as “Apatía en cuidado de la 6 National Park Service, 2002:39. mariposa monarca”on Corsario-l website, accessed 7 Prucha, 1984. February 1, 2007. http://www.laneta.apc.org/piper- mail/corsario-l/2004-December/000205.html 8 Catton, 1995. Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Website accessed 9 US National Park Service, 2006. January 28, 2007. http://www.greateryellowstone. 10 McNamee, 2002. org/ecosystem/index.html 11 Killian, 1993:14. Howe, J., E. McMahon and L. Propst, Balancing Nature 12 Beltran, 2000. and Commerce in Gateway Communities, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1997. 13 Beltran, 2000. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Rich West Coast 14 Peepre and Dearden, 2002. Heritage Enriches Park Trails. c. 2004 Accessed 15 See Quu’as West Coast Trail Group, 2007; Indian on-line March 28, 2007 at http://www.ainc-inac. and Northern Affairs Canada, 2004. gc.ca/bc/fnbc/sucsty/suscom/ecoptr/sunbck_e.pdf 16 Peepre and Dearden, 2002. Jacoby, K., Crimes against Nature: Squatters, Poach- 17 Tourtellot, 2005. ers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation, University of California Press, Berke- 18 Peepre and Dearden, 2002. ley (California), 2003. 19 Struck, 2006. Keller, R. and M. Turek, American Indians and National 20 Simonian, 1995:94. Parks, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1998. 21 Simonian, 1995:100. Killan, G., Protected Places: A History of Ontario’s 22 Marquez, 1984. Provincial Parks System, Queen’s Printer for Ontario 23 Plata, 1994. Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto (Canada), 1993. 24 Simonian, 1995. Lara P., Lucio, Pueblos Indios y Areas Naturales Pro-

15, July 2007 271 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

tegidas, Tlacopac, Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Nebraska Press, Lincoln (Nebraska), 1984. Subdireccion de Investigacion, Projecto: Pueblos Saunders, S. and T. Easley, Losing Ground: Western Indios y Medio Ambiente, Mexico City, 1994. National Parks Endangered by Climate Disruption, Lovejoy, T. E. and L. Hannah (eds.), Climate Change Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and Natural and Biodiversity, Yale University Press, New Haven Resources Defense Council, New York (NY), 2003. (CT), 2006. Sen, A.K., Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitle- McNamee, K., “From Wild Places to Endangered Spac- ment and Deprivation, Oxford University Press, New es: A History of Canada’s National Parks,” pages York (NY), 1983. 21-50 in Dearden, P. and R. Rollins (eds.), Parks Simonian, L., Defending the Land of the Jaguar: A His- nd and Protected Areas in Canada, (2 ed.) Oxford tory of Conservation in Mexico, University of Texas University Press, Don Mills (Ontario), 2002. Press, Austin (Texas), 1995. McNamee, T., The Return of the Wolf to Yellowstone, Spence, M.D., Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Henry Holt, New York (NY), 1998. Removal and the Making of the National Parks, Ox- National Geographic Society, Center for Sustainable ford University Press, New York (NY), 2000. Destinations, Gateway Community Toolkit, Website Struck, D., “Canadians Agree On Plan to Create Vast accessed January 25, 2007. http://www.national- National Park: geographic.com/travel/sustainable/gateway_com- munity_toolkit.html Protecting Wilderness, Tribal Culture Cited,” Washing- ton Post, October, 14, A13, 2006. Nelson, J.G., J.C. Day and L. Sportza (eds.), Protected Areas and the Regional Planning Imperative in North Tourtellot, J., “Destination Scorecard: National Parks,” America, University of Calgary Press and Michigan National Geographic Traveller, July/August, 2005. State University Press, Calgary and East Lansing US National Park Service, Devil’s Tower National (Michigan), 2003. Monument, 2006. Park web site, accessed January Peepre, J. and P. Dearden, “The Role of Aboriginal 30, 2007. http://www.nps.gov/archive/deto/climb- Peoples,” pages 323-53 in Dearden, P. and R. Rollins ing.htm (eds.), Parks and Protected Areas in Canada, (2nd US National Park Service, General Management Plan ed.) Oxford University Press, Don Mills (Ontario), and Environmental Impact Statement, Santa Monica 2003. Mountains National Recreation Area. v. 1., National Quu’as West Coast Trail Group, 2007. Web site visited Park Service, Washington, D.C., 2002. Feb. 1, 2007. http://www.alberni.net/quuas Vargas Marquez, F., Parques Nacionales de Mexico y Prucha, F.P., Great Father: The United States Gov- Reservas Equivalentes, Instituto de Investigaciones ernment and the American Indians University of Economicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City, 1984.

EEco-authoritarianco-authoritarian conservationconservation andand eethnicthnic conflictconflict inin BurmaBurma ZZaoao NoamNoam Abstract. This paper explores ethical and practical challenges faced by international conservation organizations working in Burma with the Burmese military regime (State Peace and Development Council, or SPDC) within the context of political and military conflict. The paper discusses why and how the Burmese junta attempts to exploit large-scale conservation projects by international NGOs not for the aims of conservation, but for purposes of state- building and militarization. It also describes how international conservationists are required to comply with the dictatorship’s strict measures on engagement, ending up in “conservation- military alliances”. With the aid of international conservation organizations, the military state

272 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

gains control of politically-disputed indigenous territory and the natural resources contained therein. The Hukawng Valley Tiger Reserve supported by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is a case in point. Meanwhile, grassroots environmentalism is taking hold in ethnic areas, although largely unnoticed by secular donors, conservationists and researchers. I argue that “eco-authoritarianism” is not the answer for successful biodiversity conservation. Ethically and socially-based solutions such as “selective environmental engagement” should rather be employed to protect Burma’s environment and the people that rely upon it for their livelihoods. These solutions present a more appropriate, nuanced and just way for international conserva- tionists to engage with Burma.

urma is the largest country in main- landB Southeast Asia, with a land area of 675,000 km2 (Figure 1). A wide variation in altitude, latitude and cli- mate creates high diversity of habitats and species: nine of the WWF Global 200 Ecoregions lie wholly or partly in Burma,1 and the World Resources In- stitute (WRI) has described the Indo- Burmese region as one of the eight “hottest hotspots of biodiversity” in the world.2 The country is blessed (or some would say cursed) with a wealth of natural resources. Its extensive forests, perhaps the largest intact natural forest ecosystem in the region, contain com- mercially-valuable and increasingly rare timber such as Burmese teak (Tectona grandis), Pyinkado or ironwood (Xylia dolabriformis), Padauk or rosewood (Pterocarpus macrocarpus) and Kanyin (Dipterocarpus spp.). Natural resources are concentrated along the frontiers with Thailand, China, Bangladesh and India, regions mainly inhabited by Bur- ma’s numerous minority ethnic groups. The combination of valuable natural resources and high ethnic diversity has contributed to political unrest in Burma, and is shaping into an “ethno- ecological crisis”.

Despite (or because of) Burma’s great biological, cultural and ethnic diver- sity, Burma remains embattled by the world’s longest running civil war. The Figure 1. Map of Burma. State Peace and Development Coun-

15, July 2007 273 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

cil (SPDC), the present name for the control, especially in ethnic areas. It Burmese military junta, focuses on has led to numerous forced evictions, unitary state-building through military relocations and resettlements, forced conquest. Its goal is to end political migration and internal displacement.”3 and ethnic resistance, control all terri- tory within Burma, bring all the people The international community is divided of Burma— and specifically the ethnic as to whether the best strategy for minorities— into the “national fold”, change is to isolate Burma or to en- and exploit the natural resource wealth gage, and if so, pre- of the frontier regions. The SPDC now cisely how. Although TThehe iinternationalnternational controls much of the country, but some some major interna- ccommunityommunity ethnic political/military groups still have tional conservation effective control over some territories. organizations, such iiss divideddivided asas SPDC corruption and human rights as the IUCN, have ttoo whetherwhether thethe violations, especially in ethnic areas, purposefully chosen bbestest sstrategytrategy have been extensively reported upon not to engage with fforor changechange isis toto by international and Burmese media, the Burmese regime, exiled opposition groups and interna- others have readily iisolatesolate BurmaBurma oror toto tional organizations. According to the moved in. The Wild- eengage,ngage, aandnd iiff sso,o, latest UN Report of the Special Rappor- life Conservation So- ppreciselyrecisely how.how. teur on the situation of human rights ciety (WCS) based in in Burma, “Grave human rights viola- New York City led the way into Burma tions are committed by persons within in 1993, becoming the first INGO of the established structures of the State any kind to initiate a program inside Peace and Development Council and are Burma. WCS’s primary aims are to not only perpetrated with impunity but work closely with the Burmese regime authorized by law.” Furthermore, and (specifically the Ministry of Forestry), with serious implications for conserva- to increase the area covered under tion projects in Burma, there exists “... Burma’s protected area (PA) system widespread practice of land confisca- and engage in wildlife protection.4 tion throughout the country, which is WCS, and other international NGOs seemingly aimed at anchoring military (INGOs) following suit, see establish- ing projects in Burma through the SPDC as apolitical and not constituting support for the Burmese junta. Alan Rabinowitz, executive director of the WCS Science and Exploration Pro- gram and the foremost international conservationist working in Burma, summarizes the common position of international conservation organiza- tions working in Burma: “WCS does not sanction forced relocation or kill- ings but we have no control over the government. We are in Burma because it is one of the highest biodiversity countries.”5 However, Rabinowitz has Picture 1. Sign post demarcating the Hukawng also highlighted certain advantages of Valley Tiger Reserve announcing new rules. working on conservation with an au- (Courtesy PKDS)

274 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

thoritarian regime. “It's much harder conservation organizations? to get conservation done in democ- racies than in communist countries Forming associations with conser- or dictatorships; when a dictatorship vation INGOs enjoying a worldwide decides to establish a reserve, that's reputation can be a source of cred- that.”6 Burmese pro-democracy leader ibility for a regime with a poor inter- and Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw national image. Against a background Aung San Suu Kyi, whose house arrest of countless reports by international was recently renewed for yet another organizations, NGOs and foreign gov- year, has commented on political bar- ernments documenting and criticizing riers to an inclusive and participatory the human rights situation in Burma conservation approach: “I doubt under (see endnote 3), Rabinowitz has the present circumstances you can do argued that human rights violations anything very effectively in the way of have been exaggerated: “I’m not conservation. Under the kind of mili- arrogant enough to say I have seen tary regime that we have here you everything there is to see. But having would not be allowed free access to worked in the country for ten years, all the people with whom you wish to traveling to the most remote areas, I work.”7 However, for the type of con- think its [human rights abuses] have servation Rabinowitz advocates, this been blown out of proportion.”10 is not seen as an obstacle: “Biodiver- sity conservation is doomed to failure International when it is based on bottom-up pro- conservation or- RRe-zoninge-zoning forfor cesses that depend on voluntary com- ganizations can cconservationonservation providesprovides pliance…I would advocate a top-down leverage “green” approach to nature conservation– con- discourse for aann aapparentlypparently trary to much contemporary political money, allowing llegitimateegitimate reasonreason and conservation rhetoric— because in governments to fforor thethe statestate toto most countries it is the government, access substantial rrelocateelocate populations,populations, not the people around the protected funding for proj- areas, that ultimately decides the fate ects with an osten- ttoo controlcontrol andand of forests and wildlife.”8 sible conservation ppatrolatrol previouslypreviously purpose. Concepts iinaccessiblenaccessible areasareas ofof SPDC’s conservation regime such as ‘biodiver- ccontestedontested territory,territory, In a National Public Radio (NPR) sity’, ‘conservation’ and ‘sustainable aandnd ttoo claimclaim state/state/ FFormingorming associa-associa- interview, Alan Rabinowitz com- development’ can mmilitaryilitary ownershipownership ttionsions withwith conserva-conserva- mented that be translated and ooff naturalnatural resources.resources. ttionion NGOsNGOs enjoy-enjoy- “the [Burmese] concretized into iingng a worldwideworldwide government has new regulatory regimes and institu- been very recep- tions augmenting state power. Per- rreputationeputation cancan bebe tive, more than haps most importantly, there are a ssourceource ooff credibil-credibil- any other country potential economic, military and iityty forfor a regimeregime I have worked security advantages to large-scale conservation projects in Burma.11 wwithith a poorpoor interna-interna- with, in terms of conservation.”9 Raymond Bryant asserts, “Conser- ttionalional image.image. Why should the vation projects provide an effective normally reclusive SPDC be so recep- means to promote environmental tive to engagement with international conservation in a politically and eco-

15, July 2007 275 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

nomically important part of the coun- In addition, the new reserve over- try at the same time as it provides lapped and disrupted a Community a justification for tightened political Conserved Area already established control over this area. In this man- by the Karen, known as Kaserdooh.16 ner, “coercive conservation” in Burma is designed simultaneously to meet Development of the PA system is a environmental and political objectives key strategy of SPDC’s conserva- to obtain sustainable development.”12 tion policy. Burma’s 1994 forest Military state-building activities can policy mandated an increase in the be transformed into seemingly apo- country’s PA system to at least 5% litical state conservation. Jeremy of the country’s total land area, with Woodrum of U.S. Campaign for Bur- a long-term goal of 10%.17 In the ma has stated, "They'll do anything early 1990s, the regime called for they can, including create large for- the area set aside as state reserved est reserves, to seize control of land forest to increase from 14% to 30% that has historically belonged to a of the total national forested area.18 particular ethnic group.”13 Re-zoning Despite these policy commitments, in for conservation provides an appar- 1996 PAs constituted less than 1% of ently legitimate reason for the state the total national land area. However, to relocate populations, to control and between 1996 and 1999, 12 new PAs patrol previously inaccessible areas were added due to increased collabo- of contested territory, and to claim ration with conservation INGOs, and state/military ownership of natural by 2000, Burma had designated over resources. In this way, abuses against 15,000 km2 of PAs covering 2.3% of ethnic people may continue under the the total area of the country.19 Large- guise of conservation enforcement. ly due to the work of WCS in Kachin State, presently Burma has desig- The creation of the Myinmoletkat Bio- nated over 40,000 km2 of PAs in 38 sphere Reserve in Karen State in the established national parks and wildlife 1990s provides one example of this sanctuaries, covering about 6% of the phenomenon. Reserve creation was total area of the country, with several facilitated by WCS and the Smithso- other PAs currently in negotiation. nian Institute, and pushed through by a Thai/Burmese oil consortium PAs and conservation corridors are as appeasement to the international being designated/proposed predomi- community for the disastrous Yadana/ nantly in indigenous areas and, in Yetagon gas pipelines that were be- some cases, in areas of current politi- ing developed, and which would run cal conflict (see Tables 1 and 2). Nat- through the proposed reserve to Thai- ural resources remain most plentiful land.14 The creation of the reserve in mountainous ethnic regions along reportedly led to violent oppression Burma’s many borders; ongoing con- of Karen communities living in the flict and peripheral location caused area.15 Within a few months of sign- these areas to be beyond easy reach ing the MoU to establish the reserve, for large-scale resource extraction by the Burmese army launched one of its SPDC or transnational corporations, biggest and most successful military while to some extent indigenous land offensives to secure territory away management practices has protected from the Karen National Union (KNU) the environment as well. for inclusion in the proposed reserve.

276 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

Table 1. Birdlife International et al. (2005) Suggested Conservation Corridors for Burma

No. of Conservation Corridor Area (km2) KBAs* Ayeyarwady Delta 5,300 1 Areas dominated by Bago Yoma Range 17,800 2 Burman** Burmese Central Myanmar Dry Forests 15,000 2 people Central Myanmar Mixed Deciduous Forests 7,600 2 Total 45,700 7 % Grand Total 16% 13% Central Ayeyarwady River*** 18,000 13 Central Thanlwin River 11,000 0 Chin Hill Complex 23,900 5 Kayah-Kayin Range 13,000 1 Areas dominated by Lower Chindwin River 8,400 1 Ethnic Burmese peoples Naga Hills 5,500 1 (potential conflict territories) Nan Yu Range 20,500 0 Northern Mountainous Forest Complex 25,800 3 Rakhine Yoma Range 53,000 5 Sundaic Subregion (Tanintharyi) 44,200 12 Upper Chindwin Lowlands 24,400 4 Total (potential conflict territories) 247,700 45 % Grand Total 84% 87% Grand Total 293,400 52

* KBA is designated or officially proposed as a protected area, in whole or in part. ** Burman is the majority ethnicity of Burma, living predominantly in central and delta Burma, and the ethnicity heading the military regime. *** Some parts of this corridor fall within Burman Burmese Areas. Source: Adapted from Birdlife International et al. (2005)

WCS spearheaded the establishment of PA was established.21 Since then, the Hkakabo Razi National Park in the far number of Burmese military battalions north of Kachin State in 1998, currently stationed in the surrounding area has the country’s largest National Park risen to over 10, as it is perceived as (although not the largest protected an important national security zone.22 area), with an area of over 3,800 km2. Within the PA resides a permanent WCS published a review of Burma’s PA human population engaging in hunting, system in 2002. It confirmed a mili- fuel wood collection, non-timber forest tary-conservation overlap in Burma’s product (NTFP) collection and shifting PAs: out of 20 PAs reviewed in the pa- cultivation.20 The Burmese military per, 6 are recorded as having “military took control of the area in 1994, after camps and/or insurgents indicating a ceasefire agreement with the Kachin availability of firearms.”23 Many other Independence Organization (KIO), PAs, according to the same article, con- the prominent Kachin political group tain plantations, mining or logging con- with semi-autonomy in the region. cessions operated by military-backed Neither WCS nor the state informed companies. One of the PAs mentioned or consulted with the KIO when the is Shwe U Dawng in Shan State, which

15, July 2007 277 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

according to a Shan environmentalist is the state may appropriate environ- located near the Bat Tu military com- mentalism to establish resource sov- pound that manufactures bombs for ereignty out of line with the conser- the Burmese Army.24 The article didn’t vation goals desired by practitioners mention, however, Loimwe PA also in and their donors.26 Only authoritarian Shan State, which is located in a hos- trends in conservation that can benefit tile area prone to fighting, and which the regime are promoted in SPDC-en- houses a military communication tower dorsed conservation projects, such as on the mountain peak, as has been the in large-scale land re-zoning for PAs. case since British colonial times.25 There is no room for participatory deci- sion-making, access to environmental I am not suggesting that international information, media freedom to report conservation organizations share the on environmental issues, or support for vision of the SPDC and its desire to “pro-people” conservation. support the military state. However,

Table 2. Birdlife International et al. (2005) Suggested Priority Corridors for Burma* Priority Corridor Area (km2) Area dominated by Bur- Central Burma Dry Forests 15,000 man** Burmese people Central Burma Mixed Deciduous Forests 7,600 Total 22,600 % Grand Total 11% Chin Hills Complex 23,900 Areas dominated by Lower Chindwin River 8,400 Ethnic Burmese peoples Northern Mountainous Forest Complex 25,800 (potential conflict territo- Rakhine Yoma Range 53,000 ries) Sundaic Subregion (Tanintharyi) 44,200 Upper Chindwin Lowlands 24,400 Total (potential conflict territories) 179,700 % Grand Total 89% Grand Total 202,300 * The priority corridors represent a refined priority list of the conservation corridors in order to "maximize future conservation investment in Myanmar." ** ‘Burman’ is the majority ethnicity of Burma, living predominantly in central and delta Burma, and the ethnic- ity heading the military regime. Source: Adapted from Birdlife International et al. (2005)

SPDC’s control of INGO in Burma entitled “Myanmar: Invest- activities in Burma ment Opportuni- It is impossible to undertake a large- ties in Biodiversity IItt isis impossibleimpossible toto un-un- scale conservation project in Burma Conservation”. The ddertakeertake a llarge-scalearge-scale report notes that without engaging with the military re- cconservationonservation projectproject gime. Birdlife International, in conjunc- “regional military tion with CARE-Myanmar, Conservation commanders have iinn BurmaBurma wwithoutithout International, Critical Ecosystem Part- considerable influ- eengagingngaging withwith thethe nership Fund, and UNDP-Burma, recent- ence over the way mmilitaryilitary regime.regime. ly published a report on the status and [environmental] opportunities for formal conservation policies are implemented within their

278 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

commands.”27 In addition, in areas of past/present conflict (“natural habitats with security concerns”), the Ministry of Forestry shares management responsi- bility with the Ministry of Defense.28 In ceasefire areas (“parts of the country that have come under government influ- ence following “peace for development” agreements”), activities must be coor- dinated with the Ministry for Progress of Border Areas, National Races, and Development Affairs.29 The function of this ministry, known by the Burmese acronym Na Ta La, is summarized as Picture 2. A line of Chinese trucks illegally follows: “Na Ta La projects are or- transporting timber felled in Kachin State dained by regime elite, imposed by to China. (Courtesy PKDS) the army, and implemented not to im- working with the agencies responsible prove the lives of all individuals but to for managing wildlife, regardless of bolster the power of a few. The border the politics. But the politics of Burma development program serves primarily place great restrictions on how IN- to secure the regime’s hold on power GOs are allowed to operate within the and to enrich its supporters. Na Ta La country. Based on conversations with projects are only participatory inas- local, national and international NGOs much as they are financed predomi- operating in Burma, the unwritten rule nately through forced labor and the is that organizations must refrain from taxation of the rural populace. The net commenting on the political situation effect of the regime’s border develop- in Burma, from having dialogue (i.e., ment policies on border residents is public participation) with ethnic politi- negative.”30 Or as one local Kachin in- cal groups, from implementing projects formant put it: “Na Ta La means they in non-SPDC-controlled areas, and just chop down trees.”31 from addressing any environmental threats linked to regime-backed natu- To operate in Burma, INGOs must ne- ral resource extraction concessions. gotiate a Memorandum of Understand- ing (MoU) with any number of relevant SPDC interference in NGO activities ministries, along with the Ministry of intensified after the removal of Prime National Planning and Economic De- Minister and Chief of Intelligence velopment. Antony Lynam, Associ- General Khin Nyunt in October 2004. A ate Conservation Scientist of WCS’s Burmese journalist wrote that “one of Asia Program and working on tiger the top generals has issued a directive conservation in Burma, confirmed via forcing all international humanitarian e-mail that official permission to oper- organizations to deal directly with ate in protected areas must be issued Burmese government ministries, with through the Ministry of Defense and all major decisions going through the the Prime Minister (an army general). Ministry of Defense.”32 Early in 2006 Despite these conservation-military the Ministry of National Planning and alliances, Lynam went on to write that, Economic Development circulated if important wildlife in a country ex- guidelines for the code of conduct for ists, then it is important for WCS to be NGOs operating in Burma; however,

15, July 2007 279 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

the Burmese language version environmental surveys in politically- released was significantly different sensitive ethnic areas. For example, from the official English language over the past few years a Burmese version prepared to target expatriate Ph.D. environment student has always staff, in that the former was much been accompanied by SPDC soldiers more severe with listed restrictions when she traveled to the field to con- than the latter. According to the duct her research in ethnic areas.35 In Burmese language version, when another example, military intelligence recruiting national staff “organizations joined the 1997 survey led by WCS in should inform the respective ministry Hkakabo Razi National Park in north- about the required qualifications for ern Kachin State, collecting informa- staff,” and then the respective ministry tion on the people encountered and will “provide the list of qualified staff, their activities.36 and the organization can choose from the list.”33 Other restrictions include NGOs are hesitant to challenge the project staff having to be accompanied restrictions placed upon them and end by a “liaison officer” for “security” up complying with regime politics. when embarking to the field. Also, In one interview with a Kachin youth coordination committees including group, it was revealed that they were members from every ministry afraid to work on environment is- (including the Na Ta La and Ministry sues because of the sensitivity of the of Defense if situated in ethnic border issue in Kachin State, even though areas), the police and government- they viewed environment as a key organized NGOs (GONGOs) must issue.37 For another Kachin environ- be formed from the national all the ment organization, the main cause of way down to the township level. The project failures was field sites being various committees are responsible demarcated by the SPDC as logging for “monitoring the project team”, and mining concessions, for which the “networking between/among NGOs/ NGO did not file a complaint out of INGOs”, permitting INGO staff fear.38 But these allegations are more members to travel to the project site, severe for international NGOs, of and “coordinating” the organizations’ which two strong cases are presented. project activities.34 These operating The mostly foreign restrictions not only severely impede authors of the 2005 NNGOsGOs aarere hhesitantesitant NGO’s work, but more notably enable Birdlife Interna- ttoo challengechallenge thethe the military regime to influence the tional et al., report rrestrictionsestrictions placedplaced type of projects chosen and how they consulted with few, are carried out. Furthermore, the if any, ethnic Bur- uuponpon themthem aandnd eendnd potential sensitivity of NGO projects mese working on uupp ccomplyingomplying withwith create a climate of fear, causing NGO environment issues rregimeegime ppolitics.olitics. personnel (especially local staff) to based inside Burma, work carefully and quietly for fear of nor did they consult with any ethnic repercussions, such as interrogation Burmese environmentalists working by police and/or the organization’s outside the country, such as Burmese MoU being revoked. environmental groups based in Thai- land, who follow an overtly rights- The SPDC may seek to exploit NGO based approach.39 In another current activities for its own purposes. Military example, Burma is embarking on the personnel accompany researchers on National Biodiversity Strategy and

280 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

Action Plan (NBSAP) process to follow up on its ratification of the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD). Despite strong language in CBD, NBSAP and GEF (Global Environment Facility, the financer for NBSAPs) guidelines about consulting with all stakeholders and paying close attention to indigenous knowledge and equitable access and benefit sharing, so far no ethnic Bur- mese environmentalists— inside or outside the country— are being con- sulted in the process pushed by Bird- life International and facilitated by UNEP ROAP (Regional Office of Asia- Pacific) in Bangkok, Thailand.40

Hukawng Valley Tiger Reserve Following dialogue between WCS and the Burmese regime, in 2004 the Minister of Forestry agreed to expand the original 6,400 km2 Hukawng Val- ley Wildlife Sanctuary to cover almost the entire Hukawng Valley, an area of nearly 22,000 km2, creating the larg- est tiger conservation area in the world, and one of the world’s largest forest PAs (Figure 2). The Hukawng Valley Tiger Reserve is a part of the Figure 2. Hukawng Valley Tiger Reserve in Kachin State. (Courtesy Images Asia massive 30,000 km2 “Northern For- Environment-Desk) est Complex”, promoted by WCS, which encompasses most of northwest Kachin State (Figure 3). As part of this Rumors circulated that the PA was conservation mission, WCS is assist- a trick by the SPDC to secure more ing the SPDC in obtaining GIS infor- Kachin territory, as the Hukawng mation of forested regions in Kachin Valley is located in a politically-con- State in order to expand conservation tested area.44 Alan Rabinowitz of WCS operations to the “human-dominated confirms that one of the reasons the landscape” and “into neighboring val- SPDC was so enthusiastic about the leys”.41 The Hukawng Valley Wildlife Hukawng Valley Tiger Reserve was Sanctuary acts as the core protected the opportunity to engage the KIO, a area, where relatively few people live, major Kachin political ceasefire group but the forest surrounding it will also who controls around 80 percent of be protected as part of the tiger re- the valley,45 in negotiations.46 In con- serve to “act as a buffer to human trast to the situation at Hkakabo Razi encroachment”. An estimated 50,000 National Park, Rabinowitz contacted people currently live within the valley42 the KIO during his visits to Hukawng and “venture into the park to hunt and Valley, despite this being against MoU collect forest products.”43 regulations that prohibit dialogue with

15, July 2007 281 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

ethnic political groups. During one vis- conservation-development outreach it, a KIA commander (the military arm are Lisu, traditional hunter-gatherers of the KIO), interviewed in his head- who do not yet engage in permanent quarters in the proposed tiger reserve, cash-crop agriculture, and most im- proudly claimed: “This is our land.”47 portantly are not politically organized. Rabinowitz supports this assertion in Despite its published statements on his NPR interview, declaring, “The KIA the importance of working with lo- rules this valley; they have autonomy cal people to save the tiger, as of over this valley.”48 Yet a WCS-Burma mid-2006 the author is not aware of staff member asserted that “the SPDC WCS yet engaging in any community- controls all the areas [of Hukawng focused activity in the tiger reserve, Valley]” and claimed they do not know apart from demanding local Lisu villag- which areas are still under the juris- ers not to hunt the tiger or its prey.51 diction of the KIO or about KIO-SPDC Community development work is political relations in the valley.49 It is outside the mandate of WCS since their hard to see how participatory deci- concern and experience is with wild- sion-making can be promoted and life conservation, as communicated by effective conservation achieved if key one WCS-Burma staff member.52 Any stakeholders in the area can not be projects to deal with the “people prob- accessed, or even acknowledged, by lem” will apparently be contracted out conservationists. Despite its success in to development organizations, as told expanding the PA system, a WCS-Bur- by a WCS-Burma staff member. NGOs ma staff member privately complained in Kachin State and UN agencies in that “sometimes we are very upset be- Yangon, however, have been hesitant cause we can’t work freely— we have to get involved.53 a binding with the government.”50 The Lisu are only one ethnic subgroup The local people WCS is targeting for in the Hukawng Valley among many others who are purposefully ignored for political reasons. Other “locals” include differ- ent sub-groups of Kachin, Naga, thousands of recent Burmese and Chinese en- trepreneurial migrants, and KIO/KIA active and retired soldiers. The Naga— hunt- ers who mostly live at the north-western border of the reserve— are politically or- ganized as the National So- cialist Council of Nagaland, and are actively engaged in conflict with both the SPDC and the Indian government. The Naga territory along the Figure 3. Map of “Northern Forest Com- Burma-India border is ex- plex” in Kachin State. (Courtesy WCS) cluded from the reserve.

282 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

Lisu subsistence is neither the only mining concessions provide employ- nor the most important cause of tiger ment to the thousands of migrants habitat deterioration in the valley. The who provide a ready and reachable same habitat is under threat from gold market for the tiger’s prey that was mining and recent agricultural planta- non-existent prior to their mass ar- tion development with backing from rival, thus trans- the Burmese military. A recent report forming previous AAccordingccording toto a by Kachin Development Networking local sustainable KKarenaren ssaying,aying, “The“The Group (KDNG) states that the number tiger hunting into a ddogog coverscovers upup thethe of gold mining sites in Hukawng valley market-orientated hhoofoof printprint ofof thethe alone increased from 14 in 1994 to 31 enterprise.56 in 2006.54 Migrants have been sweep- ppig.”ig.” WhileWhile large-large- ing into the valley in search of quick Subsidized by WCS, sscalecale conservationconservation profits from gold mining. Mining con- the state has also pprojectsrojects attractattract cessions have been granted (mostly created a corps of mmostost attentionattention andand to Chinese companies) by the SPDC, some 60 “wildlife facilitated by state-sponsored infra- and conservation ffunding,unding, ggrassrootsrassroots structure improvements (such as the protection police” eenvironmentalnvironmental infamous Ledo Road that cuts through for the tiger re- aactivitiesctivities continuecontinue the valley). Most recently, the SPDC serve.57 It has been has allocated thousands of acres of alleged that these vvirtuallyirtually unnoticed.unnoticed. forested and paddy land to sugar cane officers have accepted bribes from and tapioca plantation development. locals seeking to continue their sub- The land is now under U Htay Myint's sistence NTFP collection.58 In all, the Yuzana Company in Yangon, which situation does not appear conducive has close political to peace-building, respect for human LLisuisu ssubsistenceubsistence iiss connections to the rights or long-term tiger conserva- nneithereither thethe onlyonly nornor junta's vice Sen- tion. Any hope for achieving lasting tthehe mostmost important,important, ior General Maung conservation in Hukawng Valley must Aye.55 It remains involve revocation of large-scale re- ccauseause ooff ttigeriger to be seen whether source concessions, consultation with hhabitatabitat deteriorationdeterioration WCS will use its the KIO as major stakeholders in the iinn thethe valley.valley. TheThe rare influence in the area, support for Lisu traditional sub- ssameame hhabitatabitat isis country to advo- sistence rather than mono-agriculture cate against these for export, and incorporation of com- uundernder tthreathreat ffromrom wider— yet more munity-based natural resource man- ggoldold miningmining andand political— threats agement as an integral part of the rrecentecent aagriculturalgricultural to the tiger. WCS- tiger conservation plan. pplantationlantation Burma has asked for a ban on indi- Grassroots environmental ddevelopmentevelopment withwith vidual gold panning action in Burma bbackingacking fromfrom thethe by local people, but According to a Karen saying, “The dog BBurmeseurmese mmilitaryilitary will not ask for a covers up the hoof print of the pig.” ban on large opera- While large-scale conservation proj- tions of SPDC-backed mining conces- ects attract most attention and fund- sions which scour rivers with hydraulic ing, grassroots environmental activi- equipment, destroy riverbanks and ties continue virtually unnoticed. Local dump mercury into the river system. communities in Burma have always Perhaps more importantly, the gold undertaken conservation through in-

15, July 2007 283 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

digenous land management practices (including establishing Community Conserved Areas). Since the many ceasefire agreements signed between the SPDC and opposition groups in the 1990s, however, there has been a remarkable emergence of local NGOs, community-based organizations (CBOs) and (mainly Christian) faith- based organizations. Some have been working quietly with local communi- ties in ethnic areas on projects directly or indirectly related to the environ- ment for the past decade. Activities include capacity-building, small-scale Picture 3. Gold mining pit in Kachin State. sustainable development projects, (Courtesy Zao Noam) environmental education and aware- ness, farmer-to-farmer information political scene.”60 Churches, Christian exchange programs, indigenous seed institutions and theological schools are cultivar preservation and exchange, converging on the immediate environ- sustainable agriculture demonstration mental situation in ethnic Christian ar- plots, community forestry, agroforest- eas, using the advantage of access to ry and documentation of environmen- international mission funds and well- tal threats, among many others. Some educated, influential pastor leaders. INGOs have been supporting grass- Based on the author’s environmental roots environmentalism through small- education project with Kachin Baptist scale projects carried out by local field youth groups, the author witnessed staff, usually of the same ethnicity as a spontaneously and inadvertently their target group, working out of pro- emerging “Eco-Christian Network”, a vincial and township offices, including coalition of Christian ethnic minority projects in non-SPDC controlled areas. youth that engage on grassroots en- vironmental issues directly connected Burma civil society researcher and to immediate livelihood problems with writer Ashley South states that grass- their communities. roots initiatives “undermine the ideo- logical and practical basis of military Conclusion: conservation in rule, creating autonomous spaces, at conflict areas and opportunities least in limited spheres.”59 He high- for environmental democracy lights the sangha (Buddhist clergy) In Burma an uncomfortably close link and Christian churches, among the exists between exclusionary top-down few institutions not controlled directly conservation and the state-building by the state, as potentially powerful strategies of a military regime as- civil society actors. With many ethnic sociated with serious human rights political groups signing ceasefires with abuses. I do not wish to suggest that the SPDC, faith-based ethnic organiza- international conservationists support tions are beginning to occupy new po- the SPDC national military motives. litical space. South asserts that “these However, although their motivations networks constitute one of the most are different (build up of the state dynamic aspects in an otherwise bleak military power versus biodiversity

284 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

protection), the SPDC and conserva- ever, that conservation INGOs should tionists may have a shared interest avoid engagement in Burma alto- in the outcome of re-territorializing gether. On the contrary, there may be strategic and potential for “selective environmental SSPDCPDC aandnd resource-rich engagement” to support small-scale, cconservationistsonservationists maymay ethnic areas into grassroots initiatives that could have hhaveave a sharedshared interestinterest state and mili- positive impacts for environment, tary-controlled humanitarian relief and social de- iinn thethe outcomeoutcome ofof strict protected velopment. Operating through local rre-territorializinge-territorializing areas. Large- structures outside the control of the sstrategictrategic andand scale rezoning institutions that infringe upon peoples rresource-richesource-rich ethnicethnic for conservation rights connects conservation with purposes can con- efforts to empower local people and aareasreas intointo statestate andand comitantly cre- strengthen civil society, which are mmilitary-controlledilitary-controlled ate “people-free” crucial in areas experiencing long- sstricttrict protectedprotected areas.areas. nature reserves term conflict. Conservation practi- and drive re- tioners should observe human rights settlement of ethnic people (seen as based standards in zones of conflict potential supporters of ethnic insur- and rights violation, to ensure that gents) from strategically important their approaches support local liveli- areas into SPDC-controlled villages. hoods, help people facing humanitar- In addition, the re-territorialization ian crisis and miti- of high biodiversity areas from land gate, rather than AAnn aapproachpproach thatthat ig-ig- quasi-controlled by ethnic politi- aggravate, conflict. nnoresores humanhuman rrightsights cal groups at odds with the SPDC to aandnd pputsuts aann eexter-xter- national/military territory leads to a In territories not greater presence of state/military of- controlled by gov- nnally-drivenally-driven envi-envi- ficials and army battalions. Superficial ernment, or where rronmentalonmental agendaagenda “greening” of the SPDC could result in local people do not aaheadhead ofof immediateimmediate conservation INGOs becoming impli- support the govern- llocalocal needsneeds forfor nutri-nutri- cated in expanded access to power, ment, opportuni- resources and funds for the Burmese ties arise to more ttion,ion, sanitationsanitation andand military/elite at the expense of local closely work with hhumanuman ssecurityecurity isis people. The wrong type of conserva- local people and nnotot onlyonly unethical,unethical, tion could deepen the political and grassroots organi- bbutut wwillill tturnurn ppeopleeople environmental crisis in Burma— an zations. This could “ethno-ecological” crisis. An authori- include semi-en- aagainstgainst conservationconservation tarian PA approach could lead to fur- gaging with militias aandnd uultimatelyltimately failfail ther human rights abuses. Where the on environmental ttoo achieveachieve thethe long-long- state is in conflict with local people, education, and en- and communities live in fear of the couraging establish- ttermerm ggoaloal ofof biodiver-biodiver- authorities, state conservation polic- ment of Community ssityity protection.protection. ing could lead to a backlash in which Conserved Areas. conservation initiatives aligned with Certain types of conflict may offer the state may be viewed as hostile— diverse opportunities to explore com- driving people to become “enemies of munity-based conservation, since, in conservation”. the absence of a strong state, local traditional forms of environmental This does not necessarily imply, how- governance may have survived and

15, July 2007 285 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

indeed been strengthened. tober, 2006 5 Harrison et al., 1997. There is a debate in conservation 6 Shnayerson, 2005. between advocates of community- 7 NCGUB, 1997. based and participatory approaches, 8 Rabinowitz, 1999:70-72. and those who favor top-down 9 Montagne, 2004. 10 Graham-Rowe, 2005. conservation and the exclusion of 11 Peluso, 1993. people from protected areas. Oppos- 12 Bryant, 1996:351. ing “eco-authoritarian” conservation 13 Shnayerson, 2005. does not equate to being anti-con- 14 ERI, 2000; ERI, 2003. servation. Biodiversity is intrinsically 15 Associated Press, 1997; Faulder, 1997; Levy valuable and essential for sustainabil- and Scott-Clark, 1997. ity, and its conservation should be a 16 Interview, 2006 [Here and in the following cases, the names of the persons interviewed global human goal. However, an ap- are not disclosed for comprehensible reasons.] proach that ignores human rights and 17 Rao et al. 2002:361. puts an externally-driven environmen- 18 Bryant, 1996:349. tal agenda ahead of immediate local 19 Rao et al. 2002:361 needs for nutrition, sanitation and 20 Rao et al. 2002:363. human security is not only unethical, 21 Interviews, 2004. but will turn people against conserva- 22 Interviews, 2003 and 2004. tion and ultimately fail to achieve the 23 Rao et al. 2002:363. long-term goal of biodiversity pro- 24 Interview, 2007. tection. Biodiversity conservation is 25 Interview, 2007. embedded within a social and political 26 Peluso, 1993. process, and if it is to win support and 27 Birdlife International, 2005:44. achieve success it must address is- 28 Birdlife International, 2005:45. sues of social justice for stakeholders, 29 Birdlife International, 2005:44. 30 Lambrecht, 2004:172. such as the rights to self-representa- 31 Interview, 2003. tion and indigenous culture, autonomy 32 Irrawaddy News, 2005, emphasis added. and self-determination, the right to 33 SPDC 2007, unofficial Burmese language participate in decision-making, the version right to information, and the principles 34 SPDC 2007, unofficial Burmese language ver- of transparency and accountability. In sion. this light, environmentalism is indeed 35 Interview, 2004. a primary struggle for democracy. 36 Rabinowitz, 2002. 37 Interview, 2005. 38 Interview, 2005. Zao Noam ([email protected]) has been conducting 39 Based on the listed consulted stakeholders in independent political ecology research in montainous main- the report, all of whom were invited to partici- land Southeast Asia, specifically in/on Burma, for nearly a pate in a stakeholder workshop in Yangon in decade. August 2003 and July 2004, and/or who pro- Notes vided feedback on the English language draft. 1 WWF website, http://www.panda.org/about_ 40 Personal communication with staff at UNEP- wwf/where_we_work/ecoregions/ecoregion_ Bangkok, 2006. list/ecoregions_country/ecoregions_country_ 41 WCS 2003; WCS website, www.wcs.org, last m.cfm, last accessed April, 2007 accessed October, 2006. 2 Brunner et al., 1998. 42 Pollard, 2005. 3 Refer to Office of the United Nations High Com- 43 WCS website, www.wcs.org, last accessed Oc- mission for Human Rights website at http:// tober, 2006. www.ohchr.org/english/countries/mm/index. 44 Shnayerson, 2006. htm, last accessed April 2007; and United Na- tions Human Rights Council Report 2007 45 Graham-Rowe, 2005. 4 WCS website, www.wcs.org, last accessed Oc- 46 Whitney, 2006.

286 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

47 Rabinowitz, 2004:116. Military as Benefactor in the Border Regions 48 Montagne, 2004. of Burma”, pages 150-180, in C. Duncan (ed.) Civilizing the Margins: Southeast Asian Govern- 49 Interview, 2004. ment Policies for the Development of Minorities, 50 Interview, 2004. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 150-81, 2004. 51 Interview, 2006. Levy, A. and C. Scott-Clark, “Burma’s junta goes 52 Interview, 2006. green: Save the rhino, kill the people”, The Ob- server, P. 9. March 23, 1997. 53 Interviews, 2004 and 2006. State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), 54 KDNG, 2006. “Ministry of National Planning and Economic 55 Casey, M. 2007; Interview, 2007; KNG, 2007. Development Guidelines for UN Agencies, 56 Interview with WCS-Burma office staff member, International Organizations and NGO / INGOs on 2006. Cooperation Programme in Myanmar”, February, 57 Interview, 2004. 2006, English and Burmese language versions. 58 Interview, 2007. Montagne, R., Interview with Alan Rabinowitz, National Public Radio (NPR), March 15, 2004. 59 South, 2004. Website www.npr.org/programs/re/archivesda- 60 South, 2004. te/2004/mar/tigers/, last accessed April, 2004. National Coalition Government for the Union of References Burma (NCGUB), Environment and Burma, Mes- sage from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to the briefing Associated Press, “Burma using forced labor to on Burma, New York City, May 25, 1997. build tourist park, exiles say”,October 20, 1997. Peluso, N.L., “Coercing conservation? The politics Birdlife International, Conservation International, of state resource control”,Global Environmental Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, CARE, and Change, 32: 199-217, 1993. UNDP, Myanmar: Investment Opportunities in Pollard, J., “In the eye of the tiger”, Western Aus- Biodiversity Conservation, 2005. tralian, June 11, 2005. Brunner, J., K. Talbott, and C. Elkin, Logging Rabinowitz, A., “Nature’s last bastions: Sustain- Burma’s Frontier Forests: Resources and the able use of our tropical forests may be little Regime, World Resources Institute, Washington more than D.C., 1998. wishful thinking”, Natural History, 108:70-72, Bryant, R., “The greening of Burma: Political rheto- 1999. ric or sustainable development?”Pacific Affairs, Rabinowitz, A., Beyond the Last Village: A Jour- 69(3): 341-359, 1996. ney of Discovery in Asia’s Forbidden Wilderness, Casey, M., “Rampant Gold Mining Polluting Huge Island Press, Washington D.C, 2001. Tiger Reserve in Myanmar”, Associated Press, Rabinowitz, A., “A Question of Balance: How January 11, 2007. Tiger’s, Gold Miners, and Gun-Toting Revolution- Earth Rights International (ERI), Total Denial Con- aries are Competing to Survive in Myanmar’s tinues— Earth Rights Abuses along the Yadana ‘Valley of Death’”, National Geographic, April, and Yetagun Pipelines in Burma, 2000. 98-117, 2004. Earth Rights International (ERI), Total Denial Con- Rao, M. A., Rabinowitz, and Saw Tun Khaing, tinues: Earth Rights Abuses along the Yadana “Status Review of the Protected-Area System in and Yetagun Pipelines in Burma, 2nd Edition, Myanmar, with Recommendations for Conser- 2003. vation Planning”, Conservation Biology, 16(2), Faulder, D.,“In the name of money: SLORC, the 360-68, 2002. Thais and two multinational oil giants are build- Shnayerson, M., “Alan Rabinowitz’s Fight of His ing a gas pipeline. The Karen are in the way— Life”, National Geographic, 2005. and that’s just too bad”, Asiaweek, May 9:42, South, A., “Political Transition in Myanmar: A 1997. New Model for Democratisation”, Contemporary Graham-Rowe, D., “Conservation in Myanmar. Un- Southeast Asia (ISEAS), August, 2004. der the gun”, Nature. Vol. 435, 16 June, 2005. United Nations Human Rights Council, “Report of Harrison, D., C. Scott-Clark and A. Levy, “Burma’s the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human junta goes green: Save the rhino, kill the peo- rights in Myanmar, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro”, ple”, The Observer, London, March 23, 1997. February 12, 2007, http://daccessdds.un.org/ Irrawaddy News, “Junta keeps tight hold on local doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/107/31/PDF/G0710731. NGOs”, October 19, 2005. pdf?OpenElement, last accessed April, 2007. Kachin Development Network Group (KDNG), Val- Whitney, J., “How conservationists prop up ley of darkness: Gold mining and militarization in Burma's military regime: rules of engagement”, Burma’s Hugawng Valley, 2007. The New Republic Online, September 26, 2006. Kachin News Group (KNG), “Animals killed by Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), A National chemical agents in Hukawng Valley”,April 18, Tiger Action Plan for the Union of Myanmar, Pre- 2007. pared by Antony Lynam, May 1, 2003. Lambrecht, C., “Oxymoronic Development: The

15, July 2007 287 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

EEll OrdenamientoOrdenamiento CComunitarioomunitario deldel Territorio—Territorio— unun eesquemasquema pparaara hhaceracer ccompatiblesompatibles loslos objetivosobjetivos dede cconservaciónonservación y loslos derechosderechos socialessociales e indígenasindígenas FFranciscorancisco ChapelaChapela y YolandaYolanda LaraLara

Abstract. Mexico is recognized as a mega-diverse country. Its biological wealth is supported by complex landscape dynamics, which are interrelated with bio-geographical, historical, cul- tural and technological factors. These factors are in turn affected by the institutional arrange- ments used to administer local and national territories. The conventional approach to this administration used central planning and gave priority to biological factors. This weakened the recognition of rural and indigenous communities’ rights, including property and custom- ary rights that underlie the landscape dynamics responsible of the high biodiversity found within them, thus putting important biodiversity elements in peril. We discuss an approach to developing polycentric, diverse institutional arrangements used in the last 10 years by an NGO, Estudios Rurales y Asesoría, emphasizing how the full recognition of rural and indig- enous communities’ rights can actually help to preserve biodiversity. Finally, some insights regarding policy development on these issues are discussed. Resumen. México se reconoce como un país Mega-diverso. Su riqueza biológica está aloja- da dentro de un sistema complejo de dinámica del paisaje, que está interrelacionado con factores biogeográficos, históricos, culturales y tecnológicos que son influidos a su vez por los arreglos institucionales que se han usado para administrar los territorios a nivel local y nacional. Un enfoque convencional ha usado enfoques de planeación central que han dado prioridad a los factores biológicos. Esto ha debilitado el reconocimiento de los derechos de las comunidades rurales e indígenas, incluso los derechos consuetudinarios y de propiedad que subyacen a las dinámicas del paisaje que son responsables de la alta biodiversidad que se encuentra en ellas, con lo que se ponen en peligro importantes elementos de la biodiver- sidad. Se discute un enfoque empleado en los últimos años por una ONG, Estudios Rurales y Asesoría, para desarrollar arreglos institucionales poli-céntricos y diversos, enfatizando en cómo el reconocimiento pleno de los derechos de las comunidades rurales e indígenas puede de hecho ayudar a conservar la biodiversidad. Por último, se discuten algunas ideas respecto al desarrollo de las políticas sobre estos temas.

han sido completamente entendidas ni México se reconoce como uno de explicadas. En el presente documento, los pocos países en los que se encuen- presentaremos algunos antecedentes tra representada la mayor parte de sobre el desarrollo de las instituciones la diversidad biológica del mundo. Al que han buscado administrar el terri- igual que otros de los llamados países torio y los dilemas que debe enfrentar megadiversos,1 esta suerte de Arca el país, para asegurar al mismo tiem- de Noé, es también una de las áreas po el respeto a los derechos de las en que se deposita buena parte de la comunidades rurales e indígenas y la diversidad cultural mundial.2 Las rela- conservación de la enorme diversidad ciones entre diversidad cultural y di- biológica. Discutimos algunos aspec- versidad biológica, son complejas y no tos relevantes de enfoque que hemos

288 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

usado en los últimos 10 años para re- otros recursos naturales. Como resul- solver dichos dilemas, para finalmente tado de la revolución hubo un proceso hacer una discusión del aporte que de Reforma Agraria que permitió que dicho enfoque puede hacer a una po- a las comunidades indígenas que no lítica de conservación que respete los gozaban de derechos de propiedad, derechos territoriales y la diversidad pero sí mantenían cultural de las comunidades rurales e la posesión de sus LLaa ccoexistenciaoexistencia indígenas. tierras, se les res- ddee llasas formasformas tituyeran sus terri- ddee oorganizaciónrganización Antecedentes del ordenamiento torios tradicionales. del territorio A la población rural iindígenasndígenas concon laslas El desarrollo histórico de las institu- que no pudo acre- eeuropeas,uropeas, creócreó unauna ciones en México, ha sido en el marco ditar la posesión ddualidadualidad ssocialocial y de una confrontación entre propuestas de sus territorios porque habían sido ppolítica,olítica, queque explicaexplica extremas, que han incluido el pro- llaa enormeenorme ccantidadantidad yecto monárquico de 1864 a 1867 de despojados de ellos Maximilian von Habsburg (Maximiliano y perdido contacto ddee ssituacionesituaciones I), emperador de México y las pro- desde hacía mu- ccontradictoriasontradictorias queque puestas anarquistas del Partido Liberal cho tiempo con su tierra, se les dotó ssee eencuentranncuentran eenn llaa Mexicano que intentó creación de una hhistoriaistoria dede México,México, república anárquica en 1906-1911. de predios llamados ejidos. La revolu- pperoero explicaexplica tambiéntambién Durante la época colonial, eran los ción mejoró sustan- llaa diversidaddiversidad cialmente el acceso representantes de la corona los que cculturalultural y biológica.biológica. definían la política de uso de los re- a la tierra y permi- cursos a través de las “encomiendas”. tió un crecimiento Sin embargo, en muchos casos los económico y social sin precedentes. El pueblos indígenas no fueran despla- crecimiento económico significó tam- zados, sino que fueron obligados a pa- bién el aumento en la demanda inter- gar tributos, manteniendo sus formas na de materias primas y alimentos, de organización interna y sus técnicas que debía ser atendida para permitir de uso de los recursos. En contraste la entrada de México a la “moderni- con las colonias inglesas, la coexis- dad”. tencia de las formas de organización indígenas con las europeas, creó una El reconocimiento básico de derechos dualidad social y política, que expli- a las comunidades rurales e indígenas ca la enorme cantidad de situaciones creó una situación especial en México, contradictorias que se encuentran en en donde el incremento en la produc- la historia de México y de otros países ción de alimentos y materias primas que fueron colonias españolas,3 pero indispensable para fomentar el nuevo explica también la diversidad cultural modelo de desarrollo, estuvo basado y biológica. más en el reparto agrario y la tecnifi- cación agrícola que en la creación de Una de las confrontaciones más trau- un mercado de tierras, como suce- máticas, fue la revolución agraria de dió en otros países. Ambos factores 1910 a 1917, que tuvo una de sus se convirtieron en el motor para que causas principales en que la élite te- durante la segunda mitad del siglo rrateniente estaba limitando el acceso XX, los ejidos y comunidades crearan de las comunidades rurales a tierras y un mercado nacional de productos

15, July 2007 289 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

agrícolas, pecuarios y forestales que indígenas. Se dieron incluso casos de al menos durante 2 décadas fueron expulsiones de comunidades de sus la base para el desarrollo económico territorios ancestrales, para cump- del país y que hoy se conoce como “El lir con los objetivos definidos por los Milagro Mexicano”.4 planificadores centrales. Hacia el úl- timo cuarto del siglo XX, era evidente Las contradicciones del la dificultad de conciliar los esquemas Ordenamiento del Territorio de planificación centralizada con la En la época del crecimiento poste- atención a los derechos territoriales rior a la revolución de 1910-1917, los de comunidades rurales e indígenas y responsables de diseñar las políticas que en realidad la tierra y los recursos públicas suponían que la tierra era un naturales eran bienes muy escasos, y recurso abundante, que bien distribui- que debería racionalizarse la política de do, podría ser la base de una econo- uso del territorio. mía vigorosa y que esto era un asunto de estado, pues tanto el crecimiento Este escenario propició el establec- económico como el abastecimiento imiento de normas e instituciones de materias primas y alimentos eran para regular el uso del suelo más en temas estratégicos para el país. En concordancia con objetivos ambien- contraste con los avances constitucio- tales, aunque el reconocimiento en la nales en el reconocimiento de dere- práctica de los derechos territoriales chos de las comunidades, se utilizaron de las comunidades rurales e indíge- enfoques de manejo del territorio que nas no fuera atendido. Se empezó a no tomaban en cuenta dichos dere- incorporar a las políticas públicas la chos. Los primeros ordenamientos del planificación del desarrollo urbano y la territorio nacional, seguían de cerca provisión de áreas de reserva para las el modelo establecido por la Tennes- ciudades, así como el establecimiento se Valley Authority de los Estados de áreas naturales protegidas (ANPs), Unidos, que establecía una autoridad las cuales se multiplicaron hasta alcan- única para la planificación de toda el zar lo que hoy en día equivale al 10% área comprendida dentro del territorio del territorio nacional. Finalmente, de una cuenca hidrográfica. Dicho mo- al promulgarse la Ley de Ecología se delo se estableció en las principales estableció el llamado “Ordenamiento zonas agrícolas del país. Ecológico” como un instrumento de política ambiental. Tabla 1. Planificación por cuencas Esta situación ambivalente, en donde Planificación de cuencas hidrográficas5 sigu- los objetivos de desarrollo nacional iendo el modelo de la Tennessee parecen ser incompatibles con el re- Valley Authority—TVA.6 speto a los derechos territoriales de Comisión del río Papaloapan (1944) las Comunidades rurales e indígenas, Comisión del río Tepalcatepec (1947), plantea contradicciones que a su vez Comisión del río Grijalva (1951), constituyen dilemas de diseño in- Comisión del río Balsas (1960) stitucional que es necesario resolver, Fuente: Ángel Massiris Cabeza7 incluyendo si el manejo del territorio debe privilegiar una Visión etno-cén- El esquema de tener una autoridad trica o eco-céntrica; si las instituci- centralizada que decida sobre el uso ones para administrar los territorios del territorio, dejó de lado los dere- deben seguir un esquema de Pla- chos de las comunidades rurales e

290 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

neación Central o Pluricentrico; si la Oaxaca, para buscar alternativas. implementación de los planes de uso Por un lado, no era realista pensar del territorio debe ser Centralizada en que las comunidades indígenas o a nivel Local; y si el seguimiento y pudieran definir sus planes de uso de control debe hacerlo una autoridad sus territorios sin superior o puede hacerse mediante un considerar el con- EEss indispensableindispensable lala esquema de Autogestión. En contraste texto más amplio pparticipaciónarticipación activaactiva con la tradición de planificación cen- de las instituciones ddee llaa ppoblaciónoblación desdedesde tralizada del Estado mexicano, du- nacionales. Pero rante más de 10 años, una ONG mex- por otro lado, eran eell mismomismo ddiseñoiseño dede icana, Estudios Rurales y Asesoría, evidentes los sín- llosos instrumentos,instrumentos, (ERA), ha desarrollado un esquema tomas de deterioro hhastaasta lala evaluaciónevaluación participativo de gestión del territorio, de los bosques y ddee ssuu ffuncionalidad.uncionalidad. basado en La Planeación Comuni- tierras y así como taria del uso del Territorio (PCT), que los efectos sociales del esquema de aporta alternativas para las solución Planificación por Cuencas Hidrográ- de los dilemas de diseño institucional ficas. En este contexto, se planteó mencionados. el desarrollo de un instrumento me- todológico que fuera relativamente La Planeación Comunitaria del fácil de manejar por los propietarios Uso del Territorio (PCUT) en colectivo de un terreno, que per- La contradicción entre el régimen mitiera la construcción de consensos constitucional que reconoce los dere- y cuyos resultados permitieran con- chos territoriales de las comunidades tar con una evaluación de los usos rurales e indígenas y las acciones in- del suelo vigentes en ese momento, stitucionales basadas en un esquema las tendencias esperadas del actual de planeación centralizada, creó ten- patrón de uso y si estas se corre- siones y conflictos entre los progra- spondían con las expectativas que mas de gobierno y las comunidades la comunidad se planteaba a futuro. locales. En el caso de comunidades Se buscaba también el diseño de zapotecas y chinantecas de la Sierra un plan estratégico de uso del suelo Norte de Oaxaca, hacia 1990 existía que permitiera corregir tendencias una preocupación creciente por los de deterioro de los recursos e incor- daños que podrían sufrir sus tierras y porar nuevas alternativas de manejo bosques como resultado de la imple- y aprovechamiento de los mismos. mentación de los planes de Desarrol- Para lograr esto, era indispensable la lo Rural diseñados por la Comisión participación activa de la población del Río Papaloapan. Las propuestas desde el mismo diseño de los instru- de uso del territorio y las técnicas mentos, hasta la evaluación de su que proponía dicha Comisión, pasa- funcionalidad. ban por alto muchas de las prácticas tradicionales que le habían permitido Se diseñó un proceso semi-estruc- a la población subsistir por genera- turado y sistemático, que abarca un ciones y ser autosuficientes en térmi- conjunto de herramientas para apo- nos alimenticios. yar a las comunidades que quieren emprender la revisión de sus mecan- Estudios Rurales y Asesoría fue invi- ismos de regulación y control del uso tada por las comunidades zapotecas de su territorio, de modo que puedan y chinantecas de la Sierra Norte de negociar y establecer un plan de uso

15, July 2007 291 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

pecíficamente para los fines de estos ejercicios de planeación local.

Esta metodología fue probada por primera vez en 1994 en las 4 co- munidades que conforman la Unión Zapoteca-Chinanteca. Como resul- tado de esta prueba, se obtuvieron los primeros planes de ordenamiento del territorio comunal, en donde las propuestas locales se ponían en el contexto más amplio de las políticas nacionales, tratando de encontrar sinergias a favor de los objetivos de desarrollo de cada comunidad local. Foto 1. “La planeación comunitaria del El desarrollo y sistematización del uso del suelo es un proceso en el que se esquema metodológico inicial, derivó negocian las distintas racionalidades de priorización de los usos del suelo, tratando en una propuesta más acabada: La de construir una propuesta negociada.” Planeación Comunitaria del Uso del (Cortesía Yolanda Lara, Estudios Rurales y Territorio (PCUT).8 En la actualidad, Asesoría) esta planeación territorial ha sido revisada y mejorada por los propios del territorio a futuro, considerando técnicos de la Organización de comu- las distintas visiones de los difer- nidades indígenas. El uso de la PCUT entes grupos de interés y buscando se ha ido extendiendo con el tiempo, que el proceso de desarrollo de la y después de haber sido aplicada de comunidad pueda sostenerse, sin manera marginal, ha logrado poner detrimento de su base de recursos bajo planes de resguardo comunal naturales. La metodología empleada, explícito, una superficie equivalente reúne instrumentos ya existentes al 58% de las áreas naturales prote- desarrollados para otros contextos, gidas oficialmente el estado de Oaxa- como los de la etnobiología y la agr- ca (Ver tablas 2 y 3). oecología y algunos desarrollados es-

Tabla 2. Áreas bajo Protección Oficial en Oaxaca. Superficie Categoría Area Natural Creación Recategorización (has.) Reserva de la biosfera Tehuacan-Cuicatlán 18-Sep-98 296, 272 Parque Nacional Huatulco has 24-Jul-98 11,891 Parque Nacional Benito Juárez has. 30-Dic-37 2,737 Parque Nacional Lagunas de Chacahua 09-jul-37 14,187 Monumento Natural Yagul 24-May-99 1,076 Santuario Playa de Escobilla 29-Oct-86 16-Jul-02 30 Playa de la Bahía de Santuario 29-Oct-86 16-Jul-02 32 Chacahua 275,047

Fuente: CONANP, 20049

292 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

Tabla 3. Superficie Ordenada a la fecha con PCUT, en el estado de Oaxaca Organización Superficie Total Superficie bajo Superficie bajo Comunidades Regional (Has.) Conservación Aprovechamiento Comaltepec, Xiacuí, UZACHI 26, 000 13,000 Has 13,000 Has Capulalpam, La Trinidad Maninaltepec, Jayacatlán, IXETO 30,500 8,000 21,500 Zoquiapan, Aloapan Tlahuitoltepec, Totontepec, Región Mixe 39,000 7,800 3,1200 Tamazulapan, Metaltepec. SICOBI 102,000 20,400 81,800 Tepetotutla CEPCO 15,000 4,500 10,500 Teotlaxco TOTAL 212,500 53,700 158,800

Fuentes: Estudios Rurales y Asesoría, A.C./Grupo Autónomo para la Investigación Ambiental, A.C.

Bases de la PCUT informadas y democráticas de largo Es común que los esquemas or- plazo y sí han sido más eficaces para ganizativos asociados a la planeación favorecer a ciertos sectores privilegia- centralizada, se acompañen de la dos de la comunidad sobre el resto de existencia de líderes fuertes más o sus integrantes. menos carismáti- EEll procesoproceso cos o poderosos Lo que hemos podido demostrar en el ddesencadenadoesencadenado que cuando son caso de las comunidades con las que pporor unauna acciónacción aceptados por la se ha trabajado la PCUT, es que el mayor parte de proceso desencadenado por una ac- ccolectiva,olectiva, negociadanegociada la población con- ción colectiva, negociada e informada, e iinformada,nformada, forman verdad- permite explicitar la forma en que ttiendeiende a aasegurarsegurar eras instituciones se toman las decisiones sobre el uso locales no sólo de un territorio, y tiende a asegurar llasas condicionescondiciones dede para la regulación las condiciones de vida de la gente, vvidaida dede llaa gente,gente, del uso del suelo fortaleciendo sus derechos básicos, ffortaleciendoortaleciendo sussus sino para todo lo al mismo tiempo que tiende a lo- dderechoserechos básicos,básicos, alal que tiene que ver grar la perdurabilidad de los recursos con la resolución naturales. El proceso de planeación mmismoismo ttiempoiempo queque de los conflictos democrático e informado, se vuelve ttiendeiende a llograrograr lala que normalmente asequible, transparente y eficaz. pperdurabilidaderdurabilidad dede llosos se dan dentro de Un ejercicio de Planeación del Uso del 10 rrecursosecursos naturales.naturales. un grupo social Territorio Comunal (PCUT), puede organizado. Estos incluir distintos elementos de acuerdo arreglos institucionales, no siempre con las particularidades específicas de resultan en la toma de decisiones cada caso, pero tiene seis característi-

15, July 2007 293 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

cas relevantes: años, programas como el Proyecto de 1. La Comunidad es la unidad de pla- Conservación y Manejo Forestal Sus- neación. tentable (PROCYMAF) de la Comisión 2. Tiene una orientación clara hacia el Nacional Forestal de México, han empl- ordenamiento de un territorio que eado este enfoque, con lo que la PCUT es compartido por un grupo social. ha comenzado a tomar relevancia den- 3. Reconoce la existencia de actores tro de las políticas públicas que tienen internos y externos a la comuni- que ver con elaboración de planes de dad que influyen en la toma de manejo u ordenamientos ecológicos. decisiones y busca su participación Hasta 2003, el PROCYMAF llevaba or- para lograr equilibrios a futuro. denadas bajo este esquema 535,685 hectáreas en 63 núcleos agrarios.11 4. Busca reforzar la cultura propia, re- tomando las estructuras organizati- vas internas y las prácticas locales Conclusiones de manejo de los recursos natu- Los primeros enfoques de la rales ya existentes. conservación, en las que se busca a 5. Parte del conocimiento empírico toda costa el mantenimiento de áreas que los integrantes de la comuni- prístinas reduciendo o eliminando el dad tienen sobre su entorno para impacto de la actividad humana para elaborar una propuesta de uso del lograr que el arca de noé sobreviva suelo compatible con la visión de al diluvio, no siempre asegura la grupo. permanencia 6. Aprovecha recursos tecnológicos de la diversidad LLaa eeliminaciónliminación dede loslos compatibles con la visión de futuro biológica que se rregímenesegímenes ddee ggestiónestión propuesta. quiere mantener. En muchos casos ddelel ppaisajeaisaje queque ssu-u- Durante los ejercicios realizados apli- que ya han sido bbyacenyacen a loslos siste-siste- cando este enfoque, el resultado ha extensamente mmasas ttecnológicosecnológicos y 12 sido siempre una propuesta multi-fun- documentados, la eliminación de cculturalesulturales dede uusoso ddee cional del uso del suelo, en la cual se llosos recursos,recursos, podríapodría reflejan los intereses de los diferentes los regímenes de grupos que conforman la comunidad, e gestión del paisaje ssignificarignificar lala elimi-elimi- incluye áreas para la producción en sus que subyacen nnaciónación dede loslos tejidostejidos a los sistemas diferentes formas e importantes áreas iinstitucionalesnstitucionales queque de protección con diferentes niveles de tecnológicos y restricción Por último, la PCUT prom- culturales de uso hhanan hechohecho posibleposible queque ueve también la sistematización de de los recursos, ppaísesaíses comocomo MéxicoMéxico esquemas de manejo desarrollados por podría significar ssee eencuentrenncuentren eenn llaa la eliminación los propietarios de la tierra y en donde llistaista dede loslos llamadosllamados no los hay permite la creación de estos. de los tejidos Gracias a ello es posible incidir desde institucionales ppaísesaíses mmegadiversosegadiversos otra perspectiva en la resolución de los que han hecho problemas ambientales, biológicos o de posible que países como México la producción de nivel local, mejorando se encuentren en la lista de los con ello la viabilidad de los sistemas llamados países megadiversos. Por productivos, la conservación de los el contrario, un enfoque en el que se ecosistemas relevantes, el suelo y las busque de manera explícita y racional funciones hidrológicas. En los últimos establecer relaciones en las que las comunidades rurales se beneficien de

294 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

generar los servicios ambientales que incluyendo sus derechos de propie- demandan las poblaciones urbanas, dad, tienden a favorecer la perdura- puede ser la base del desarrollo de los ción de los recursos naturales y de la tejidos institucionales que demanda diversidad biológica, a escalas compa- un país más urbanizado, pero rables con los esquemas convenciona- paradójicamente más dependiente de les de ANPs. los servicios ambientales que pueden proveer las comunidades rurales. En este contexto, las culturas rurales no se desarrollarán si se les aísla de La PCUT parte de constatar que las la interacción con la cultura nacional comunidades rurales que son propie- y de lo que tiende a convertirse en tarias en colectivo de un territorio, la función de mayor importancia en tienden a desarrollar procesos explí- el futuro de las comunidades en las citos de asignación de los recursos regiones de montaña: la provisión naturales de que disponen, especial- de servicios ambientales. Una visión mente bosques, agua y pastos. En etnocéntrica puede llevar al anquilosa- este sentido, ha hecho patente que el miento y pérdida de la riqueza cultural reconocimiento de los derechos de las que está depositada en las comunida- comunidades indígenas y campesinas, des indígenas y rurales. Pero una vi- sión ecocéntrica en la que se diseñen instituciones destinadas a marginar a las comunidades indígenas y rurales de la gestión de sus territorios y del paisaje, llevaría a la destrucción de los sistemas de resguardo de los ecosiste- mas y a la pérdida de elementos clave de la diversidad biológica.

Las nuevas redes institucionales de un país urbanizado pero con una cultura indígena y rural fortalecida como México, no pueden darse el lujo de repetir los vicios de la Planeación Central o dispersar la toma de deci- siones hasta escalas no significativas. Ambos extremos son formas de evitar la participación democrática y la cons- trucción de acuerdos de cooperación para establecer formas de organiza- ción sofisticadas, que estén al nivel que la responsabilidad de resguardar la gran diversidad del país implica. La diversidad cultural y biológica, debe corresponder también a una diversi- dad institucional.13 Los nuevos tejidos institucionales son complejos. No bas- Foto 2. “Técnicos comunitarios y comuneros ta con que haya liderazgos. No basta demarcan su plan de uso del suelo en un mapa con información técnica minuciosa. topográfico.” (Cortesía Yolanda Lara, Estudios Aunque es necesario, no es suficiente Rurales y Asesoría)

15, July 2007 295 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

tener un marco legal para la gestión explicitar la visión actual y la de largo territorial del paisaje y de los ecosis- plazo del grupo social con el que se temas. trabaja, es posible inducir un proceso de reflexión sobre las prácticas socia- Frente a estas exigencias, la PCT les y ambientales que influyen o pue- es un esquema den influir en la construcción de estos LLaa ddiversidadiversidad ccul-ul- metodológico que escenarios. Asimismo es posible que tturalural y biológica,biológica, contribuye a la las comunidades adapten elementos ddebeebe ccorresponderorresponder construcción de tecnológicos y culturales diferentes a ttambiénambién a uunana ddiver-iver- una Nueva Visión la cultura propia pero adaptándolos del Desarrollo Ru- a su contexto de manera que com- ssidadidad institucionalinstitucional ral con un nuevo plementen a las prácticas locales sin enfoque del manejo de los ecosiste- poner en riesgo la base tecnológica mas en busca de su aprovechamien- desarrollada localmente.14 to en donde este es posible y de su protección, cuando esta es requerida. En tercer lugar, la PCUT contribuye al Pensamos que la aplicación amplia de mantenimiento del paisaje rural y de esta metodología permitiría la conso- los ecosistemas. Las prácticas cultu- lidación de la capacidad de sustento a rales reproducidas por un conjunto la vida en las áreas rurales, a través de actores a nivel regional confor- de favorecer entre la población rural man patrones paisajísticos que la PCT una visión más sistematizada de su ayuda a caracterizar y a mantener. entorno y de sus expectativas con Asimismo, herramientas como los respecto a ese entorno. Las aleja de transectos sintetizan los elementos las visiones cornocupianas ingenuas que conforman el paisaje y permiten y contribuye de manera importante a su apreciación por los actores que lo la toma de conciencia sobre la finitud moldean, pero dándole la dimensión del territorio disponible y por lo tan- colectiva que hay detrás de ellos. to de los recursos que albergan este territorio. En cuarto lugar, la PCUT contribuye al mantenimiento de la diversidad En segundo lugar, la PCUT contribu- biológica. El enfoque teórico utilizado ye al mantenimiento de la identidad por la PCUT retoma gran parte de la cultural y al reforzamiento de la cul- propuesta de Daniel Janzen en lo que tura propia. En la PCT se emplean respecta a reproducir y mantener las herramientas metodológicas que condiciones de evolución de los fac- contribuyen a la discusión de aspec- tores naturales y humanos gracias a tos culturales relevantes que muchas los cuales los ecosistemas actuales veces los actores en lo individual no existen.15 Se asume que el paisaje perciben como importantes debi- está conformado por una serie de do a la cercanía y cotidianeidad con elementos bióticos y abióticos que que son puestos en práctica. En este interactúan entre sí y van generan- aspecto resulta clave la participación do procesos que producen diversidad de actores diferentes a la comunidad biológica. El motor que impulsa estos y con experiencia en desarrollo rural procesos puede ser de origen natu- que puedan ayudar a contrastar la ral o antropogénico. Al caracterizar actual experiencia con otros contex- estos procesos es posible dilucidar el tos y resaltar lo diferente y valioso tipo de causas que les dieron origen del esquema que utiliza el grupo. Al y planificar actividades para mante-

296 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

vigiladas por la misma población lo- cal. Con esto, estamos contribuyendo a la formación de activos naturales que pueden ser transformados en capital lanzándolos al mercado de ser- vicios ambientales en sus diferentes facetas. Es posible que si parte de las inversiones realizadas para fomentar la conservación sean canalizadas a este tipo de iniciativas los resultados sean sorprendente e inesperadamente favorables al cumplimiento del objeti- vo de conservación.

Foto 3. “La propuesta de uso del suelo se Por último, la PCUT ayuda a asegurar discute a fondo después de su promul- la calidad del ambiente biofísico en el gación como parte de la ordenanza comu- cual se desarrolla un grupo social y la nitaria.” (Cortesía Yolanda Lara, Estudios prestación de servicios ambientales. Rurales y Asesoría) Ya que la PCUT es un ejercicio que nerlos vivos. En este sentido la PCUT parte de evaluar el estado actual de contribuye a reconocer estos procesos los recursos naturales, es una herrami- y las actividades o factores que los enta para mantener y mejorar la base generan. de recursos locales, contribuyendo a asegurar un medio ambiente sano en En quinto lugar, la PCUT contribuye al el largo plazo. Esto se logra a través desarrollo local al aportar viabilidad de la implementación de planes de económica a los esquemas de conser- manejo específicos para las diferentes vación. En la actualidad, gran parte áreas asignadas a los diferentes usos. de las ganancias provenientes de la El plan de ordenamiento es regulado conservación biológica están siendo por un instrumento normativo in- copadas por los grandes consorcios terno cuya aplicación corre a cargo de para la conservación, y los Gobier- las autoridades comunales. Tanto el nos de los países megadiversos.16 Sin plan de ordenamiento como el regla- embargo, muy pocos de los recursos mento de uso del suelo y los planes generados a nivel mundial para cubrir de manejo conforman un conjunto de este objetivo han llegado en forma instrumentos que permiten monitorear directa a las comunidades y propie- la respuesta de cada área ecológica al tarios afectados por decretos que les plan e ir conformando planes de orde- sustraen de la capacidad de controlar namiento regionales. En el caso de la sus territorios. Una de las ventajas de Unión Zapoteca-Chinanteca (UZACHI), la PCUT es que hace visibles los es- la evaluación del plan de ordenami- fuerzos locales de conservación y lla- ento se llevó a cabo entre el 2003 y ma la atención sobre el papel que los el 2004. Como producto de esta eval- propietarios del terreno pueden jugar uación se hicieron correcciones para en la protección de áreas silvestres y ajustarlo mejor a los objetivos que se agro-paisajes. Con muy baja inversión habían fijado en un inicio. Sin embargo es posible establecer conglomerados ninguna comunidad mencionó siqui- continuos y discontinuos de áreas era que el plan de ordenamiento fuera bajo diferentes estatus de protección, malo u obsoleto.

15, July 2007 297 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

Yolanda Lara ([email protected]) Coordinadora de la Referencias Oficina de Estudios Rurales y Asesoría (ERA) en Oaxaca, al Adger W.N., “Social and ecological resilience: are sur de México. Ha trabajado por 20 años en capacitación y they related?”, Progress in Human Geography, apoyo técnico a organizaciones y comunidades indígenas (24), 3: 347-364, 2000. de Oaxaca. Francisco Chapela ([email protected]) Ángel Massiris Cabeza, Ordenación del Territorio Coordinador Nacional del Proyecto de Comunidades Indíge- en América Latina. Scripta Nova, revista electró- nas y Biodiversidad (COINBIO). Ha colaborado con ONGs nica de geografía y ciencias sociales, Universi- en temas relacionados con el uso sostenible de los recursos dad de Barcelona. (VI)125, 2002. biológicos, incluyendo sistemas agroforestales, conservación participativa, certificación forestal y esquemas de prestación Arias Toledo Ariel, Ordenamiento del Territorio de servicios ambientales. Comunal por el PROCYMAF. Ponencia presenta- da en ante la X Conferencia Bienal de la Inter- national Association for the Study of Common Notas Property. Oaxaca, México, 2004. 1 Potes, Luis Fernando, 2004 Bonfil Batalla, G., Lo propio y lo ajeno. Una 2 Declaración de Cancún. Declaración de Países Me- aproximación al problema del control cultural. gadiversos Afines. Cancún, México, 18 de febrero México, UNAM, Revista de Ciencias Políticas y de 2002 Sociales, 103, 1981. 3 Ribeiro, Darcy, 1985 Carmona, Fernando et al, El milagro mexicano. 4 Carmona, Fernando et al, 1981 México, Nuestro Tiempo, 12a edición, 1981. 5 Tennesee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (48° Stat. Chapela, F. y Lara, Y., La planeación comunitaria 58-59,16 U.S.C., sec. 83), 1933 del manejo del territorio. México, Consejo Civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostenible, A.C.— 6 ver Carlos De Mattos, 1986. Estudios Rurales y Asesoría, A.C. Cuadernos 7 Ángel Massiris Cabeza, 2002. para una silvicultura sostenible. Serie Métodos 8 Lara, Y y Díez de S., J..La Evaluación Rural Par- para la Participación No. 2, 1996. ticipativa (ERP) en la práctica. Oaxaca, México, De Mattos, Carlos A. "Paradigmas, modelos y Estudios Rurales y Asesoría Campesina, A.C. 1996 estrategias en la práctica latinoamericana de 9 Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas planificación regional", Pensamiento iberoame- (CONANP). Áreas Naturales Protegidas. http://co- ricano. Revista de economía política, n°spécial: nanp.gob.mx/anp/anp.php 2004 Desarrollo regional: nuevos desafíos, Madrid, 1986, 10: p. 13-37: 10 Estos ejercicios de PCUT fueron animados y coor- dinados por el Grupo Autónomo para la Investiga- Janzen, Daniel H., Ingredientes esenciales de un ción Ambiental (GAIA). enfoque por ecosistemas para la conservación de la biodiversidad de las áreas silvestres tropi- 11 Arias Toledo Ariel, 2004. cales. Presentación al Cuerpo Técnico Subsidia- 12 Adger W.N., 2000. ro (SBSTTA) en preparación de la 5a conferencia 13 Ostrom, E and Becker, C D., 1995 de las partes para la Convención sobre Diversi- dad Biológica (COP 5), Montreal, CA. 2000. 14 Bonfil Batalla, G, 1981 Lara, Y y Díez de S., J., La Evaluación Rural Par- 15 Janzen, Daniel H, 2000 ticipativa (ERP) en la práctica. Oaxaca, México, 16 En Latinoamérica, se llevaron a cabo entre 1990 y Estudios Rurales y Asesoría Campesina, A.C. 1997, 3,489 proyectos de conservación, los cuales 1996 fueron financiados al menos por 65 fuentes de Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas financiamiento (aunque el 90% de los fondos fue (CONANP). Áreas Naturales Protegidas. http:// proporcionado por las agencias bilaterales) con conanp.gob.mx/anp/anp.php 2004 una inversión total de 326 millones de USD. Sin embargo, del total del financiamiento dedicado Ostrom, E and Becker, C D., “Human Ecology and a estas actividades sólo entre un 1.4 y 5% fue Resource Sustainability: The Importance of In- dedicado a financiar actividades en las cuales la stitutional Diversity”, Annual Review of Ecology población afectada por los decretos estuvo directa- and Systematics (26): 113-133. 1995 mente involucrada, como por ejemplo manejo de Potes, Luis Fernando, Megadiversidad. Buenos ecosistemas, empresas sostenibles y capacitación. Aires, Programa Panamericano de Defensa y La mayor parte (70%) se invirtió en pago de buro- Desarrollo de la Diversidad Biológica, Cultural y cracia gubernamentales y no-gubernamentales de Social, 2004. las ANPs. (World Bank, 2003) Ribeiro, Darcy, Las Américas y la civilización, Bue- nos Aires: CEAL, 1985 Tennesee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (48° Stat. 58-59,16 U.S.C., sec. 83). 1933. World Bank/WWF Forest Alliance, Biodiversity Funding in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, World Bank/WWF Forest Alliance, 2003

298 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

HHumanuman rrights—ights— a gguidinguiding principleprinciple oror anan obstacleobstacle forfor conservation?conservation?

NNayaaya SharmaSharma Paudel,Paudel, SSomatomat Ghimire,Ghimire, andand HemantHemant RajRaj OOjhajha

Abstract. Following a history of repressive conservation practices and related agonies and grievances, and a decade-long violent political conflict, the notion of human rights is becom- ing central to political discourse in Nepal, and conservation policy and practice are pressed to address this emerging agenda. This paper describes how political parties, civil society organi- zations, and bureaucrats take differing positions in the debate over human rights and conser- vation, with little consensus on how the two can be enhanced together. Meanwhile, despite the proliferation of human rights discourse, violations of some fundamental human rights continue to happen in the practice of protected area management… while the new political climate is encouraging the early release of notorious poachers from custody. Conservation- ists accustomed to securing the integrity of protected areas under an autocratic regime face multiple challenges to respond to increased demands for respecting human rights.

Inclusion of the human rights agenda Conservation programmes have been in nature conservation programmes criticized for their negative social im- marks a significant turn in conservation pacts, including violation of human discourse. The human rights agenda rights.2 It is widely recognised that not only takes conservation away from the PAs approach to conservation has a narrow focus on protection of flora resulted in damage to crops and live- and fauna, but also goes beyond the stock, displacement of local and in- provision of economic incentives1 to digenous communities, denial of their protect the environment. In the case of traditional and customary user rights, conservation through protected ar- limitations on their development pos- eas (PAs), the notion of human rights sibilities and, in some cases, denial of broadly embraces the socio-economic their basic civil and political rights.3 and cultural rights of local and indig- enous people living in and around PAs. Conservation policy and practice, how- ever, reflect little consensus on the nature and scope of human rights that should be accommodated within PA governance. Some conservationists have fully defended the basic human rights of local and indigenous people, including their customary use rights in and around PAs.4 Others have warned that undue emphasis on human needs and aspirations may ultimately jeop- ardise conservation goals.5 They argue that democratic political systems and Picture 1. Indigenous people discuss is- high respect for human rights pose sues of restrictions imposed by rules protecting Nepal’s Chitwan National Park. serious challenges to securing PAs in- (Courtesy Naya Sharma Paudel) tegrity. Although there is an emerging

15, July 2007 299 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

consensus that some form of local par- independent group, he died because of ticipation helps PA governance, diverse torture at the hand of Park authorities.6 approaches to understanding and ad- dressing human rights can be observed Three local people (Shikaram Chaud- even within the participatory or people- hary, Mangal Praja and Saman KC) oriented conservation camp. have died in the past 13 months while in Park’s custody,7 and hundreds of lo- This paper discusses how human rights cal people remain in violations continue in nature conserva- custody at the time TThehe ggloballobal discoursediscourse tion, taking the case study of Nepal’s of this writing. In oonn conservationconservation Chitwan National Park (hereafter the the Park’s history, ggeneratedenerated ‘Park’). The focus of analysis is on the several others are ongoing problem of rhino poaching known to have been nneededeeded rresourcesesources and widespread abuse of human rights shot and killed for aandnd rrhetoricalhetorical in relation to this. The analysis is in- suspected poaching, iinstrumentsnstruments ttoo erecterect formed by our extensive involvement in illegal use of natural the park both as researchers and envi- resources, or en- sstrongtrong conservationconservation ronmental and rights activists, as well croaching the park’s bbureaucracies,ureaucracies, wwhichhich as by our literature review on PA gov- boundary8. Other re- wwereere iimperviousmpervious ernance. We also draw on secondary ported punishments ttoo eveneven thethe radicalradical information, selective interviews, and include: beatings; personal communications. being forced to sleep ppoliticalolitical change.change. naked on hot sand; confiscation of fish- The paper begins with specific cases of ermen’s catch; and forced labour such human rights abuses in the Park and as cleaning, cooking, collecting firewood then explores historical and contextual and working in the kitchen garden of forces leading to such abuses. Draw- Park officials. The conservation laws ing from civil society-led social move- and regulations ban indigenous liveli- ments, the paper reveals seeds of hope hood practices of fishing, collecting wild regarding the potential integration of fruits, vegetables and fodder, and ani- human rights within conservation. It mal grazing. Access routes are closed, concludes by exploring remaining con- cutting off communication and mutual flicts between various conservation ac- exchanges between neighbouring com- tors and challenges facing the integra- munities in and around the Park. tion of human rights and conservation. Such cases of human rights abuses Human rights violations in were by and large covered up before Chitwan National Park 1990 during the Panchayat period, a On, June 15, 2006 in Narayangarh, partyless political system under the Chitwan, almost every newspaper in leadership of the king, but this con- town highlighted the story of Shikhar- tinued even under the multiparty am Chaudhary, a farmer of the local parliamentary system, after 1990. indigenous community, who died in The global discourse on conserva- the custody of Chitwan National Park. tion generated needed resources and The park authorities had arrested him rhetorical instruments to erect strong for his alleged involvement in rhino conservation bureaucracies which were poaching. He died in custody during the impervious to even the radical politi- process of “investigation”. According to cal change. As a result, there are now an investigation report prepared by an highly unequal power relations be-

300 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

tween the conservation authorities and national attention to the environmental the local and indigenous communities. protection of the Himalayan region.13 The conservation authorities were em- Thirdly, during the early 1970s, the powered with military means, legal and establishment of PAs was a global phe- administrative apparatus, international nomenon that mobilised technical and moral and financial support, and above financial aid, particularly in developing all, direct backing of the reigning kings countries in tropical regions. Following of the time and members of the royal consultations by conservation experts family.9 The local people were hardly from UNDP, FAO and zoological societies consulted and their social, cultural, and of London, New York, and Frankfurt, the economic relationships with the local King and a few domestic experts de- environment were largely ignored.10 In cided to establish hunting reserves and such contexts, concerns over human those were later converted into national rights violations were simply ignored parks and wildlife sanctuaries.14 or intentionally suppressed by the con- servation authorities.11 Militarization of PAs is one of the fac- tors that further worsened human Those living in the vicinity of the Park rights conditions in the field of con- are mainly poor, landless dalits, and servation. The Nepalese Army has indigenous communities such as Tharu, been deployed for Musahar, Bote, and Chepang. They protecting the PAs. MMilitarizationilitarization ofof have little access to local social and Around 5000 army PPAsAs iiss oneone ofof thethe political institutions, including politi- personnel have been ffactorsactors thatthat furtherfurther cal parties, media, NGOs or other civil stationed in various society forums in general. They also PAs. International wworsenedorsened hhumanuman have little awareness of modern citi- conservation agen- rrightsights conditionsconditions zenry rights, especially political and cies have recognised iinn thethe fieldfield ofof legal rights. Abuse of human rights has the Nepalese Army's cconservation.onservation. therefore continued unabated or un- "exemplary efforts challenged most of the time. to combat poaching and illegal trade in endangered species, in particular Origins of conservation-related the leopard, the rhinoceros, and the human rights violations in Nepal tiger".15 It should be noted that un- Historically, Nepal’s conservation move- til recently (mid-2006) the Nepalese ment was little familiar with human Army has been within the tight grip of rights. The conservation agenda had the autocratic monarchy and has had been initially promoted by domestic a notorious history of committing seri- 16 and international conservationists with ous human rights violations. Given strong backing by the autocratic kings this, one can hardly expect the army to and other members of the royal family. respect human rights in the context of Three factors, in particular, contributed protected areas. to the establishment and consolida- tion of PAs in Nepal. Firstly, the ruling The feudal legacy within conservation elites (especially late king Mahendra, a is another factor leading to sidelin- great hunter), saw their hunting para- ing human rights. Both the royal fam- dise disappearing and were concerned ily and the Nepalese Army, which has about the protection of game species. historically been loyal to the monarchy, Secondly, the Theory of Himalayan En- have been active in conservation. Park vironmental Degradation12 drew inter- staff also had close ties with the royal

15, July 2007 301 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

family during the Panchayat, though which] 808 persons were killed by the this relationship slightly diminished state security forces and 450 by the after 1990.17 However, even after the Maoists.…Extrajudicial killings, arbi- establishment of a multiparty system, trary arrests, incommunicado detention park managers and other staff saw the and 'disappearances' are escalating to royal family as their true patrons and alarming numbers”.22 felt privileged during their recreational visits to the parks (usually for hunt- At this time of increasing human ing).18 Their continued loyalty to the rights crises, a peaceful resistance royal family is demonstrated by the movement involving rights activ- following quote from a park warden: ists, media persons, lawyers, doc- “With the compassionate affection [and tors, teachers and students gradu- the] blessed and able leadership of His ally developed and gained influence, Majesty, all the environmentalists and drawing largely on the human rights conservationists engaged in the field framework. Since the conflict was of biodiversity have received incessant led by the Maoists, i.e. a communist inspiration to engage in the very noble party, it drew the particular atten- work of conservation”.19 tion of human rights movements, the press, and governments in the Royal coup, democratic West. Intensive public education movement and human rights campaigns on legal literacy, women’s discourse rights, rights of dalits, and rights to information were launched by vari- Nepal experienced over 237 years of ous development agencies and NGOs. autocratic monarchy. During this pe- Even government agencies, including riod, serious human rights violations the police and army, were coached on occurred including arbitrary detention, human rights issues. Gradually, the extra-judicial killings, and enforced human rights movement became part disappearances, in the apparent ab- of the democratic movement against sence of a rule of law.20 For the last the royal takeover. Finally, the King’s decade, the Maoist-led violent conflict direct rule collapsed, the elected par- crippled the country, resulting in se- liament was reinstated, a government vere security and livelihood crises. In was formed by a seven-party alliance, the shadow of Maoist insurgency, King and a comprehensive peace deal was Gyanendra, backed by the Nepalese signed by the government and the Army, took over the executive power, Maoists. A new interim parliament dismissed the elected parliament and and interim government have been government, and imposed his own rule. formed and will hold elections for a Human rights activists both at home Constitutional Assembly. and abroad were frustrated by abuses by security personnel and Maoists alike Sikharam’s death took place at the during this period,21 as reflected in time of these democratic transitions. As this excerpt from a human rights re- a result, strict conservation approaches port: “Gross human rights violations based on strong bio-centric beliefs have increased after the royal takeover. been increasingly challenged, demand- After the royal takeover, the number ing integration of the human rights of people killed per day has doubled. agenda. Rights activists, media persons A total of 1258 persons have been and civil society organisations consid- killed in connection with the Maoists' ered Sikharam’s death a stark viola- 'People's War' after the royal coup, [in

302 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

tion of human rights by a ‘reactionary and indigenous, welcomed the ver- bureaucracy’. There was widespread dict. For the first time they could trust anger against a behaviour that con- that the state, particularly the judicial tinued to disregard fundamental civil system, would provide justice for the rights of the citizens. The rights activ- poor and disadvantaged. Tej Bahadur ists, local people, political party cadres, Majhi, a local fisherman said: “It is media and other sections of civil soci- incredible. I still cannot believe that ety formed an alliance to protest this the (assistant) warden is now in the incident. They launched a campaign jail. Something has definitely changed including street protest, mass meet- in this country.” Local people appeared ings, lobbying government ministers, to see the verdict as a victory, espe- and filing a court case against the park cially those suffering the strict punitive officials demanding legal redress and measures of the park officials. Linking fair compensation to Sikharam’s family. this ‘victory’ with the recent success- ful people’s movement, one of the local In the face of increasing public pres- political activists said, “Had King Gy- sure, the Ministry of Forest and Soil nandra’s rule continued in this country, Conservation many of such events would have been TThehe eeventvent wwasas a ccata-ata- suspended the of- buried under the soil.” llystyst forfor thethe peoplepeople ofof ficers involved in CChitwanhitwan toto expressexpress the incident. The Conflicting perspectives on police arrested human rights ttheirheir agonyagony overover them and held ddecadesecades ooff ggrievancesrievances Forestry professionals, under the lead- them in custody, ership of Nepal Forester’s Association aagainstgainst thethe parkpark and a case was (NFA) and Rangers Association of Ne- aauthoritiesuthorities andand secu-secu- filed demand- pal (RAN) opposed the arrest and trial ing punishment rrityity personnel.personnel. […][…] of the park officials. They protested of the concerned through a nation-wide one day strike, ppooroor andand indigenousindigenous officials. During submitted a letter of protest to the ppeopleeople couldcould forfor thethe the trial, protests Minister, and issued a press release. ffirstirst timetime trusttrust thatthat against the death They strongly objected to officials being continued in tthehe state,state, particularlyparticularly tried under civilian law and demanded Chitwan, largely that the case be tried under public ad- tthehe judicialjudicial system,system, supported by the ministration law, which would take the wwouldould pproviderovide justice.justice. political parties case toward a much softer corner. They and civil soci- blamed the Minister for not protect- ety activists. The event was a catalyst ing the officials involved. They argued for the people of Chitwan to express that charging park officers for “minor” their agony over decades of grievances abuses of human rights would kill the against the park authorities and secu- morale in the bureaucracy and create rity personnel. disincentives to arrest, interrogate and punish the poachers. If conservation The court eventually declared that the officials were constrained in their ac- death was caused by excessive use of tions, they would not be able to control force, and one assistant warden and the poachers, who have close ties with one ranger working with the Chatwan illegal gangs both within and outside National Park were found guilty and the country. These claims brought the therefore sentenced with imprison- case for human rights into question ment. The local people, mainly poor and led to reinforcement of army-based

15, July 2007 303 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

and strict conservation practices. Recently, a series of discussions have been organised on the problem of rhino Meanwhile, the problem of rhino poach- poaching, as it has drawn wider atten- ing escalated in the Chitwan National tion from diverse sections of Nepalese Park. A sharp decrease in rhino popula- society. Conservationists, park bureau- tion was noticed between two counts— crats, politicians, civil society members from over 544 in 2000 to only 372 in and representatives of local and indig- 2005.23 Since this last count, 37 rhinos enous people have their own analysis have been killed by poachers. The rhi- of the problem and solutions according nos are usually killed using guns, elec- to their perspectives, world views and tric wire trap, or poison. Well organised specific vested interests. Two major per- networks of poachers with access to spectives can be observed in the current power centres usually involve local debate on the death of Sikharam and people in trapping and killing rhinos. the ongoing rhino poaching in Chitwan. Despite the high priority given to stop- ping rhino poaching, the park authori- The first view favours a military solu- ties have largely been unable to pre- tion with stringent punitive measures. vent it. Instead, there has been general It advocates empowering the park rise in poaching in the recent years.24 authorities with additional legal and administrative means so that they The rhino is an icon for Chitwan Na- are not constrained by the “unneces- tional Park from various perspectives. sary” charges of human rights abuses. It is one of the endangered species, the Conservationists, park bureaucrats major attraction for tourists, and fa- and some politicians see the reduc- mous in popular discourse of conserva- tion of army deployment in the park tion, education, and eco-toursim. His- due to the Maoist insurgency as the torically the rhino had been accorded a main cause of increased rhino poaching special status. From the time of Rana in recent years. For them, reinstate- Prime Ministers in the early 19th cen- ment of army posts and increases in tury, the rhino was identified for exclu- army personnel are the solution. For IInn ChitwanChitwan sive royal hunting. them, the end of the autocratic rule, In fact, the primary establishment of a democratic pol- NNationalational Park,Park, impetus to establish ity, proliferation of popular discourse tthehe entireentire notionnotion the park came, in the on human rights, and the agenda of ooff conservationconservation ofof early 1960s, from democratic restructuring of the state bbiodiversityiodiversity hashas concern over the have little relevance to conservation. protection of rhinos. Indeed, conservation practice gener- bbeeneen rreducededuced ttoo Indeed, in Chitwan ally allows little political space for local rrhinohino conservation.conservation. National Park, the affected people. Comparing conserva- entire notion of con- tion practice in Nepal with that of China servation of biodiversity has been re- and India, one park warden argues for duced to rhino conservation, as a result unlimited power for park authorities to of incessant promotion of conservation shoot any intruder.25 Similarly, as noted discourse by conservation agencies earlier, NFA, an organization represent- and the government. It is no surprise ing forest professionals and defending that the Nepalese parliament has also the park officials in Sikharam’s case, devoted much time to discussing the argued that the officials were simply issue of rhino poaching and protection. performing their duty according to the law and had no personal interest in kill-

304 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

ing Sikharam. The secretary of the NFA management of PAs.26 The continuous made it explicit in a meeting that pun- alienation of the local people for over ishing the officials on duty might force three decades has the officials to refrain from undertaking made them indif- HHumanuman rrightsights their everyday duties. ferent towards loss aactivistsctivists stronglystrongly of biodiversity. aarguergue tthathat violationsviolations This view proposes military solution Moreover, for many ooff humanhuman rrightsights cancan to control the poaching and therefore local people the recommends for more security posts, rhino symbolises nneverever bbee jjustifiedustified ttoo increased army personnel, increased their main enemy, pprotectrotect non-humans’non-humans’ surveillance and stringent punitive as it causes crop rrightsights oror thosethose ofof measures along with increased author- damage and hu- ity to park officials in order to curb ille- man casualties. ffutureuture ggenerations.enerations. gal activities in the Park. Although they As long as they recognise socio-economic factors in- will see the Park as the government’s cluding poverty that encourage poach- property, they will continue to see the ing, they are not ready to accept liveli- rhino as belonging to the state and hoods as fundamental human rights. will not feel a responsibility to con- For them supporting local livelihoods serve it. Introduction of a buffer zone is only a strategic move to garner local programme that provides economic support to conservation. incentives to the local people has also been largely limited to benefiting lo- Unfortunately, conservationists’ self- cal elites.27 Consequently, the Park has asserted claim that they are nature’s not been able to garner the support of only true caretaker with a long-term the large mass of marginalised groups outlook is at odds with the perspectives in and around it. The rights activists and rights of local people. Indeed, local and other civil society groups therefore people can share important responsi- argue that rhino poaching could not be bilities of protecting nature for future controlled without improving the exist- generations and for its intrinsic value. ing poor public support for conserva- The problem is that the conservation tion. Although some conservationists agencies assume local people have too see these deaths as ‘minor’ incidents narrow a perspective and hardly share or ‘necessary’ sacrifice for larger goals the ‘burden’ of their responsibility with of nature conservation, human rights the diverse actors in the society. activists strongly argue that violations of human rights can never be justified The second view emphasizes the need to protect non-humans’ rights or those to understand the problem of con- of future generations. servation involving social, economic, and cultural rights of people. Such an Although questions like whether rhino outlook is largely shared by local and conservation or human interests come indigenous communities in the Chitwan first divide conservationists and hu- valley, many civil society organisations, man rights activists, broader questions and some rights activists. For them, such as who decides the conservation people should come first, followed by agenda and how the costs and benefits rhino. They reject the idea that Sikhar- of nature conservation are distributed am’s death can be traded off with rhino between the state and different groups conservation and link the problem of citizens clarify these debates. The of rhino poaching with exclusionary conflict between rhino conservation

15, July 2007 305 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

and human interests in Chitwan valley protest rallies, and that is why politi- is largely a product of modern nature cians do not listen to them.30 conservation approaches focusing on protected areas, and must be exam- Lack of adequate attention by the ined through discourse, institutions and government (at the political level) to actors around conservation practice. As continued rhino poaching has further the political ecology perspective holds, increased concern society-nature relations are reflections among the conserva- A ssingleingle argumentargument of broader social arrangements. In this tion lobby. Several rrunsuns tthroughouthroughout light, conservation discourse and prac- suspected poach- ddiscussion,iscussion, tice are historically produced to serve ers were released the interests of dominant groups, de- in early September wwritingriting andand policypolicy legitimizing the rights of the local peo- 2005 through politi- pprescriptionsrescriptions ofof thethe ple who depend on park resources. 28 cal decisions, a move cconservationists:onservationists: opposed by conser- Despite the entrenched exclusionary vation groups includ- mmoreore aarmyrmy ppostsosts ideologies of conservation, the re- ing IUCN and WWF.31 aarere rrequiredequired ttoo ccurburb cent upsurge of powerful discourses Despite constant rrhinohino poaching.poaching. on democracy and human rights has warnings by conser- presented significant vationists and some sections of civil ““TheThe rrhinohino doesdoes notnot challenges to biodi- society, more and more detainees of ggoo inin forfor hungerhunger versity and environ- conservation offences are being re- sstrikes,trikes, burnburn ttires,ires, mental conservation leased. Many of those poachers re- practices. During the leased prior to the completion of their sstoptop vehicularvehicular current transitional punishment are said to have returned mmovement,ovement, oorr period (since mid- to their old business. Moreover, only oorganizerganize protestprotest 2006) political parties minimum punishment is given to even in Nepal have become the most dangerous poachers with no- rrallies,allies, andand thatthat isis powerful actors. As torious track records.32 Although clan- wwhyhy politicianspoliticians dodo has often been the destine relations between politicians, nnotot listenlisten toto them.”them.” case, the political par- bureaucrats and criminals were not ties, particularly at the uncommon during the past autocratic local level, have expressed full support regime, they were less evident in rela- for the immediate concerns of people in tion to the poachers due to strong con- their constituencies. They tend to think servation commitment of the members of short-term political gains rather than of the royal family. The current early long-term environmental interests. As release of poachers is often attributed one of the political leaders put it, “rhi- to recent political change and transition nos wouldn’t vote for our party; why towards liberal democracy; there are should we privilege rhino over peo- suspicions that the poachers may take ple?”.29 Within this joking comment lies advantage of the more liberal polity by an inherent rationale as to why politi- using corrupt politicians and bureau- cians prefer to side with the voices of crats to facilitate early release in ex- local people, rather than taking the change for benefits from vested political side of the rhino. In a similar vein, Ms and economic interests.33 As one WWF Rai, a columnist in a daily newspaper, officer commented, the decision under- has rightly pointed out that rhino does mined the long record of conservation not go in for hunger strikes, burn tires, achievements in Nepal: "The release stop vehicular movement, or organize of these rhino poachers and traders by

306 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

the government of Nepal devalues the tions are exposed by the early release efforts that conservationists from within of dangerous poachers while demands the government, communities, and for increased army posts and stringent partner organizations, who have worked punishment for offenders fail to receive so hard to achieve in the past four dec- local support. ades of saving rhinos in Nepal."34 The establishment of a democratic pol- Unfortunately, continued poaching has ity and popular discourse on human allowed further rationalisation of mili- rights appears to have induced two par- tary solutions to the problem. A single allel but opposing processes. Local peo- argument runs throughout discussion, ple, various civil society organisations, writing and policy prescriptions of the and rights activists in particular are now conservationists: more army posts enjoying enough space to raise issues are required to curb rhino poaching. of social, economic and cultural rights Conservation authorities have become to local environmental resources. Local blind to any alternative modalities of people are now better organised, have conservation and instead continue to gained communicative competence and emphasise militarising the parks to are defending their customary rights. conserve biodiversity and wildlife. Even As the case of Chitwan National Park the buffer zone management councils shows, they have become influential in have recommended increasing army bringing park officials to justice, ulti- posts in Chitwan National Park. mately making the officials account- able for their actions. Now the officials The challenge of embracing have to change their practice drastically human rights in conservation and think twice before using excessive Sikharam’s death demonstrates the force. This is, however, seen as a seri- significance of human rights within ous setback for the enthusiasm and conservation efforts. The sheer mass efficiency of the park officials who have and diversity of local people and oth- long been acquainted with conventional ers who sympathised with the death of approaches to control poaching. Sikharam and expressed their anger against the park authorities is a testa- From the opposite end, a liberal demo- cratic polity and ment to the level of hu- BBureaucraticureaucratic HHistorically,istorically, man rights abuse by the human rights dis- tthehe disregarddisregard park authorities. On the course have given ddispositionisposition andand other hand, the respons- leeway to the gov- tthehe relativerelative comfortcomfort fforor humanhuman ernment for early es of conservationists cconservationistsonservationists rrightsights hashas beenbeen release of many and forest bureaucrats eenjoyednjoyed dduringuring a ssymptomymptom ofof reveal the strong bio- detainees and for soft punishment.35 cconservationists’onservationists’ centric position that has aautocraticutocratic regimesregimes been institutionalised Although the early hhaveave mademade iitt uunequalnequal ppowerower release of many de- within conservation pro- ddifficultifficult toto embraceembrace rrelationselations withwith grammes in Nepal: con- tainees was part of political generosity nnewew pprinciplesrinciples llocalocal peoplepeople servationists put nature first. Historically, the shown by the newly ooff humanhuman rrightsights disregard for human rights has been formed democratic aandnd ttoo transformtransform government, some a symptom of conservationists’ un- cconservationonservation practice.practice. equal power relations with local people. of the dangerous Today, current institutional contradic- criminals also benefited from this de-

15, July 2007 307 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

cision. As demonstrated by increased principles of human rights and to trans- rhino poaching, generous treatment of form conservation practice. poachers often has negative impacts on protection. Such government deci- Conclusion sions have rewarded the criminals while The heavy influence of a protectionist demoralising some of the park staff who conservation ideology, the use of the are honestly engaged in rhino protec- military as the sole protector of flora tion. Apart from weakening their en- and fauna, and a strong legacy of feu- thusiasm and willpower to arrest and dalistc attitudes nurtured by the ruling detain suspected poachers, these kinds elites have historically contributed to of interferences alienate park officials the abuse of human rights in Nepal’s from protection tasks and jeopardise the conservation programmes. During the sustainability of the PA system in Nepal. Panchayat period, the autocratic political regime supported exclusionary manage- During personal interviews and con- ment of PAs so that violations of human versations with local people and au- rights were covered up or suppressed. thorities around the Chitwan National The legacy is so entrenched that even Park over the past several years, con- the recent radical political changes have servationists openly admit that they only partially exposed the practices that have been facing enormous difficulty in are counter to human rights standards. addressing the growing human rights movement on issues related to national After a decade-long violent conflict, parks. It appears that their bureaucrat- a democratic political system with an ic disposition and the relative comfort increasingly powerful human rights they enjoyed during autocratic regimes discourse has been established. Con- have made it difficult to embrace new servation authorities who used to enjoy unlimited power against anyone violat- ing the park rules regulations are now facing immense resistance from the burgeoning civil society. While this may be good news for many victims of exclu- sionary PA management, the authorities have found themselves in a very difficult situation in fighting against the poach- ing mafia. Poachers have benefited from liberal political trends by manipulating corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. Fur- ther, the anti-poaching image of con- servation authorities is blurred by the overt and covert associations of some of the officials with poaching networks, making it difficult to fully rely on con- servation officials to meet anti-poaching goals. Conservation authorities still tend to assume sole responsibility for pro- tecting PAs, and are reluctant to share their role and responsibilities with other Picture 2. Local fisherman repairing his fishing stakeholders including local people. net. (Courtesy Naya Sharma Paudel) Consequently, they have been found

308 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

too weak in facing challenges of either 4 Colchester, 1997; Schwartzman et al., 2000. protecting the integrity of the park or 5 Terborgh and Schaik, 2002. adequately respecting local people’s hu- 6 CVICT, 2006; CITES, 2006; Ghimire, 2006. man rights including economic, cultural, 7 Ghimire, 2006. 8 Poudel, 2006; Ghimire, 1992; Shrestha and Conway, and other citizens’ rights. 1996. 9 Paudel, 2005; Soliva et al., 2003. Conservation authorities, due to their 10 Paudel, 2003; Paudel, 2005a. long association with the autocratic po- 11 Paudel, 2005a. litical regime, are reluctant to embrace 12 A term coined by Ives and Messerli (1989) to de- issues of human rights. They are also scribe the body of literature, particularly a treatise on hill deforestation by Eckholm (1976), that high- not trained to work in collaboration with lighted environmental degradation in the Nepalese empowered stakeholders who cannot be hills. This was was largely attributed to the in- easily controlled. The fundamental issue creased hill population and ‘primitive’ farming prac- tice leading to environmental degradation including here is that human rights have are not deforestation, erosion, and landslides in the region. perceived as guiding principles for the 13 Eckholm, 1976. conservation authorities but as a burden 14 Muller-Boker, 1999. posing a serious challenge to protecting 15 CITES, 2006. the integrity of the PAs. In this situa- 16 Amnesty International, 2006. tion, a small and emerging network of 17 Bhatt, 2003. critical civil society groups provide an 18 Bhatta, 2003. important source of hope for substan- 19 Upadhyaya, 2001:vii. tive change. These groups expose the 20 INSEC, 2006. practices of human rights violations and 21 HRTMCC, 2005. empower the victims by helping them 22 INSEC, 2005: 4. to organise. In so doing, they challenge 23 GoN, 2006. 24 TRN, 2007. two facets of the problem— the bio- 25 Kunwar, 2007. centric legacies of conservation authori- 26 Ghimire, 2007. ties, which undermine the fundamental 27 Paudel, 2005b. human rights of local people, and the 28 Brockington, 2004; Guha, 1987. feudalistic legacies of politicians, who 29 Quote from one of the party leaders of Nepal Sadb- lack both environmental sensitivity and hawana Party (Aanandidevi). public accountability. 30 Rai, 2007. 31 WWF, IUCN and NTNC, 2006. Naya Sharma Paudel ([email protected]) 32 CITIESNEPAL, 2007. Also evident by a recent case in works as Coordinator of ForestAction, a Kathmandu-based which a park warden hearing a case of a notorious NGO working on environmental governance and forest re- poacher with a record of illegally possessing over 17 source management. Somat Ghimire rhino horns has imposed only a minimum sentence. ([email protected]) works with Community Develop- ment Organisation, also in Kathmandu. Hemant Raj Ojha 33 CITIESNEPAL, 2007. ([email protected]) works with the Environ- 34 Williams, 2007. Statement made by Christy Wil- mental Resource Institute in Kathmandu. liams, coordinator of WWF's Asian Rhinoceros and Elephant Action Strategy. 35 See Ojha (2006) for an overview of how technocrat- Notes ic mindset under liberal democratic polity dominates 1 Economic incentives that attempt to address liveli- forest governance in Nepal. hood needs of local people have recognised social and economic needs only as strategic means to conservation. Conservation programmes have yet References to recognise these needs as basic human rights ir- Amnesty International, Nepal: A decade of Suffering respective of their contribution to conservation. and Abuse, press release, 10 Feb, 2006. 2 Brockington, 2003; Brockington and Schmidt-Sol- Bhatt, N., "Kings as Wardens and Wardens as Kings: tau, 2004; Chapin, 2004. Post-Rana Ties between Nepali Royalty and National Park Staff", Conservation and Society 1(2): 247-268, 3 Kothari et al., 1996; Homewood and Brockington, 2003. 1999; Brockington et al. 2006 Brockington, D. "Community conservation, inequality

15, July 2007 309 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

and injustice: myths of power in protected area man- vice Centre, Kathmandu, 2006. agement", Conservation and Society 2(2): 411-432, Kothari, A., N. Singh and S. Suri, People and Protected 2004. Areas: Towards Participatory Conservation in India, Brockington, D. and K. Schmidt-Soltau, "The social and Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1996. environmental impacts of wilderness and develop- Kunwar, K., “Wrong attitude towards conservation” Kan- ment", Oryx 38(2): 140-142, 2004. tipur Daily, page 6, January 15 2007. Brockington, D., "Injustice and conservation- is local Muller-Boker, U., The Chitwan Tharus in Central Nepal: support necessary for sustainable protected areas?", An Ethnological Approach, Franz Steiner Verlag Stutt- Policy Matters, 12: 22-30, 2003. gart, Stuttgart (Germany), 1999 Brockington, D., J, Igoe and K. Schmidt-Soltau. “Con- Muller-Bèoker, U. and M. Kollmair, "Livelihood Strategies servation, human rights and poverty reduction.” and local perceptions of a new nature conservation Conservation Biology, 20(1):250-252, 2006. project in Nepal.", Mountain Research and Develop- Chapin, M., "A Challenge to conservationist", World ment, 20(4): 324-331, 2000. Watch, 17-31, 2004. Ojha, H., “Techno-bureaucratic doxa and the challenge CITES, Certificate of Commendation to Nepal authorities of deliberative governance— the case of community for their combat against wildlife poachers and traffick- forestry policy and practice in Nepal”, Policy and Soci- ers, CITES awards, 2006. ety, 25 (2), pp 131-175, 2006. CITIESNEPAL, “The nexus of wildlife traders at large”, Paudel N. S., “Protected areas and reproduction of so- Wildlife Times, 1(2): 1-2, 2007. cial inequality”, Policy Matters, 14:155-168, 2005a. Colchester, M., "Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples Paudel, N. S., “Conservation and livelihoods: exploring and protected areas", pages 97-130 in Ghimire, K. local people's responses to conservation interventions B.and M. Pimbert (eds), Social Change and Conserva- in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal”, International tion: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National and Rural Development Department, University of Parks and Protected Areas, Earthscan London, 1997. Reading, Reading (UK), 2005. CVICT, Field Based Report on Shikharam’s Death in Paudel, N. S., Buffer Zone Management in Royal Chit- Chitwan National Park. Centre for Victims of Torture, wan National Park: Understanding the Micro Politics, Kathmandu, 2007. Making Ecosystem Based Management Work, 5th Eckholm, E. P., Losing Ground: Environmental Stress International SAMPAA Conference 11-16 May, 2003, and World Food Prospects, W. W. Norton & Company, University of British Columbia, Science and Protected New York, 1976. Area Management Association, Victoria (Canada), 2003. Ghimire, K. B., Forest or Farm? The Politics of Poverty and Land Hunger in Nepal, Oxford University Press, Poudel, R.K., “Man eater National Park”, Samaya Delhi, 1992. weekly, 3(132): 16-17, 2006. Ghimire, P., "'Tortured' detainee in national park dies in Rai, S., “Rhinos do not go for hunger strike”, Kantipur hospital", The Kathmandu Post, Kathmandu, June 15, Daily, Page: 7, January 8, 2007. 2006. Redclift, M., "The Meaning of Sustainable Develop- Ghimire, S., “Conservation at People’s Hand” Samaya ment.", Geoforum, 23(3): 395-404, 1992. Weekly, Page: 40, February 2007. Schwartzman, S., A. Moreira, and D. Nepstad, "Re- Government of Nepal, The Greater One-horned Rhinoc- thinking Tropical Forest Conservation: Perils in Park", eros Conservation Action Plan for Nepal (2—0-2011), Conservation Biology 14(5): 1351-1357, 2000. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forestry and Soil Shrestha, N. R. and D. Conway, "Ecopolitical battles at Conservation, Department of National Park and Wild- the Terai frontier of Nepal: an emerging human and life Conservation, Kathmandu, 2006. environmental crisis.",International Journal of Popula- Guha, R. "The Authoritarian biologists and the arro- tion Geography, 2(4): 313-331,1996. gance of anti-humanism: wildlife conservation in the Soliva, R., M. Kollmair and U. Müller-Böker, "The Social Third World.", The Ecologist 27(1): 14-19, 1997. Context of Nature Conservation in Nepal.", European Homewood, K. and D. Brockington, "Biodiversity, Bulletin of Himalayan Research, 24: 25-62, 2003. conservation and development in Mkomazi Game Re- Terborgh, J. and C. V. Schaik, "Why the world needs serve, Tanzania", Global Ecology and Biogeography, Parks", pps 3-14, in Terborgh, J., C. V. Schaik, L. Dav- 8(3-4): 301-313, 1999. enport and M. Rao, Making Parks Work: Strategies for HRTMCC, Sankatkal and Manabadhikar: Sidhanta ra Preserving Tropical Nature, Island Press, Washington Byabahar (Emergency and Human Rights: Theory and D.C., 2002. Practice), Human Rights Treaties Monitoring Coordi- TRN, "Lack of coordination cause increased rhino poach- nation Committee, Kathmandu, 2005. ing", The Rising Nepal Daily, March 31, 2007. INSEC, 300 Days of Royal Takeover: 1 Febru- Upadhyaya, G. P., "Preface", Souvenir, Narayangarh, ary— 27 November 2005, Human Rights Docu- Buffer Zone management Council: vii-viii, 2001. mentation and Dissemination Centre, Informal WWF, IUCN and NTNC Press release, Kathamndu, 2006. Sector Service Centre (INSEC), Kathmandu, http://www.cites.org/eng/news/press/2006/060323_ 2005. URL: http://www.inseconline.org/report/ nepal.shtml 300%20days%20of%20royal%20takeover.pdf visited on April 16, 2007. INSEC, Human Rights Year Book, Informal Sector Ser-

310 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

TThehe RRightsights ofof IndigenousIndigenous NomadicNomadic Pastoralists—Pastoralists— a gguaranteeuarantee fforor rrangelandangeland conservationconservation inin IranIran MMansooransoor KhalighiKhalighi

Abstract. In Iran, nomadic users of natural resources migrate seasonally as a double strategy for the conservation of nature and sustainable livelihoods. There are some 700 of these indigenous tribes in the country whose very identity depends on this mobility. Since the 1920s, however, a number of governmental policies and practices have consistently attempted to undermine the nomadic livelihoods and lifestyle. Among those are forced and induced sedentarisation policies, “development” initiatives (e.g., creation of urban areas and infrastructures, mining explorations and agricultural fields that have interrupted the migratory patterns), the nationalisation of rangelands, and the active undermining of the social organisation of the nomadic tribes. In this historical context, the nomadic communities were even considered a “barrier” to national development and modernisation, and their social identity suffered as a consequence. This paper discusses the socio-economic and ecological significance of migratory pastoralism and emphasises the role of local knowledge in conservation and its great potential when coupled with a respect of collective rights. Customary forms of governance and management of natural resources can foster harmonious relationships among people, livestock, and the broader environment.

Capitalism is based on the exploitation It can be argued that the critical rea- and control of labour force and natu- son for the deterioration of the natural ral resources. It is a system that relies resources of Iran has been the nation- on mass production and permanent alisation of the country’s forests and innovation, driven by over-consump- rangelands. This policy was closely con- tion. Under such a system, “conserva- nected to the expansion of capitalism tion of nature” is a neglected value, and the industrialisation of the country, and so are human rights—in particular which go back to the early 1960s. the collective right of people to deter- mine their lifestyles and preserve their cultural identify. The most distinctive character of capitalism is domination over the relations between the labour force and the means of production, including through the ownership of such means. Land is a most significant element in the pattern. In its relent- less expansion, capitalism has consist- ently ignored the rights of peoples, and particularly so of foreign nation and Picture 1. Because of their dependency indigenous peoples. Its success has on pastureland, migrating pastoralists depended on gaining control over land have tended to manage it sustainably and and other resources, usually previously help to improve its quality—with results held by local communities. In some generally far superior to those attained in countries where capitalism developed the pasture used by sedentary villagers. (Courtesy CENESTA) rather unevenly, the state machinery

15, July 2007 311 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

also played a crucial role, paradoxically is more a political choice than an in- behaving like a private capitalist actor. evitable historical process; in Iran, the In the last centuries and accelerat- government played a decisive role in ing during the XXth century, nearly all this choice. The State became the sole over the world community governance owner and manager of natural resourc- over natural resources has been stead- es, with a policy objective of obtaining ily nearly completely substituted by and consolidating its power over the private governance (individual or cor- national economy as a whole. State porate landowners) or centralised state domination and the expansion of its governance. Iran represents a case in own bureaucracy were pursued at the point. cost of human rights of the indigenous peoples of Iran and customary govern- After World War II, capitalism expand- ance institutions, local knowledge sys- ed all over the world and came to affect tems and the sustainable use of natural the environmental and socio-economic resources. situation of most countries. During the second monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty The nationalisation process and its (1941-1979) the Iranian government consequences severely harmed the centralised the ownership and govern- nomadic pastoralists that were depend- ance of natural resources. The na- ent on rangelands for their livelihood. tionalisation of forests and rangelands The “land reform” of 1963, including paved the road for the domination of the nationalisation of natural resourc- the state over traditional modes of pro- es—which many experts and local com- duction, land, and people. The latter munities now consider a grand catas- were actually needed as labour force in trophe in which legitimate customary capitalist development and the Iranian rights and resource management insti- state acted as the agent of the capital- tutions were sacrificed for the sake of ist force in itself, extending its control moving small producers and indigenous to economic, natural and human capi- nomadic pastoral tribes off the land— tal. It also gave free reign to foreign led to development plans that ignored investments, which negatively affected the basic rights to natural resources, both national capitalism and the tradi- and the needs and priorities of nomadic tional, community-based lifestyles, left communities and in many instances with very little space to manoeuvre. also of other local communities such as Ambitious economic development plans forest peoples, fishing folks and small led an economic growth that carried farmers.1 The conflicts between the with itself detrimental social and envi- government and the indigenous tribal ronmental consequences. The adoption confederations, and the disintegration of industrialisation as a national policy of their social organisation, tore apart

Figure 1. Historic events in Iran affecting nomadism & rangelands (Courtesy P.Ghoddousi, N.Naghizadeh, & T.Farvar)

312 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

the traditional relations of governance public of Iran did not bring about any of natural resources and the customary fundamental change in state policy use of, and care for, the land. Nomadic towards the mobile nomadic pastoral- pastoralists became increasingly isolat- ists. State management of rangelands ed. At the same time, agriculture, par- went on the same way, pushing for ticularly large scale industrial farming, the sedentarisation of nomadic tribes was let entirely free to expand, con- in either their wintering or summering tributing to soil erosion, environmental territories. The best of the rangeland pollution, and sucking up ground water areas were earmarked for state sed- in unsustainable ways. The pastoralists entarisation schemes without the prior suffered increasingly and directly from informed consent of the nomadic peo- the impact of this water shortage. ples, causing great stress on the al- ready weakened livelihood and natural The fall of the Pahlavi dynasty and resource management systems of the its replacement by the Islamic Re- indigenous nomadic peoples.

Forced sedentarisation was imposed on us in the twentieth century. Various governments seized our rangelands and natural resources throughout the last centuries. All sorts of “development” initiatives including dams, oil refineries, and military bases interrupted our migratory paths. Our summering and wintering rangelands were consistently degraded and fragmented by outsiders. Not even our social identity was left alone. Our story is similar to the story of nomadic pastoral- ist peoples all over the world, under all sorts of regimes that do not bear to let us manage our lands and lives…We, pastoral peoples, have always considered our land what you would call a “protected area”. We have always embraced “conservation” not as a professional activity but as intimate duty and pride of every member of our tribes, as the heart of our livelihood, because our very subsistence depends on it, because we pray on the same lands, and we take care of them as sacred places. I hear you talk of ecosystems, landscapes and connectivity. We have always known about this without using your terms. (Source: Speech of Uncle Sayyad, Elected Head of the Council of Elders of Kuhi sub-tribe and the Shish Bayli Tribe of the Qashqai Confederation of Nomadic Pastoralists, World Parks Congress of 2003)

The failure of externally imposed regulations. In fact, the interference natural resource management of the state in customary management systems of rangelands created severe and damaging competition among villagers, It is now clear that centralised pastoralists, and ex-landlords. The government management has failed traditional methods of rangeland to effectively replace the customary management were plunged into total rangeland management systems. There confusion. As an example, sedentary appear to be several reasons underlying villagers who own livestock enter the this failure. The first reason is that rangelands illegally in the spring, before nomadic communities broadly mistrust the migrating pastoralists arrive to graze the government and are unwilling their flocks on the same land during the to “participate” in its initiatives and summer. When the pastoralists later plans. Other reasons that contribute migrate to their wintering territories, the to explaining the government’s failure villagers return to graze their flocks in include its inappropriate institutions the same rangelands, or plough the soil for the economic transition, its limited for cultivation. Rangelands are thus used financial and human resources— 240270- days per year instead of the unable to match the tasks, and customary 7590- days…. the lack of appropriate laws and

15, July 2007 313 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

“The routine violations of our rangelands leave us with no motivation to take care of them. If only we had security of tenure over the rangelands, we would apply our customary ways of land use. At present, knowing that some villagers will plough our grazing lands before we get there, forces us to migrate earlier than expected. If the government prevented the villagers from cultivating the land, the nomadic pastoralists would care for the rangeland themselves.”

— from an interview of the author with a Qashqai nomadic pastoralist)

Governance (including the new owner- ties, the main actors supposed to imple- ship norms) is a critical difficulty facing ment the projects, are not even aware of pastoralist community rights. It is widely what the projects entail, and do not see understood that the present system, any benefits in them. The projects have based on the individual “grazing permit”, failed miserably to promote any sense of is not effective and has failed to properly “ownership” among the people supposed replace the previous system of range- to carry them out.3 land governance. A permit entitles most livestock breeders to use the rangeland The main weakness of many of the for only 50 animal units. This number is above mentioned projects lies in their too low for pastoralists whose livelihood incompatibility with the local situation. depends on livestock. Besides, the regu- Many project plans are based on models lation is based on an outdated estimation originated in foreign universities and rely of rangelands carrying capacity, devel- on inventories of rangeland resources oped over 30 years ago. It should also conducted by “specialists” with limited be noted that “ranching” projects— the local field experience. Some such ex- only written and approved government perts barely pay perfunctory visits to programme dealing with the topic—have the rangelands that are the subject the faced many serious challenges. Accord- ranching proposals and spend little time ing to official reports,2 the very fact analyzing its geomorphology, water that numerous ranching projects were resources, soil characteristics, climate, either not approved, not carried out, or grass coverage, wild life and, even more stopped before their completion indicates importantly, the social and cultural char- the extent of problems they have en- acteristics of the communities involved. countered and the lack of a well thought- Such specialists do not believe in indig- out and coherent range management policy. The latest statistics show that half of the submitted proposals were never approved. The nearly 3,000 approved project would have covered only seven million of the 90 million hectares of rangeland in the country. Furthermore, many approved projects have failed to meet the goals envisaged in the propos- als that are hastily drawn up by private consulting firms who have no obligation to ensuring the success or even rel- evance of their mass-produced project proposals, as they are paid by the gov- ernment agencies, some of whom have had dubious relations of corruption with Picture 2. Expansion of cities blocks the the consulting companies in the past. migratory routes. It is reported that the local communi- (Courtesy Mansoor Khalighi)

314 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

enous knowledge or in the participation ment during migration. This claim is of local communities in designing and also invalid since the expansion of urban elaborating the land management plans. areas, the construction of roads, the opening of new mines, the development The current official policies still aim at of industries and military bases, and the sedentarising mobile nomadic pastoral- transformation of rangelands into ag- ists. The authorities claim three reasons ricultural land have all harmed the ter- for their blatant invasion of community ritories to a much greater extent than rights in forcing nomadic pastoralists to livestock has or can ever do. According to abandon their yearly migration patterns. the remarks of the Head of the Technical Bureau of Forest, Rangeland and Water- First, it is asserted in the most simple- shed Management Organisation (FRWO), minded misconception that migration the migrating nomadic pastoralists are happens because of lack of amenities the ones who have damaged rangeland and comforts by mobile pastoral com- the least compared with the destructive munities. Some even say it is because interventions of others.4 But his opinion they lack appropriate means to keep is isolated. Local communities are broad- themselves warm in the winter and cool ly blamed as scapegoats for damaging in the summer! In other words, if they natural resources. And this is taken as an had houses they would not have a need excuse to support the forced sedentarisa- to migrate. It is also declared that no- tion of migratory nomadic tribes. madic pastoralists keep moving in search of food for their livestock. Once they Third, the authorities assert that are provided with sufficient feed for their many studies and statistics indicate livestock they will stop migrating. These the willingness of the mobile nomadic are not valid reasons to force sedentari- communities to settle. The construction sation upon them. And, as a matter of of houses in either wintering or fact, about 70% of nomadic tent-holds do summering grounds is given as proof to own some sort of dwelling units or hous- this claim. However many pastoralists es in either their wintering or summering consider the construction permit they territories and many of them use fodder use as a sort of “compensation” from the to feed their herd. Yet, they still continue government. They are ready to use their to migrate. The co-existence of tents and new houses, but will keep migrating with houses in the villages, the building of their livestock at the prescribed seasonal concrete stables for livestock, and even times. In other words, they do not wish the eviction of some nomadic settlements to quit their main job as herders, even are examples of mistakes made by gov- if they agree to take on agricultural ernment authorities in their hope of stop- activities as secondary sources of ping the people’s drive to migrate. livelihood. Some have been known to even use the rooms in the miserable Second, authorities claim that livestock, housing provided by government too abundant in number, damage the contractors for keeping their animals rangelands and cause quantitative and while they continue to use their tents as qualitative deterioration of the environ- preferred settlement for the household.

Some laws and regulations are enforced to make the migrant pastoralists so desperate as to give up their main source of livelihood. When pastoralists cannot make their ends meet, they sell their herd. In this way, small scale livestock breeding is replaced by large scale animal husbandry under state control or other forms of land use.

— from an interview of the author with a government specialist on pastoralism)

15, July 2007 315 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

deterioration of rangelands and oth- er natural resources. The gap between settled and mobile nomadic communi- ties is increasing due to the restriction of migrating routes, the ignorance and negligence of devel- opment planners re- garding the needs of migrating communi- ties, and the inatten- tiveness of decision makers in planning and budgeting. The current situation forces a trend to push for generate quick profits from the rangelands while losing their eco- logical integrity: the nomadic tribes are basically trapped. They have to de- crease the number of their livestock on which they rely as their main source of livelihood while the state keeps exerting pressure on them and fails to provide them with alterna- tives. To defend Figure 2. Invasion of customary communi- themselves, some nomadic tribes have ty rights over natural resources in indig- decided to strengthen their traditional enous nomadic territories—a schematic institutions and cultural heritage. They representation. See table page 318. are striving to revive their identity and (Indicative map courtesy Pooya Ghoddousi) to reorganise themselves in their social, The nomadic tribes face numerous chal- political, and economic structures by lenges. Their territories are increasing preserving control over their territories, appropriated by state or private compa- nourishing their cultural identities, and nies. Their livestock can never be food- maintaining their economic independence. secure because of a plethora of restrictive Some of them are powerfully succeed- rules and regulations and the extensive ing! They intend to keep their migratory lifestyle indefinitely.… 316 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

One of the projects CENESTA initiated and implemented with the support of IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development) and the Dryland Development Centre of UNDP has offered an alternative to the current situation of the nomadic pastoralists in Iran. The project helps mobile nomadic communities to reorganise themselves in two related social and economic institutions— the Councils of Elders and the Community Investment Funds (sanduqs) for which the former act as the “board of directors”. These are in all cases organised through a process of participatory action research along the lines of tribal organisation, at the level of sub-tribes, tribes and where applicable, tribal confederations. Through innovative and flexible plans, the local com- munity is thus elaborating its own socio-economic self-management structures. This model de- rives from tribal traditions but encourages the community members to elect their representatives along customary lineage groups to run the Councils and their corresponding sanduqs. The ideal shift in the characteristics of decision making powers is presented schematically here. Bottom up Top down

The restructuring of the nomadic tribes enables the least advantaged community members to find a voice in decision making. It also strengthens the position of nomadic pastoralists in gaining their rights for sustainable livelihoods and better access to vital rangeland resources. Making such a change in the structure of tribal communities is not an easy process. For best social and economic outcomes, a coalition of local-level stakeholders was developed to foster social communication and discussions. The project also engaged in raising the awareness of other social actors, espe- cially policy makers and government technocrats, about the capacities of mobile nomadic pasto- ralists for sustainable land and natural resource management. It has also attempted to build the capacity of community members and elders.

The collaboration of CENESTA with government departments, such as the Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Management Organisation (FRWO), set the stage for making positive changes at the national levels. The FRWO has shown interest in recognising the nomadic tribal traditional terri- tories, with their summering and wintering grounds and the migration corridors in between. This is an important result since it can facilitate the process of solving the current legal conflicts over rangeland uses. It is one step towards redressing their rights, and consequently improving the governance and management of the country’s rangelands.

Rights based conservation toralists have tended to manage them from “within”: building upon sustainably and help to improve its local knowledge and customary quality—with results generally far supe- natural resource management rior to those attained in the rangeland systems used by sedentary villagers. Nomadic communities have accumulated their Because of the close dependency on the knowledge of biodiversity conservation quality of rangelands, migrating pas-

15, July 2007 317 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

and sustainable livelihoods for a long the real situation. For these reasons, period and have passed it on from one nomadic management systems should generation to the next. Their knowl- be recognised and considered as the edge helps them in using the resources basis for natural resource management in sustainable ways, which naturally nationwide. Indigenous knowledge interplay with cultural practices and are and technology are also cost effective in harmony with the local beliefs and and save natural resources. They were conditions. Another significant charac- gained through centuries of observa- ter of customary management systems tion and practice and are generally far is that they are low-cost, and depend more sensible and applicable than those on local solutions, tools and equip- based on academic theories. ment, and are continually tested in

Invasions and threats to community rights over natural resources Wintering grounds Migration routes & Summering grounds X Oil and gas refinery middle grounds X Land invasion by settled X Land invasion by seden- X Factories, e.g., cement plant farmers tary farmers & industrial- X Land invasion by settled farm- X Water source takeovers ized farming ers and industrial farming X Conversion of wetlands to X Expansion of urban and X Allocation of land for urban de- agricultural lands rural settlements velopment X Land grants to unrelated X Government-induced X Orchards obstructing migra- stakeholders ranching schemes—priva- tory routes X Decimation of wildlife and tization of the commons X Military bases habitats X Land grants to unrelated X Road/highway invasions X Government-induced ranch- stakeholders X Land confiscation for govern- ing schemes—privatization mental protected areas of the commons

The relation among the different com- enrichment through the spreading of ponents of nature and the interac- seeds and burning dry rangeland, from tion among natural forces has been combining bottom-up decision making the centre of attention of the nomadic to decentralised systems, from expert pastoralists, generating an attitude assessment to combination of grazing that can be described as both holistic patterns, from keeping diverse livestock and systematic. The nomadic pasto- to enclosing territories, from separating ralists take opportunistic advantage of different types of livestock to changing a variety of management techniques its composition, from reducing livestock from subdividing rangelands to their numbers to using imported fodder….

A PhD student working on his dissertation remembers his first encounter with a local community. He felt embarrassed when the pastoralists asked him, “How is it that despite studying for 24 years you are learning things from us just now?” He also recollects he was laughed at while tak- ing down notes that sounded so basic to the pastoralists but quite new to him… (Source: Barani, 2002.)

Migration is the seasonal moving of are alternatively used and let to rest, people and animals between summer- with time to regenerate. Depending on ing and wintering grounds, based on the location, rangelands are generally used needs of both herds and rangelands. As for five to seven months per year. This seasons change, in fact, the rangeland brings about a rather natural equilib- in summering and wintering grounds rium between livestock and rangelands.5

318 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

Selection of times and routes of migra- migration. On the basis of information tion also show how attentive nomadic on climate and rangeland availability in pastoralists can be the summering and wintering grounds AAss seasonsseasons to the needs of their and in the migration corridors, the cchange,hange, thethe pas-pas- natural environment. tribal leaders would then determine the tturesures iinn ssummer-ummer- When pastoralists date of the onset of migration and the sedentarise, they end internal land use access rights—includ- iingng andand winteringwintering up using the same ing the number of animals and people ggroundsrounds aarere aalter-lter- local rangeland during allowed to migrate, based on their as- nnativelyatively usedused andand 8-9 months per year, sessment of the carrying capacity of the lletet toto rest,rest, withwith with obviously more destination rangelands. The pastoral- severe environmental ists were well aware of the significance ttimeime ttoo regenerateregenerate impacts. of the natural and human spreading of seeds in the rangelands, and of the Especially before the nationalisation consequences of avoiding grazing for of rangelands it was the customary a season or more to restore degraded organisation of the nomadic pastoral- rangelands. This system, called qoroq ists that determined the timetable of in many of the 700 Iranian tribes and the migration and the appropriation of tribal confederations—exists in most of the rangelands. The particular hierar- the other nomadic regions, recognised chal social organisation of the nomadic as hima in Arabia, mahjar in Yemen and tribes—based on their kinship relations agdal among the Amazigh (“Berber”) and a system of community elders, peoples of north Africa. It is a form of implied that the decisions were taken what we call “Community Conserved by interaction of lower and higher lev- Areas”. They used to spread seeds of els as needed, and the whole system useful plants during the migration and worked almost meticulously. This sys- selected wisely the herd size and com- tem had many advantages, including a position. The combination of diverse strong sense of belonging of the people livestock reflects the wealth of house- and the land to each other, regardless holds but also helps in improving the of the formal status of ownership. The biological and economic utilisation of composition and number of livestock, rangelands. A herd composition of dif- the time of livestock movement and the ferent species, sex and age feed differ- appropriation of the rangelands were ently and on different plants, creating all under careful control. The ecologi- less intensive grazing.6 Furthermore, cal appropriateness of the system was a the combination of their animals is heritage left over from the early domes- made to vary with respect to climate tication of wild relatives of the animals and quality and quantity of grass. Dur- of the nomads, who were migratory in ing a drought, the nomadic pastoralists their natural state, and all humans had sell more of their livestock or slaughter to do was learn to follow them and the them.7 Prior to nationalisation of the innate knowledge and urge of the wild rangelands, migrating pastoralists used animals to migrate in order to protect the efficient conservation technique of the range and guarantee their survival. land enclosures (qoroqs). This meant that some rangelands were withdrawn For centuries, the nomadic pastoralists from grazing until certain plants man- assessed the conditions of rangeland, aged to flower. It was only then that water and precipitation through scouts livestock would be allowed to enter the sent in advance to the summering/ range. Using fodder and letting the live- wintering grounds before the onset of stock graze on farms and orchards after

15, July 2007 319 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

harvest were also ways to regulate the sustainable rotating grazing pattern. livestock food consumption.8 Finally, traditional resource manage- The nomadic social organisation adjusts ment systems appear superior to mod- PPriorrior toto nationaliza-nationaliza- itself in such a way ern management systems insofar as that the balance many modern technologies cause envi- ttionion ofof thethe pasture-pasture- between humans, ronmental damage, produce unhealthy llands,ands, migratingmigrating livestock and foods and decrease the self-reliance ppastoralistsastoralists usedused rangeland is broad- and stability of agro-ecosystems. Mi- tthehe efficientefficient con-con- ly maintained. In gratory pastoralism supports extensive this sense, the organic food production as nomadic sservationervation techniquetechnique inherent flexibility tribes graze livestock in grasslands free ooff landland enclosureenclosure of the nomadic life from artificial fertilisers and chemical [[…]grassland…]grassland waswas requires the sepa- pesticides, while the rangeland plants ration of tent-holds have medical properties for the animals wwithdrawnithdrawn ffromrom and the creation and, indirectly, for the human con- ggrazingrazing untiluntil cer-cer- of independent sumers of the animal products. Fur- ttainain plantsplants managedmanaged clans whenever the thermore, the attention of nomads to ttoo growgrow intointo flowersflowers number of livestock rangeland and water resources is a gets out of balance guarantee of their sustainability. At the with people. Under such circumstances, minimum, development planners should even tent-holds with no livestock join respect the rights of mobile pastoralists other clans.9 to produce according to their custom- ary management systems. In so doing, The construction of more than 40,000 they would also promote sustainable hand-made subterranean water ca- agro-ecosystems. nals called qanats or karezes, besides innumerable terraces for cultivation To demonstrate the economic value of on mountain slopes, and small irriga- migratory pastoralism, the analytical tion dams and other water harvest- framework of Simon Kuznet11 can be ing schemes indicates how skilful and applied. He argues that an economic knowledgeable the local communities activity can be recognised as valuable are in conserving water resources, in “employment” when it meets some of harmony with existing supplies.10 Iran the five requirements below: is an arid and semi-arid country and X provision of labour force; regularly faces water crisis. At present, X provision of food production and/or drilling deep and semi-deep boreholes raw industrial materials; and wells has forced the government to forbid pumping water in 200 out of X increasing capital; the existing 600 plains. The genius of X expanding markets; nomadic pastoralists in managing wa- X supporting financial balances . ter should be fully acknowledged, as Migratory pastoralism possesses all the for generations they have been able above mentioned factors and can thus to direct water resources and grow be considered economically valuable. the plants they needed. Among some According to the latest official statis- tribes, such as the Shahsevan Confed- tics in Iran,12 the unemployment rate eration in Azerbaijan, water sources in of the nomadic tribal community is 3.9 the summering grounds are managed in %whereas the overall rate in the coun- a rotating scheme to irrigate the natu- try is 14%. In terms of food produc- ral pastures, given them a seasonally tion, the nomadic pastoralists currently

320 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

the import/export balance: on the one hand it produces red meat to the extent that the country is self sufficient, and on the other, it produces export items such as carpets, rugs, animal hides, and medicinal plants.13

The economic and social characteristics of the migratory nomadic pastoralists in Iran necessitate their inclusion in the development planning of the country. Few other societies would be ready to throw out a system that contributes a billion dollars to the GNP and creates 6 digit employment. This would be akin to killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Their rights to keep their lifestyles in an enabling environment should be recognised as the ground on which their productive capacities and their capac- ity to manage natural resources in a Picture 3. Traffic on roads blocks the migration. sustainable way can best be developed. (Courtesy CENESTA) Encroaching upon such rights appears to go hand in hand with the deterioration offer 140,000 tons of meat annually of rangelands and many other economic, valued at US$600,000,000. Their dairy social, ecological and cultural losses. products amounted to nearly 400,000 tons in 1998. Adding the value of wool, handicrafts, and medical products to the Conclusion above items, the official figures them- To make their policies relevant and selves declare that the contribution of sustainable, the Iranian development the Iranian tribal society is more than planners should start centring their pro- US$ 1,000,000,000 per year, although gramming exercises on human capital migrant pastoralists comprise less than rather than on physical capital alone. 2% of the total population and con- Such a change requires more informa- stitute only 11% of total number of tion about local communities, and more livestock breeders. Furthermore, the effective communication with them. monetary cost of the food the nomadic What is already abundantly clear, pastoralists use for their livestock is however, is that the customary man- minimal; therefore, they achieve a agement of livestock, rangeland and higher rate of “net national production”. water by mobile communities can play The contribution of the nomadic tribes a major role in conservation, revival, to the national capital is largely made development, and appropriation of the through sale of their products to local country’s rangelands. markets (and purchase there of a vari- ety of products). Limiting food imports The active violation of the human—in- increases the demand for local prod- cluding and community rights of break ucts, but also gives the government the up of pastoralist social organisation, opportunity to control the price of agri- the demise of customary leadership, cultural and animal products. Migratory and the absence of alternative struc- pastoralism is also playing a vital role in tures have caused enormous damage to

15, July 2007 321 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

migratory pastoralism and its efficient plete elimination of small producers” such as farm- ers and pastoralists, and their substitution with management of natural resources. If large scale domestic and international agribusiness the outright revival of the old structures corporations. is nearly impossible, the development 2 Farhadi, 1994. of appropriate options based on them 3 Alizadeh, 2000. is today essential. Certain policy-mak- 4 From a formal correspondence between CENESTA ers and specialists have begun doubting and Mr. Negahdar Eskandari, the Head of Technical Office of Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Man- the appropriateness of their decisions in agement Organisation of Iran. favour of forced or induced sedentarisa- 5 Ansari, 1998. tion and “modernisation” of rangeland 6 Ardakani, 2004. economies. The resistance of pastoral- 7 Farhadi, 1994. ists has also spurred some change of 8 Ardakani, 2004. mind among government staff. It was 9 Afshar Naderi, 1968. generally assumed that as soon as the 10 Ardakani, 2004. economics of pastoralists’ livelihoods 11 Quoted in Najafi, 2003. would change because of sedentarisa- 12 The latest nation-wide census was conducted in 1998. tion, farming would replace livestock 13 Najafi, 2003. breeding and “de-tribalisation” would occur. Instead of this, and despite the References new imposed conditions and the inter- Akbari, A., “Tavanmandihaye Nezam Damdari nal and external conflicts they created, Ashayer” (Capacity of Pastoralist Livestock the tribal social structures have essen- Breeding),Majmoo’yeh Maghalat Hamayesh Sa- mandehi Jame’yeh Ashayer (Reader on the National tially remained alive. A most urgent Forum on Organising Pastoralist Communities), and important task for Iran is now their Organization for Nomadic Peoples in Iran, Tehran, strengthening as appropriate, so that 2004. these institutions become fully aware Alizadeh, A., J. Moghimi, M. Bigdeli and N. Eskandari, Natayej Hasel az Arzyabi Tarhaye Marta’a dari Kes- of their capacities and their rights to be havar (Assessments of Rangelands Projects), Forest, recognised so that they can continue to Rangeland an Watershed Management Organisation, be positive actors in society. Tehran, 2000. Afshar Naderi, N., Monogerafy Ile Bahmani (Monog- Mansoor Khalighi ([email protected]) is a PhD raphy of Bahmani Confederation of Tribes), Tehran student at the University of Tehran, pursuing a dissertation University Press, Tehran, 1968. on different exploitation methods of rangelands and their Amiri Ardakani, M. and M. Hossein Emadi, Danesh influence on ecological and eco-social sustainability. He Boomi dar Damdari (Local Knowledge in Livestock has been working with CENESTA (Centre for Sustainable Breeding), Ministry of Agriculture, Tehran, 2004. Development) since 2002. He is a member of CEESP-TSL. The author is deeply grateful to Nastaran Moossavi (nastaran@ Amiri Ardakani, M. and M. Shah Vali, “ Mabani, Mafa- cenesta.org), Pooya Ghoddousi ([email protected]), Ali Aqili him va Motalea’at Danesh Boomi Kehsavarzi” (Basis, ([email protected]) and Taghi Farvar ([email protected]) Concepts and Studies on Agricultural Local Knowl- for helping in the preparation of this article, and to Grazia edge), Selsele Entesharat Roosta va Tose’eh (Series Borrini-Feyerabend ([email protected]) and Jessica Campese of Publications on Rural Areas and Development), ([email protected]) for their assistance in editing it for No. 34, 2004. inclusion in this issue of Policy Matters. Ansari, N., Nahadhaye Sonati Bahrebardari az Marate dar beyn Ashayer Lorestan va Barresi emkan Ehya va Bekargiri An (Traditional Institutions of Range- Notes lands Appropriation among Lorestan Pastoralists and Review of the Possibility of their Revival), Depart- 1 The impetus for this “land reform” came from the ment of Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of Agricul- policies of the United States, which were dominant ture, Tehran, 1998. in Iran at the time, following the CIA-led coup d’état of 1953 against the popular nationalist par- Barani, H., Barresi Ma’ani Farhang Marta’dari dar liamentarian/ prime minister Mohammad Mosad- beyne Galedaran Alborz Sharghi (Review of Cultural deq, which brought the unpopular Shah back to Concepts of Grazing Management among Pastoralists Iran as a puppet regime to serve the geopolitical in Eastern Alborz Mountains), University of Tehran, and energy resource ambitions of the United States Tehran, 2002. and its allies. A team of high level policy “advisors” Behnke, R.., I. Scoones and C. Kerven, Range Ecology from the United States told the Chair of CENESTA, at Disequilibrium, Overseas Development Institute, then a Vice Rector of Avicenna University, that their London, 1993. basic aim in the agricultural sector was the “com-

322 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

Emadi, M. H. and A. Esfandiyari, “Danesh Boomi va Meiksins Wood, E., “ Modernite, Postmodernite ya Tose’eh Paydar” (Local Knowledge and Sustainable Sarmayedari”(Modernity, Post modernity or Capital- Development), Selsele Entesharat Roosta va Tose’eh ism), Jame’ae Anformatic va Saramayedari (In- (Series of Publications on Rural Areas and Develop- formation Society and Capitalism), trans. Mehran ment), No. 54, 2004. Mohajer, Agah, Tehran, 2000. Farhadi, M., “Zamineh haye Farhangi dar Manabe Mizban, M., “Barresi Farayand Taghyeer va Tahavolat Tabi’ee” (Cultural Background of Natural Resources), Ejtemai’a Jame’e Ashayer” (Review of Social De- Majale Jangal va Marta’a (Forest and Rangeland velopment of Pastoralist Community), Majmoo’yeh Journal), No. 25, 1994. Maghalat Hamayesh Samandehi Jame’yeh Ashayer Farvar, M Taghi. “Mobile pastoralism in West Asia— (Reader on the National Forum on Organising Pas- myths, challenges and a whole set of loaded ques- toralist Communities), Organization for Nomadic tions....” In Policy Matters 12, Tehran, CEESP/IUCN Peoples in Iran, Tehran, 2004. and CENESTA, September 2003. Najafi, B., Naghshe Ashayer dar Tose’eh Eghtesadi Khalighi, M., “Barresi Paydari Ejtema’ai va Ecoloz- Iran (Role of Nomadic Tribes in Economical Develop- hiki Shivehaye Mokhtalef Bahrebardai az Marate’e” ment of Iran), Organization for Nomadic Peoples of (Review of Social and Ecological Sustainability of Iran, Tehran, 2003. Various Methods of Rangeland Use), Faslnameh Tah- Nikdokht, R. and E. Karami, “Barresi Paydari Nezam ghighat Marta’a va Biyaban Iran (Iranian Journal of Damdari Ashayer” (Review of Sustainability of Pas- Rangeland and Desert Research), No. 13, 2006. toralist Livestock Breeding), Majmoo’yeh Maghalat Meiksins, P., “Kar, Teknolozhy Jadid va Sarmayedari” Hamayesh Samandehi Jame’yeh Ashayer (Reader on (Work, New Technology and Capitalism), Jame’ae the National Forum on Organising Pastoralist Com- Anformatic va Saramayedari (Information Society munities), Organization for Nomadic Peoples in Iran, and Capitalism), trans. Khosrow Parsa, Agah, Te- Tehran, 2004. hran, 2000.

BBeyondeyond thethe instrumentalinstrumental viewview ofof CorporateCorporate SocialSocial RResponsibility—esponsibility— a humanhuman rightsrights andand naturalnatural rresourceesource cconservationonservation perspectiveperspective RRajatajat PPanwaranwar & EEricric HHansenansen

Abstract. Commonly prevailing corporate perception regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR) is based on its economic or instrumental utility. However, this perception has limita- tions in a changing society and does not promise to achieve the goal of sustainability. Alter- native views of CSR might provide more meaningful motivation for companies to embrace CSR. It can be argued, for instance, that the integration of human rights protection and natu- ral resource conservation perspectives can ameliorate the weaknesses of the instrumental view of CSR. A holistic approach incorporating a broader CSR definition, broader stakeholder categories, and a broader concept of capital could harmonize many of the apparently discord- ant dimensions of CSR.

literature during the past two decades. The concept of corporate social re- There has been considerable scholarly sponsibility (CSR) has attracted grow- debate over the distinction between ing attention in business management CSR and corporate philanthropy (CP).

15, July 2007 323 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

In simple terms, CSR commonly refers fresh investigation of business-society to the responsibilities of a business interaction. Issues such as the influ- in the course of conducting business ence of transnational business activi- whereas CP refers to post-profit “giving ties on foreign culture are attracting back”, usually in the form of monetary increasing attention. Campaigns led by contributions. civil society organizations and inter- national initiatives like the UN Global Scholars have conceptualized CSR in Compact7 reflect a shift in the per- different ways. The classical model ceived role of the business in contem- of CSR, often associated with Fried- porary society.8 man,1 is that the business of business is business and that the only standard Parallel to global socio-economic it should adhere to is meeting legal changes, the concept of sustainable requirements. The neo-classical model development has also been changing. of the next wave of CSR allows corpo- For example, in its recent release, the rations to seek profit while obeying a United Nations Commission on Sustain- “moral minimum”.2 Other notable con- able Development (CSD) has included ceptualizations include Carroll’s pyra- 50 new sustainable development indi- mid of social responsibility, assigning cators, which encompass themes such business four sets of responsibilities: as education, governance, demograph- economic, legal, ethical and philan- ics, health, poverty, fresh water and thropic.3 This hierarchical classification oceans, seas, and coasts.9 There is a has provided a concrete platform for growing consensus about the legitima- CSR research and has, arguably, domi- cy of CSR. Yet, academics, consultants nated conceptualization efforts up to and companies alike face practical now. According to the World Business problems defining areas of intervention Council for Sustainable Development and motivations for business to em- (WBCSD), CSR embodies the commit- brace CSR. Garriga and Mele have sug- ment of business to sustainable devel- gested a four-quarter scheme to group opment, which requires integration of different rationalizations of CSR:10 social, environmental and economic considerations.4 WBCSD has pointed X Instrumental or Economic out that lack of an all-embracing and view of CSR commonly-accepted definition leads to This perspective sees CSR as a tool for confusion surrounding CSR.5 The multi- economic utility. It is assumed that a tude of definitions suggests the role of corporation is an instrument for wealth business in different spheres of life can creation and that it can use CSR as a AAroundround hhalfalf ofof thethe be understood from a means to reach the end of profit mak- range of perspectives. hhundredundred bbiggestiggest ing. Garriga and Mele identify three CSR approaches under the instrumen- eeconomiesconomies inin thethe A changing economic tal category:11 maximizing shareholder wworldorld aarere nnowow world order has been value; securing competitive advantage; ccorporations,orporations, notnot marked by the emer- and cause-related marketing, in which gence of transnational the company offers to contribute a nnationation states.states. corporations. Around specified amount to a particular social half of the hundred biggest economies cause when customers buy its prod- in the world are now corporations, not ucts, aiming at sales enhancement or nation states.6 Such enormous increase building customer relationships based in corporate power has contributed to a on brand positioning through social

324 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

responsibility.12 er management and corporate social performance.14 Issues management is a X Political view of CSR process-based approach that suggests Scholars have also explained CSR institutionalizing understanding of and based on political theories, focusing on commitment to social issues across the the power and responsibility dictums whole organization. As opposed to the in a social context. The broader concept and process of social TThehe mmainain main argument is that responsibility, the principle of public responsibility promoted by Preston aargumentrgument iiss tthathat businesses are powerful social institutions and and Post (1975) dictates that business bbusinessesusinesses aarere that they should use should involve itself in responsibilities ppowerfulowerful ssocialocial this power in a respon- that are stipulated in public policy and iinstitutionsnstitutions andand sible manner. Gar- should not carve out its own domains riga and Mele include of activities.15 Stakeholder manage- tthathat theythey shouldshould two major concepts in ment entails integrating in corporate uusese tthishis powerpower this category: corpo- decision making all groups that have iinn a responsibleresponsible rate constitutionalism a stake in the organization, those that mmanner.anner. and corporate citizen- affect or are affected by the decisions ship.13 Corporate con- that an organization makes. Corporate stitutionalism refers to a philosophical social performance is an outcome- understanding of power distribution in oriented variant of CSR espoused by a social system where all power con- Carrol which consists of three basic stituencies limit each other’s powers elements: definition of corporate social and responsibilities and prevent en- responsibility; identification of the is- croachment on them, in the same way sues that an organization will address; as under a governmental constitution. and specification of the response that Corporate citizenship or business citi- the organization embraces to address zenship rests on developing a sense these issues.16 of belonging in the local community, and has attracted increasing interest X Ethical view of CSR because of globalization of company This view suggests that CSR should be activities. embraced for ethical reasons. Garriga and Mele have identified four ethical X Integrative view of CSR approaches: nor- TThehe uuniversalniversal rightsrights This view is built on the premise that mative stakeholder, business depends on society for its universal rights, aapproachpproach incorporatesincorporates existence and growth, suggesting that sustainable de- hhumanuman rrights,ights, business must operate in a way that velopment, and jjusticeustice andand llaborabor is acceptable within a societal value common good.17 system at a given point of time. It im- Donaldson and rrightsights approaches.approaches. plies that there is no single action that Preston suggested companies need to perform throughout a normative stakeholder approach in their lifetimes, and indicates a dynamic which stakeholders should be identified response to social demands at differ- based on their interest in an organiza- ent times and in different contexts in tion, irrespective of the organization’s order to secure social legitimacy. Under interest in them.18 The universal rights this category, Garriga and Mele have approach incorporates human rights, included issues management, the prin- justice and labor rights approaches. ciple of public responsibility, stakehold- The common good approach proposes

15, July 2007 325 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

that being a part of society, business to establish correlation between the two. must contribute to the common good. For example, Paine and Kotler and Lee In this sense, Fort argues that business have suggested numerous business ben- is a mediating institution and that it efits of adopting CSR.21 However, Griffin should be purely a positive contributor and Mahon point out that empirical stud- to the well-being of the society.19 ies mapping the relationship between CSR and financial performance have not Windsor points out that the managerial provided consistent conclusions.22 conception of CSR has been dominated by an economic view and thus, gener- In separate interviews that we recently ally, corporate motivations to embrace conducted for analyzing CSR in the CSR rest on instrumental or economic forest products industries in the USA utility.20 As a result, analyzing the link and India, two interesting responses between CSR and financial performance emerged that further illustrate the has been a topic of interest among dominant perception linking CSR with scholars and several studies have tried financial performance:

“If the profitability is not at least 25% of the investment, no social responsibility is possible.” —An industrialist in India

“CSR proponents should stop evangelizing the business.” [Stop trying to convert them into something that they are not] —An NGO employee in the US

No conclusion can be drawn from these role in a global society facing the crises two responses, but they indicate one of ecological imbalance and socio-eco- problem— the philosophical underpin- nomic inequity. ning of CSR is not yet holistic. Within the context of the instrumental view of Bringing human rights into the CSR, these two responses are under- CSR landscape standable: if CSR is not fulfilling the On December 10, 1948 the General As- objective of corporate profitability, it sembly of the United Nations adopted could be dispensed with. However, ac- and proclaimed the Universal Declara- ceptance of such viewpoints will take tion of Human Rights. In addition to us back to the era of the “Robber Bar- its preamble, the Declaration consists 23 ons”. Meanwhile, the resources of the of 30 articles, setting forth the human earth are being depleted at an alarm- rights and fundamental freedoms to ing rate, pollution is rising and billions which all men and women, everywhere of people are still living at or below in the world, are entitled, without any the subsistence level. An instrumental discrimination.25 In brief, the human approach to CSR is neither likely to be rights declaration seeks to ensure adequate in the changed society nor equality of opportunities to all people can it contribute effectively to sustain- without discrimination while securing able development objective promoted individual liberty in matters of belief as by the World Business Council for well as providing for freedom of ex- 24 Sustainable Development. This calls pression.26 for fresh thinking regarding CSR and its

326 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

Welford (2002) argues that concerns partnerships, human rights protection raised about the impacts of global- could potentially be the mainstay of ization predominantly focus on the the social dimension of CSR programs. economic perspective, leaving social, However, Welford voices a word of political and cultural implications un- qualification: dermined. He further argues that growth in organized civil society and in- “Such a change will not, however, be creased use of information technology easy. The economics of globalization will likely add to the public voice cur- emphasizes (not surprisingly) compe- rently speaking out against dominat- tition, capital investment, free trade, ing corporations, and asking for more growth and the transformation of mar- transparency. Carroll maintains that kets. These do not sit easily along- stakeholders are those groups or per- side the priorities for activists keen to sons who have a stake, a claim or an promote the rights of people including interest in the operations and decisions women, minority groups, indigenous of the firm.27 Mitchell et al. have com- populations and children. What we prehensively documented earlier efforts need therefore is not an agenda based to define “stakeholders” based on their around capital but one which attempts possession of one of more of the attri- to develop an agenda which gives us butes power, urgency, and legitimacy.28 the opportunity of finally achieving the They provide a theoretical basis to global objectives first set out by the identify relevant stakeholders. United Nations in 1948. The technology and developments which have created The increasing role of business in peo- the conditions for globalization to take ple’s lives, and globalization-induced place need to be put to use to serve issues such as humankind as a whole and not the GGrowthrowth inin organizedorganized invasion of indig- vested interests of corporate board- 29 ccivilivil societysociety andand enous cultures, rooms.” mean that business iincreasedncreased useuse organizations could Conservation of natural ooff informationinformation be faced with in- resources: the need for a non- ttechnologyechnology willwill creasing demands conservative approach to be responsive to Sanderson maintains that untouched llikelyikely addadd toto thethe broader society and wild places have shrunk to one-sixth ppublicublic voicevoice currentlycurrently to include the pro- of the earth’s land surface, leading to tection of human sspeakingpeaking outout reduced avenues for wildlife habitat rights in CSR pro- aagainstgainst dominatingdominating conservation and human recreation.30 grams. This might He acknowledges that this situation has ccorporations,orporations, andand lead corporations a human origin, and that economic ex- aaskingsking forfor more.more. to broaden the pansion, population growth, urbaniza- types of stakehold- tion and development are the foremost ers included in their decision making reasons for such rapid loss. Shepard beyond the definitive and dependent and Sivacolundhu note that the world’s categories, such as employees within forests have been shrinking by around a company. Since the universal decla- 200 square kilometers every day.31 Em- ration of human rights in 1948 most phasizing the economic importance of debate has been confined to govern- forests, they further note that around mental and inter-governmental levels. 24% of the global population depends With globally increasing public-private on the forest for its livelihood. Direct

15, July 2007 327 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

impact is clear from the statistics that nature and environment. The result has wood products contribute more than been an agreement to disagree, with 150 billion US Dollars annually to glob- the growth, development, and conser- al trade and that the forest products vation communities proceeding down industry globally separate paths. In practice, the concept TThehe aaimim ooff CCSR,SR, pperer provides employ- of sustainable development has proven ssee, iiss sustainablesustainable ment to around less a viable middle ground than an ddevelopment,evelopment, yetyet 13 million people. empty rhetorical vessel.”32 tthehe commonlycommonly Such estimates make a logical Typically, in a capitalistic society, busi- pprevailingrevailing case for sustain- ness has been the engine of growth, iinstrumentalnstrumental viewview able management government has taken the develop- ooff CSRCSR ddoesoes nnotot leadlead of forests. How- ment role, and some governmental ever, this market- and non-governmental organizations ttoo thisthis desireddesired end.end. based case would have worked for the cause of natural entail adopting an instrumental view of resource conservation. With increased CSR and does not provide a rationale global business activity, the concept of for conserving the non-commoditized business as a mediating institution be- species vital for the health of any eco- comes particularly relevant. Fort33 sug- system. Therefore, there is a need for gests that with increased time-associa- intrinsic valuation of forest ecosystems tion of employees at work, business from an ethical rather than instru- can provide for associational needs that mental viewpoint in order to achieve have traditionally been fulfilled by so- ecological sustainability. The same cial institutions such as the family and argument holds for other industries or religious groups. This would provide occupations that are directly dependent broader room for CSR to incorporate on natural resources, such as fisheries. hitherto-neglected human development activities. Typically, however, most In search of a synthesis corporations would undertake activi- The aim of CSR, per se, is sustainable ties that improve employee satisfaction development, yet the commonly pre- based on instrumental reasons rather vailing instrumental view of CSR does than a belief in human values. This not lead to this desired end. As dis- development is not robust enough for cussed above, human rights and ethi- the broader stakeholder inclusion war- cal approaches to CSR can contribute ranted by earlier discussion. to global objectives of human rights protection and ecological sustainability. Depending on varying economic and so- However in the current world order, cio-cultural contexts, the integration of the interface of economy, social is- mediating institutions might take differ- sues and ecology is full of imbalances. ent shapes, and such a discussion needs Sanderson has summarized the issue separate investigation. Here the focus is as follows: “If development has ignored on making a conceptual foundation for a conservation, conservation has paid paradigm shift that corporations need to too little attention to development. make in order to move beyond embrac- Economic policymakers have concen- ing CSR for instrumental reasons. trated on growth, developmentalists on the distribution of the benefits of the Paradigm shift for broadening growth, and conservationists on the the CSR conceptualization costs and consequences of growth for Freeman suggests that most business

328 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

and ethics discussions in the past have economic well being of humankind: considered each separately.34 Adolph- work performed by humans with and son35 has built a new perspective inte- without direct exchange of money, and grating ethics, ecology and economics, work performed by nature independent primarily based on the biophysical ap- of human interaction (see Table 1).38 proach espoused by Cleveland et al.36 Accordingly, Adolphson classifies three and Hall et al.37, which suggests that types of capital—Financial Capital, Hu- natural resources are the limiting factor man Capital and Natural Capital, and in our ability and ways to perform any integrates them succinctly: “natural activity. Adolphson argues that from a and human capital form the invisible biophysical perspective there are three arm that drives the invisible hand”39 types of work that contribute to the

Table 1. Types of work and corresponding examples from a biophysical perspective (adapt- ed from Adolphson (2004)

Type of work Examples Work performed by humans with an exchange Most business and economic activities— e.g., of money buying a house, etc. Work performed by human without direct ex- A parent helping children, volunteer work, change of money homemakers’ non-paid work, etc. Work performed by nature independent of hu- Photosynthesis, soil building process, water and man interaction air filtration, etc.

Financial capital is rather easy to de- turn the “tide” of environmental and fine, but human and natural capital ecological deterioration; secondly, it might be viewed differently depending must be capable of influencing busi- on economic model and industry type. ness policy. He maintains, “it seems Lucas advocates that human capital to me that much of the work done by should also encompass communities or business ethicists to date fails the first cultures, going beyond the narrower criterion; much work done by environ- view that only focuses on individuals’ mental ethicists fail on the second.” education and training.40 All industries Desjardins argues that the two prevail- are directly or indirectly dependent on ing models of CSR operate with legal natural capital, for their clientele exists and moral constraints, respectively. To because of natural capital. This broader meet the two criteria of adequacy he view of “capital” might help to create suggests embracing the idea of sus- the corporate mindset necessary for tainability in human consumption of embracing CSR for non-instrumental natural resources. Notably, Desjardins reasons. advocates a rights-based approach allowing human consumption of indi- Desjardins41 has criticized the classi- vidual elements as long as the sus- cal and neo-classical models of CSR, tainability of the whole ecosystem is based on two adequacy requirements not disturbed. Finally, he prescribes a of corporate environmental responsibil- three-fold principle and a general ap- ity: firstly, it should address the entire proach for industries that he deduced range of environmental and ecological based on arguments by Frosch and issues affected by business so as to Gallopoulos:

15, July 2007 329 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

X renewable resources should not be used at rates that exceed the sys- tem’s ability to replenish itself; X non-renewable resources should be used only at the rate at which al- ternatives are developed or loss of opportunities compensated; X wastes and emissions should not be generated at rates that exceed the capacity of the ecosystem to assimi- late them.

“In such a system the consumption of energy and materials is optimized, waste generation is mini- OOnlynly thethe inte-inte- mized and the effluents ggrationration ofof busi-busi- of one process— whether nness,ess, societal,societal, they are spent catalysts Figure 1. Integration of three dimensional moti- from petroleum refining, vations to adopt CSR. Adapted from Dyllick and aandnd nnaturalatural fly and bottom ash from Hockerts, 2002 ccasesases makesmakes a electric power generation ty of the ecosystem and its associated ““rightright case”case” forfor or discarded plastic con- social and natural dimensions. aadoptingdopting CSR.CSR. tainers from consumer products— serve as the As an integrative effort, based on the raw material for another process”.42 ecosystem conceptualization of the business environment, Panwar and Whither from here Hansen have provided a broader defi- Matten et al. advocate for a corpo- nition of CSR: “CSR is a unique, con- rate citizenship approach arguing that text-specific and wholesome business it broadens the operational scope of philosophy, translated into corporate mainstream CSR approaches to include strategy and fused with organizational all interlinked elements of the corpo- culture, aiming at ethically-guided rate environment.43 Based on Dyllick initiatives that sustainably protect and Hockerts’ extended framework for and promote the interests of the ever corporate sustainability,44 Figure 1 illus- changing components of a corporate trates how an integrated conceptuali- ecosystem”.45 zation can provide the necessary syn- ergy for different approaches that are How will it happen? There could be generally perceived as conflicting. This different yet equally valid and promis- is analogous to the broader view of ing answers in varying contexts, and capital discussed earlier and suggests the corresponding justification might that financial capital is not sustainable vary according to the focus area. We unless accompanied by the feeding propose adoption of the ecosystemic components, social and natural capital. definition of CSR as a potential solution Only the integration of business, soci- to the problem of achieving the goal of etal, and natural cases makes a “right sustainability through CSR for the fol- case” for adopting CSR. To adopt CSR lowing reasons: for instrumental reasons is insufficient: X it integrates the three CSR cases as it cannot be separated from the entire- described above;

330 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

to have served their own interests in all possible ways. Hence for this set of stakeholders, measures that maintain their interests are required. On the oth- er hand, factors of natural and social capital have generally deteriorated due to past practices and hence need both maintenance and enhancement effort. A broader set of stakeholders, espe- cially latent and expectant stakeholders at the far reaches of a corporate eco- system (e.g., the wider society), should be given intrinsic value. A rights-based approach is needed to respond to these stakeholders.

Conclusion Figure 2. Conceptual framework for an Business profitability and CSR are not integrated approach for eco-systemic CSR dichotomous in nature and CSR is not about conversion of business into some X it encompasses the stakeholder ap- abstract philanthropic institution. How- proach, while also extending to the ever, an instrumental perspective of CSR concept of corporate citizenship; is inadequate in a changing global soci- X it diminishes the distinction between ety and will not achieve the objective of CSR and CP, a desirable convergence sustainability. We recommend adopting to alleviate present social and en- a broader view of the concept of capi- vironmental crises in which some tal and shifting linear relationships with more deteriorated areas need phil- stakeholders to an eco-system view and, anthropic contributions in addition to accordingly, define the areas for protec- responsible business practices. tion and enhancement, with engagement policies for definitive stakeholders and Figure 2 provides a conceptual frame- a rights-based approach for latent and work for an integrated approach to expectant stakeholders. A holistic CSR ecosystemic CSR. It incorporates the vision should incorporate enrichment wider view of “capital” discussed ear- from diverse perspectives and could lier. We would like to draw attention harmonize many apparently discordant to two important components of the dimensions of CSR. ecosystemic definition: protection and promotion. These could be considered Rajat Panwar ([email protected]) is gradu- ate research assistant with the Forest Business Solutions in other words as “maintenance” and Team, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corval- “enhancement” respectively. In Figure2 lis (Oregon, USA). His interests include corporate social we assume that factors of financial responsibility, issues management, CSR standards, business ethics and international trade, and social entrepreneurship. capital involve definitive stakehold- Eric Hansen ([email protected]) is Professor ers– those combining the attributes of of Forest Products Marketing and leads the Forest Business Solutions Team in the same College of Forestry. His inter- power, legitimacy and urgency, such ests include innovation management and corporate social as shareholders, industry associations, responsibility in the forest products industries. He has pub- etc. Such stakeholders are likely to lished extensively on certification issues in the forest sector and has co-authored the book “Strategic Marketing in the have dominated past company deci- Global Forest Products Industries”. sions and, in a given economic context,

15, July 2007 331 CConservationonservation andand HumanHuman RightsRights

Notes 31 Shepard and Sivacolundhu, 2006. 1 Friedman, 1970. 32 Sanderson, 2002: p163. 2 Bowie, 1991. 33 Fort, 1996. 3 Carroll, 1979. 34 Freeman, 1994. 4 World Business Council for Sustainable Develop- 35 Adolphson, 2004. ment, 2000. 36 Cleveland et al., 1984. 5 World Business Commission on Sustainable 37 Hall et al., 2001. Development, 2000. 38 Adolphson, 2004. 6 http://www.corporations.org/system/top100. 39 Adolphson, 2004: p206. The invisible hand is a html metaphor coined by classical economist Adam 7 In an address to the World Economic Forum on Smith to illustrate how seeking wealth by fol- 31 January 1999, the former Secretary-General lowing one’s individual self-interest inadvertent- of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, challenged ly boosts the economy and helps in achieving business leaders to join an international initia- social welfare. tive— the Global Compact— that would bring 40 Lucas, 1988. companies together with UN agencies, labor and civil society to support universal environmen- 41 Desjardins, 1998. tal and social principles. The Global Compact’s 42 Desjardins, 1998 : p834. operational phase was launched at UN Head- 43 Matten, et al., 2003. quarters in New York on 26 July 2000. Today, thousands of companies from all regions of the 44 Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002. world, international labor and civil society orga- 45 Panwar and Hansen, 2006: p74. nizations are engaged in the Global Compact, working to advance ten universal principles in References the areas of human rights, labor, the environ- ment and anti-corruption. See http://www. Adolphson, D.L., “A new perspective on ethics, unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/index.html ecology, and economics”, Journal of Business Eth- ics, 54 (3): 203-216, 2004. 8 Boele et al., 2001. Boele, R., H. Fabig and D. Wheeler. “Corporate So- 9 A detailed account of these themes and indica- cial responsibility and stakeholder management tors can be found at the web-link http://www. versus a rights-based approach to sustainable un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/fact- development”, Sustainable Development, 9 (3): Sheet.pdf 121-135, 2001. 10 Garriga and Mele, 2004. Bowie, N., “New directions in corporate social 11 Garriga and Mele, 2004. responsibility”, Business Horizons, 34(4): 56-65, 12 Vardarajan and Menon, 1988. 1991 13 Garriga and Mele, 2004. Carroll, A. B., “A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance”, Academy of 14 Garriga and Mele, 2004. Management Review, 4(4): 497–505, 1979. 15 Preston and Post, 1975. Carroll, A. B., ”The pyramid of corporate social 16 Carroll, 1979. responsibility: towards the moral management of 17 Garriga and Mele, 2004. organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, 18 Donaldson and Preston, 1995. 34(4): 39–48, 1991. 19 Fort, 1996. Cleveland, C., R. Costanza, C. Hall and R. Kaufi- mann, “Energy and the us economy : a biophysi- 20 Windsor, 2001. cal perspective”, Science, 225 (4665) : 890-897, 21 Paine, 2003; Kotler and Lee, 2005. 1984. 22 Griffin and Mahon, 1997. Desjardins, J., “Corporate Environmental Respon- 23 This term is used for the American industrial sibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (8):825- or financial magnates of the late 19th Century, 838, 1998. who became wealthy by unethical means, such Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston, “The stakeholder as questionable stock-market operations and theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, exploitation of labor. and implications”, Academy of Management Re- 24 WBCSD, 2000. view, 20(1): 65–91, 1995. 25 http://www.ohchr.org/english/about/publica- Dyllick, T. and K. Hockerts, “Beyond the busi- tions/docs/fs2.htm ness case for corporate sustainability”, Business Strategy and the Environment, 11 (2): 130-141, 26 http://www.ohchr.org/english/about/publica- 2002. tions/docs/fs2.htm Elkington, J., Cannibals with Forks, the Triple Bot- 27 Carroll, 1991. tom Line of 21st Century Business, Capstone, 28 Mitchell et al., 1997. Oxford (UK), 1997. 29 Welford, 2002: p2. Fort, T.L., “Business as mediating institution”, Busi- 30 Sanderson, 2002. ness Ethics Quarterly, 6(2): 149-163, 1996.

332 15, July 2007 …but conservation… within, and and only humanCConservationo nwithin,se rightsrvWWhataht iao tn supportive canAREA cancRan Ealso undermineuHumanHnu dworkm eenablingramni ninRRights,ei gmutualHumanHhu tenvironment…ms, aanyway?ann ysupport…RRights...wigahyt?s...

Freeman, R.E., “The politics of stakeholder theory. Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle and D. J. Wood, “Toward Some future directions”, Business Ethics Quar- a theory of stakeholder identification and sa- terly, 4(4) : 409-419, 1994. lience: defining the principle of who and what Friedman, M., “The social responsibility of business really counts”, Academy of Management Review, is to increase its profits”, The New York Times 22(4), 853–886, 1997. Magazine, 1970. http://www.colorado.edu/stu- Panwar, R. and E. Hansen, “A brief account of dentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc- corporate social responsibility”, NICE Journal of resp-business.html (Accessed 01-23-2007) Business 1(2): 73- 82, 2006. Garriga, E. and D. Mele, “Corporate social Paine, L.S., Value Shift, McGraw Hill, New York responsibility theories. Mapping the territory”, (NY), 2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1-2): 51-71, 2004. Preston, L. E. and J. E. Post, Private Management Griffin, J.J. and J.F. Mahon, “The corporate social and Public Policy: The Principle of Public Re- performance and corporate financial perfor- sponsibility, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (NJ), mance debate: twenty-five years of incomparable 1975. research”, Business and Society, 36(1): 5-31, Sanderson, S., “The Future of Conservation. DON’T 1997. BLINK”, Foreign Affairs, 81(5) : 162-173, 2002. Hall, C., D. Lindenberger, R. Kummel, T. Kroeger Shepard, D. and R. Sivacolundhu, “Consensus and and W. Eichhorn, “The need to reintegrate the commitment to save and sustainably manage the natural sciences with economics”, Bioscience, World’s Forests”, UN Chronicle (2): 68-69, 2006. 51(8): 663-673, 2001. Available on www.un.org/chronicle (Accessed Frosch, R.A. and N.E. Gallopoulos, “Strategies for 1-21-2007). manufacturing”, Scientific American, 261(3) : Varadarajan, P. R. and A. Menon, “Cause-related 144-152, 1989. marketing: a co-alignment of marketing strategy Kotler, P. and N. Lee, Corporate Social Responsibil- and corporate philanthropy”, Journal of Market- ity. Doing the Most Good for Your Company and ing, 52(3) 58–74, 1988. Your Cause, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken Welford, R., “Globalization, corporate social re- (New Jersey), 2005. sponsibility and human rights”, Corporate Social Lucas, R.E., “On the Mechanics of Economic Devel- Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9 opment”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22 (1): (1):1- 7, 2002. 3- 42, 1988. Wheeler, D., and M. Sillanpaa, The Stakeholder Matten, D., A. Crane and W. Chapple, “Behind Corporation. A Blueprint For Maximizing Stake- the mask: revealing the true face of corporate holder Value, Pitman, London, 1998. citizenship”, Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1–2): WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable 109–120, 2003. Development), Corporate Social Responsibility: Messick, D.M., “Why ethics is not the only thing Making Good Business Sense, WBCSD, Geneva that matters”, Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2): (Switzerland), 2000. 223-226, 1996.

15, July 2007 333