Parks with People

Saskia Ozinga

World Rainforest Movement / FERN

3 September 2003

Based mainly on information from the Forest Peoples Programme (www.forestpeoples.org) and world rainforest movement (www.wrm.org.uy)

 

Summary

Nobody knows how many people have been displaced for national parks or protected areas. In Africa millions of people have been displaced to create protected areas; statistics for Asia are lacking but one research estimates that as many as 600,000 tribal people in India alone have been displaced by protected areas; in Latin America an estimated 85% of parks is inhabited.

 

"We were chased out on the first day. I didn't know anything was happening until the police ran into my compound. They all had guns. They shouted at me, told me to run. I had no chance to say anything. They came at us and we ran, they came so violently. I was frightened for the children - I had eight children with me - but we just ran off in all directions. I took my way and the children took theirs. Other people were running, panicking, even picking up the wrong children in the confusion. I lost everything. I had 31 cows and some goats and hens. They were killed - 20 cows were killed and the rest taken. They burned everything, even the bed and furniture and the kitchen. We're poor now".

This testimony was collected in Uganda by an Oxfam worker from Joy Ngoboka, who along with thousands of others was evicted from her home in order to provide a way for elephants to travel safely between national parks. The establishment of the so-called Kibale Game Corridor was supported by the European Union, NORAD and the World Bank.

 

There are currently some 60,000 officially recognized protected areas worldwide covering as much as 10% of the land surface of the planet. The great majority of these are owned or claimed by indigenous peoples. Reforming these parks in conformity with international law is going to require a major commitment from policy makers, conservationists, local people and development agencies.

 

Historie: no people in parks.

¨      The first national parks established in Yosemite in California in 1864, followed a bloody war of extermination of the Miwok people, and involved the repeated, forced eviction of remnant Miwok settlements over the following 105 years. The Yellowstone National Park established in 1872 also involved the denial of indigenous peoples’ rights.

¨      This model of parks without people was to be imposed throughout the US. The 1964 Wilderness Act states: 'a wilderness is hereby recognised as an area where the earth and its community is untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain'.

¨      This US model has been exported worldwide. Summarising the recent history of conservation, the previous chairman of the World Commission on Protected Areas has noted: At least until around the mid-1960s, the climate in which protected areas were set up around the world favoured a top-down and rather exclusive view of protected areas. Setting up large game parks without too much concern for the impact on local people fitted well with the autocratic style of colonial administration (especially in Africa); and it was equally at home in the early days of post-colonial government which followed many of the same styles of administration… Certainly the opinions and rights of indigenous peoples were of little concern to any government before about 1970; they were not organized as a political force as they are now in many countries.

 

 

Theory: IUCN and World Parks Congress texts

These developments are in spite of international texts and resolutions adopted by World Conservation Union (IUCN) and other organisations:

¨      1975: Kinshasa Resolution: recognising the value and importance of traditional ways of life and the skills of the people which enable them to live in harmony with their environment

¨      1982: Bali resolution recalled and affirmed rights of traditional societies to social, economic, cultural and spiritual self determination and to participate in decisions affecting the land and natural resources on which they depend. While avoiding ensuring indigenous peoples' rights to self determination or recognising their rights to control their territories the resolution also advocated the implementation of joint management arrangements between societies which have traditionally managed resources and protected area authorities

¨      1994 World Conservation Union (IUCN) adopted a revised set of categories of protected areas which accept that indigenous peoples as well as others may own and manage protected areas

¨      1996 WWF adopted a statement of principles on indigenous peoples and conservation, which endorsed the IN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

¨      The 1996 World Conservation Congress (general meeting of World Conservation Union) adopted 7 Resolutions on indigenous peoples, which (inter alia)

¨      recognise rights of indigenous peoples to their land and territories;

¨      recognise their rights to manage;

¨      recognise the need for joint agreements with indigenous peoples for the management of protected areas.

¨      In 1999 the World Commission on Protected Areas (one of the six IUCN committees) adopted Guidelines for putting these 7 Resolutions into practice

¨      In 2000: The Millennium Goals designed to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger list as goal 7: ensure environmental sustainability - two indicators are proposed: proportion of population with access to secure tenure and land area protected to maintain biological diversity. If the latter indicator is to be realised without compromising the former and without causing poverty, then the indigenous inhabitants of existing and proposed protected areas must have their rights recognised.

 

            International Alliance of Tribal and Indigenous Peoples of Tropical Forests: Indigenous peoples recognise that it is in their long-term interest to use their resources sustainably and respect the need for environmental conservation. Indigenous peoples recognise that the expertise of conservation organizations can be of use to their self-development and seek a mutually beneficial relationship based on trust, transparency and accountability.

 

WWF: Loss of traditional rights can reduce peoples interest in long term stewardhip of the land and therefore the creation of a protected are can in some cases increase the rate of damage to the very values that the protected area was created to preserve…putting a fence around a protected area seldom creates a long term solution to problems of disaffected local communities, whether or not it is ethicaly justified.

 

But practice is different….

Research by Forest Peoples Programme with indigenous groups, based on 16 case studies in Latin America, 14 in Asia and 11 in Africa, has made clear made that these principles are not widely applied. GEF projects are particularly problematic. In general protected areas continue to be established and administered in violation of indigenous peoples rights and ignorance of new standards.

 

Obstacles encountered include:

¨      Entrenched discrimination in national societies attitudes towards indigenous peoples;

¨      Absence of government reform policies and laws re indigenous peoples;

¨      National laws and policies with respect to indigenous peoples denying them to own and manage their land

¨      Lack of knowledge of new revised protected area system

¨      Lack of appropriate training and staff of conservation organisations able to work with communities.

Impact of forced resettlement

¨      Poverty

¨      Enforced illegality

¨      Leadership systems destroyed

¨      Settlement patterns disorganised

¨      Social fabric and economy are torn apart

 

Moreover: "Common form of conservation which denies indigenous peoples rights to their lands is creating poverty and in second place quite likely may intensify pressure on natural resources outside protected areas and third many ecosystems and faunal regimes may actually be maintained by customary land use systems"

 

Furthermore:

¨      Many current conservation practices ignore legal rights indigenous peoples and some have under international law

Legal rights in international law

What are these rights?

¨      Maintain and enjoy their cultures and traditional ways of life

¨      To own, develop, control, use and manage communal lands and resources traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used by them

¨      To represent themselves through their own institutions

¨      To apply and enforce their customary law;

¨      To free and informed consent

¨      To full participation in decision making

 

These rights are established in:

¨      the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (148 states);

¨      the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (143 states);

¨      the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

 

All are binding on Parties that have ratified them. For list see Forests of Fear; the abuse of human rights in Forest Conflicts; FERN available www.fern.org

 

¨      ILO 169 focuses specifically on indigenous peoples rights, but is ratified by only 14 states including Netherlands, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Guatemala and Mexico.

 

However in all regions examples can be found of protected areas where since efforts to apply these new standards are being made. Future studies of these areas may also find that conservation goals have been achieved more successfully in such areas than in those where managers find themselves in conflict with neighbouring communities

Positive Examples

¨      South Africa: Khomani San, once expelled from their lands and scattered to the winds-wnd who e\were thought to have become extinct -have recuperated their language and revived their settlements but have had their land restituted. Now being progressively granted rights of access and use in large chuncks of their former tarritory

¨      Australia Ayer's Rock /Uluru recognised as owned by ipos and comanage the area as national park

¨      Mt Cook in New Zealand restituted to its Maori owners

¨      The Kayan Mentarang National Park, East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo.

¨      The largest protected area of rainforest in Borneo and one of the largest in Southeast Asia.

¨      The history of the natural landscape of the park is inexorably intertwined with the history of its people. About 16,000 Dayak people live inside or in close proximity of this National Park.

¨      The communities living in and around the park are still largely regulated by customary law or "adat" in the conduct of their daily affairs and the management of natural resources in their customary territory. They lived in and off the forest.

¨      The Nature Reserve established in 1980 had a strict protection status, meaning that no human activities are allowed inside the protected area.

¨      WWF together with LIPI (Indonesian Institute of Research) and local people ran a long-term social science research program ("Culture and Conservation", 1991-1997) and conducted experimental community mapping to show that the communities were dependent on forest resources and had rightful claims to the land.

¨      The issue of social entitlements, and particularly lack of tenure security, was identified by the WWF team as a key issue and priority area for intervention in the period 1996-2000.

¨      Under these circumstances, the WWF Kayan Mentarang project developed a strategy and program of field activities that would lead to the legal recognition of "adat" claims and "adat" rights so that indigenous communities could continue to use and manage forest resources in the conservation area.

¨      After decades of marginalisation and dispossession, recent developments in the Kayan Mentarang National Parks offer hope to the indigenous communities of Kalimantan.

¨      It is becoming increasingly evident that conservation objectives can rarely be obtained or sustained by imposing policies and projects that produce negative impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities.

¨      Alternative and progressive approaches that genuinely take into consideration local peoples' needs and rights and secure their full involvement in biodiversity management and decision making can provide a more solid basis for ecological protection and improvement of people's livelihoods. There is hope that the co-management arrangement being developed in Kayan Mentarang will fulfil these objectives.  

 

These cases show that full restitution of rights and recognition of indigenous peoples rights to free, prior and informed consent is not incompatible with effective protected area management

Demands for Durban and beyond

If conservation organisations and State agencies are to ensure that existing and future protected areas are to be managed and established in conformity with their objectives and the Millenium Goals then they must adjust their models of conservation so that they effectively secure indigenous peoples’ rights. To this end they must:

o       give priority to reforming national laws, policies and conservation programmes so that they respect indigenous peoples’ rights and allow protected areas to be owned and managed by indigenous peoples (including allocating funds);

o       retrain conservation personnel in both national and international bureaux so that they understand and know how to apply these new principles;

o       Encourage other major conservation organisations to adopt these principles

 

Clear measures to undertake these actions need to be introduced into the Durban Accord, which is the expected outcome of the Vth World Parks Congress. This is especially important as the successful uptake of the conclusions of the World Parks Congress will depend on debates at the VIIth Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity to be held in Kuala Lumpur in 2004. The credibility of the CBD will be greatly enhanced by full compliance with the human rights standards already established in other UN treaties.