Does a specific group enjoy sovereign
status and/or legal entitlement to man-
age and conserve natural resources with-
in their traditional territory? In other
words, do they have the authorityto
translate their cultural values into conser-
vation practice.
How have historical processes trans-
formed people’s access and controlover
land and other natural resources? How
have these transformations in turn trans-
formed their resource management prac-
tices? How have these transformations in
turn transformed their cultural values and
environmental knowledge?
What interest groupsexist within a par-
ticular community? How are their rela-
tionships influenced by access to
resources, ideas, and institutions from
the global system? Which of these groups
has the loudest voice? How do they differ
on resource management and conserva-
tion issues? How do their interactions
influence their resource management and
conservation practice?
How are interactionsbetween these
groups of people expressed and organ-
ised – through traditional forms of social
organisation, tribal governments, NGOs,
or some combination of these?
What kinds of resources, including skills
and information, do local people have at
their disposal to promote their cultural
values and conservation practices? What
kinds of resources that they currently
lack could help them become more effec-
tive at doing these things?
Such an approach is obviously cumbersome
and open-ended. As such it goes against
the grain of standard development practice,
which by extension is now part of communi-
ty-based conservation. “Development” is a
simplifying process. By defining a simple set
of problems, it defines simple solutions,
which can be implemented according to
bureaucratic funding cycles. Unfortunately,
this often entails forcing simplicity onto very
complex situations, by working with narrow-
ly defined groups of people and/or defining
culture as a coherent bundle of legible
traits. The bad news is that these types of
approaches frequently exacerbate the very
complexity they deny, by adding fuel to
existing cultural struggles. The good news is
that by working to understand the specifics
of these complexities it may become possi-
ble to adopt more flexible and open-ended
approaches to conservation that may suc-
ceed in protecting biodiversity through ways
that also benefit and empower local people.
References
Agrawal, A, “Dismanting the divide between indigenous and
scientific knowledge”, Development and Change, 26: 413-
439, 1997.
Bonner, R., At the Hand of Man, Alfred Knopf, New York
(NY), 1993.
Borner, M., “The increasing isolation of Tarangire National
Park”, Oryx 19: 91-96, 1985.
Brockington, D., Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of
the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania, James Currey,
Oxford, 2002.
Burnham, P., Indian Country, God’s Country, Island Press,
Washington, D.C., 2000.
Catton, C., Inhabited Wilderness. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque, 1997.
Chapin, M., Defending Kuna Yala. U.S.A.I.D. Biodiversity
Support Programme, Washington, D.C., 2000.
Colchester, M., “Indigenous People Fight Back”, Native Net,
History, cculture aand cconservation
Jim Igoe ([email protected])is a mem-
ber of CEESP/CMWG and an Assistant Professor
of Anthropology at the University of Colorado at
Denver. His research focuses on community-based
conservation and economic development, with
special attention to conflicts between parks and
indigenous communities and the dynamics of
community-based indigenous NGOs. He recently
published Conservation and Globalisation: a Study
of NATIONAL parks and Indigenous Communities
from East Africa to South Dakota. Jim is the
director of BRIDGE (Bridge for Indigenous
Development and Grassroots Empowerment) an
organisation working on conflicts between the
Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Badlands National Park
in South Dakota, and a Fellow of the
Environmental Leadership Programme class of
2003.
