indigenous and traditional peoples of the world and ecoregion conservation

IInnddiiggeennoouuss aanndd TTrraaddiittiioonnaallPPeeoopplleess ooff tthhee WWoorrlldd aannddEEccoorreeggiioonn CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn

An Integrated Approach to Conserving theWorld’s Biological and Cultural Diversity

Written by Gonzalo Oviedo (WWF International)and Luisa Maffi (Terralingua). Parts II and III written by Peter Bille Larsen (WWF International)with contributions from Gonzalo Oviedo andLuisa Maffi.

The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of WWF or Terralingua. Any inaccuracies remain the responsibility of theauthors.

The material and the geographical designationsin this report do not imply the expression of anyopinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Editing and layout: Tim Davis

Coordination of publication:Diwata Olalia Hunziker

Cover photographs: Top (l-r): Sing-sing (Sinasina, Papua New Guinea), WWF/PandaPhoto/M. Pala; Itelmen (Russia), Viktor Nikiforov;Himba/Zemba (Namibia), WWF-Canon/John E.Newby. Middle: Kayapo (Brazil), WWF/MauriRautkari. Bottom: Koryak (Russia), Kevin Schafer

ISBN 2-88085-247-1

Published November 2000 by WWF-World WideFund For Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund),1196 Gland, Switzerland. Any reproduction in fullor in part of this publication must mention the titleand credit the above-mentioned publisher as thecopyright owner.

© text 2000 WWF

IInnddiiggeennoouuss aanndd TTrraaddiittiioonnaall PPeeoopplleess ooff tthhee WWoorrlldd aanndd EEccoorreeggiioonn CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn

AAnn IInntteeggrraatteedd AApppprrooaacchh ttoo CCoonnsseerrvviinngg tthhee WWoorrlldd’’ss BBiioollooggiiccaall aanndd CCuullttuurraall DDiivveerrssiittyy

WWF International – TerralinguaGland, Switzerland

"The power to act has moved away from governments, and... the real force for environmental improvement lies with people.... Individual and community action are crucial to effecting change."

Dr Claude MartinDirector General, WWF InternationalWWF Annual Report 1997

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PPaarrtt II –– TToowwaarrdd aa BBiiooccuullttuurraall AApppprrooaacchh ttoo CCoonnsseerrvviinngg tthhee DDiivveerrssiittyy ooff LLiiffee iinn tthhee WWoorrlldd’’ss EEccoorreeggiioonnss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62. Indigenous Peoples, Cultural Diversity and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93. WWF's Mission, Guiding Principles and Ecoregion Conservation . . . . . . . . . 164. WWF's Global 200 Ecoregions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195. Mapping of Indigenous and Traditional Peoples onto the Global 200 Map . . 206. WWF and Indigenous and Traditional Peoples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257. Working with Indigenous Peoples in Conservation: Main Strategies and

Key Programmatic Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

PPaarrtt IIII –– WWoorrkkiinngg wwiitthh IInnddiiggeennoouuss PPeeoopplleess iinn EEccoorreeggiioonn CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn:: TThhee AApppprrooaacchh aanndd KKeeyy BBeenncchhmmaarrkkss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341. Reconnaissance Phase: Building trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352. Biodiversity Assessment and Vision: The fundamental shared values. . . . . . 393. Socio-economic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434. Developing a Conservation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465. Ecoregional Action Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506. Tracking and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

PPaarrtt IIIIII –– WWoorrkkiinngg wwiitthh IInnddiiggeennoouuss PPeeoopplleess iinn EEccoorreeggiioonn CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn::FFuurrtthheerr IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

1. Getting the Process Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562. Indigenous Peoples, Conservation and Capacity Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643. Traditional Resource Use and Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684. Benefit Sharing, Compensation, Incentives and Indigenous Peoples . . . . . . 785. Supporting Collaborative Management of Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011. Ethnolinguistic Groups in the Global 200 Ecoregions:

Selected Aggregates per Biome, Major Habitat Type, and Realm . . . . . . . . . . 1032. Ethnolinguistic Groups in the Global 200 Ecoregions:

Total Groups per Biome, Major Habitat Type, and Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043. Ethnolinguistic Groups in the Global 200 Ecoregions:

Distribution per Realm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064. Main Sources Consulted for Cross-mapping of Ethnolinguistic

Groups onto Global 200 Ecoregions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075. WWF Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096. Global 200 (238) Ecoregions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1137. Map of the Distribution of Ethnolinguistic Groups in the

Global 200 Ecoregions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

CCoonntteennttss

1

WWF has devised a new approach to itsconservation work: ecoregion conserva-tion. In developing this approach, it has

mapped out nearly 900 ecoregions of the worldand has found 238 of them to be of the utmostimportance for biological diversity. These aretermed the ‘Global 200 Ecoregions’, in whichWWF will focus the bulk of its conservation work.

The central feature of WWF’s ecoregionconservation strategy is the selection of the ecore-gion as the basic unit for conservation. WWFdefines an ecoregion as ‘a relatively large unit ofland or water containing a geographically distinctassemblage of species, natural communities, andenvironmental conditions’. Ecoregion conserva-tion aims to address the fundamental causes ofbiodiversity loss by looking across whole regionsto identify the actions needed to secure long-termconservation and results that are ecologically,socially and economically sustainable.

Recognition of the relationship between bio-diversity and cultural diversity – represented most-ly by the world’s indigenous, tribal and traditionalpeoples – and of the relevance of this relationshipfor conservation, prompted the People & Conser-vation Unit of WWF International, in collabora-tion with the international non-governmentalorganization Terralingua: Partnerships for Lin-guistic and Biological Diversity, and scientists ofConnecticut College, USA, to undertake a projectaimed at cross-mapping indigenous, tribal and tra-ditional peoples onto the Global 200 map. Thestudy showed a strong correlation between areasof high biodiversity and areas of high culturaldiversity, making collaboration with indigenouspeoples an important consideration for WWF inthe planning and implementation of ecoregionconservation activities in the priority ecoregions.

As a conservation organization concernedabout the loss of biodiversity and the degradingquality of the world’s environments, WWF is alsoincreasingly concerned about the loss of culturesand knowledge among indigenous and traditionalpeoples. Traditional peoples have accumulatedvast amounts of ecological knowledge in theirlong history of managing the environment. Suchknowledge is embodied in languages. However, aslanguages become extinct, so associated tradition-

al ecological knowledge is lost. This happensbecause, in most traditional cultures, knowledge isnot recorded but passed on orally to other groupsor new generations. The loss of local languagesmeans the loss of the main means of knowledgetransmission.

WWF recognizes cultural traditions andknowledge and the right of indigenous and tradi-tional peoples to self-development – i.e. to choosedevelopment options that are culturally deter-mined and not imposed from outside. A crucialrole exists here for WWF and other conservationorganizations: to support indigenous and tradition-al peoples in finding ways to develop and strength-en their cultures and societies while sustainablymanaging their resources. This is a difficult andcomplex challenge in times of globalization andexpanding economic and market forces; a task thatrequires cooperation and alliances, both locallyand globally.

The concept underpinning WWF’s approachto working with indigenous peoples is the need toestablish lasting conservation partnerships withthem, based on a solid understanding of the inter-linkages between biological and cultural diversity,a genuine appreciation for indigenous peoples’contribution to biodiversity conservation, and therecognition of their legitimate rights and interests.WWF is aware of the wide diversity of situations– cultural, social, political, economic and geo-graphic – in which indigenous peoples live, andthus acknowledges that the definition of strategies,methods, plans and actions requires a flexible,adaptive and sensitive approach.

In carrying out the cross-mapping of indige-nous peoples onto the Global 200 map, the mainoperational criterion was reference to the conceptof ‘ethnolinguistic group’. This concept defines ahuman social unit that shares the same languageand culture and uses the same criteria to differen-tiate itself from other social groups.

The main locations of ethnolinguistic groupsworldwide were marked on the Global 200 ecore-gions, as well as on areas outside these ecoregions,to highlight the extent of presence of ethnolinguis-tic groups in those areas of highest conservationpriority – the Global 200.

In total, 4,635 ethnolinguistic groups in 225

EExxeeccuuttiivvee SSuummmmaarryy

2

ecoregions were found, representing 67 per cent ofan approximate world total of 6,867 ethnolinguis-tic groups. Twenty-five per cent of the groups inthe Global 200 are located in the Afrotropicalrealm, another 25 per cent in Australasia, 23 percent in the Indo-Malayan realm, 10 per cent in thePalearctic, 9.5 per cent in the Neotropics, 2 percent in the Nearctic, and 0.2 per cent in Oceania,amounting to over 95 per cent of the total ethno-linguistic groups found in the Global 200. Marineecoregions (coastal regions and islands) overallinclude nearly 4.5 per cent of the Global 200ecoregions, with a concentration in the SouthernPacific Ocean (almost 2.5%).

Tropical rainforests are known to be theareas of the world richest in biodiversity. Coveringjust 7 per cent of the planet’s land surface, tropicalmoist forests are home to at least 50 per cent, andperhaps as many as 90 per cent, of the world’sspecies. These ecosystems are also the most cul-turally diverse regions, harbouring at least 1,400distinct indigenous and traditional peoples if areasunder current forest cover are considered, andabout 2,500 if the original extent of tropical moistforest ecoregions is included; this represents 54per cent of the total number of ecoregions in theGlobal 200, and 36 per cent of the total number ofthe world’s ethnolinguistic groups. The total figurefor all tropical forest ecoregions, including man-groves, amounts to 2,880 ecoregions, which repre-sents 62 per cent of all ecoregions in the Global200, and 42 per cent of all ecoregions in the world.

Correlations between Global 200 ecoregionsas reservoirs of high biodiversity and areas of con-centration of human diversity are clearly very sig-nificant, and unequivocally stress the need toinvolve indigenous and traditional peoples in

ecoregional conservation work. Furthermore thereis evidence from many parts of the world thathealthy, non-degraded ecosystems – such as dense,little disturbed tropical rainforests in places likethe Amazon, Borneo or Papua New Guinea – areoften inhabited only by indigenous and traditionalpeoples.

This Research Report presents the full resultsof the analysis undertaken, and contains a sectionon guidance for ecoregion conservation practition-ers working with indigenous and traditional peo-ples at ecoregional level. The report focuses princi-pally on nine areas: partnership building; protectedareas; natural resource management outside pro-tected areas; traditional ecological knowledge(TEK), prevention and control of environmentalimpacts; national laws, policies and institutions;capacity building; benefit sharing and incentives;and conflict management. Approaches, strategies,tools and activities are suggested for each of theseareas, with background information, examples andresource data also provided.

The report includes the Map of Indigenousand Traditional Peoples in the Global 200 Ecore-gions (reproduced in A3 format in Appendix 7).

Complementary products available from thePeople & Conservation Unit in WWF Internation-al are an Excel database with the distribution ofethnolinguistc groups per ecoregion, major habitattype, and realm; a poster-size map of indigenousand traditional peoples in the Global 200 ecore-gions; and a report summarizing WWF projectswith indigenous and traditional peoples world-wide, highlighting the different situations andapproaches.

Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Conservation

3

This report contains the preliminary resultsof a project initiated by the People & Con-servation Unit of the World Wide Fund For

Nature (WWF) International, carried out in collab-oration with the international non-governmentalorganization (NGO) Terralingua: Partnerships forLinguistic and Biological Diversity andresearchers at Connecticut College, USA. Withinthe framework of its ecoregion conservationapproach, WWF is seeking to better integrate thehuman dimensions of conservation in its activities(WWF 1998a). In this context, the People & Con-servation Unit is developing an analysis of thepresence of indigenous and traditional peoples inthe world’s ecoregions.1

As a starting point, research has focused onmapping indigenous peoples and traditional com-munities throughout the world’s ecoregions and onidentifying those living in the Global 200 Ecore-gions, prioritized by WWF for its conservationefforts. The implication at this level is that if a sig-nificant overlap is found to exist between theGlobal 200 and the locations of indigenous peo-ples and traditional communities, then the pres-ence of such groups in the Global 200 shouldbecome an important consideration for WWF inthe planning and implementation of conservationactivities in these ecoregions. The relevance ofintegrating these issues in conservation is not lim-

ited to the Global 200, but extends also to ecore-gion conservation in general, both within and out-side the Global 200, wherever indigenous peoplesand traditional communities are found.

The report is divided into three parts. Part Ipresents the WWF approach to biodiversity conser-vation with indigenous and traditional peoples inecoregions. It introduces first the emerging trendtoward a biocultural approach to conserving thediversity of life (Section 1). This is followed by ageneral discussion of the relationships betweencultural and linguistic diversity (mostly represent-ed by indigenous and traditional peoples) on theone hand, and biodiversity on the other, as well asof the implications of these links for conservation(Section 2). The report then presents WWF’s mis-sion and guiding principles, along with the mainfeatures of its ecoregion conservation approach(Section 3), and its global conservation priorities asrepresented by the Global 200 ecoregions (Section4). The report next describes and analyses an over-lay of the locations of the world’s indigenous peo-ples and traditional communities onto WWF’sGlobal 200 map (Section 5), and WWF’s policiesvis-à-vis indigenous, tribal and traditional peoples(Section 6). Lastly, the report considers the impli-cations of the findings in terms of general strategiesand key areas for the implementation of WWF’sconservation plans (Section 7).

FFoorreewwoorrdd

1 The term ‘indigenous’, as used in this report, stands for ‘indigenous and tribal’, according to the definition in Article 1 of theInternational Labour Organisation’s Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO 169), whichstates that the Convention applies to:(a) Tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections

of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by speciallaws or regulations;

(b) Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations whichinhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or theestablishment of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, eco-nomic, cultural and political institutions.

Article 1 of ILO 169 also states: ‘Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion fordetermining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply’. These criteria are followed in various other internation-al instruments and by many indigenous and tribal peoples themselves. (See also Toledo [in press] for other useful criteria.) Offi-cial as well as self-appellation preferences for the use of ‘indigenous’ vs. ‘tribal’ (as well as others such as ‘native’, ‘aboriginal’,‘ethnic minority’, etc.) vary from one region of the world to another. This issue is too complex to be dealt with in depth here. Ahighly simplified description is to say that there is a general tendency toward the use of ‘indigenous’ (or variants thereof) to referin particular to the original inhabitants of the Americas, Australia and the Pacific, while the terms ‘tribal’ or ‘ethnic minority’ aremore common in Africa and Asia. The expression ‘traditional communities’, also used in this report, refers to ‘local communitiesembodying traditional lifestyles’, as per Article 8j of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Occasionally, the expression ‘indige-nous and traditional peoples’ is used here as a shorthand for ‘indigenous and tribal peoples and traditional communities’.

4

Part II presents guidelines for implementingfield conservation action in ecoregions inhabitedby indigenous and traditional peoples. The guide-lines have been conceived as a working tool forconservation practitioners and others directlyinvolved in the ecoregion conservation process,which can be revised, expanded and adapted inlight of experiences gained.

Part III contains general background infor-mation for the ecoregion conservation practitioner,with five sub-sections dealing in greater depthwith some of the key issues addressed in Part II.

A set of appendices displays the data fromthe cross-mapping of indigenous peoples andecoregions, and provides the sources consulted forthe exercise.


PPaarrtt II

TToowwaarrdd aa BBiiooccuullttuurraall AApppprrooaacchh ttoo CCoonnsseerrvviinngg tthheeDDiivveerrssiittyy ooff LLiiffee iinn tthhee WWoorrlldd’’ss EEccoorreeggiioonnss

6


When the world’s biodiversity crisisbecame an object of scientific and publicattention in the 1980s (Wilson 1988),

biologists by and large identified it as a human-made crisis, due to the negative impacts of Homosapienson the environment. Whilst that assessmentwas undoubtedly correct to a great extent, it over-looked the possibility that not all humans mighthave the samenegative impacts on the environment.It also ignored the possibility that some humanactivities might not have a negative impact at all –in some instances even a positiveimpact – on bio-diversity. Humans as a whole tended to be concep-tualized as part of the problem – if not theproblem– and there seemed to be little realization thathumans might be part of the solution other than bysimply ‘taking their hands off the environment’.

At about the same time, a different perspec-tive emphasizing the integration of human needsin conservation was becoming apparent in promi-nent conservation documents such as the proceed-ings of the 1982 World Parks Congress (McNeelyand Miller 1984) and Caring for the Earth(IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991). That perspective wasthen highlighted at the 1992 United Nations Con-ference on Environment and Development(UNCED) – the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro).It was reflected in the ensuing international actionplans and instruments (Agenda 21; Rio Declara-tion; Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD],and subsequent others), as well as in major globalbiodiversity conservation plans and policies(WRI/IUCN/UNEP 1992; UNEP 1995; IUCN1997; IUCN/WWF 1998; WWF 1998b). Duringthe 1990s, it became increasingly apparent thathuman relationships with the environment are ahighly complex and diverse phenomenon, and thatthe biodiversity crisis should be understood on thebasis of a more nuanced evaluation of the interac-tions among a wide range of social, cultural, eco-nomic, political and ecological variables.

Research at the intersection of the biologicaland social sciences has in fact demonstrated con-siderable cross-cultural variation in the environ-mental consequences of human behaviour. It hasanalysed the circumstances, currently and histori-cally, of both negative and positive impacts ofhuman activities on biodiversity and ecosystemhealth, in small-scale societies as well as with therise of complex civilizations. It is generally agreedthat small-scale societies with a history of contin-ued and unchallenged occupation of given territo-ries will, over time, tend to develop and maintaindetailed and accurate knowledge about their eco-logical niches, as well as about sustainable waysof extracting and managing natural resources. His-torically, where the balance between humans andthe environment has not been sustained, the ten-dency has been for complex civilizations to arise,living beyond the confines of local ecosystems.(Bulmer 1982; Williams and Hunn 1982; Hamesand Vickers 1983; Diamond 1986, 1987, 1991;Harris and Hillman 1989; Johnson 1989; Poseyand Balée 1989; Hames 1991; Ponting 1991; Red-ford 1991; Bahn and Flenley 1992; Denevan 1992;Blackburn and Anderson 1993; Williams andBaines 1993; Balée 1994; Ellen 1994; Norgaard1994; Eldredge 1995; Flannery 1995; Alcorn1996; Anderson 1996; Kirch and Hunt 1996; Atranand Medin 1997; Berkes 1999; Atran in press;Nations in press; Padoch and Pinedo-Vasquez inpress; Smith in press.)

Ethnobiologists and other social scientistshave extensively documented traditional ecologicalknowledge (TEK)2 – indigenous and other localpeoples’ knowledge and beliefs about and use ofthe natural world, their ecological concepts, andtheir natural resource management institutions andpractices. Such work has demonstrated the in-depth nature of TEK and its value for environmen-tal sustainability. In many cases, TEK is found tobe more complete and accurate than Western scien-

IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn

2 According to a recent definition (Berkes 1999: 8), TEK is: “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving byadaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationships of living beings (includ-ing humans) with one another and with their environment”.

The term ‘traditional’, as used in this context, should not be taken to refer to something static and homogeneous. Rather,‘tradition’ should be understood as ‘a filter through which innovationoccurs’ (Posey in press), a ‘tradition of invention and inno-vation’ (Pereira and Gupta 1993). In a report to the CBD Secretariat, the Four Directions Council of Canada explains:

1

7

tific knowledge of local environments. It is also afundamental component of cultural adaptations tonatural conditions. Among other benefits, TEK canprovide a long-term perspective on ecosystemdynamics, based on ancestral contact and interac-tion with habitats and species, and thus aid in theanalysis and monitoring of long-term ecologicalchanges. (Berlin, Breedlove and Raven 1974; Hunn1977, 1990; Majnep and Bulmer 1977, 1990; Bro-kensha, Warren, and Werner 1980; Grenand 1980;Williams and Hunn 1982; Hames and Vickers1983; Alcorn 1984; Nabhan 1989; Posey and Balée1989; Taylor 1990; Atran 1990, 1993; Ostrom1990; Berlin 1992; Blackburn and Anderson 1993;Williams and Baines 1993; Balée 1994; Warren,Slikkerveer, and Brokensha 1995; Anderson 1996;Berlin and Berlin 1996; Berkes 1999; Blount andGragson 1999; Medin and Atran 1999; Warren inpress.)

These developments have led to the rise, inboth the environmental and the social sciences, ofan integrated biocultural approach to the planet’senvironmental crisis, suggesting that the challengeis one of perpetuating the diversity of life on Earthin both nature and culture. In other words, thatsuccess in conserving biological diversity maywell be interrelated to the maintenance of culturaldiversity, and that, conversely, the loss of culturaldiversity is part and parcel of the same socio-eco-nomic and political processes leading to biodiver-sity loss (Dasmann 1991; Gray 1991; Oldfield andAlcorn 1991; Shiva et al. 1991; Chapin 1992;Durning 1992; Nietschmann 1992; Castilleja et al.1993; Colchester 1994; Toledo 1994; Wilcox andDuin 1995; Alcorn 1997; McNeely 1997; Stevens1997a; Posey 1999a; Maffi in press a, b; Toledo inpress b). Within this perspective, a new hypothesisis beginning to be explored: ‘biocultural’ systems– jointly shaped by biological and cultural dynam-ics – which have emerged from ecosystems thathave experienced significant human presence andhuman resource use over time. And this not only interms of humans causing environmental destruc-tion and resource depletion (as many biologistshave tended to conclude) but also in terms ofhumans contributing, directly or indirectly, to themaintenance and even creation of biodiversity. As

Steinmetz (1999: 2-3) puts it:

“...the field of conservation biology hascome to accept that humans will alwaysbe part of ecological systems, both natu-ral and altered (Meffe et al.1997). Theo-retically, then, we are closer to a pointwhere outside scientists may become notonly more accepting of human presenceand the need to collaborate with localpeople, but also more aware of the posi-tive aspects of local people’s presenceand their knowledge.”

In other words, it is beginning to be increas-ingly accepted that humans are as much a part ofthe landscape as plant and animal species – ‘land-scape’ in the specific ecological sense of ‘a hetero-geneous land area composed of an interactingmosaic of habitats, ecosystems, and land uses’(Steinmetz 1999: 3, citing Forman and Godron1986). Plants, animals and humans in a landscapeare all linked to one another in the same web of lifeby complex patterns of ecological relationships,making human presence and activities an intrinsicaspect of the development of any vision for biodi-versity conservation. Furthermore, there is growingrecognition of the anthropogenic (human-modi-fied) nature of many ‘wildernesses’. Many so-called ‘pristine’ landscapes are in fact culturallandscapes, either created by humans or modifiedby human activities such as natural forest manage-ment, cultivation, and the use of fire (Posey inpress) – although the modifications may be subtleand thus easily confused with the natural evolutionof the landscape (Four Directions Council 1996).

The fact that in many cases human activitieshave been heavily detrimental to the environmentshould not obscure the reality that in many othercases human impact on biodiversity has been (andmay well continue to be) light, and often benefi-cial both in terms of conserving and fostering bio-diversity. If one then realizes that, in numerousinstances, the ‘ecological footprint’ of indigenousand traditional peoples on the environment inwhich they have lived for generations has not onlybeen light, but may actually include their being the

Toward a Biocultural Approach to Conserving the Diversity of Life

“What is ‘traditional’ about traditional knowledge is not its antiquity, but the way it is acquired and used. In other words,the social process of learning and sharing knowledge, which is unique to each indigenous culture, lies at the very heart of its ‘tra-ditionality’. Much of this knowledge is actually quite new, but it has a social meaning, and legal character, entirely unlike theknowledge indigenous people acquire from settlers and industrialized societies.” (Four Directions Council 1996)

Traditional knowledge also varies according to age, gender, and a host of other variables. This is how the term ‘tradition-al’ is understood in the post-Rio documents, as well as in this report.

8


‘authors’ of some of the in situ biodiversity, itbecomes apparent how supporting the persistenceof traditional cultures may come to be seen as oneand the same goal as conserving biodiversity.

This growing awareness of the potentialvalue of TEK and of indigenous peoples’ relation-ships with local environments for conservationefforts is clearly expressed in major environment-related international documents elaborated duringthe past decade. For example, Caring for the Earth(IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991: 61, Box 11) states ofindigenous peoples:

“Their cultures, economies, and identitiesare inextricably tied to their traditionallands and resources. Hunting, fishing,trapping, gathering or herding continue tobe major sources of food, raw materialsand income. Moreover, they providenative communities with a perception ofthemselves as distinct, confirming conti-nuity with the past and unity with the nat-ural world. Such activities reinforce spiri-tual values, an ethic of sharing, and a com-mitment to stewardship of the land, basedon a perspective of many generations.”

Article 8(j) of the CBD provides that eachContracting Party must:

“...subject to its national legislation,respect, preserve and maintain knowl-

edge, innovations and practices of indige-nous and local communities embodyingtraditional lifestyles relevant for the con-servation and sustainable use of biologicaldiversity and promote their wider applica-tion with the approval and involvement ofthe holders of such knowledge, innova-tions and practices and encourage theequitable sharing of the benefits arisingfrom the utilization of such knowledge,innovations and practices.”

The Declaration of Belém, issued in 1988 bythe International Society of Ethnobiology, and theSociety’s Code of Ethics of 1998 explicitly affirmthe existence of an ‘inextricable link’ between cul-tural and biological diversity – a link residing inindigenous peoples’ knowledge of, and steward-ship over, a large part of the world’s most diverseecosystems.3 (See also Posey in press.)

Also significant in these documents is therecognition that, in addressing environmentalthreats and the underlying causes of biodiversityloss, a coincidence of needs and interests mayoften arise between conservation organizationsand indigenous and traditional peoples, increasingthe potential for a joint commitment to and part-nerships in conservation plans. This recognition isreflected in WWF’s guiding principles and poli-cies, as well as in its ecoregion conservationapproach, as discussed in later sections of thisreport.

3 For the text of the Declaration of Belém and the International Society of Ethnobiology’s Code of Ethics, see the Society’s web-site at http://guallart.dac.uga.edu/ISE.

9

To better appreciate the significance of thediversity of indigenous cultures to the workof biodiversity conservation, let us now con-

sider some figures. Following the definition of ILOConvention 169, it has been estimated that there areat least 300 million people worldwide who areindigenous (Gray 1999).4 This constitutes onlyabout 5 per cent of the world’s total population, yetthese peoples represent the largest portion of cul-tural diversity on Earth. Taking language distinc-tiveness as a measure of cultural diversity, accord-ing to Durning (1992) 4,000 to 5,000 of the over6,000 languages in the world5 are spoken by indige-nous peoples (or 67% to 83% of the world’s lan-guages), which strongly implies that such peoplesconstitute most of the world’s cultural diversity.

As recognized in WWF’s Statement of Prin-ciples on Indigenous Peoples and Conservation(WWF 1996), many of the areas of highest bio-logical diversity on the planet are inhabited byindigenous peoples. Tropical rainforests areknown to be the areas of the world richest in bio-diversity: “Covering just 7 per cent of the planet’sland surface, tropical moist forests are home to atleast 50 per cent, and perhaps as many as 90 percent, of the world’s species” (WWF 1999b:4).These ecosystems are perhaps also the most cul-turally diverse regions, harbouring at least 1,400distinct indigenous and traditional peoples (Com-mission Européenne 1994), if areas under currentforest cover are considered, and about 2,500 if theoriginal extent of tropical and subtropical moistforest ecoregions (and associated freshwaterecoregions) is included. The total figure for alltropical forest ecoregions, including mangroves,amounts to nearly 2,900, or 42 per cent of theworld’s ethnolinguistic groups (see Appendix 1; adefinition of ‘ethnolinguistic group’ is given inSection 5). No less significant, however, is thepresence of indigenous peoples in a wide range of

habitat types, from the Polar regions to the deserts,savannas as well as forests of the tropics, in areasof North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africaand Oceania (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991; seeAppendixes 2 and 3). It has been estimated (Mar-tin 1993) that indigenous peoples may occupy 20per cent of the world’s land surface (which, bycomparison, corresponds to more than twice thetotal surface covered by protected areas). In thissense, the WWF Director General has pointed outthat indigenous peoples can be considered as “themost important stewards of the Earth” (Martin1993: xvi).

In order to further explore the links betweenbiological and cultural (including linguistic) diver-sity, we first need to clarify the concepts of ‘cul-ture’ and ‘cultural diversity’. The concept of cul-ture has been no less debated in anthropology thanhas the concept of species in biology. However,anthropologists interested in human evolution gen-erally agree in defining culture as a socially trans-mitted system of information, where ‘information’includes knowledge, beliefs and values, and whichconstitutes a blueprint for behaviour (Hunn inpress, Smith in press). Under this definition, cul-ture is manifested in language, customs, traditions,social structures and institutions, ways of life andmodes of subsistence, technology, inventions,artistic expression, and other forms of human cre-ativity and innovation.

Cultural diversity can then be understood as“the variety of human expression and organiza-tion, including that of interactions among culturalgroups and between these groups and the environ-ment” (Harmon 1998a: 353; see also IUCN 1994).Just as the vitality of biological systems is a directconsequence of the diversity they comprise (themore diverse the system, the greater its stabilityand resilience), so it is with cultural systems. AsMcNeely (1997: 192) puts it, it is the diversity of

IInnddiiggeennoouuss PPeeoopplleess,, CCuullttuurraall DDiivveerrssiittyy aanndd CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn

4 See footnote 1 for a definition of the use of the term ‘indigenous’ in this report. Gray’s figures do not include traditional com-munities. Posey (1999b) notes that there are no reliable figures on ‘traditional’ societies, but considers that they may represent upto 85 per cent of the world’s non-urban population.

5 The most comprehensive catalogue of the world’s languages, Ethnologue, in its 13th edition (Grimes 1996a, b) reports 6,703languages (including some sign languages and some recently extinct languages), of which 32 per cent are in Asia, 30 per cent inAfrica, 19 per cent in the Pacific, 15 per cent in the Americas, and 3 per cent in Europe.

2

10


human life which provides ‘the human intellectual‘gene pool’, the basic raw material’ for adapting tolocal environmental conditions and change. Eachpopulation has its own particular orientation oradaptation to the surrounding environment, insti-tutionalized in its social organization, culturalknowledge, beliefs and values, technology, andlanguage, and constantly evolving in response tothe changing parameters of the environment. Suchorientations or adaptations include establishedknowledge of local flora and fauna, as well as nat-ural resource management practices.

An important distinction here is that drawnby geographer Richard Dasmann, in his classicdefinition, between cosmopolitan societies that asa whole are not rooted in, and do not draw directsustenance from, local ecosystems, and those thatdo, whom he called ‘ecosystem peoples’ (Das-mann 1964). Such societies, living in close contactwith the environment, normally consider them-selves as part of nature, not separate from it. Theyrely directly on the local environment for food,medicine, construction materials and other prod-ucts essential for their subsistence and for theirphysical and spiritual well-being. As indicatedabove, it has been frequently documented thatthese societies have elaborated complex classifica-tion systems for the natural world, reflecting adeep understanding of local flora, fauna, ecologi-cal relations and ecosystem dynamics, in manycases more sophisticated than that of Western sci-ence. Furthermore, through awareness of theirbeing part of, and dependent on, local ecosystems,these peoples recognize the need to regulateresource use and maintain an ecological balance,and thus develop sustainable resource manage-ment and use strategies (which may even includeacting as biodiversity-enhancing ‘creative distur-bance agents’; see López Zent and Zent 2000).

Respect for the environment arises from thisdirect dependence on, and active use of, naturalresources. As McNeely notes, “these traditionalsymbolic values have helped enable societies toavoid overexploitation and to live within the limitsimposed by the availability of resources and tech-nology” (McNeely 1997: 174). What has been saidof Australian Aboriginal tribes could be said in

hundreds of other cases of indigenous peoplesaround the world: “Coincidences of tribal bound-aries to local ecology are not uncommon andimply that a given group of people may achievestability by becoming the most efficient users of agiven area and understanding its potentialities”(Tindale 1974: 133).

Nabhan (1997) prefers to refer to such soci-eties as ‘cultures of habitat’, to highlight both anessential component of ‘sense of place’ and theprocess of intergenerational transmission that goesinto creating and sustaining this link to the envi-ronment. Nabhan stresses that, where cultures ofhabitat are found, one is most likely to also findways of living with and within nature that, whileinevitably modifying the environment, do notdeplete it – and that may actually contribute to fos-tering biodiversity through a variety of highlysophisticated traditional management practices.

The correlations between biological and cul-tural diversity observed locally are borne out on aglobal scale in studies comparing the geographicaldistribution of the world’s species and languages(Harmon 1996, 1998b), where languages are takento be the carriers of many cultural differences;indeed “the building blocks of cultural diversity,arguably the fundamental ‘raw material’ of humanthought and creativity” (Harmon 1996: 95), and to“allow a comprehensible division of the world’speoples into constituent groups” (Harmon 1998b:4). Taking species richness and language richness(numbers of species and languages) as convenient(and intuitively valid) approximations to the fullgamut of variation implied in the concepts of bio-logical and cultural diversity, a striking overlapcan be observed between countries with highendemism for vertebrates, flowering plants andbirds, and countries with high numbers of endem-ic languages (i.e. as with species, languagesrestricted in range to a single country).6 The dataare summarized in Table 1, which also shows that10 of the 12 biological megadiversity countriesfigure among the top 25 countries for endemic lan-guages as well.7 (See Map 1 for a graphic repre-sentation of overlap of endemism in languages andvertebrates.)

6 Clay (1993) and Durning (1993) likewise use linguistic diversity as a proxy for cultural diversity. A proxy is, admittedly, animperfect tool. Linguistic diversity as a proxy for cultural diversity works better at the global scale than it would in any specificlocal or regional instances. In many cases, distinctiveness of languages does not correspond to distinctiveness of cultures, orsameness of language to sameness of culture. What matters in this context, however, is the possibility of identifying generaltrends, rather than the ability to satisfactorily account for every single case. It is worth noting that similar considerations applyto the use of species richness as a proxy for biological diversity as a whole.

11

Harmon (1996) points to several geographi-cal and environmental factors that may compara-bly affect both biological and linguistic diversity,and especially endemism, such as: extensive landmasses with a variety of terrains, climates andecosystems; island territories, especially withinternal geophysical barriers; and tropical cli-mates, fostering higher numbers and densities ofspecies. As with biodiversity, these factors arethought to increase linguistic diversity by inducingmutual isolation between human populations andthus favouring linguistic diversification (although

one also finds numerous cases of both sympatricspeciation and what could be defined as ‘sym-patric language genesis’ [Harmon 1996]: languagediversification occurring among populations thatlive in close mutual contact).

In addition, an ecological phenomenon hasbeen proposed as possibly accounting for biodi-versity-linguistic diversity correlations: a histori-cal process of co-evolution of small-scale humangroups with their local ecosystems, as implied inthe notions of ‘ecosystem peoples’ or ‘cultures ofhabitat’. Over time, as human communities inter-

Indigenous People, Cultural Diversity and Conservation

7 Since the publication of the data in Table 1 (Harmon 1998b), the list of megadiversity countries has been augmented to 17(see Conservation International 2000, http://www.conservation.org/WEB/FIELDACT/MEGADIV/list.htm). As of 2000, 13 ofthe 17 megadiversity countries are also in the top 25 for endemic languages, with the addition of Papua New Guinea, the Philip-pines and the USA; the four megadiverse countries that do not figure among the top 25 for language endemism are SouthAfrica, Venezuela, Ecuador and Madagascar (Harmon, pers. comm.).

MMaapp 11.. TToopp ccoouunnttrriieess iinn llaanngguuaaggee aanndd vveerrtteebbrraattee eennddeemmiissmm(Maffi 1998)

On both language and vertebrate list

On vertebrate list only

On language list only

RRaannkk,, TToottaall NNuummbbeerr ooff…… OOnnMMeeggaa--

EEnnddeemmiicc EEnnddeemmiicc FFlloowweerriinngg EEnnddeemmiicc ddiivveerrssiittyyCCoouunnttrryy LLaanngguuaaggeess VVeerrtteebbrraatteess PPllaannttss BBiirrdd AArreeaass lliisstt

Papua New Guinea 1st 13th 18th 6th

Indonesia 2nd 4th 7th 1st yes

Nigeria 3rd

India 4th 7th 12th 11th yes

Australia 5th 1st 11th 9th yes

Mexico 6th 2nd 4th 2nd yes

Cameroon 7th 23rd 24th

Brazil 8th 3rd 1st 4th yes

Dem. Rep of Congo 9th 18th 17th yes

Philippines 10th 6th 25th 11th

USA 11th 11th 9th 15th

Vanuatu 12th

Tanzania 13th 21st 19th 14th

Sudan 14th

Malaysia 15th 14th yes

Ethiopia 16th 25th

China 17th 12th 3rd 6th yes

Peru 18th 8th 13th 3rd yes

Chad 19th

Russia 20th 6th

Solomon Islands 21st 24th

Nepal 22nd 22nd

Colombia 23rd 9th 2nd 5th yes

Côte d’Ivoire 24th

Canada 25th

SSoouurrcceess: Endemic languages: Harmon (1995: 22-28); Endemic vertebrates: Groombridge (1992: 139-141);Flowering plants: Groombridge (1992: 80-83); Endemic Bird Areas: Stattersfield et al. (1998); Megadiversitycountries: McNeely et al. (1990: 88-90).

NNootteess: Figures for Ethiopia include Eritrea. Endemic vertebrate figures for China, Papua New Guinea and USAdo not include reptiles because the number of endemic species is not reported in the source table. Floweringplant species include both endemics and non-endemics. ‘Megadiversity countries’ have been identified as thoselikely to contain a large percentage of global species richness. The 12 listed were identified on the basis ofspecies lists for vertebrates, swallowtail butterflies and higher plants.

12


TTaabbllee 11.. EEnnddeemmiissmm iinn llaanngguuaaggee ccoommppaarreedd wwiitthh rraannkkiinnggss ooff bbiiooddiivveerrssiittyy(from Harmon 1998b)

13

act closely with the local environment, modifyingit as they adapt to life in specific ecological nich-es, they acquire intimate and specialized knowl-edge of the environment and how to use and man-age it for individual and group survival. Thisknowledge becomes encoded and transmittedthrough the local languages (Harmon 1996, Maffi1998). As Mühlhäusler (1995: 155) simply puts it:“Life in a particular human environment isdependent on people’s ability to talk about it”.

Mühlhäusler (1996) has elaborated thenotion of ‘linguistic ecologies’ as networks of rela-tionships encompassing not only the linguistic andsocial environment, but also the physical environ-ment, within a worldview in which physical reali-ty and the description of that reality are not seen asseparate phenomena, but instead as interrelatedparts of a whole. On a global scale, Krauss (1996)has even speculated about the existence of a‘logosphere’, an ecosystem formed by the wholeof humankind’s linguistic diversity, an “intellectu-al web of life... on which the welfare of the humanspecies as such depends, just as much as our phys-ical survival depends on the biosphere” (Krauss1996: 74).8 In other words, it is possible to con-ceive of another ‘web of life’ on Earth: a web ofhuman languages and knowledge, that for most ofhuman history has co-evolved with the environ-ment. In this sense, it has been suggested that onecan also speak of ‘linguistically anthropogenic’landscapes (Maffi 1998).

However, numerous studies have also drawnattention to the observation that a crisis, of a mag-nitude estimated to be far greater than the biodi-versity crisis, is affecting the world’s diverse cul-tures and languages (Burger 1987; Robins andUhlenbeck 1991; Hale et al. 1992; Krauss 1992,1996; Goehring 1993; Miller 1993; Harmon 1996,1998b; Maffi 1998, in press a, b; Maffi, Skutnabb-Kangas and Andrianarivo 1999). Recent estimatesput the rate of species extinction on Earth at 1,000-10,000 times normal background rates (UNEP1995). As a concrete example, a middle-groundprediction for the extinction of seed plant speciesin the next 3,000 years is 50 per cent (Cox 1997).By contrast, estimates for the proportion of nativelanguages (and thus, by and large, the culturesexpressed by them) that will have gone extinct or

face extinction in the next one hundred years areas high as 90 per cent of the 6,000+ currently spo-ken languages (Krauss 1992, 1996). These esti-mates for plants and languages are compared inTable 2.

It then becomes crucial to ask what the caus-es and consequences may be of this extinction cri-sis in both nature and culture, and of disruption ofthe complex web of ecological relations, both nat-ural and cultural. As indicated earlier in this report,historical cases in which a balance betweenhumans and the environment on which theydepend has not been sustained tend to be linked tothe rise of complex civilizations living beyond theconfines of local ecosystems (see e.g. Eldredge1995). Large-scale environmental degradation hascommonly ensued (e.g. the salinization of irrigat-ed fields in the Tigris/Euphrates watershed underthe Mesopotamian Empire), often accompanied bythe collapse of civilizations (such as was the casewith the Anasazi in North America or the ClassicMaya in Central America) (IUCN 1994). In mod-ern times, as McNeely (1997: 173) observes, “thehighly diverse and often localized adaptations tolocal environmental conditions have been pro-foundly disrupted in most places by a world cul-ture increasingly characterized by a very highlevel of material consumption”. Chapin (1994)stresses that while change has always been occur-ring in indigenous societies, these societies havebeen able to adapt to change as long as they couldmaintain their autonomy, and could thus retaincontrol over the process of change itself. Acknowl-edging that indigenous peoples’ control over landand resources is a key factor in the persistence oftheir traditional link to the environment and of sus-tainable management and use of natural resources,the late geographer Bernard Nietschmann pro-posed a ‘Rule of Indigenous Environments’:“Where there are indigenous peoples with a home-land there are still biologically rich environments”(Nietschmann 1992: 3; emphasis added). Theemergence of a global economy has hampered inmany ways the ability of indigenous peoples toadapt to the changing environment. In many casesthis leads to the disappearance of cultural diversi-ty, as societies are channelled into a global mono-culture based on a cash economy driven and sus-


8 Significantly, recent work in ecology has stressed that a fuller account of biodiversity should take into consideration ‘interac-tion biodiversity’ – the interactions among species (Thompson 1996). There is a parallel here with the claim that, in the case oflinguistic diversity, attention should be given to the interactions among languages (part of what is involved in the notions of‘linguistic ecologies’ and ‘logosphere’).

TTaabbllee 22.. EEssttiimmaatteess ooff sseeeedd ppllaanntt eexxttiinnccttiioonnss ccoommppaarreedd ttoo eessttiimmaatteess ooff llaanngguuaaggee eexxttiinnccttiioonnss

(Modified from Cox 1997)

PPllaanntt ‘‘RReeddbbooookk’’ DDaattaaa NNuummbbeerrss %% LLaanngguuaaggee ‘‘RReeddbbooookk’’ DDaattaab NNuummbbeerrss %%

Estimated seed Estimated current spokenplant species 250,000 100% languages 6,000 100%

Plant species certified Estimated languages extinctas extinct 747 3% over the past 100 years 600 10%

Plant species Estimated languages threatened 22,137 9% threatened 2,400 40%

Total extinct or threatened 22,884 12% Total extinct or threatened 3,000 50%

Predicted plant species going Predicted languages going extinct in 3,000 years 125,000 50% extinct* in 100 years 5,400 90%

a Plant species data from Smith et al. (1993), Lawton and May (1995).b Language data from Krauss (1992).* i.e. being extinct or near extinction.

14


tained by the short-term overexploitation of natu-ral resources.

Thus, the consequences of diversity loss atall levels are also interrelated, in terms of erosionof the social and cultural integrity of the indige-nous and traditional communities that representmost of the world’s cultural and linguistic diversi-ty. Language shift and loss of TEK and of the abil-ity to deal sustainably with the environment oftenfollow. (See Bernard 1992; Harmon 1992, 1995,1996, 1998b; Diamond 1993; Nabhan and St.Antoine 1993; Wilkins 1993; Woodbury 1993;Mühlhäusler 1995, 1996; Fishman 1996; Maffi1998, in press a, b; Maffi, Skutnabb-Kangas andAndrianarivo 1999; Zent 1999, in press; Florey inpress; Hill in press; Hunn in press; Lizarralde inpress; Nabhan in press; Zent and López Zent2000.)

Harmon (1992) identifies a number of indi-

cators of the world’s cultural diversity – from theuse of local languages to ethnic affiliation, forms ofsocial organization, subsistence practices, landmanagement, diet, medicine, and aesthetic and reli-gious manifestations. A preliminary assessment ofthe status of these indicators reveals a downwardtrend in all cases. Changes in habitat, restrictionson mobility, alteration of subsistence economiesdue to the loss of traditional land rights and thedecline in biodiversity, breakdown of social struc-tures, and acculturation are all side-effects of themarket economy that are threatening the survival ofmany indigenous peoples and their cultures.9 Thisis what McNeely (1997: 184) calls the “realtragedy of the commons: traditional systems thatwere effective for thousands of years become obso-lete in a few decades, replaced by systems of over-exploitation which bring short-term profits for afew, and long-term costs for many”.

9 It is of interest that many of the factors commonly mentioned as threats to biodiversity conservation (see e.g. WWF 1999a)present close parallels with several factors considered to be threatening to cultural and linguistic diversity. Some examples: 1.Island ecosystems are fragile due to the sensitivity and endemicity of island species, and the severe threats native island biotasface from introduced species and habitat loss; the highly endemic cultures and languages of islands are similarly fragile due tothe influx of non-indigenous populations and loss of control over land by the local populations (Hawaii being a characteristicexample); 2. Habitat fragmentation is considered a prime indicator of an extinction-prone environment, due to species’ inabilityto move in response to climate change or other disturbances; the fragmentation of the social ‘habitat’ of human populations iscorrespondingly a significant factor of cultural and linguistic endangerment; 3. A region characterized by the presence of manyspecies with highly restricted distributions is at high risk for biodiversity loss under adverse conditions; likewise, a large set ofsmall culturally distinct human communities living in a given region may be less buffered from outside human interference thana single larger population.

15

Thus, as the impact of globalization on theworld’s cultures increases, the evidence is thatboth cultural and biological diversity are diminish-ing. McNeely (1997) and Posey (1996) argue thatthese processes affect both indigenous and indus-trial societies and that the two are in fact interde-pendent, so that what happens in one is reflected inthe other. Hence the need to secure the rights ofindigenous peoples to control their lands andresources – ensuring their “capacity to effectivelymonitor and control access to and transfer ofgenetic resources and traditional technologieswhile enhancing biological diversity” (Posey1996: 5) – and at the same time re-examine theperceptions and values of people living in theindustrialized world.

From this perspective, Maffi (in Maffi,Skutnabb-Kangas, and Andrianarivo 1999) pointsout that issues of cultural and linguistic diversitymaintenance may be formulated in the same termsas issues of biodiversity conservation: as a matterof “keeping options alive” (Reid and Miller 1993)

and of preventing “monocultures of the mind”(Shiva 1993). Mühlhäusler (1995: 160) argues thatconvergence toward majority cultural modelsincreases the likelihood that more and more peoplewill encounter the same ‘cultural blind spots’ –undetected instances in which the prevailing cul-tural model fails to provide adequate solutions tosocietal problems. Instead, he adds: “It is by pool-ing the resources of many understandings thatmore reliable knowledge can arise”; and “access tothese perspectives is best gained through a diversi-ty of languages” (ibid.). Or, simply stated: “Ecol-ogy shows that a variety of forms is a prerequisitefor biological survival. Monocultures are vulnera-ble and easily destroyed. Plurality in human ecol-ogy functions in the same way” (Pattanayak 1988:380). Maffi (2000) even suggests that the foresee-able wide-ranging negative impact of cultural andlinguistic diversity loss may call for an extendedapplication of the Precautionary Principle.10


10 This internationally recognized principle, developed to deal with potential environmental hazards, states that when there isreason to believe a given course of action may result in significant harm, measures should be taken to prevent such harm, evenif cause-and-effect relationships between action and result have not been scientifically proven (see Bannister and Barrett 2000).

16


WWF’s mission is to achieve the conser-vation of nature and ecological process-es by:

n preserving genetic, species, and ecosystemdiversity;

n ensuring that the use of renewable naturalresources is sustainable both now and in thelonger term, for the benefit of all life on earth;

n promoting actions to reduce, to a minimum,pollution and the wasteful exploitation andconsumption of resources and energy;

with the ultimate goal to stop, and eventuallyreverse, the accelerating degradation of our plan-et’s natural environment, and to help build a futurein which humans live in harmony with nature(WWF 1998b).

The urgency of this mission is stressed bythe data gathered in WWF’s Living Planet Report2000 (Loh 2000), which show that since 1970there has been a 33 per cent decline in the healthof the world’s natural ecosystems, as well as a 50per cent increase in the ecological pressure ofhumanity on the Earth.

The basic principles guiding WWF’s worktoward fulfilment of its mission are to:

n be global, independent, multicultural, andpolitically unaffiliated;

n use the best available scientific information toaddress issues and critically evaluate all itsendeavours;

n seek dialogue and avoid unnecessary con-frontation;

n build concrete conservation solutions through acombination of field-based projects, policy ini-tiatives, capacity building, and education work;

n involve local communities and indigenous peo-ples in the planning and execution of its fieldprogrammes, respecting their cultural as wellas economic needs;

n strive to build partnerships with other organiza-tions, governments, businesses and local com-munities to enhance WWF’s effectiveness;

n run WWF’s operations in a cost-effective man-

ner and apply donors’ funds according to thehighest standards of accountability.

The central feature of WWF’s ecoregionconservation strategy is the selection of the ecore-gion as the basic unit for conservation. In WWF’sdefinition, an ecoregion is ‘a relatively large unitof land or water containing a geographically dis-tinct assemblage of species, natural communities,and environmental conditions’ (WWF 1999a). Theecoregional approach is meant to address the fol-lowing goals of biodiversity conservation:

n Representation of all distinct natural communi-ties within a network of protected areas andareas managed for biodiversity conservation;

n Maintenance of ecological and evolutionaryprocesses that create and sustain biodiversity;

n Maintenance of viable populations of species;

n Conservation of blocks of natural habitat largeenough to be resilient to large-scale periodicdisturbances and long-term change.

This approach aims to preserve biodiversityin each ecoregion, by maintaining its current pat-terns and, wherever possible, restoring its earlierpatterns. WWF’s choice of ecoregions as the unitsfor conservation also acknowledges the transna-tional nature of patterns of biodiversity and ecolog-ical processes. WWF’s philosophy in this connec-tion is that definition of an ecoregion in biologicalterms “makes sense because an ecoregion encom-passes an entire community of species, habitats andecological interactions. This enables action plans tobe prepared that will both seek to conserve all thepieces for the long-term ecological health and bio-diversity of a landscape, and integrate these withmeeting the needs and aspirations of human soci-eties” (WWF 1999a: 3). Therefore, ecoregion con-servation “also makes sense in terms of humancommunities and how their social and economiccircumstances interact with ecological factors.Whether the ecoregion is a large forest, a grasslandecosystem, a river system or a marine/coastal zone,the people who live in the ecoregion often share acommon relationship with the land/water and itsnatural resources” (WWF 1999a: 4).

WWWWFF’’ss MMiissssiioonn,, GGuuiiddiinngg PPrriinncciipplleess aanndd EEccoorreeggiioonn CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn3

17

The strength of the ecoregional approach asa tool for biodiversity conservation, as identifiedby Olson and Dinerstein (1998), consists in itsability to:

n provide more target-distinctive biogeographicunits of biodiversity;

n provide an approach for promoting ecosystem-level representation at global scales;

n broaden the goals of conservation from a primaryfocus on species preservation to encompassinghabitat diversity and evolutionary processes;

n ensure that appropriate linkages are addressedand monitored at different geographic scales andprovide appropriate benchmarks for monitoring;

n offer opportunities to link terrestrial and fresh-water priority sites and, where terrestrial ecore-gions occur along coastlines, terrestrial, fresh-water and marine sites;

n tie fieldwork with regional, national and inter-national policy;

n offer a more solid forum of discussion for allstakeholders involved.

Ecoregion conservation thus represents alarge-scale integrated approach to long-term biodi-versity conservation based on action plans whichincorporate ecological and socio-economic infor-mation, along with full stakeholder participationand broad-based partnerships (WWF 1999a).Ecoregion conservation aims to address the funda-mental causes of biodiversity loss by lookingacross whole regions to identify the actions neededto ensure long-term conservation and results thatare ecologically, socially and economically sus-tainable. To achieve these goals, ecoregion conser-vation relies on a set of principles that include:

n conservation and, when necessary, restorationof the full range of the ecoregion’s biodiversity;

n reconciliation of human development needswith conservation actions;

n a long-term commitment;

n emphasis on developing partnerships, and oncollaboration and cooperation;

n adapting through learning: putting experienceinto practice.

The process for developing an ecoregionconservation programme involves six steps (WWF1999a):

1. Reconnaissance or ground (land/sea) scoping;

2. Defining a long-term vision;

3. Socio-economic and political assessments andanalyses;

4. Preparing an ecoregional conservation strategy;

5. Implementing ecoregional actions;

6. Tracking and feedback.

The reconnaissance phase is a multidiscipli-nary rapid assessment of the conservation land-scape of an ecoregion. It determines whetherWWF should initiate an ecoregional conservationprogramme, frames the development of an ecore-gional strategy, and identifies key issues, stake-holders and institutions for conservation, and anycritical needs calling for immediate action. Thebiodiversity assessment, grounded in establishedprinciples of conservation biology and landscapeecology, provides a description of the current sta-tus of biodiversity conservation in the ecoregion,and a first evaluation of the broad biodiversityobjectives for the area. This assessment allows forthe development of a long-term vision for the con-servation of the ecoregion’s biodiversity, throughthe establishment of priority sites or areas that arerepresentative and contribute to the long-term per-sistence of biodiversity throughout the ecoregion.It also allows for the setting of broader prioritiesfor conserving or restoring the integrity of ecosys-tems and populations and large-scale ecologicalphenomena (such as migrations).

In addition, the biodiversity assessmentguides the socio-economic assessment, by focus-ing it “on a thorough understanding of the com-plex social, economic and political factors affect-ing natural resource use and policies” to set thefoundations for a more holistic bio-social analysison “opportunities, threats, trade-offs and incen-tives” that “allows key factors affecting biodiversi-ty, and appropriate points of intervention, to beidentified in a joint exercise with key stakehold-ers” (WWF, 1999a:16). Thus, the fate of the ecore-gion’s biodiversity is tightly bound to the complexsocial, economic and political characteristics anddynamics of the ecoregion as a whole. Thisrequires conducting the socio-economic assess-ment of these factors and the ensuing situationanalysis in close association with the biodiversityassessment. An in-depth understanding of the ulti-mate causes undermining or threatening the bio-logical integrity of the ecoregion, as well as thehistorical trends that have led to its current humangeography, is also needed to address questions of

WWF’s Mission, Guiding Principles and Ecoregion Conservation

18

central relevance for the biodiversity vision; suchas how much human influence should be consid-ered part of the ‘natural’ processes that shape bio-diversity. The findings of the biodiversity assess-ment and socio-economic assessment are thenintegrated into a comprehensive ecoregional con-servation plan, which in turn leads to the elabora-tion of a concrete action programme.

Ecoregion conservation programmes focuson six conservation methods (WWF 1998b):

1. Promoting the establishment and managementof protected areas;

2. Conserving species of special concern;

3. Promoting environmental education and build-ing local conservation capacity;

4. Promoting sustainable resource use;

5. Reducing consumption and pollution;

6. Lobbying and conducting advocacy on interna-tional treaties.

These methods are integrated into a portfolioof activities designed to meet the conservationchallenges of the ecoregion and to address the pol-icy reforms needed to tackle many of the large-scale root causes of biodiversity loss, both at thenational and transnational level.


19

In establishing global priorities for the applica-tion of ecoregion conservation, WWF hasadopted the representation approach developed

in conservation biology. In the face of limitedresources, this approach aims to ensure that allecosystems and habitat types found at the geo-graphical scale selected for a given conservationeffort will be adequately represented. Applyingthis approach at the global level, WWF hasfocused primarily on three biomes: forests, fresh-water ecosystems, and oceans and coasts (marineecosystems).

Based on the principles of representationtheory, WWF identified 238 ecoregions out of anestimated world total of 895 (Olson and Dinerstein1998). These 238 ecoregions, known as the ‘Glob-al 200’ (WWF 1999a), were chosen as highly rep-resentative of the Earth’s 19 major terrestrial,freshwater and marine habitat types; all of themfall within the three priority biomes. The Global200 were selected from all parts of the world onthe basis of a set of criteria of ‘biological distinc-tiveness’, including species richness, species

endemism, uniqueness of higher taxa, presence ofunusual ecological or evolutionary phenomena,and global rarity of major habitat types.

Table 3 provides a synopsis of the Global200 by biome, major habitat type, and realm. Ofthe 238 ecoregions, 142 (60%) are terrestrial, 53(22%) freshwater, and 43 (18%) marine. Allrealms and all major habitat types are represented.While tropical ecoregions are prevalent (aggregat-ing terrestrial and freshwater tropical ecoregions,40 are found in the Afrotropical realm, 44 in theNeotropical realm, and 53 in the Indo-Malayanrealm), temperate and arctic ecoregions are pres-ent in significant numbers (again aggregating ter-restrial and freshwater ecoregions, 32 are Palearc-tic, and 23 Nearctic). The Pacific ecoregions arerepresented by 28 Australasian and 11 Oceanianterrestrial, freshwater and marine realms. In termsof habitat types, forests are represented moststrongly across realms (85 terrestrial realms), butgrasslands, savannas and shrublands (27), desertand xeric shrublands (11), mangroves (8), and tun-dra (5) are also evident.

WWWWFF’’ss GGlloobbaall 220000 EEccoorreeggiioonnss

TTaabbllee 33.. GGlloobbaall 220000 EEccoorreeggiioonnss bbyy bbiioommee,, mmaajjoorr hhaabbiittaatt ttyyppee,, aanndd rreeaallmmTotal Ecoregions = 238

EEccoorreeggiioonn TTeerrrreessttrriiaall FFrreesshhwwaatteerr MMaarriinnee TToottaall PPeerrcceennttaaggee

Afrotropical 30 9 1 40 17Neotropical 31 9 4 44 18Indo-Malayan 26 10 17 53 22Palearctic 18 10 4 32 13Nearctic 14 7 2 23 10Australasian 20 8 0 28 12Oceanian 3 0 8 11 5Others - - 7 7 3TToottaall 114422 5533 4433 223388 110000PPeerrcceennttaaggee 6600%% 2222%% 1188%% 110000

SSoouurrccee: WWF-US, Conservation Science Program 2000

4

20


Recognition of the relationship between bio-diversity and cultural diversity (represent-ed mostly by the world’s indigenous, tribal

and traditional peoples), and of the relevance ofthis relationship for conservation, prompted WWFInternational’s People & Conservation Unit toundertake a project aimed at bringing these issuesto bear on implementation of the ecoregion con-servation approach. The project’s goal was tocross-map the locations of indigenous peoplesonto the world’s ecoregions, under the assumptionthat this analysis was likely to show a strong cor-relation between areas of high biodiversity andareas of high cultural diversity. A special focuswas on indigenous peoples living in the Global200 ecoregions. The assumption in this case was,as previously indicated, that a significant presenceof indigenous peoples in the Global 200 shouldmake working in collaboration with indigenouspeoples an important consideration for WWF inthe planning and implementation of ecoregionconservation in these priority ecoregions. The gen-eral aim, however, was to stress the need to inte-grate indigenous peoples issues in conservationwork per se.

An initial survey of indigenous peoples liv-ing in the Global 200 terrestrial ecoregions (car-ried out by WWF International in collaborationwith the Centre for People Education and Promo-tion of Ecuador) suggested that the overlap wasnotable enough as to warrant more in-depth docu-mentation. In consultation with Terralingua, it wasdecided to revise and expand the original WWFInternational database of indigenous peoples inGlobal 200 terrestrial ecoregions by adopting acombination of linguistic and ethnic criteria in theidentification of indigenous peoples throughoutthe world. The approximate locations of theindigenous peoples so identified would then bemarked with dots on the Global 200 map, therebyshowing the overlap between the Global 200ecoregions and the worldwide distribution ofindigenous peoples.

The choice of representing the locations ofindigenous peoples by means of dots (rather thanby marking indigenous peoples’ actual territories)was due to a variety of reasons. Among the mainones were: the difficulty of representing territories

on a map at the scale of the Global 200; doubts asto the current availability of reliable data (or oftenany data at all) on the territories of indigenouspeoples for most parts of the world; and the unfea-sibility of rapidly acquiring the missing data onindigenous peoples’ territories and verifying thereliability of existing data. As WWF ecoregionconservation work proceeds in specific areas, thework of actually identifying indigenous peoples’territories in those areas will have to be undertak-en, in close collaboration with all parties involved(indigenous peoples, governments, conservationbodies and others), in a case-by-case identificationof the customary territories or titled lands ofindigenous peoples. This work should be done onthe basis of intimate knowledge of local situations,with attention to the sources of relevant data, andby carefully evaluating the social and politicalimplications of such mapping.

In carrying out the cross-mapping of indige-nous peoples’ locations onto the Global 200 map,the main operational criterion was reference to theconcept of ‘ethnolinguistic group’. This concepthas been used in the literature to define a socialunit that shares the same language and culture anduses the same criteria to differentiate itself fromother social groups (Lizarralde 1993: 11). While inreality one cannot expect to find human societiesperfectly matching this theoretical construct (seecaveats below), in many cases – especially insmall-scale indigenous and tribal societies andother traditional local communities – actual socialunits do approximate the theoretical ethnolinguis-tic unit. Linguistic affiliation is commonly, if notinvariably, one major and salient component ofethnic identification (including self-identifica-tion). Often, though by no means always, thiscoincidence of ethnicity and language is markedby a people calling themselves and their languageby the same unique name.

Various caveats should be kept in mindwhere the use of this criterion is concerned. First-ly, while many social units do approximate the‘ethnolinguistic group’ ideal, in numerous othercases distinctiveness of languages does not corre-spond to distinctiveness of cultures and/or ethnici-ty, or sameness of language to sameness of cul-ture/ethnicity (see footnote 6). Such discrepancies

MMaappppiinngg ooff IInnddiiggeennoouuss aanndd TTrraaddiittiioonnaall PPeeoopplleess oonnttoo tthhee GGlloobbaall 220000 MMaapp5

21

depend in the first place on the fundamentally per-meable nature of both linguistic and cultural sys-tems. This makes ‘linguistic and cultural geneflow’ (i.e. diffusion of linguistic and/or culturaltraits across linguistic and/or cultural barriers) byfar a more widespread phenomenon than geneflow proper is across biological species. Historicalfactors related to language and culture contact canthus affect, both from within and from without, therelationships between language, culture and eth-nicity in each given social unit. Examples include:large populations of speakers of a ‘world’ lan-guage, which may comprise people from manydifferent ethnic and cultural backgrounds; localgroups who share the same language but distin-guish themselves one from the other by the use ofdifferent ethnic names; speakers of the same lan-guage who have developed distinct cultural tradi-tions through migration to different locations andadaptation to different environmental and socialcircumstances; and speakers of different languageswho have converged culturally through mutualproximity. In addition, there are also cases of pop-ulations who no longer speak their ancestral lan-guage, or whose ancestral language is on the wane,but who have maintained ethnic distinctivenessand a land base.

Secondly, a further complication in identify-ing ethnolinguistic groups stems from the fact thatthe definition of a ‘language’, as distinct from a‘dialect’ or a ‘family of related languages’, is farfrom universally agreed upon among linguists.11

This may pose problems in some instances; forexample, when there may be doubt as to whether aset of populations living in proximity to one anoth-er and showing considerable similarities in theirspeech should be considered members of the sameethnolinguistic group or as separate.

Thirdly, it should be noted that the concept of‘ethnolinguistic group’ is broader than that of‘indigenous peoples’ and ‘traditional communi-ties’. There are instances of ethnolinguistic groupsthat would not commonly be identified or identifythemselves as indigenous or traditional peoples,but rather as linguistic and/or ethnic minorities. Onthe other hand, such classificatory distinctions arenot always clear-cut and universally agreed upon.

In spite of these caveats, for the purposes ofthe present project it was considered that adheringto the concept of ethnolinguistic group (as done in

previous studies mentioned above; see Clay 1993,Durning 1993, Harmon 1996) would provide a rea-sonable, if not infallible, means of identifyingindigenous and tribal societies, as well as ethnolin-guistically distinct traditional communities. At thesame time, it is necessary to acknowledge thedegree of indeterminacy implied in concepts of lan-guage and ethnicity for the reasons indicated above,and therefore that data elaborated on such basesshould be taken as approximations. Given thischoice, the Ethnologuecatalogue of the world’slanguages (Grimes 1996a, b) was selected as theprimary data source, to be complemented by other,more specialized sources of linguistic and ethnicdata (see Appendix 4). Ethnologueprovides what iscommonly recognized as the most comprehensiveavailable information on currently spoken or(recently) extinct languages. It also allows for thecross-checking of variant language/ethnic names,in that it provides an extensive listing of alternativenames for each language. For many of the lan-guages, this catalogue also contains maps showingthe locations where the languages are spoken.12

Whenever possible, it was also decided toseek experts for each main region of the worldwho could carry out the cross-mapping based onan in-depth understanding of regional ethnolin-guistic situations. An additional criterion to beapplied by these experts was a group’s possessionof a distinct land base, as a key characteristic ofindigenous peoples, and in some cases also of tra-ditional communities (but excluding for presentpurposes members of indigenous communities liv-ing in urban settings). At the same time, so as toshow the current, not the historical, locations ofindigenous peoples, allowance was to be made forthe consequences of historical processes of dis-placement of indigenous populations from theirhomelands and relocation to other rural areas, aswell as processes of migration of indigenous pop-ulations from one rural area to another. In theOctober 2000 version of the map, the work ofregional experts is confined to the Americas.These experts worked on continental-scale digitalmaps of North and South American ecoregions,and their data on ethnolinguistic groups of theAmericas were then overlaid onto the Global 200digital map. The data on the rest of the world arestill subject to improvement, as experts are foundfor the other continents. The revised data for these

Mapping of Indigenous and Traditional Peoples onto the Global 200 Map

11 Analogous considerations, it is worth noting, apply in relation to the definition of the concept of species; see Harmon (1996).12 See Acknowledgements for a more detailed account of how the cross-mapping work was carried out.

22


continents will in turn be plotted onto the Global200 map, to produce an updated global cross-map-ping of indigenous and traditional peoples and theGlobal 200 ecoregions.

The following criteria were selected to markthe distribution of dots representing ethnolinguis-tic groups. If a given ethnolinguistic group waslocalized in one place, a dot was placed in whatcould be considered as the approximate centre ofthe area occupied by this group. If a group speak-ing the same language was distributed across widegeographic areas or multiple, geographically sepa-rate areas, displaying some degree of distinctive-ness ethnically and ecologically, each sub-groupwas separately identified and marked on the map,again in the approximate centre of each locale.Each ethnolinguistic group was assigned a uniquecode, cross-referenced to the corresponding dot(s)on the map. Due to the scale of the global map, itwas deemed impossible to actually place the codeson the map, since at that scale the crowding ofgroups in contiguous areas, which occurs in manycases around the world, would have made thecodes illegible.

It should be noted that other caveats relatedto this cross-mapping project arise from carto-graphic issues. Some features of the Global 200map (mainly very large scale and thus low degreeof resolution and lack of definition in ecoregionboundaries) limit the precision with which thelocations of ethnolinguistic groups can be marked.Therefore, it is often necessary to make subjectivedecisions as to whether the location of a givengroup does or does not fall within a given ecore-gion. Furthermore, since the boundaries of ecore-gions are still being finalized by the WWF-USConservation Science laboratory, any changes atthis level may reflect on the cross-mapping, againin terms of whether a given group is or is notincluded within a given ecoregion. Computationsof the number of ethnolinguistic groups livingwithin the limits of each ecoregion are thus subjectto change as these cartographic issues are

addressed, although it is likely that the changeswill be minor. Nevertheless, it should be kept inmind that the global map is mostly meant todemonstrate overall correlations between ecore-gions and indigenous and traditional peoples,rather than as an actual tool for the implementationof conservation work. Continental-scale maps, ormaps at even higher degrees of resolution, allow-ing for more detailed cross-mapping and data dis-play, will be required for the latter purpose.

It should also be noted that, in its currentversion, the Global 200 map only shows the prior-ity ecoregions, colour-coded according to majorhabitat type, while the remaining areas of eachcontinent are not divided by ecoregions and areleft blank (except for state boundaries and a fewsalient geographic features). In carrying out thecross-mapping, it was decided to mark the loca-tions of ethnolinguistic groups worldwide, both inthe Global 200 and elsewhere, in the expectationthat a global map showing the full complement ofworld’s ecoregions will soon become availablefrom WWF. Cross-mapping ethnolinguisticgroups on the full map of the world’s ecoregionswould allow for better gauging the global importof overlap between cultural and biological diversi-ty. However, the current mapping serves itsdesigned purpose of highlighting the extent ofpresence of (mostly indigenous and traditional)ethnolinguistic groups in the Global 200 – a pres-ence that is found in 95 per cent of Global 200ecoregions (see Appendix 3).

An interim analysis (July 2000) of the cross-mapping data quantified the presence of ethnolin-guistic groups in the Global 200 ecoregions, yield-ing the results summarized in Table 413 anddetailed in Appendixes 1-3.14

A total of 6,867 ethnolinguistic groups wereidentified by the research described above andplotted on the Global 200 map. Of these, 4, 635 (orover 67% of the world total) are located in theGlobal 200 ecoregions. As mentioned above,almost all Global 200 sites (or 95%) show pres-

13 This analysis was based on an earlier set of 233 global ecoregions identified by the WWF-US Conservation Science Labora-tory (map version of February 1998 [WWF 1998c], which will be updated as the map reflecting the definitive set of 238 ecore-gions is finalized). It should be noted that the total of 4,635 ethnolinguistic groups for all 233 ecoregions was derived by arbi-trarily excluding any overlap between groups and ecoregions; in other words, if an ethnolinguistic group was present in more thanone ecoregion, it was counted only once. A margin of error and subjectivity in this analysis should be attributed to this, as well asto the various caveats mentioned in the text, making the kind of computations carried out here always subject to revision. There-fore, the figures should be taken as indicative of trends, rather than absolute. The sources for ethnolinguistic groups are given inAppendix 4.

14 The figures in these appendixes are again based on the earlier set of 233 global ecoregions and subject to revision.

23

ence of ethnolinguistic groups. These figures perse are highly indicative of the importance of con-sidering indigenous and traditional peoples asstakeholders and partners in conservation work.

The majority of ethnolinguistic groups in theGlobal 200 are found in tropical forest ecosys-tems. As previously indicated, these ecosystemsharbour at least 1,400 distinct indigenous and tra-ditional peoples (Commission Européenne 1994),if areas under current forest cover are considered,and about 2,500 if the original extent of tropicaland subtropical moist forest ecoregions (and asso-ciated freshwater ecoregions) is included (seeAppendix 1). This represents 54 per cent of thetotal number of ethnolinguistic groups in theGlobal 200, and 36 per cent of the world total. Thetotal figure for all tropical forest ecoregions,including mangroves, amounts to nearly 2,900,which represents 62 per cent of all ethnolinguistic

groups in the Global 200, and 42 per cent of allethnolinguistic groups in the world. As seen inAppendix 2, however, all major habitat types inthe three biomes show presence of ethnolinguisticgroups to a greater or lesser extent (see Appendix1 for selected aggregates).

Lower numbers of ethnolinguistic groups inarctic and desert environments are explained by theextreme ecological, and therefore subsistence, con-ditions existing in these environments, preventingconcentration of human populations and requiringmobility over vast expanses of land. Tropical envi-ronments favour localization and proliferation ofsmall human communities. Therefore, one is alsolikely to find high ‘densities’ of distinct TEK sys-tems in the tropics. This does not mean that human-environment interactions and TEK systems are anyless significant in arctic or desert ecosystems; theseinteractions and TEK systems will reflect unique

Mapping of Indigenous and Traditional Peoples onto the Global 200 Map

TTaabbllee 44.. EEtthhnnoolliinngguuiissttiicc GGrroouuppss ((EEGG)) iinn GGlloobbaall 220000 EEccoorreeggiioonnss ((EERR))

BBiiooggeeooggrraapphhiiccaall rreeaallmm NNoo.. ooff EERR NNoo.. ooff EEGG %% ooff EEGG iinn %% ooff wwoorrllddiinn rreeaallmm iinn rreeaallmm’’ss EERR GGlloobbaall 220000 EEGG ((NN == 66,,886677))

Afrotropical 40 1,182 25.5 17.2

Neotropical 44 442 9.5 6.4

Nearctic 16 100 2.2 1.5

Indo-Malayan 36 1,075 23.2 15.7

Oceanian 3 9 0.2 0.1

Palearctic 30 465 10.03 6.8

Australasian 20 1,156 24.9 16.8

SSuubbttoottaall TTeerrrreessttrriiaall aanndd FFrreesshhwwaatteerr 118899 44,,442299 9955..55 6644..55

Northern Atlantic Ocean 3 1 0.02 0.01

Southern Atlantic Ocean 2 0 0 0

Eastern Atlantic Ocean 2 1 0.02 0.01

Western Atlantic Ocean 4 3 0.1 0.04

Western Pacific Ocean 8 61 1.3 0.9

Eastern Pacific Ocean 6 5 0.1 0.07

Southern Pacific Ocean 5 114 2.5 1.7

Western Indian Ocean 4 4 0.1 0.06

Eastern Indian Ocean 1 2 0.04 0.03

Northern Indian Ocean 3 13 0.3 0.19

Mediterranean Ocean 1 0 0 0

Antarctic Ocean 2 0 0 0

Arctic Ocean 3 2 0.04 0.03

SSuubbttoottaall MMaarriinnee 4444 220066 44..55 33..00

WWoorrlldd 223333 44,,663355 110000 6677..55

24

adaptations and successful specialization in the useand management of large, harsh, fragile land-scapes. Similar considerations apply also tonotable exceptions to the biodiversity-linguisticdiversity correlations, as for example in the case ofMadagascar. Specific historical factors can explainthis lack of correlation: early separation of theisland from other landmasses, favouring floral andfaunal endemism, and tropical location favouringbiodiversity in general; and late human coloniza-tion, reducing the chances for linguistic diversifica-tion. Nevertheless, over time the inhabitants ofMadagascar developed equally significant knowl-edge and use of and adaptation to the local envi-ronment. The general point, as emphasized earlierin this report, is that historically indigenous andtraditional peoples worldwide have developedknowledge, uses and adaptations that are equallyrelevant to the conservation of biodiversity wher-ever they are found.

Examining the breakdown of the ethnolin-guistic group/ecoregion data by biogeographicrealms (Appendix 3 and Table 4) also yields rele-vant findings. If terrestrial and freshwater ecore-gions are merged for analytical purposes, given theamount of overlap between the two kinds of bio-mes, we see that 25.5 per cent of the ethnolinguis-tic groups in Global 200 ecoregions are located inthe Afrotropical realm, 25 per cent in Australasia,23 per cent in the Indo-Malayan realm, 10 per centin the Palearctic, 9.5 per cent in the Neotropics, 2per cent in the Nearctic, and 0.2 per cent in Ocea-nia, amounting to over 95 per cent of the total eth-nolinguistic groups found in the Global 200.Marine ecoregions (coastal regions and islands)overall include nearly 4.5 per cent of the ethnolin-guistic groups in the Global 200, with a concen-tration in the Southern Pacific Ocean (almost2.5%).

Interestingly, these data correlate well (withone exception) with the proportion of the world’slanguages spoken on the various continents, aspresented in Ethnologue, and taken as a proxy forcultural diversity in the same areas (see footnotes5 and 6). Out of a reported total of 6,703 lan-guages, according to Ethnologue32 per cent arespoken in Asia, 30 per cent in Africa, 19 per centin the Pacific, 15 per cent in the Americas, and 3per cent in Europe. An approximate organizationof the ethnolinguistic group/ecoregion data bycontinent rather than by biogeographic realmwould give us the following proportions: about 31per cent of ethnolinguistic group s in Asian ecore-gions (= Indo-Malayan ecoregions plus most

Palearctic), 24 per cent in African ecoregions (=Afrotropical ecoregions), 13 per cent in ecore-gions of the Americas (= Nearctic plus Neotropi-cal ecoregions), and 2 per cent in Europe (=somePalearctic). In all these cases, the correspondencewith the above proportions of languages spoken onthese continents is high. The exception is thePacific, but in fact it is an exception that confirmsthe rule; that is, it confirms the significance of thecorrelations between biological and cultural diver-sity and its implications for conservation. In Eth-nologue, the Pacific is understood as includingAustralia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea andthe Pacific Islands. Aggregating the data for Aus-tralasian and Oceanian terrestrial/freshwaterecoregions with those for some Western and allSouthern Pacific Ocean Marine ecoregions toapproximate Ethnologue’s Pacific, we obtain aproportion of more than 28 per cent of ethnolin-guistic groups in ecoregions, significantly higherthan Ethnologue’s proportion of languages spokenin the Pacific. This skewing is explained by thefact that the Pacific (both continental mass andislands) is a region of high biodiversity, as well ashigh endemism and species uniqueness, leading tothe near total inclusion of the Pacific in the Glob-al 200 (unlike the rest of world’s regions). At thesame time, the Pacific is also an area of high den-sity of linguistic diversity in relation to landmass,and particularly density of endemic languages(most notably in Papua New Guinea, but also insmall islands such as Vanuatu). A database of eth-nolinguistic groups in all Global 200 ecoregionshas been established and is presented separatelyalong with the ‘Map of Indigenous and Tradition-al Peoples in the Global 200 Ecoregions’.

These figures and correlations are clearlyvery significant, and unequivocally emphasize theneed for WWF to involve indigenous and tradition-al peoples in its ecoregion conservation work. Fur-thermore there is evidence from many parts of theworld that healthy, non-degraded ecosystems areoften inhabited only by indigenous peoples, such asdense, little disturbed tropical rainforests in placeslike the Amazon, Borneo or Papua New Guinea (seee.g, Durning 1992; Lizarralde in press).

As WWF develops its conservation activitiesin individual ecoregions and seeks to establishpartnerships with indigenous peoples in thoseareas, it will also be crucial for its personnel toconcretely consider the implications of these find-ings for conservation work, in terms of both strate-gies and programmatic areas. These issues aretaken up in the next section.


25

WWF’s conservation philosophy recog-nizes the need to integrate conservationinto broader social and economic poli-

cies and programmes. In particular, both WWF’sguiding principles and the principles of ecoregionconservation stress the potential role and contribu-tion of indigenous and tribal peoples and localcommunities in environmental conservation, andthe need to include these peoples and communi-ties, among other stakeholders, in the planning andimplementation of conservation efforts.

In 1996, WWF issued a Statement of Prin-ciples on Indigenous Peoples and Conservation,intended to guide partnerships between WWFand indigenous peoples’ organizations in con-serving biodiversity within indigenous peoples’lands and territories, and in promoting sustain-able use of natural resources (WWF 1996).15 Aworkshop reviewing WWF project-level experi-ences with indigenous peoples was organized byWWF-US in 1998, which resulted in the publica-tion of the book Indigenous Peoples and Conser-vation Organizations: Experiences in Collabora-tion (Weber, Butler and Larson 2000). The bookdiscusses the issue of ‘coverage’ of WWF poli-cies on indigenous peoples and offers guidanceon how to build conservation partnerships withindigenous peoples. In 1996, IUCN’s World Con-servation Congress passed eight resolutions onindigenous peoples, on issues such as protectedareas, traditional biodiversity knowledge, forests,marine and coastal areas, and mining (IUCN1997). The fact that these two organizations, thelargest of their kind in the world, have taken thisstep, shows the importance they now assign toworking with indigenous peoples in their conser-vation activities.

WWF also developed a joint policy withIUCN/WCPA (World Commission on ProtectedAreas) on protected areas inhabited by indigenousand traditional peoples, a policy that was adopted

by both organizations in 1999 (WWF-WCPA/IUCN 1999). In important internationalenvironmental policy-making processes, such asthose related to the CBD, the UN Forest Forum,the Ramsar Convention, etc., WWF has signifi-cantly contributed to the development of frame-work policies and programmes for involvingindigenous and traditional peoples and ensuringrespect for their rights.

While recognizing the great diversity of cul-tural and social features characterizing the world’sindigenous peoples (and thus that no ‘blueprint’approach to working with them is possible), anexamination of the existing definitions of indige-nous peoples – mainly those of ILO Convention169 (see footnote 1), the UN Working Group onIndigenous Populations, the World Bank and theEuropean Union – allows the identification of themore relevant general characteristics of indige-nous peoples in relation to natural resource man-agement, as follows:

n Ancestral attachment to lands and resources(including coastal and marine areas whereapplicable);

n Low-impact systems, i.e. management of (rela-tively) large territories or areas in relation topopulation density and intensity of land use;

n Traditional ecological knowledge;16

n Traditional systems of control, use and man-agement of lands and resources;

n Predominantly self-subsistence systems thatare largely dependent on diversity of resourcesrather than on monocultures;

n Collective rights over resources;

n Traditional institutions and authorities for self-government of their areas;

n Traditional practices for decision-making onmatters of their concern;

n Traditional systems for benefit sharing.

WWWWFF aanndd IInnddiiggeennoouuss aanndd TTrraaddiittiioonnaall PPeeoopplleess

15 In this Statement of Principles, as well as in other institutional documents, WWF refers to indigenous and tribal peoples usingthe definition in Article 1 of ILO Convention 169 (see footnote 1). The statement specifies: “Unless explicitly said otherwise, theterm ‘indigenous peoples’ [as used in the statement] includes both concepts, ‘indigenous’ and ‘tribal’” (WWF 1996: 3, footnote 1).As previously indicated, the same use is followed in this report.

16 See footnote 2 for a definition of ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ and of the use of the word ‘traditional’ in this context.

6

26


All these characteristics are important fromthe perspective of sustainable management oflands and resources. The question then arises as towhether such characteristics are present amongpeoples other than ‘indigenous’ as per internation-al definitions. For example, are they presentamong rural peoples of Asia and Africa who wouldnot usually be termed ‘indigenous’ (at least not inofficial policies and laws)? Are they also present,for instance, among Afro-Latin American ruralpeoples, such as the Maroons of Suriname, theblack communities of the Chocó forests, and theCentral American Garífuna? The answer is thatgenerally speaking these characteristics do exist inthese peoples, and in this report they are referredto as ‘traditional communities’, or ‘local commu-nities embodying traditional lifestyles’, to use thelanguage of the CBD.

What may differentiate these traditional com-munities from indigenous peoples is the latter’sclaimed right to political self-determination, basedon their self-identification as culturally (includinglinguistically) distinct peoples. There are also casesin which a distinction is made between traditionalcommunities and indigenous peoples on thegrounds of the latter’s aboriginality (in the sense ofILO 169; see footnote 1). However, cultural self-identification is also a feature of traditional com-munities, and claims to political self-determinationare increasingly made by many ethnolinguisticgroups worldwide – although differences may existin the way political self-determination is under-stood when aboriginality is a factor.

For the purpose of building partnerships inconservation, WWF views the differences betweenindigenous peoples and traditional communities asfar less relevant than the coincidences. Therefore,whenever WWF refers to indigenous peoples, theconcept is applicable by extension to tribal peoplesand to traditional communities or ‘local communi-ties embodying traditional lifestyles’. WWF poli-cies on indigenous peoples are therefore generallyapplicable to traditional communities as well. Manyother non-traditional local communities inhabit theworld’s ecoregions, and are potential stakeholdersin ecoregion conservation plans. However, theypresent different characteristics from thosedescribed above. Consequently, WWF statementson indigenous peoples (in the above-mentionedextended sense of the concept) are not intended toapply to those other local communities.17

The concept underpinning WWF’s approachto working with indigenous peoples is the need toestablish lasting partnerships with them for theconservation of biodiversity and natural resourcesin their lands and territories, based on a solidunderstanding of the interlinkages between bio-logical and cultural diversity, a genuine apprecia-tion for indigenous peoples’ contribution to biodi-versity conservation, and recognition of their legit-imate rights and interests. WWF also recognizesthe wide diversity of situations – not only cultural-ly, but also in social, political, economic and geo-graphic terms – in which indigenous peoples live,and thus that the definition of strategies, methods,plans and actions requires a flexible, adaptive andsensitive approach. WWF’s position is that part-nerships with indigenous peoples should be soughtwhenever conservation of indigenous peoples’lands and resources coincides or overlaps withWWF’s own conservation priorities and with itsguiding philosophy that the Earth’s natural sys-tems, resources and life forms should be con-served for their intrinsic value and for the benefitof future generations. At the same time, WWFundertakes to seek partnerships with other groupsthat share WWF’s commitment to conservation ofbiodiversity, sustainable use of resources and pol-lution prevention.

The recurrent claim of indigenous organiza-tions that environment and development issueshave to be approached from a human-rights per-spective has been frequently debated. Conserva-tion organizations have often responded with thestatement that human rights are beyond their man-date and mission. At the moment, however, inter-nationally the distinction between human rightsand environmental concerns as two totally sepa-rate areas has become virtually indefensible, espe-cially in relation to indigenous and marginalizedpeoples. In WWF’s analysis, this is for at leastthree reasons:

First, the evolution of the international envi-ronmental doctrine in the last decade points clear-ly to the recognition that the foundations of envi-ronmental issues are environmental human rights,i.e. the rights of present and future generations toenjoy a healthy life in a healthy environment.From this perspective, human rights issues go tothe very core of the preoccupations of the environ-mental movement – and will be increasingly rele-vant in this context.

17 Non-traditional local communities are also not included in the mapping project described in this report.

27

Secondly, WWF and other conservationorganizations have recognized that, without liveli-hood security (i.e. security of tenure and access tolands and resources), no conservation commit-ment can be expected from indigenous, tradition-al and rural peoples – something that is indeedvalid for people in general. This concept is con-nected to the right to a decent quality of life andto other related rights recognized in the UN Inter-national Covenant on Economic, Social and Cul-tural Rights. Further, under conditions of repres-sion and political oppression and marginalization,as is frequently the case with indigenous peoples,participation in and support to nature conserva-tion and the development and enforcement ofenvironmental laws and policies are unfeasible.The more people live in security and have theirrights respected, the more they will be willing tocare for their lands and resources and engage inbiodiversity conservation on the basis of a coinci-dence of needs and aspirations with conservationorganizations.

A third dimension of human rights relevantto indigenous peoples in the context of biodiversi-ty conservation is the right of self-determination; aright that the indigenous movement active in theinternational arena considers to be the most impor-tant of all. In relation to conservation and naturalresource management, WWF understands the rightof self-determination as consisting of a bundle ofthe following rights:

n Ancestral land/territorial and resource rights;n Land and resources control and management

rights;

n Self-government by own institutions andauthorities;

n Self-development (own decision-making ondevelopment options);

n Prior informed consent on conservation anddevelopment actions;

n Benefit-sharing rights;n Traditional knowledge/intellectual property

rights.

WWF considers that these rights apply toindigenous and tribal peoples according to the ILO169 definition, and by extension also to traditionalcommunities or ‘local communities embodyingtraditional lifestyles’.

WWF’s position on indigenous self-determi-nation as it relates to conservation is threefold:

i) Understanding of the right of indigenous peo-ples to self-determination as comprised of therights specified above, within existing nation-states;

ii) Recognition of, and support to, indigenouspeoples’ right of self-determination in allaspects in which such right is relevant for con-servation;

iii) Respect for the way in which indigenous peo-ples negotiate their status with governmentswith regard to political self-determination incases where they define themselves as distinctnations. (WWF does not consider this to be anissue on which it has to have a position, unlessso decided by WWF National Organizations atthe level of their respective countries.)

WWF and Indigenous and Traditional Peoples

28


To begin with, it is necessary to refine thetypology used in this report. So far, theanalysis has made use of a typology that

essentially equates indigenous and traditional peo-ples, and by default also distinguishes them fromrural communities in general. In reality, these threetypes of human groups are often not so easily dis-tinguishable from one another. Many of them areundergoing rapid change, and may tend to movefrom a traditional pattern to one of local, more‘modern’ rural communities – with attendant lossof traditional knowledge, institutions and prac-tices, and therefore with much reduced groundsand ability to claim the self-determination right.These types therefore can be seen also as part of acontinuum of change, again pointing to the need toavoid a blueprint approach.

A more refined typology of groups belong-ing to or having originated in traditional societies(indigenous or non-indigenous) suggests some-what differentiated strategies in conservationwork, based on the application of the same princi-ples. Four main types of groups can be identified,to which a corresponding set of main strategiescan be applied, as shown in Table 5.

Indigenous peoples issues relevant to con-servation and sustainable development are vastand of growing complexity. Globalizationinevitably expands and increases environmentalimpacts of development on indigenous and tradi-tional peoples, thus broadening the scope of issuesthat have to be considered to forge lasting partner-ships in conservation. At the same time, it is nec-essary to focus on key programmatic areas, for thesake of efficacy, optimization of efforts and align-ment with WWF’s mission. To guide the applica-tion of the general strategies listed above, the fol-lowing seven programmatic areas are proposed forWWF’s conservation work with indigenous andtraditional peoples in ecoregion conservation:

1. Protected areas overlapping with indigenouspeoples’ lands and territories;

2. Traditional natural resource management out-side protected areas;

3. Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK);4. Prevention and control of environmental

impacts on traditional lands and resources;

5. Conservation capacity building for indigenousand traditional communities;

6. Benefit sharing and incentives for indigenousand traditional peoples;

7. Facilitation of and support to conflict manage-ment processes.

Each of these areas is examined below andan expanded set of guidelines for including indige-nous and traditional peoples issues in ecoregionconservation is presented in Part II.

11.. PPrrootteecctteedd aarreeaass oovveerrllaappppiinngg wwiitthhiinnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeoopplleess’’ llaannddss aanndd tteerrrriittoorriieess

Protected areas are one of the most important toolsfor biodiversity conservation. As previously stated,indigenous peoples inhabit nearly 20 per cent of theworld’s surface, or more than twice the total surfacecovered by protected areas. Many protected areasoverlap with indigenous lands and territories(including marine areas). As an example, in SouthAmerica 86 per cent of national parks are inhabitedby local populations, most of them indigenous ortraditional peoples practising subsistenceeconomies (Amend and Amend 1992). In CentralAmerica, the majority of protected areas are or havebeen inhabited by at least 29 different indigenouspeoples (Godoy et al. 1997). In the Americas as awhole, “80 per cent of protected areas includeindigenous peoples” (Alcorn 1997: 44).

The protected areas model that now domi-nates conservation strategies all over the world iscommonly recognized as a legacy of the Yellow-stone model, i.e. as a creation of Western modernsocieties. What is not generally recognized is thatit was traditional peoples who first established‘protected areas’ . Traditional societies have usual-ly established sacred areas within their lands andwater bodies, where human activities are strictlylimited and regulated (Kothari, Singh, and Suri1996; Stevens 1997a). This traditional concept ofprotected areas is still alive and functioning inmany parts of the world – although mostly lackingrecognition, support and respect from the domi-nant society, and being threatened by the erosionof traditional institutions such as common-proper-

WWoorrkkiinngg wwiitthh IInnddiiggeennoouuss PPeeoopplleess iinn CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn::MMaaiinn SSttrraatteeggiieess aanndd KKeeyy PPrrooggrraammmmaattiicc AArreeaass7

29

ty regimes. In many cases, indigenous communi-ties have been expelled from their traditional landsto create protected areas according to the Westernmodel. This has led to a great deal of suffering forthose communities, and at the same time hasturned protected areas into an odious and muchdespised imposition.

The aforementioned joint WWF andIUCN/WCPA framework policy onindigenous/traditional peoples and protectedareas, adopted in 1999, aims to promote the con-cept of partnerships between indigenous peoplesand protected area institutions, whenever indige-nous peoples’ lands and resources fall within pro-tected areas; as well as to support indigenous peo-ples’ own actions for the protection of their lands.On the ground, one can expect to see a growingnumber of cases in which co-managementarrangements with indigenous peoples are estab-lished, and where indigenous protected areas arefully recognized and supported as part of protect-ed area systems. Indigenous peoples living in ornear protected areas are also, in principle, particu-larly well placed to carry out protective and moni-toring activities, if there are sufficient incentivesfor them to fulfil those roles.

22.. TTrraaddiittiioonnaall nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrccee mmaannaaggeemmeenntt oouuttssiiddee pprrootteecctteedd aarreeaass

Traditional resource use and management prac-tices, as traditional knowledge, have much to offerto biodiversity conservation. As previously men-tioned, Article 10(c) of CBD requires Parties to“protect and encourage customary use of biologi-cal resources in accordance with traditional cultur-al practices that are compatible with conservationor sustainable use requirements”. Beyond the spe-cific local value of these practices, this appears tobe an acknowledgement that accommodating cus-tomary regulations relating to natural resource useand environmental management within nationallaws can enhance biodiversity conservation in agiven country.

WWF’s study of traditional wildlife use inindigenous communities of the Arctic (Freese,Ewins and Prokosch 1998) showed that traditionaluse was essentially compatible with conservationobjectives, and that disruptions seen in moderntimes have been caused by external market forces.Based on this analysis, and working with localpeople, WWF developed guidelines for the sus-

Working with Indigenous Peoples in Conservation: Main Strategies and Key Programmatic Areas

TTaabbllee 55.. TTyyppoollooggyy ooff ggrroouuppss bbeelloonnggiinngg ttoo oorr hhaavviinngg oorriiggiinnaatteedd iinn ttrraaddiittiioonnaall ssoocciieettiieess,, aanndd rreelleevvaanntt ccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn ssttrraatteeggiieess

MMaaiinn CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn SSttrraatteeggiieess

Territorial consolidation (territory demarcation,securement of land and resource rights,boundary protection); avoidance of anyunwanted external interference.

Territorial consolidation; capacity building todeal with market involvement and pressures;support for full participation in regional andnational issues which concern them.

Revitalization of cultural traditions; capacitybuilding to deal with market involvement andpressures; creation of alternatives to traditional subsistence practices; support forfull participation in regional and nationalissues which concern them.

Advocacy on themes of common interest;facilitation of interaction with more traditionalcommunities; support for cultural revitalizationinitiatives with conservation implications; conservation capacity building.

TTyyppeess ooff GGrroouuppss

1a Groups with vital traditions and environments living in relative isolation('uncontacted groups' or 'groups living involuntary isolation')

1b Groups with vital traditions and environments living in contact with non-traditional societies and the outsidemarket

2. Groups simultaneously experiencing rapid cultural change and ecosystemdegradation

3. Groups (rural or urban) having undergoneradical cultural and ecological change, butwanting to recover aspects of their ancestral traditions and resource management and use

30

tainable use of wildlife in the region. Many of theideas in the guidelines are also applicable else-where. This is an example of a concrete action thatWWF can take to help keep alive sustainablewildlife use by traditional peoples. In addition,under such circumstances, supporting traditionalmanagement practices can contribute to the decen-tralization of conservation work.

As another example, understanding tradi-tional systems of zonation of use (such as tradi-tional distinctions of areas for intensive use, areasfor semi-intensive use, restricted-use areas, andsacred areas) can greatly help foster collaborationbetween indigenous peoples and conservationistsin the establishment of protected areas.

33.. TTrraaddiittiioonnaall eeccoollooggiiccaall kknnoowwlleeddggee ((TTEEKK))

Traditional ecological knowledge has very impor-tant functions for and offers fundamental contribu-tions to biodiversity conservation. As indicatedabove, in many cases it is found to be more com-plete and accurate than that of Western science.Traditional knowledge is also a fundamental com-ponent of cultural adaptations to natural condi-tions. Among other benefits, it can provide a long-term perspective on ecosystem dynamics, basedon ancestral contact and interaction with habitatsand species, and thus aid in the analysis and mon-itoring of long-term ecological changes.

It is increasingly accepted in internationalenvironmental law, through such agreements asthe CBD, that the knowledge, innovations andpractices of indigenous peoples and local commu-nities embodying traditional lifestyles have amajor role to play in biodiversity conservation.Consequently, the first and most important task inthis connection is to counter the erosion of tradi-tional knowledge by putting in place mechanismsand systems for the revitalization and protection ofsuch knowledge. This must be done in collabora-tion with the communities concerned and fullyrespecting their intellectual property. Moreover,indigenous peoples should have the opportunity tobenefit fairly from the use and application of theirknowledge.

Another consideration is that the knowledge,innovations and practices of indigenous peoplesand traditional communities are part and parcel oftheir cultures. Protecting a people’s culture(including their language, cultural traditions, insti-tutions, modes of subsistence, etc.) means main-taining those conditions that allow a culture tothrive and develop further, and thus also to contin-

ue to create and adapt traditional ecologicalknowledge. This is connected to what the UnitedNations study on the protection of the cultural andintellectual property of indigenous peoples refersto as ‘heritage’ (Daes 1997: iii):

“Everything that belongs to the distinctidentity of a people and which is theirs toshare, if they wish, with other peoples. Itincludes all of those things which inter-national law regards as the creative pro-duction of human thought and craftsman-ship, such as songs, stories, scientificknowledge and artworks. It also includesinheritances from the past and fromnature, such as human remains, the natu-ral features of the landscape, and natural-ly occurring species of plants and ani-mals with which a people has long beenconnected.”

In its Statement of Principles on IndigenousPeoples and Conservation, WWF uses this con-cept of ‘heritage’, which helps understanding ofthe link between a people and ‘the natural featuresof the landscape and naturally occurring species ofplants and animals’.

44.. PPrreevveennttiioonn aanndd ccoonnttrrooll ooffeennvviirroonnmmeennttaall iimmppaaccttss

As indicated earlier, the coincidence of threats thatboth indigenous peoples and biodiversity-richareas are facing – from destructive activities suchas logging, mining and oil exploitation to ill-con-ceived development plans – has led to manyindigenous groups becoming actively militant inthe defence of the integrity of their lands andecosystems. This is a very important front onwhich coordinated and mutually supportive workbetween conservation organizations and indige-nous peoples can produce important gains.

Article 7 of ILO Convention 169 requiresgovernments to carry out environmental impactassessments (EIAs) on any activities taking placein indigenous peoples’ lands and territories thatcould affect the quality of their environment andresources. In accordance, WWF has adopted in itspolicy a provision implying that, in cases in whichexternal interventions take place on indigenouspeoples’ lands and territories where WWF devel-ops its conservation work, the organization willpay particular attention to the way in which EIAsare developed, and will make sure that the poten-


31

tially affected communities have the rights andmeans to actively participate in them. WWF,working in cooperation with the relevant indige-nous organizations, will also urge governments toput in place all the necessary measures to prevent,control and mitigate environmental impacts inthose lands and territories, and will help localorganizations strengthen their own capacity forprevention, control, monitoring and mitigation.

Prior informed consent (PIC) is a basic prin-ciple, currently recognized by the CBD, which ishighly relevant in the context of conservation, andparticularly for the avoidance of environmentaland social impacts. PIC is consent given to anyactivity after receiving full disclosure regardingthe reasons for the activity, the specific proceduresthe activity would entail, the potential risksinvolved, and the full implications that can realis-tically be foreseen. PIC implies the right to stopthe activity from proceeding, in application of thePrecautionary Principle, or halt it if it is alreadyunder way where there is no evidence of full com-pliance with environmental regulations. The fol-lowing types of activity affecting indigenouslands, territories and resources should be subjectto the PIC principle:

n Extraction of renewable or non-renewableresources from indigenous territories;

n Acquisition of knowledge from a person orpeople whether for commercial or non-com-mercial purposes;

n Projects such as construction works or colo-nization schemes.

Requests for consent should be accompaniedby full disclosure, in culturally appropriate ways,of information concerning, among others:

n the purpose of the activity;n the identity of those carrying out the activity

and, if different, its sponsors;n the benefits for the people or person whose

consent is being requested, as well as the bene-fits for the sponsors;

n the costs and disadvantages for the peoplewhose consent is being requested;

n possible alternative activities and procedures;n any risks entailed by the activity;n discoveries made in the course of the activity

that might affect the willingness of the peopleto continue to cooperate;

n the destination of knowledge, material orresources that are to be acquired, their owner-

ship status, and the rights of local people tothem once they have left the community;

n any commercial interest that the performersand sponsors have in the activity and in theknowledge, material or resources acquired; and

n the legal options available to the community ifit refuses to allow the activity.

Since legal frameworks and tools to exerciseand protect the right of Prior Informed Consent arestill in their infancy, WWF promotes the use ofinstruments at the local level whenever necessary –mainly community agreements that follow the saidconditions and steps – without prejudice to advo-cating for the adoption of the required legal tools atnational and other levels whenever necessary.

55.. CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn ccaappaacciittyy bbuuiillddiinngg

WWF has defined conservation capacity buildingas a fundamental strategy for its work with localpartners in general, and with indigenous and tradi-tional peoples in particular. Capacity building (interms of the Oxfam model of ‘strengthening capac-ities of primary stakeholders’, Eade 1997) needs tofocus on a variety of issues, such as strengtheninginstitutions, facilitating access to information, tech-nical training, and support to networking. It has totake place in a context of respect for self-govern-ment institutions and customary law, and requiresthe promotion of a social environment which isconducive to real democracy, i.e. the recognition ofthe right of marginalized peoples to become equalplayers in all matters of their concern. It alsorequires promotion of decentralization of naturalresource management, devolving rights andresponsibilities to local people, and encouragingcooperation and mutual accountability. Capacitybuilding should become a strategy that cross-cutsall the programmatic elements of working in part-nership with indigenous peoples in conservation.

66.. IInncceennttiivveess aanndd bbeenneeffiitt sshhaarriinngg

Long-term conservation of indigenous peoples’lands, territories and resources requires that theydirectly and equitably benefit from any activitytaking place on them. In many instances, conser-vation implies trade-offs for local people and hasdirect or indirect impacts on local livelihoods.Engagement of indigenous and traditional peoplesin conservation cannot be expected if their qualityof life does not improve through appropriate ben-efit sharing and alternatives to potential losses and

Working with Indigenous Peoples in Conservation: Main Strategies and Key Programmatic Areas

32

opportunity costs. Similarly, incentive systems arerequired to stimulate the maintenance of resourcemanagement and use practices that are sustainablein the long term and to outweigh the continuouspressure of market forces toward overexploitationof resources for short-term gain.

Benefits and incentives may be conceived inmonetary or non-monetary terms. First and fore-most, they should be conceived in culturallyappropriate ways (defined jointly with the peopleconcerned), wherever possible avoiding furtherdisruption of local cultural and social processes. Inmany cases, adopting conservation strategies thatbuild on local traditional ecological knowledgeand resource use and management practices may,per se, constitute a powerful incentive for localpeople to engage in partnerships for conservation.

77.. FFaacciilliittaattiioonn ooff aanndd ssuuppppoorrtt ttoo ccoonnfflliiccttmmaannaaggeemmeenntt pprroocceesssseess

Environmental problems affecting indigenouspeoples’ lands and resources very often are linkedto conflicts of interest among a variety of stake-holders, including governments, businesses andother local groups. In such situations, indigenouspeoples frequently suffer from power imbalances,unequal access to relevant information, lack ofadvocacy expertise under conditions that are aliento their cultures, and lack of resources that arerequired to successfully handle such situations.

WWF’s role on this front is one of facilitat-ing conflict management processes and providingsupport to indigenous peoples, with the purpose ofhelping redress the power and participation imbal-ances that affect them. In so doing, WWF partnerswith other organizations already dedicated to envi-ronmental brokerage, so as to ensure that the bestpossible expertise is brought to the task of findingfair solutions from both the environmental andsocial points of view.

The joint challenges of continued humandevelopment and biodiversity conservation areenormous. Realization of the magnitude of thesechallenges is in turn leading to a recognition of theneed for new, more inclusive strategies and closercollaboration among all sectors of society. As theIUCN/WRI/WWF 1999 joint statement on ‘Con-servation in the 21st Century’ puts it: “A lastingreconciliation between the needs of human devel-opment and the conservation of natural systemsdepends critically on the engagement and commit-ment of key stakeholders, from local people livingoff the land, to society at large, corporations, gov-ernments, and donor institutions”. At the begin-ning of the 21st century, we are coming to realizethat this reconciliation also critically depends onthe meeting of modern science and traditionalknowledge, which together show us that conserva-tion can be built into the long-term goal of sus-tainable development.


PPaarrtt IIII

WWoorrkkiinngg wwiitthh IInnddiiggeennoouuss PPeeoopplleess iinn EEccoorreeggiioonn CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn:: TThhee AApppprrooaacchh aanndd KKeeyy BBeenncchhmmaarrkkss

34


How does the concept of partnerships withindigenous peoples, as proposed in WWF’s‘Statement of Principles’, apply to ecoregionconservation?

Most ecoregions have areas inhabited byindigenous and traditional peoples, and the lands,waters and resources these areas contain veryoften coincide with areas and resources of interestfrom the conservation standpoint. Therefore, whencarrying out conservation planning and implemen-tation at the ecoregional level, WWF will fre-quently have to work within indigenous and tradi-tional peoples’ lands and territories in striving toconserve the resources being used. However, it isinconceivable for a conservation organization likeWWF to make decisions, implement actions, anddevise plans and proposals for lands, territories orresources without the prior informed agreementand involvement of the owners. WWF’s policiesclearly indicate that conservation actions withinindigenous and traditional peoples’ lands and ter-ritories require their prior informed consent andshould be based on partnerships with them.18

More broadly, indigenous and traditionalpeoples can become very important partners at thewider ecoregional level, beyond the borders of theirterritories. This is particularly so in ecoregionswhere their presence is considerable in terms ofpopulation figures, ethnic diversity, area of landoccupied, and stake in resource use. In some ecore-gions, visible political presence of indigenous peo-ples’ organizations, and their participation in polit-ical institutions and processes, may also be goodreasons for them to play an important role at thebroader ecoregional level. Here, together withother key stakeholders, they can be involved in var-ious ways in planning and implementation.

In line with this reasoning, the actions sug-gested below address the issue of working withindigenous peoples for the conservation of thelands, territories and resources they own, possess,occupy or use within ecoregions. Further, they canbe more widely applied, according to the circum-stances, to actions focusing on the entire ecoregion,in a way that complements strategies to address the

involvement of other ecoregional stakeholders.Working with indigenous peoples and their

organizations in the conservation of ecoregionsbenefits from having clear goals for each phase orelement in the planning and implementationprocess. This can be achieved through a step-by-step approach, where WWF, together with relevantecoregional partners, such as government agen-cies, progressively engages in different types ofagreements for action with organizations repre-senting indigenous peoples and communities.These benchmark agreements (see Table 6) pro-vide a framework for choosing the right prioritytopics at the right moment, as well as formalizingthe jointly identified solutions in documents allparties can refer to.

The existence and content of these bench-mark agreements allow ecoregion conservationplanners to consider whether there is sufficientinformation and on-the-ground cooperation tomove on to the next step in the process. The typesof agreements discussed here are not blueprints,but rather prototype agreements that can beapplied and modified as appropriate. In somecountries, such as Canada, elaborate consultationprocesses and models of written agreements arealready in place for working with indigenous peo-ples on land and natural resource managementissues. While official and legal documents are ben-eficial for both conservation and indigenousorganizations, this should not inhibit conservationpractitioners from getting started in producingworking agreements. In some cases, where it maybe premature or inappropriate, alternative types ofcollaboration can be sought, which may be laterformalized; in tailoring a partnership strategy,people working directly in the field are the onesmost capable of pinpointing the important issues,jointly with indigenous communities and theirorganizations. As agreements and documents areproduced, it is crucial that all relevant documentsand proposed agreements be made available toindigenous peoples in the appropriate languages. Itcan also be useful to support indigenous groups inorganizing community fora where agreements canbe discussed and signing ceremonies organizedonce formal, written agreements are reached. Thiswould give strong social and cultural support tocollaborative work.

18 The case of indigenous groups of the type 1a. in the typology in Table 5, Section 7 is an exception as far as partnerships areconcerned, in the sense that they should be left uncontacted if they so wish. But their territorial rights, as well as the integrity oftheir territories, have to be respected and secured.

IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn

35

The reconnaissance phase provides an opportunityto get to know the indigenous peoples, their organi-zations and their traditional lands and waters fallingwithin an ecoregion.19 It is the appropriate momentto determine overlap between indigenous peoples’territories and the ecoregion, and to explore optionsfor developing partnerships with the peoples andcommunities in whose lands or territories, or in rela-tion to whose resources, WWF may want to under-take conservation actions. Key steps include:

1. Identify indigenous and traditional peoples,their communities, organizations and regionalassociations;

2. Establish credibility and transparency from theoutset;

3. Preliminarily determine the overlap betweenthe ecoregion and indigenous peoples’ territo-ries and resources;

4. Determine the different levels of stakes and rightsof indigenous peoples in relation to other parties(as part of the preliminary stakeholder analysis);

5. Expand the biodiversity overview with impor-tant biocultural sites and landscapes;

6. Establish and support the working partnershipsin the ecoregion conservation process;

7. Support the establishment of formalized agree-ments for collaborative action.

To make this effective, there is a need forclarity from each of the parties involved in termsof the direction they wish to take, how they intendto collaborate and with whom they will work.Whilst this normally happens in an ad hoc manner,there is benefit in clarifying and formalizingaccords in the form of, for example, a Memoran-dum of Understanding (MoU).20

RReeccoonnnnaaiissssaannccee PPhhaassee GGuuiiddeelliinneess

1. Identify indigenous and traditional peoples,their communities, organizations and regional associations

1.1 Prioritize indigenous peoples’ own wordingand descriptions. Be aware that when study-ing national directories, lists or census data ofindigenous peoples, in many cases there willbe discrepancies and contradictions concern-ing population figures and the ethnic namesused. Official, academic and indigenous peo-ples’ own categories and information may dif-fer wildly.

1.2 In cases of doubt as to whether a group is con-sidered indigenous or not, consult with thecommunities themselves. Remember thatWWF considers self-identification as the

Working with Indigenous Peoples in Ecoregion Conservation: the Approach and Key Benchmarks

19 When identifying indigenous peoples' lands, territories, and resources, it should be borne in mind that WWF uses the criteri-on of traditional ownership, possession, occupation, or use, and not only that of existing legal titles.

20 The MoU format is given as one example or option among many other possible instruments. Whatever the instruments used,it is crucial that real agreement is reached on the process, and that this agreement is expressed in something tangible that all par-ties can see and refer to.

TTaabbllee 66.. EEccoorreeggiioonn ccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn eelleemmeennttss aanndd bbeenncchhmmaarrkkss iinn wwoorrkkiinngg wwiitthh iinnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeoopplleess

EElleemmeennttss// Reconnaissance Ecoregional Socio-economic Preparing Implementing Tracking &PPhhaasseess Biodiversity Assessment Conservation Ecoregional Feedback

Vision Strategy Action

BBeenncchhmmaarrkkss Memorandum of Agreed Joint Joint Agreed JointUnderstanding biodiversity situational conservation action plan monitoring(MoU) for vision for analysis strategy for systemcollaboration indigenous indigenous

lands and lands andresources resources

11.. RReeccoonnnnaaiissssaannccee PPhhaassee:: BBuuiillddiinngg ttrruusstt

36

main criterion and includes tribal groups andtraditional peoples in its working principles.

1.3 Seek to identify those that are authorized bycommunities, as different competing or over-lapping institutions may exist. In particular,identify indigenous peoples’ leaders or repre-sentative institutions, such as councils.

1.4 Examine regional case-study presentationsand analyses;

1.5 Identify regional or national indigenous peo-ples’ associations and support organizations.

1.6 Identify, if possible, indigenous communitiesor institutions with a particular interest orstake in conservation.

2. Establish credibility and transparency fromthe outset

As the reconnaissance phase may well be the firstcontact between WWF and indigenous communi-ties and organizations, establishing rapport andtrust becomes a key issue. It is important to pro-vide clear information about its purpose, the ensu-ing ecoregion conservation process, and how thisrelates to the community. Where the end result ofthe reconnaissance phase is a decision not to pro-ceed, it will be equally as important to convey tolocal authorities and the indigenous communitiesthe reasons for not going ahead.

2.1 Inform communities, indigenous leadershipand organizations about the ecoregion conser-vation planning phase. This should involveformulating the process in accessible local lan-guage, illustrating important sites with maps,providing a time-frame and continuously pro-viding updates. Use the opportunity to portrayhow WWF sees further involvement as theplanning stage proceeds. The WWF ‘State-ment of Principles’ (1996) offers guidance ona broad range of issues that concern mostindigenous peoples, and can be used directlyfor this purpose. In some ecoregions it may beuseful to adopt and expand these with specificlegislation, ethnic categories and planningmechanisms in mind. Providing additionalclarification on underlying concepts or coreterminology, such as biodiversity, ecology,conservation and ecosystem, will help toensure that the indigenous communities arefully aware of the possible implications.

2.2 Communicate working principles to all gov-ernment partners, partner communities andprogramme staff, and ensure that specific pro-visions guaranteeing the participation ofindigenous peoples exist in documentsinforming other stakeholders about the ecore-gional process.

2.3 While producing material in local languagesand distributing it for discussion may takesome time, it has the clear advantage of pro-viding the basic building blocks for meetingsand discussions leading to agreements forcollaboration.

3. Preliminarily determine overlap betweenecoregion and indigenous peoples’territories and resources

A good understanding of overlaps between theecoregion and the customary lands and waters ofindigenous communities will help to initiate con-sultative processes on the right issues with theright people. It is fundamental to later determinewho should be involved in, for example, manage-ment planning. In many cases, it will be difficultto gain recent data about these issues in thereconnaissance phase, prompting the need forparticipatory mapping exercises with the commu-nities involved.

3.1 Whether consulting with government agen-cies, indigenous communities or researchers,emphasize that you are interested in thebroader, current as well as historical, land useand presence of indigenous peoples, not onlytheir current settlements and agriculturalareas. Consider that many indigenous peoplesuse large areas and diverse habitats and coverlarge distances in their wide range of liveli-hood and cultural activities. While borders ofecoregions may be fairly precise, this is notnecessarily the case for indigenous peoples’territories. Although precise demarcation isnot an issue at this stage, it is important toensure that that areas potentially used byremote communities or particular groups suchas women or hunters are not left out.

3.2 Study existing databases linking biodiversity,land use, tenure, resource use, agriculturalproduction, and culturally significant siteswith demographic data in general and data onindigenous peoples in particular.


37

3.3 Study the various maps that exist (e.g. GISdatabase-linked maps, historical maps, aerialphotos). Be cautious in the application of ‘eth-nic maps’ claiming to link certain groups withcertain territories. While they may be useful asa basis for further discussion, they often remainpartial and may even misrepresent actual con-ditions. Seek preliminary verification fromindigenous peoples and other institutions.

3.4 Although the current boundaries of indige-nous communities may seem obvious, it isuseful to seek out information about historicalclaims. Many indigenous peoples have seenparts of their lands expropriated orencroached upon, making their current exer-cise of customary rights only part of the pic-ture. Involve indigenous organizations indrafting and verifying mapping results.

3.5 When identifying communal territory, payparticular attention and seek to map compet-ing claims from different groups. Omittingsome groups by mistake can be detrimentalfor later attempts to achieve consensus.

3.6 Use local names to improve local understand-ing of which areas are involved. Documentsources of information in related databases.

3.7 Identify and demarcate overlap betweenindigenous peoples’ territories and the ecore-gion. Include all types of land use and tenuresystems. Use data to draft sketch maps on top-ographical maps or use GIS to provide visual‘drafts’ for further discussion, as boundarieswill change throughout the process. If neces-sary, consider including different maps ordepict different versions for further consider-ation as the process unfolds.

3.8 Inform all parties involved that the maps cre-ated at this stage are only working drafts toprocess information gathered; it is very likelythat they will change along the way. Steps forimproving these maps can be included inagreed action plans.

4. Determine the different levels of stakes andrights of indigenous peoples in relation toother parties (as part of the preliminarystakeholder analysis)

The reconnaissance phase offers the opportunityto integrate the issue of indigenous peoples in thedata-gathering process when meeting with otherstakeholders such as specialized government

agencies, local authorities and neighbouringcommunities.

Indigenous peoples should be considered asstakeholders in ecoregion conservation at two lev-els (see Section 9): locally, as owners/posses-sors/occupiers/users of lands, territories andresources falling within ecoregions, and at thebroader ecoregional level as social and politicalactors. The first level is the most important andapplies to all indigenous groups. The second levelapplies only under certain conditions – such aswhen indigenous peoples are social and politicalactors in the wider context, when they are interest-ed in playing a role beyond the boundaries of theirlands, or when development policies and actionsoriginating outside their lands have actual orpotential impacts on them. In those cases whereindigenous peoples prefer to remain uncontactedand in voluntary isolation, demarcation and pro-tection to ensure territorial integrity is the onlyappropriate strategy.

Determining levels of stake implies recog-nizing these different situations and tailoringapproaches to them. At the local level, workingwith indigenous peoples for conservation of theirlands and resources (legally recognized or tradi-tionally owned, possessed, occupied or used)requires their prior informed consent and partner-ships with them. At the broader ecoregional level,the stakeholder involvement approach applies, asit does to every other stakeholder in the ecoregion.From this phase on, all activities and approachessuggested or explored should be tailored andadapted to these levels of stake, conditions,approaches, and potential roles.

5. Expand the biodiversity overview withimportant biocultural sites and landscapes

Locating important biodiversity sites and land-scapes in a context of human presence and activ-ities from the outset makes findings more rele-vant and applicable for further joint research onbiodiversity.

5.1 Much information can be accessed throughnational or regional indigenous knowledgecentres, ethnographic descriptions, and notleast indigenous peoples’ organizations andfederations.

5.2 Emphasizing biocultural diversity is an excel-lent starting point for further research, and isuseful later for finding common ground withindigenous peoples.


38

6. Establish and support the working partnerships in the ecoregion conservation process

Working with indigenous peoples is a learningprocess for all parties, and the earlier the engage-ment with them the better. Early partnerships cre-ate a mutual history and understanding whichfacilitate local ownership of the process and makeproblem solving easier. Keep in mind that invest-ing time and energy in supporting the establish-ment of flexible partnerships helps with the ensu-ing research, prioritization and strategy building.

6.1 Assess the capacity, interest and resourcesavailable among government partners forinvolving indigenous peoples in the ecoregionconservation initiative. Consider the need tointegrate issues such as sensitization, furtherdocumentation of the process, and high-levellobbying. If necessary, allow more time andresources and reduce the level of ambition andexpectations.

6.2 Examine the capacity and representativenessof indigenous peoples’ organizations and fed-erations. Find out who are considered to bethe traditional leaders of the indigenous com-munities, and whether there are different com-peting organizations.

6.3 Determine whether and how indigenous peo-ples are involved in big development schemestaking place on their territories (e.g. nationalinfrastructure development or resourceexploitation).

6.4 Identify and analyse key national policies andgovernment commitments as to the degree towhich the rights of indigenous peoples arerecognized and/or their participation is pro-moted. Become familiar with the relevant keyconcepts involved (e.g. treaties, ancestraldomains, nation-specific definitions of indige-nous peoples) and discuss the potential ofinvolving indigenous peoples with govern-ment partners. These points are crucial toavoiding conflict and finding appropriateways of providing support to the pertinentorganizations.

6.5 Obtain a firm understanding of former work-ing relationships or controversies betweenindigenous peoples, conservation organiza-tions and government departments in chargeof natural resource management. In some

areas, where relationships with local peoplehave been constrained, it will be necessary toallow periods of healing, conflict resolutionand extra assurance before new initiatives canbe taken up. Determine how indigenous peo-ples are involved in government or NGO ini-tiatives or other programmes. Identify otherparties that can help in the process, such asNGOs with experience of working withindigenous peoples.

6.6 Once the above steps have been achieved,seek to agree with indigenous peoples on anappropriate consultative or participatoryprocess. In most cases, agreeing on the stepsnecessary to identify appropriate institutionsand mechanisms for participation is a realisticgoal that can later be included in formalagreements.

6.7 Seek to catalyse rather than lead or own thepartnership-building process by providingopportunities to meet and by engaging experi-enced neutral facilitators. Ideally, the consul-tation process should be chaired jointly by thegovernment agencies and the indigenouscommunities involved.

6.8 Encourage programme staff and researchersto learn about and respect local social valuesand cultural practices.

7. Support the establishment of formalizedagreements for collaborative action

7.1 Explain the purpose of drawing up a Memo-randum of Understanding (MoU – see Box 1)as a means to ensuring commitment from allparties to start a transparent partnership-build-ing process. Concretize and seek agreementon the MoU issues listed above. Keep theMoU dynamic but consistent. Build the part-nership around simple and common goals,and let it grow to take on bigger goals later on.

7.2 Consider that a collaborative frameworkdescribing the purpose, joint decision-mak-ing, financial relationship and long-term goalscan keep such a partnership transparent, cred-ible and sustainable. Including clear bench-marks and milestones will help to concretizethe partnership.

7.3 Add information gathered, minutes, mapsproduced and the WWF ‘Statement of Princi-ples’ as annexes.


39

7.4 Spell out communications and information-sharing processes (what, who, when, etc.)

7.5 Include information on committed financialas well as non-financial resources.

7.6 Ensure that drafts are circulated and com-mented upon by community-based institu-tions and government agencies before formal-izing an agreement.

The ecoregional biodiversity vision is the funda-mental building block in guiding the ecoregionconservation initiative. There is much benefit incomplementing or expanding it through theinvolvement of indigenous peoples. The goal ofthis step in the process is to formally recognizeand incorporate indigenous views, values andinterests in environmental, biodiversity and naturalresource issues, particularly in relation to theirlands, territories and resources.

Some indigenous peoples, particularly well-organized ones in developed countries, have devel-oped elaborate environmental agendas and per-spectives concerning biodiversity. Others, althoughequally dependent on and connected to their envi-ronments, may be unacquainted with con

servation

terminology or lack the capacity to develop a bio-diversity vision without recourse to professionalassistance. In each case, different approachesshould be taken to encourage joint fact-finding andconstructive – rather than simply informative – dis-cussions between conservation biologists andindigenous communities. In either case the essencecan be summarized in three activities:

1. Engage indigenous peoples and their organiza-tions in the biodiversity assessment and developfurther understanding of the role played by localcommunities in sustaining ecological processesand sites of importance to biodiversity;

2. Jointly create a biodiversity vision for theindigenous territory, integrating scientific pri-orities, local values and conservation agendas,and traditional ecological knowledge;

3. Address major threats to traditional ecologicalknowledge, and where necessary assist com-munities in developing local capacity to sustainand protect their knowledge, and inform deci-sion-making processes.

BBiiooddiivveerrssiittyy AAsssseessssmmeenntt GGuuiiddeelliinneess

In landscapes of connected protected areas, corri-dors of diverse agricultural systems and tradition-ally managed lands and marine systems, ecosys-tem resilience involves people as an intrinsicallyrelated component, rather than simply as an exter-nal factor or threat. Particular advantages of


BBeenncchhmmaarrkk 11:: AA MMeemmoorraanndduumm ooff UUnnddeerrssttaannddiinngg ((MMooUU)) ffoorr CCoollllaabboorraattiioonn

A MoU or similar agreement for collaboration could include:

n A brief historical summary of previous collaboration;n A description of the communities and areas concerned;n Issues of mutual concern to be explored; highlight the benefits of a partnership;n Provisions on sound research practice concerning indigenous peoples or their territory;n A statement of intent to collaborate; outline the next steps in building the partnership;n An outline of the ecoregion conservation planning schedule with a list of benchmarks; this will

indicate to the communities and organizations involved the stage reached in the process, and thecollaborative actions required.

WWF’s Statement of Principles on Indigenous Peoples and Conservation covers many of the coreissues of concern, and could be translated into the local language and used as a reference in the MoU.In practice, conclusions can be taken from the minutes of meetings with indigenous organizations andcirculated as draft documents for discussion before a more official version is produced. They can later be formalized.

22.. BBiiooddiivveerrssiittyy AAsssseessssmmeenntt aannddVViissiioonn:: TThhee ffuunnddaammeennttaall

sshhaarreedd vvaalluueess

40

involving indigenous peoples include:

n Integrating landscapes, habitats and speciesconsidered important by the communities intothe vision;

n Making traditional ecological knowledge ofimportant habitat-species-ecoregion connec-tions part of the assessment, resulting in:q historical ecological understanding of the

dynamics and relations between wildlife,vegetation, different habitats and landscape(Steinmetz 1999);

q greater focus on the biodiversity dynamicsbetween wild and domesticated species,which helps to determine agro-forestrypractices;

n Rendering the process participatory and credi-ble and the results more understandable andrelevant for the indigenous communities fromthe outset;

n Providing the opportunity for a participatoryidentification of threats to local biodiversity.Without being extensive, results from such aprocess can be fed into the definition of priori-ty areas for the following socio-economicanalysis.

1. Engage indigenous peoples and theirorganizations in the biodiversityassessment and develop furtherunderstanding of the role played by localcommunities in sustaining ecologicalprocesses and sites of importance tobiodiversity

Realization at an early stage that a high-priorityhabitat is also a key area for the collection ofimportant medicinal species, or is dependent onthe occasional grazing or burning activities ofthe pastoral communities, will serve to avoidconfrontation and include traditional knowledgeand management practices as part of the biodi-versity vision. Where indigenous peoples arefamiliar with and already address biodiversityissues, the task is mainly one of ensuring collab-oration. Other cases will require awareness rais-ing on biodiversity concepts and assistance withdocumentation.

1.1 Promote close cooperation between conserva-tion biologists and traditional ecologicalknowledge specialists. All too often studies oftraditional ecological knowledge and scientif-

ic assessments remain separate, where jointdata gathering, mapping and analysis wouldbe beneficial. Training local scientificresearch teams in rapid appraisal techniqueson TEK, resource use, and land use historymay prove useful (see Box 1).

1.2 Ensure appropriate forms of collaborationbetween scientists and indigenous peoplesand the use of traditional ecological knowl-edge through the establishment and use ofcodes of conduct.

1.3 Encourage scientists to include local namesfor species, habitat and landscape types ininventories. This may not only uncoverimportant relationships, but also facilitate thejoint understanding necessary for reachingagreement on a biodiversity vision.

1.4 Foster local people’s involvement in choosingappropriate field sites, sample plots and sur-vey lines, as well as participation in the actu-al fieldwork. This will serve to validate resultsand raise people’s capacity in dealing withbiodiversity issues.

1.5 Where the reconnaissance phase identifiesimportant biocultural sites, shift the emphasisin the biological assessment more towardidentifying the role played by communities inmaintaining certain habitats and landscapes,and regulating or otherwise impacting on spe-cific species.

1.6 Expand descriptions of important species,habitats and landscapes with links to tradi-tional ecological knowledge, use and tenuresystems. Include the human dimension of bio-diversity as an integral part by incorporatingissues such as agro-forestry, traditional forestmanagement, local seed experimentation, theecological importance of clearing forestpatches, grazing, low-intensity hunting of par-ticular species, sacred groves and sites.

1.7 Create maps and/or GIS layers with areas ofhigh biocultural diversity.

2. Jointly create a biodiversity vision for the indigenous territory, integrating scientific priorities, local values and conservation agendas, and traditional ecological knowledge

Indigenous peoples have their own biodiversityvisions and conservation agendas. Many indigenous


41


BBooxx 11TTrraaddiittiioonnaall EEccoollooggiiccaall KKnnoowwlleeddggee ((TTEEKK))

Scientists encountering or even depending on local people in biological surveys or rapid appraisalteams are often surprised by the degree of knowledge of the local landscape and species that theypossess. Many experts use this knowledge to find good observation sites for certain species, set upphoto-traps, camp-sites or simply to get around in a new environment. Others have followed up on amore systematic basis, recognizing that the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of indigenous andtraditional peoples covers unique local knowledge developed around specific conditions of womenand men indigenous to a particular geographic area. The development of these knowledge systems,covering all aspects of life including management of the natural environment, has invariably been amatter of survival. Such knowledge systems are cumulative, representing generations of experiences,careful observations and trial-and-error experiments (Grenier 1998).

Participation, understanding, cultural sensitivity, respect, sustainability, practical problem-solving,reduced dependency on outside expertise and costs in general are all benefits and advantages thataccrue with the use of traditional knowledge. Steinmetz (1999) noted that TEK provides a historicalecological dimension to which conventional conservation biology does not have access. Examplesinclude knowledge contributions on primate ecology and use of habitats, and habitat history. Suchknowledge is crucial to understanding the ecological processes that sustain local biodiversity. Whilethere is an important overlap, TEK does not correspond with, nor can it replace, scientific knowledge.The latter offers a complementary set of tools and fields of knowledge from both biological and socialsciences, which have proven fundamental to complementing and substantiating TEK. Most co-man-agement practices with indigenous peoples thus rely on integrating these forms of knowledge in devel-oping effective solutions.

Dealing with TEK may seem a straightforward issue of gaining a better understanding of local eco-logical processes. Ultimately however it involves cooperation with and recognition of the rights ofindigenous peoples. Transparency, credibility and a relationship of mutual trust are also key ingredi-ents when dealing with TEK systems. An important step is to recognize indigenous peoples as therightful custodians of this knowledge. This involves a two-step process of establishing proper workingrelations through agreements and following up with supportive action. It must also be recognized thatmany indigenous peoples are struggling to sustain their knowledge bases.

For instance, despite several years of documentation and sensitization in the WWF project with theKaren, communities in Thailand, the Karen’s traditional knowledge has yet to be recognized as validfor informing management decision-making. The Karen still face possible eviction from the areas inwhich they have lived for over 200 years. Their knowledge systems and practices are eroding due tooutside pressures and lack of political influence. It is clear that, for the Karen, being omitted from thedecision-making process where resource management is concerned is a serious threat to the verydevelopment of traditional ecological knowledge. It has not been uncommon for indigenous peoples togradually leave their low-impact technologies behind, as they have experienced heavy exploitation ofand encroachment upon their territories. The strategy chosen by the communities and WWF has beento continue documenting and transmitting the elders’ ecological knowledge to succeeding generations.

In practice, it is not sufficient to integrate elders’ statements on, for example, population size of par-ticular mammals as raw data. Indigenous peoples should be constantly involved in deciding what todo with this information. The existence of TEK does not depend on traditional ecological knowledgecentres, databases or research publications, but on the possibility to use and develop this knowledgethrough traditional livelihood practices and traditional management systems.

Documentation of traditional ecological knowledge does not by itself lead to better conditions for localcommunities. It may even be used against indigenous peoples. For example, studies relating to therole and knowledge of traditional livelihood practices have been used by top-down planners to impose‘scientifically valid’ alternatives. In other cases, ‘innocent’ documentation of traditional ecologicalknowledge concerning medicinal plants has been used for bio-prospecting without properly address-ing the rights of the indigenous knowledge holders.

42

peoples are struggling to preserve their territoriesfrom encroachment, land conversion or expropria-tion, and some are even meeting extreme difficultiesin continuing their traditional livelihood strategies.

2.1 Support indigenous communities and organiza-tions in formulating their own environmentalagendas; this can involve a variety of differentactivities depending on the local circumstances.

2.2 Ensure that traditional ecological knowledgeis reviewed alongside biological assessmentsin setting the biodiversity vision.

2.3 Encourage a transparent process where differ-ences and similarities between scientificallyidentified visions and local agendas are dis-cussed openly and preserved in the final vision.

2.4 Consider a consultative process where sug-gested biodiversity priorities are disseminatedto indigenous communities and their organi-zations for discussion and further input.

2.5 Acknowledge that indigenous peoples’ priori-ties may differ, for example on the use of cer-tain resources, and be ready to compromiseand make trade-offs. Make sure that majorconflicts over perceptions are resolved and,before moving on, that the local vision devel-oped is consistent with the view for the broad-er ecoregion. This can be a time-consumingactivity, but is beneficial in preventing con-flicts and avoiding the need later on to spendtime re-negotiating unresolved issues.

2.6 Ensure that the final biodiversity vision for aparticular landscape contains clear conserva-tion objectives, not general or vague statementsthat may be confusing for local communities.

3. Address major threats to traditional ecological knowledge, and where necessaryassist communities in developing localcapacity to sustain and protect their knowledge, and inform decision-makingprocesses

3.1 Consult with Traditional Ecological Knowl-edge centres and academic institutions onlocally appropriate research practices, exist-ing partnerships and available TEK documen-tation.

3.2 Support the development of locally specificprotection mechanisms and raise the capacityof indigenous peoples in the ecoregions toprotect and control their knowledge systems.

3.3 Inform indigenous peoples in the ecoregionsabout international developments on intellec-tual property right systems through region-specific material and meetings.


BBeenncchhmmaarrkk 22:: AAggrreeeedd BBiiooddiivveerrssiittyyVViissiioonn ffoorr IInnddiiggeennoouuss LLaannddss

aanndd RReessoouurrcceess

It is advantageous to address explicitly theneed for a joint agreement on a biodiversityvision for indigenous lands, territories andresources. Based on the joint findings of conservation biologists and indigenous communities, such a document shouldbecome an integral part of the broader ecore-gional vision. It might include:

n indigenous peoples’ environmental con-cerns and biodiversity priorities;

n a description of the present role and futurevision of local ecological knowledge sys-tems and practices in maintaining land-scape, habitat and species compositions,as well as the threats to this knowledge;

n a description (illustrated with maps) of theoverlap between otherwise identified prior-ity areas of biodiversity and areas consid-ered significant by the communities;

n threats to biodiversity as identified by theindigenous communities themselves;

n a common biodiversity agenda for the area,integrating indigenous peoples’ environ-mental concerns and biodiversity priorities.

33.. SSoocciioo--eeccoonnoommiicc AAsssseessssmmeenntt

Despite the huge amount of research that has beenconducted by government institutions, NGOs andacademic researchers on indigenous peoples,many socio-economic reports have ended up gath-ering dust rather than informing planning process-es and activities. In other cases, ‘expert’ conclu-sions – often based on limited information – con-cerning traditional use and tenure practices andthreats to them have led to detrimental solutions.To avoid these scenarios, there is a need to befocused and inclusive when performing socio-eco-nomic assessments for ecoregion conservation.

43

1. Conduct a participatory situational analysis andneeds assessment with indigenous peoples;

2. Establish baseline data formats on the informa-tion needed to direct, categorize and enable fol-low-up and monitoring of socio-economicresearch;

3. Identify key indigenous community concernsregarding their relationship to their traditionalterritories, tenure rights and security;

4. Support government partners in gaining anunderstanding of how indigenous peoples’resource use and cultural practices are relevantto the development and sound management oftheir territories;

5. Explore links between resource use and eco-nomic, health, social and political factors;

6. Identify and develop an understanding of tradi-tional natural resource management institutionsand ways in which to support them, in con-junction with government partners;

7. Include discussion and documentation ofresource use and tenure relationships, conflicts,and collaboration between neighbouring com-munities and other stakeholders;

8. Determine current participation of indigenouscommunities in existing government institu-tions and mechanisms, as well as related con-flicts, barriers, benefits and costs;

9. Produce maps of indigenous peoples’ settle-ments, resource use and customary tenuresystems.

SSoocciioo--eeccoonnoommiicc AAsssseessssmmeenntt GGuuiiddeelliinneess

1. Conduct a participatory situational analysis and needs assessment with indigenous peoples

An early discussion with indigenous peoples onhow to apply results can be helpful in choosingwhat data are needed, who should be gathering it,and how it is best stored and used to inform deci-sion-making. The goal is to assist indigenouscommunities and organizations in highlightingsocio-economic issues that are a part of furtherdiscussions with government partners. Key issuesinvolve establishing linkages between biodiversi-ty threats and the socio-economic situation ofindigenous peoples. Participatory mechanismswith a clearly stated purpose of data gatheringhave proven to be effective in obtaining the rightinformation.

2. Establish baseline data formats on the infor-mation needed to direct, categorize andenable follow-up and monitoring of socio-economic research

2.1 As a rule, consider only strictly necessaryinformation and avoid superfluous details.

2.2 Discuss baseline formats with indigenouspeoples and government partners as a way toobtain accurate estimates of what informationcan realistically be collected, applied andmonitored.

2.3 Involve indigenous peoples in both designingand conducting the research.

3. Identify key indigenous community concerns regarding their relationship totheir traditional territories, tenure rightsand security

In the case outlined in Box 2, maintenance of tradi-tional tenure and use ensured the continued exis-tence of a key wildlife corridor. It exemplifies theneed to support customary rights and secure thetenure of indigenous peoples if stable, long-termplanning and commitment to ecoregional conserva-tion objectives are to be assured. It involves identi-fying community concerns and giving credence tothe wide variety of tenure systems that indigenouscommunities may apply to different types of land.Subsequent research should address the varioustypes of threats to indigenous communities’ territo-rial integrity and customary tenure practices, as wellas ways of identifying potential strategies.


BBooxx 22TThhee iimmppoorrttaannccee ooff ttrraaddiittiioonnaall

rreellaattiioonnsshhiippss:: AA MMaaaassaaii eexxaammppllee

Mount Kilimanjaro National Park and ForestReserve in Tanzania is surrounded by cultiva-tion except for an 8-km strip of land on thenorth-west side of the mountain. This remain-ing corridor, sustaining the movement ofspecies between the mountain and surround-ing habitat, is far from ‘natural’. Traditionalpastoral activities of the Maasai have pre-vented it from being converted into agricultur-al lands. The Maasai have secured long-termaccess to the area under local district by-lawsand protected area status, which permit graz-ing activities and collection of firewood, butprohibit cultivation (Bennet 1999).

44

4. Support government partners in gaining anunderstanding of how indigenous peoples’resource use and cultural practices are relevant to the development and soundmanagement of their territories

Resource use and dependence patterns may revealland and resource use practices (such as low-inten-sity grazing, harvesting techniques, fallow sys-tems, etc.) that are crucial for conservation of thelandscape, as well as those that are degrading thenatural environment or more specifically threaten-ing particular species or altering crucial habitatfeatures.

Understanding local practices such as the har-vesting of natural resources and determining theiractual impact on wildlife or habitat makes it easierto facilitate conservation dialogue and jointly devel-op appropriate solutions. However, ensure thanprior informed consent is given before carrying outresearch in sensitive or confidential areas, whethergeographical or intellectual. Many indigenous com-munities will be hesitant to discuss traditional usepractices, as access to such knowledge by outsidersmay be unwelcome or prohibited. This not onlyhighlights the need for a code of conduct andresearch agreements, but also shows the importanceof ensuring official participation in the design,implementation and application of the results.Issues of overexploitation and unsustainable useshould be raised in an open-minded manner, withjoint commitments with indigenous communities todevelop alternative solutions (Freese 1996).

5. Explore links between resource use andeconomic, health, social and political factors

Ensure that communities are fully engaged in thesituational analysis. This provides the opportunityfor communities to put forward their point of viewas a complement to what is seen as important froma stricter natural resource management angle.Such discussions will typically uncover root caus-es to more apparent biodiversity threats.

6. Identify and develop an understanding oftraditional natural resource managementinstitutions and ways in which to supportthem, in conjunction with government partners

Experience of community-based conservation ini-tiatives shows that supporting existing institutions

and mechanisms is more cost-effective and cultur-ally appropriate than developing new types ofmanagement boards or consultative mechanisms.This requires an understanding of how resourcemanagement works among the indigenous com-munities concerned. Fieldwork, informal villagemeetings and broader discussions are crucial tosupplement official descriptions (whether fromgovernment or indigenous representatives). Thisprocess requires jointly identifying the specificactors and mechanisms involved, and the strengths

and weaknesses of the indigenous communities.Clear statements on how information will be usedwill facilitate an open discussion of managementgaps and local capacity needs.

Securing the commitment of governmentpartners can be very difficult at this stage becauseof the frequent gap between policy and practice, orfor reasons of distrust. Sensitizing local-levelresource managers to the management interestsand capacity needs of indigenous communitiesmay be useful first steps. For indigenous commu-nities, wherever traditional management institu-tions are absent or have disintegrated, particularattention should be given to identifying localincentives for reviving or establishing strong man-agement. Giving these institutions a central role inthe socio-economic analysis can raise the sense ofownership of the process by local people.


BBooxx 33UUnnddeerrssttaannddiinngg aanndd sseennssiittiizzaattiioonn ––

rraappiidd aapppprraaiissaallss iinn VViieettnnaamm

In connection with provincial plans to expandPhong Nha Nature Reserve in Central Vietnam,WWF trained and supported joint teams of for-est guards, local bodies and commune repre-sentatives in conducting rapid appraisals inselected, mainly ethnic minority villages.Although it only partially fed into a hoped-forparticipatory planning process, this activity con-siderably raised the interest and on-the-groundknowledge of some of the local counterparts indealing with local use and tenure practices. Theresults were applied in a strategy planningworkshop in which WWF personnel returned tosupport collaborative management in the formof a pilot project. These notions had originallybeen rejected by the local communities, butgained more relevance and support through thejoint learning process.

45

7. Include discussion and documentation ofresource use and tenure relationships, conflicts, and collaboration between neighbouring communities and other stakeholders

Stereotypical images of indigenous communitieseasily leave out the complex reality of pluralisticsocieties, long-term migrant settlers, internal con-flicts or long-term relationships with neighbouringcommunities in sharing and managing resources.This not only oversimplifies the socio-economicpicture, but may also trigger ethnic conflicts thatcould otherwise be avoided. Providing support togovernment agencies, indigenous organizationsand other stakeholders in developing strong solu-tions also means fostering solutions among theseparties. For many indigenous peoples, the prob-lems and solutions lie not within the community,but externally, in their relationships with others.Such patterns also reveal how the communities ata broader level are concerned with resources, man-agement and conservation issues. In cases withhigh levels of mistrust, understanding of the spe-cific resource uses and cultural practices can helpease indigenous concerns about ecological integri-ty and long-term sustainable use.

Strategies supporting indigenous peoples willnecessarily involve other stakeholders. Addressingrelationships with neighbouring communities, gov-ernment agencies and private companies beforedecisions are taken is highly beneficial for both

indigenous communities and conservation practi-tioners to secure realistic conservation approaches.

8. Determine current participation of indigenous communities in existing government institutions and mechanisms,as well as related conflicts, barriers, benefits and costs

The gap between indigenous peoples and govern-ment agencies in their perceptions of natural resourcemanagement is often far more difficult to close thanthe gap between local communities and conservation


BBooxx 44CCoommpplleexx tteennuurree pprraaccttiicceess –– tthhee eexxaammppllee ooff tthhee PPyyggmmiieess

The conventional image of Pygmies as isolat-ed hunter-gatherers deriving their sole subsis-tence from the depths of the forest is a goodexample of cross-cultural misconception. Inreality, pygmies engage in age-old relation-ships with their Bantu- and Sudanic-speakingfarming neighbours. Pygmy clans have rela-tionships with groups of farmers on trade, for-est tenure and political representation that arepassed on from one generation to the next. Aneighbouring farmer clan may thus haverights to land, which in practice it sharesexclusively with the Pygmies (Dembner1996). Neglecting these complex exchangeand tenure relationships could easily replaceties with tensions.

BBooxx 55CCoommmmuunniittyy oorr ppaarrttiicciippaattoorryy rreessoouurrcceeuussee mmaappppiinngg aanndd iinnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeoopplleess

By presenting key features of indigenous peo-ples’ relationships to a territory and itsresources, community resource use mappingis proving to be an extremely useful tool forestablishing meaningful processes of consul-tation, participation, collaboration and conflictmanagement with indigenous peoples. Onceagreement has been reached with indigenouspeoples on purpose, process and use of themaps, such maps can:

n clearly depict indigenous systems of land-use classification, customary tenure sys-tems, and culturally important areas, facil-itating: a) identification of biodiversityhotspots within the ecoregion; b) avoid-ance of classic conservation failure, wheretraditional use has been prohibited andindigenous peoples denied access to theirlands;

n organize data, e.g. by documenting tradi-tional ecological knowledge in appropriatelanguages, and facilitating discussions ornegotiations between indigenous peoples,neighbouring communities, and responsi-ble government agencies;

n provide, in conjunction with a set of rec-ommendations, a good opportunity to inte-grate customary use and tenure rights ofindigenous peoples in regional land-useplanning;

n solve resource use conflicts betweenneighbouring communities; and

n facilitate the participation of indigenous peo-ples in monitoring and evaluation activities.

46

agencies. Seek to understand the arguments behindthe opinions expressed by these stakeholders; thiswill help in subsequent mediation efforts.

Assess the actual situation in comparison tothe rights of indigenous people supported byWWF. Consider whether the indigenous commu-nities are able to practice their right to directlyexercise the management of their lands, waters andresources. Assess and identify the opportunitiesfor indigenous communities and organizations toobtain these rights. Find out how these opportuni-ties are perceived by government agencies.

9. Produce maps of indigenous peoples’settlements, resource use and customarytenure systems

Much of the above research into resource use,tenure, conflicts and opportunities can be facilitat-ed, documented and made accessible for strategyplanning and later monitoring activities throughmapping. Providing indigenous peoples withresources and expertise to conduct their ownresearch or mapping exercises will strengthen theirinvolvement and sense of ownership. Showing theoverlap between areas of indigenous concern andbiodiversity hotspots or key habitats for priorityspecies can facilitate later discussions on how con-servation strategies can be made compatible withcustomary practices, and vice versa.

A joint biodiversity vision and situational analysispaves the way for a conservation strategy for theindigenous communities and their territories. Keyactivities could be:

1. Find common ground with indigenous partners;

2. ‘Activate’ marginal participants and collateknowledge, including the biodiversity vision,maps of customary use and tenure, and anyproblems or conflicts identified in the socio-economic assessment;

3. Jointly identify opportunities and options for theconservation strategy with indigenous peoples;

4. Ensure the joint strategy harmonizes with otherecoregional activities;

5. Develop locally appropriate strategic partner-ships;

6. Ensure broad commitment to the strategy.

CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn SSttrraatteeggyy GGuuiiddeelliinneess

Do not expect miracles and be prepared for anynumber of different scenarios. For example,endangered predators or herbivores may be threat-ening the lives, crops or animal husbandry ofindigenous communities; indigenous communitiesmay claim the right to consume an endangeredspecies or exploit a resource to unsustainable lim-its; or traditional land-use practices may bedestroying a key habitat for an endangered species.In such cases, should WWF still support custom-ary user rights? Often there are no easy solutionsand conservationists and indigenous peoples haveat times ended up with conflicting opinions.Whilst these may be dealt with to some extent inagreeing a common biodiversity vision, they willbe carried forward into the strategic planningstage. There may be disagreement about whichmanagement strategies to adopt, how to integratecustomary use and tenure, or whether current poli-cies are appropriate. Experience shows that solv-ing such conflicts requires time, mutual under-standing and constructive dialogue. Throughout, itis important to keep the process transparent andfind creative solutions and compromises withindigenous peoples, rather than imposing rules andregulations.


BBeenncchhmmaarrkk 33:: JJooiinntt SSiittuuaattiioonnaall AAnnaallyyssiiss

Framing a joint situational analysis as thebenchmark, following the biodiversityvision, has the twofold advantage of for-malizing joint thinking in the ecoregion con-servation process and involving indigenouspeoples in addressing the socio-economicprocesses and the threats identified. Inpractice, this could involve a process ofjoint data gathering followed by further in-depth research and discussion. The finalproduct (including maps, priority issuesand jointly identified opportunities) shouldbe in an appropriate form and language tofeed into the overall planning process.

44.. DDeevveellooppiinngg aa CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn SSttrraatteeggyy

47

1. Find common ground with indigenous partners

Helping government agencies and indigenous peo-ples to find common ground enables the conserva-tion strategy to ‘take off’. This entails securingcommitment from indigenous peoples and govern-ment officials at the national and regional levels togo through with the process and provide the nec-essary resources. However, it is unlikely that thecommon ground achieved will include all priorityissues of both conservationists and indigenouspeoples. For example, there may be biodiversity-

related work relevant to indigenous peoples’ terri-tories that is only considered important by the con-servationists. In such cases, obtaining priorinformed consent (PIC) is the right way to ensurethat planning is socially and culturally appropriate.Remember that most ‘win-win’ solutions arefound along the way – on the ground – rather thanthrough prolonged discussions in meeting rooms.

Be sure to continuously involve indigenouspeoples in negotiations or meetings on ecoregionalissues. Indigenous peoples are best consulted on coreconcepts and directions if they have been involved in,or at least informed about, previous discussions.


BBooxx 66CCoonnfflliicctt mmaannaaggeemmeenntt

Many conservation practitioners will at some point find themselves involved directly or indirectly inconflicts. Conservation initiatives commonly run into problems with indigenous peoples over theiraccess to resources, traditional use, agricultural and management practices. At the same time, indige-nous peoples may be struggling to resolve conflicts with mining operations, road builders and otherencroachments onto their land. Although conflicts serve to raise unresolved issues, many find it hardto overcome the often resulting distrust, defensive positions and counter-productivity. Nevertheless,solving natural resource-related conflicts is a necessary and important part of ecoregion conservation.These guidelines offer a series of conflict-preventive measures.

A first step is to take a closer look at the problem with the different parties involved. If deemed appro-priate, a signed agreement or MoU which mutually addresses the underlying issues can be a usefulinstrument to keep parties on track. A joint assessment will often reveal the root causes of the prob-lems being encountered, such as power disparities, different concepts of conservation, poverty, orlack of a conducive policy. In such cases, conflict resolution is typically a lengthy process involving,for example, policy reform and lobbying, engaging regional economic programmes and raising publicawareness. Solutions cannot be expected right away – an issue that has generated much frustration,particularly within the limited scope of a single project, may be more fruitfully addressed within thelong-term framework of ecoregion conservation. Most conflicts will require action at different levelsand with different time-frames.

Local-level conflicts like those between indigenous communities and migrants, authorities, develop-ment schemes, or within communities, can often be resolved through traditional dispute resolutionmechanisms. Although the creation of committees, hearings or round table discussions has proven tobe successful elsewhere and may be tempting to introduce, these activities do not necessarily fit withlocal ways of doing things. In many countries, customary law involves not only local institutions ormechanisms for solving conflicts concerning resource use and access, but also mechanisms for deal-ing with social conflicts. Where conservation practitioners may feel more comfortable with legalexperts and planners from government agencies, indigenous communities may be more used to, andtrusting of, village councils, religious leaders, village elders or local NGOs as mediators. In manycases, these are the people that handle local disputes. Although not necessarily well versed in nation-al language, legislation or issues, they are nonetheless in a strong position to re-establish dialogue.

Remember that avoiding the issue will most likely aggravate the situation. Conflict management isabout addressing the issues in a constructive process. Flexibility and trying out alternative dispute-resolution methods are demanding and time-consuming tasks, in which the conservation practitionermay have to take on different roles (e.g. as broker, advocate, stakeholder or scientist). Asking for pro-fessional advice or hiring external facilitators or mediators in consultation with the communities canprovide a means to reassess the situation together.

48

2. ‘Activate’ marginal participants and collateknowledge, including the biodiversityvision, maps of customary use and tenure,and any problems or conflicts identified inthe socio-economic assessment

Discussions on strategy can be dominated by tech-nocrats or politicians familiar with the languageand the process, silencing indigenous participantswho may be less eloquent or less accepted.

2.1 Ensure that indigenous representatives getequal opportunities to speak and influencedecision-making through strong facilitationand time management or by alternativemeans such as visual presentations and oraltestimonies.

2.2 Replace long and complex reports with local-ly understandable précis of information.Make sure that indigenous peoples’ issues areconsidered at the same level as other issues.

3. Jointly identify opportunities and optionsfor the conservation strategy with indigenous peoples

Many indigenous peoples and their livelihoodstrategies are labelled as threats to biodiversity,and for this reason are often kept out of ‘official’conservation action. WWF can work towardsensuring that indigenous peoples issues areaddressed in the ecoregion strategy, not least bysupporting participatory mechanisms, whereindigenous peoples sit together with governmentpartners to identify opportunities.

3.1 Stakeholders should expand the biodiversityvision with a broader vision of the environ-mental resources that indigenous peoples con-sider important – i.e. their ecological and con-servation values. These may involve naturalresources or landscapes crucial for indigenouspeoples’ livelihood systems, traditional medi-cine and cultural practices; restoring ecologicalstability by revitalizing traditional diverseagro-forestry practices, increasing mammalpopulations crucial for traditional hunting andtrapping, or reversing the trend toward convert-ing traditional hunting and gathering territoriesinto agricultural land. The resulting broadervision will acknowledge and incorporate theecological priorities of the indigenous commu-nities, facilitating their approval and commit-

ment to the broader biodiversity vision.

3.2 Indigenous peoples and government partnersshould identify shared interests in addressingcertain threats or constraints. This is a goodtime to detect and discuss any overlapbetween threats to biodiversity and problemsfacing the indigenous communities.

3.3 Discuss and prioritize the opportunities andoptions for a joint conservation strategy. It isfundamental to determine which managementlevels the partnership should focus on (e.g.national policy, community institutions, inter-village conflict resolution, cooperation withregional agencies, etc.). Securing commit-ment to collaborate, pooling resources andengaging in partnerships with indigenous peo-ples are key issues at this stage. It may also beuseful to develop joint strategies for unre-solved issues that can be taken up along theway. A jointly identified set of goals is essen-tial in developing a partnership, where indige-nous peoples actually commit their time andresources. If facilitated well, such structuredevents can lead to useful solutions. However,there is a general need for caution where mod-els envisioning the future or timing the strate-gy are concerned, since local communitiesmay not operate with the same notions oftime, or they may be unacquainted with theimplications of such meetings. Taking time tointegrate indigenous peoples in the broaderinitiative, and trying out alternative approach-es to reaching a common strategy willimprove the long-term chances of success ofthe conservation strategy.

4. Ensure the joint strategy harmonizes withother ecoregional activities

All too often, community-oriented conservationinitiatives remain compartmentalized as typicallysmall projects and programmes. A good conserva-tion strategy involves raising the importance ofindigenous peoples’ issues in the wider ecoregion-al framework.

4.1 Encourage existing projects to re-assess theirrelationships with indigenous communities.This implies investing time and resources insolving old conflicts or rethinking pro-grammes and projects that have been takingplace on indigenous peoples’ territories.


49

4.2 Ensure that specific provisions are made forindigenous peoples in the general strategyframework for the ecoregion. In practice, inmany places this will involve supporting theintegration of indigenous peoples’ issues atthe national level.

5. Develop locally appropriate strategic partnerships

While it in some cases it may be impossible tosupport collaborative management solutionsowing to distrust or a restrictive policy environ-ment, this should not alter the long-term strategy.It may not even be possible to develop partner-ships directly with the indigenous peoples. In‘problem areas’ or countries with greater restric-tions, there is a need to find alternative supportsolutions, promote policy reform and focus ondemonstrative action to raise awareness andensure stakeholder buy-in. Exploring potentiallinks to national policies, particularly through dif-ferent models of decentralized management, is auseful step.

5.1 Where direct partnership development is pos-sible with communities or organizations,make efforts to institutionalize collaborationand ‘make it official’.

5.2 Jointly set concrete objectives that correspondto the vision and goals.

5.3 Help indigenous communities to organizethemselves – this will strengthen the credibil-ity of the vision and clarify the organizationalside of the partnership.

5.4 In long-term partnerships, provide sustainedcapacity support and funding allocations forprogrammes, projects or activities to be imple-mented by indigenous peoples themselves.

6. Ensure broad commitment to the strategy

6.1 Seek to involve a broad range of partners. Apartnership between indigenous communitiesand, for example, a local government agencyin charge of forestry may be disrupted byother government agencies or industries.

6.2 Ensure authentication and commitment fromthe highest possible levels.

Action planning at the ecoregional level mayinclude a wide variety of activities and ways ofimplementing them. Again, there is no blueprintfor this. A list of potential issues is presentedbelow as an example of an action plan outline.

1. Encourage government partners to co-designconservation action plans with indigenous peo-ples. Operationalize strategic partnershipsthrough concrete agreements and action plansdescribing committed resources, responsibilities,process, ownership and leadership structures.

2. Be ready to support the establishment of newconcepts and models.


BBeenncchhmmaarrkk 44:: JJooiinntt CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn SSttrraatteeggyy ffoorr IInnddiiggeennoouuss LLaannddss aanndd RReessoouurrcceess

In the conservation strategy, conservationpractitioners, government agencies andindigenous communities should, on the basisof information gathered, agree upon theareas of strategic importance concerningnatural resource management and biodiver-sity within indigenous territories, as well asthe principles involved in dealing with theseareas. Reaching agreement on these issuesmay in some cases be a lengthy and obsta-cle-strewn process, but once achieved willhave great impact in securing ownership bylocal people for the strategy and its conser-vation goals.

Clear goals and principles, a time-frame anda specific assignment of responsibilitiesshould be identified for each strategic area,and should be integrated in the broaderecoregion conservation plan. Interim strate-gies may be useful, particularly if policyreform risks taking time or immediate threatsrequire quick intervention. The joint strategyis also the document in which parties agreeon the institutional arrangements for furtherplanning and implementation, as well as com-mitting the necessary resources. This mayrequire the establishment of a board or advi-sory committee with the mandate to overseeand review implementation of the strategy.

55.. EEccoorreeggiioonnaall AAccttiioonn PPllaannnniinngg

50

AAccttiioonn PPllaannnniinngg GGuuiiddeelliinneess

1. Encourage government partners to co-design conservation action plans withindigenous peoples. Operationalize strategicpartnerships through concrete agreementsand action plans describing committedresources, responsibilities, process, ownership and leadership structures

1.1 Make sure that partnership objectives arecommunicated clearly to indigenous commu-nities, and that disagreements or issues of dis-trust are solved as early as possible.

1.2 Involve indigenous peoples’ communities andorganizations in developing objectives andconcrete activities. Use partnership frame-works to develop creative solutions and spellout actual responsibilities; this will serve as agood indicator as to whether the vision is infact representative, and may thus lead to revi-sions if necessary.

1.3 Be specific and realistic in jointly determiningwho is going to do what, where and when. Aimat small, achievable successes for commonlyidentified problems. Many partnerships, notleast with indigenous peoples, need to bedemonstrably established for the long-termprocess to take off. Be aware that many localcommunities will not have the capacity toabsorb the influx of large amounts of resources.

1.4 Allow a flexible time-frame for the partner-ship. WWF project experiences (Weber, But-ler, and Larson 2000) have shown that successin reaching common goals was highlydependent on the time available within proj-ects. Ecoregional action planning, althoughbroader in scope, will nevertheless involvesub-activities funded by donor agencies.

1.5 Invest in the capacities of indigenous commu-nities, giving activities and efforts initiatedand managed by them preference over similar,if more professional, externally implementedactivities.

1.6 Identify and provide information on coordina-tors and additional focal points for indigenouspeoples issues within WWF ecoregional staff.

1.7 Support follow-up on agreements reached, forexample legal sanctions and integration innational programmes.

2. Be ready to support the establishment ofnew concepts and models

For many government agencies and indigenouspeoples, notions of collaborative management andother concepts are new. As a consequence, strate-gic decisions to embark on collaborative manage-ment may be made without the necessary funds,technical expertise or commitment by field levelofficials. To develop appropriate model agree-ments and management planning mechanisms,local level government officials and indigenouscommunity representatives and organizations willneed financial and policy commitments from high-er level agencies and conservation organizations.


BBeenncchhmmaarrkk 55:: AAggrreeeedd AAccttiioonn PPllaann

The agreed action plan spells out the con-crete steps that follow on from the strategicgoals. It is important to initiate its develop-ment as early as possible after completion ofthe strategy. The momentum gained througha joint strategy may easily be lost due topolitical or administrative changes, not leastbecause indigenous peoples often belong tothe most disadvantaged groups and thushave a natural distrust of external agencies.Key elements in action planning include:measurable goals, delineating responsibili-ties for particular actions, a time-frame forshort term activities, and a clear picture ofwhat resources are available.

Involving indigenous communities inthe formulation of objectives and activities ishighly beneficial, as strategic commitments

51

TTaabbllee 77.. SSoommee kkeeyy aarreeaass iinn ppllaannnniinngg wwiitthh iinnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeoopplleess:: AA bbaasskkeett ooff lliikkeellyy ooppttiioonnss ffoorr aaccttiioonn

AArreeaass OObbjjeeccttiivvee EExxaammpplleess ooff aaccttiioonn


n Outline or revise national and/or ecoregional framework

agreementsn Create written research agreements with indigenous

communities and organizations whenever necessaryn Involve indigenous partner organizations in the continuing

ecoregional processn Support cooperative agreements between governments and

indigenous peoples based on common goalsn Support indigenous organizations to strengthen their capacityn Establish regular information-sharing mechanisms with

relevant organizations and communities.

n Encourage the reform of protected area policies and laws toenable the participation of indigenous peoples in management processes, support tenure security, and ensurerepresentation in existing management decision-makingprocesses and institutions

n Facilitate the establishment of protected area planning processes with the participation of indigenous peoples. Ensurethat customary settlement, tenure and use rights are fullyrespected when supporting the establishment of new protectedareas

n Support protected areas inhabited by indigenous peoples withtechnical and financial resources to apply consultative methodologies such as customary resource use and participatory mapping, in order to integrate and formalize customary user rights, settlements and tenure practices in co-management plans and agreements

n Support the recognition of indigenous protected areas in national biodiversity policies and plans

n Assist governments to develop financial, legal and technical programmes enabling indigenous communities to strengthenexisting or new collaborative management systems.

n Support demarcation and issuance of legal titles to traditional territories and customary use areas and resources

n Where legal support is absent, assist in finding alternativemeans of securing indigenous peoples’ long- term access, useand tenure rights

n Support mechanisms to hinder encroachment, expropriation andfree-riding in indigenous territories and resources

n Support conflict resolution between indigenous and neighbouring communities, the government and others

n Support indigenous peoples to develop conservation agendasand action plans for their traditional territories (including issuessuch as multiple land use and schemes for wildlife habitatenhancement)

n Assist indigenous peoples in developing management plans fornatural resource use, including particular area-based andspecies management plans

n Provide indigenous peoples with research and knowledge support to manage and monitor biodiversity and ecosystemintegrity

n Support market-oriented activities such as certification, fair tradeand green marketing

n Support sustainable, natural resource-based economic activities,such as sustainable farming, agro-forestry, and ecotourism

n Support community-based environmental educationn Support ecosystem rehabilitation activities by indigenous

communities.

1. Partnership building

2. Protectedareas

3. Naturalresource managementoutside protectedareas

To support customaryrights and engageindigenous peoples inecoregion conservationplanning and imple-mentation

To support collaborative management strategies

To support customary resourcemanagement throughtenure and livelihoodsecurity

52


TTaabbllee 77 ccoonnttiinnuueedd......


n Raise public awareness about the value and significance of TEKn Support the integration of TEK in decision-making mechanismsn Encourage the exchange and integration of scientific knowledge

and TEKn Support the transmission of TEK to younger generations

through informal on-site training and the integration of TEK informal curriculum development

n Enable communities to secure a critical mass of TEK to sustaintraditional management and livelihood systems

n Support community-driven and controlled documentation, registers and alternative protection mechanisms for TEK.

n Promote application of the Precautionary Principle to developmentand other projects affecting indigenous lands and resources

n Support participation of indigenous peoples in environmentaland social impact assessments

n Support governments in streamlining practices on seeking priorinformed consent on development projects, resource exploitation, land-use planning and other initiatives involvingindigenous peoples’ territories

n Support planning and implementation of mitigation and restoration measures by/with indigenous communities wheneverimpacts have occurred

n Support compensation, financial and otherwise, for the loss oflands, resources or environmental quality due to environmentaland social impacts.

n Support the initiation of formal processes giving legal recognition to indigenous peoples’ land and resource use rightsin relation to areas of conservation importance

n Support the legal and political recognition of indigenous peoples’organizations and institutions relevant to natural resource management

n Support policy analysis and reform enabling indigenous communities to achieve land tenure security

n Encourage governments to involve indigenous peoples in policydevelopment

n Support the involvement of indigenous peoples in existing initiatives and decision-making processes concerning biodiversity conservation, land-use planning and naturalresource management. This may involve supporting the participation of relevant indigenous organizations at ecoregional,national and local levels

n Support the streamlining of government practices in consultingwith indigenous peoples

n Support reform of marketing and trade policies concerning natural resources, especially where they have direct impact onindigenous peoples’ livelihoods

n Feed field level conservation experiences with indigenous peoples into policy development processes; disseminate lessons learned and best practice guidelines.

n Build the capacity of indigenous organizations and supportNGOs to engage with government institutions through e.g. participatory and community-based mapping

n Raise the capacity of government agencies at national, regionaland local levels in dealing with community resource management issues through sensitization and training on appropriate tools

n Identify and build the capacity of traditional resource management institutions to e.g. establish agreements, monitorharvest quotas, and plan and run project activities.

4. Traditiionalecologicalknowledge(TEK)

5. Prevention andcontrol of environmentalimpacts

6. National laws,policies andinstitutions

7. Conservationcapacity building

To support indigenouscommunities in maintaining their traditional knowledge,systems and practices

To cooperate withindigenous organizations and communities in preventing, controllingand mitigating environmental impacts

To secure an appropriate legal, policy and institutionalenvironment for theparticipation of indigenous peoples inbiodiversity conservation and natural resource management

To strengthen thecapacity of indigenouspeoples and government agenciesto jointly pursue sustainable use andconservation strategies

53

1. Monitor benchmark documents and agree-ments and their actual implementation.

2. Monitor, jointly with indigenous peoples, pro-gramme activities, the level of participation andconservation effectiveness.

3. Learn and be ready to change.

TTrraacckkiinngg aanndd FFeeeeddbbaacckk GGuuiiddeelliinneess

1. Monitor benchmark documents and agreements and their actual implementation

The benchmarks presented offer one way of mon-itoring participation throughout the key elementsof ecoregion conservation planning and imple-mentation. The presence and content of the differ-ent agreements are revealing of the extent to whichcollaboration takes places. Still, agreements do not

necessarily represent the reality. Although theincreasing number of guidelines, agendas andprinciples on appropriate action are integrated inprogramme descriptions and adopted as commonvocabulary, it is altogether a different task to makethem work in practice. It is therefore useful tojointly monitor whether and how agreements arefollowed.

2. Monitor, jointly with indigenous peoples,programme activities, the level of participation and conservation effectiveness

2.1 Build the capacity of indigenous communitiesto design and conduct monitoring activities.

2.2 Use socio-economic baseline data and devel-op key indicators to monitor: (a) resource useand tenure practices; (b) the degree of partici-pation in management and implementation ofagreed plans; and (c) improvement of indige-nous peoples’ customary rights and livelihoodsystems.


TTaabbllee 77 ccoonnttiinnuueedd......


n Assist governments in providing benefits such as:- Effective defence of territories against external threats,- Support and legal protection of territories;- Consolidation of territories, including their demarcation;- Technical, financial and political support for indigenous and

other traditional peoples’ own management activities; - Sustained capacity building actions and processes for

indigenous and local communities, in order to help them tomanage their areas and resources effectively;

n Identify and support the development of locally appropriateincentive programmes for conservation and sustainable use

n Ensure participation of indigenous peoples in defining revenue-sharing mechanisms from e.g. ecotourism, game hunting, bio-prospecting or other forms of commercial research

n Support the development of economic incentive programmesinvolving sustainable use, alternative income generation andenhanced employment possibilities in government agencies andecoregion project activities

n Promote the reinvestment of benefits from resource use andextraction in local communities and ecosystems.

n Facilitate dialogue between indigenous peoples and other stakeholders through advocacy support, collaborative research, mediation and awareness raising

n Support broader reconciliatory processes between indigenouspeoples and governments

n Collaborate with expert conflict resolution facilitatorsn Address processes of marginalization and stigmatization of

indigenous peoples through actively seeking to work directlywith indigenous communities and their organizations

n Support on-site dialogue, study trips and joint activities.

8. Benefit sharingand incentives

9. Conflict management

To ensure that indigenous peoplesreceive appropriatelong-term benefits andincentives for participating in conservation

To create favourableconditions for sustainable use andconservation planningthrough conflict resolution and management

66.. TTrraacckkiinngg aanndd FFeeeeddbbaacckk

54


2.3 Extract lessons learned and best practicesfrom the monitoring of activities.

2.4 Establish proper mechanisms to receive andact on feedback from indigenous communi-ties, both on the functioning of the partnershipand on ecoregional activities.

2.5 Keep the monitoring process transparent andaccessible in local languages.

3. Learn and be ready to change

It is common for cooperative programmes or part-nerships with indigenous peoples not to succeed orfunction optimally straight away (e.g. the prob-lems and failures of many government pro-grammes targeting indigenous or traditional peo-

ples). This is not surprising as it involves creatinga synergy of different ways of perceiving and pri-oritizing natural resource management issues.

3.1 The survival of a partnership depends on anopen dialogue addressing mistakes, latentconflicts and problems of cooperation.

3.2 Assuming an adaptive or flexible approachfrom the beginning, not making plans toorigid and allowing new discussions after aninitial test period will make later changes eas-ier. Action plans and new indicators are easierto develop than strong partnerships. Learningby doing and trial-and-error should be keymottos of the partnership.

BBeenncchhmmaarrkk 66:: JJooiinntt MMoonniittoorriinngg SSyysstteemm

Indigenous peoples and conservation practitioners share an interest in making partnership agree-ments and conservation plans work in practice, for the benefit of biodiversity conservation and sus-tainable use in indigenous territories and resources. Rather than depending on costly, external con-sultants, an agreement should be sought on the institutional arrangements and mechanisms forindigenous peoples and conservation practitioners to jointly monitor:

n participation through benchmarks and their implementation

n programme activities

n conservation impacts.

In practice, this involves spelling out the monitoring strategy, with clear indicators, methods, well-defined roles of the individuals and institutions involved, and a time-frame. It is useful at the outset toagree on how the results should be disseminated, and how they can inform or lead to changes in theaction plan. The joint monitoring system may also specify concrete steps for involving indigenouspeoples in evaluations, further appraisals or project development, including, when appropriate, inareas outside indigenous peoples’ lands, territories and resources.

PPaarrtt IIIIII

WWoorrkkiinngg wwiitthh IInnddiiggeennoouuss aanndd TTrraaddiittiioonnaall PPeeoopplleess iinn EEccoorreeggiioonn CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn::

FFuurrtthheerr IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn

56


This section contains comprehensive backgroundinformation and practical advice on five topics thatare crucial to successful ecoregion conservation:

n Getting the process rightn Indigenous peoples, conservation and capacity

buildingn Traditional resource use and managementn Benefit sharing, compensation, incentives and

indigenous peoplesn Supporting collaborative management.

Working with indigenous peoples: designingan appropriate participatory process

Ideally, conservation practitioners, governmentsand indigenous peoples create joint strategies andaction plans through a series of dialogues andagreements. In practice, the process is often a longone before parties can actually ‘talk business’.Some countries have already developed consulta-tion steps that can be applied to or inform theecoregion conservation process. Others may havepolicy guidelines that need fine-tuning or imple-mentation support to be put into practice. In bothcases, it is important to assess whether standardpractices of ‘participation’ can be considered rele-vant by ecoregion conservation planners andindigenous peoples.

Schwartz and Deruyttere (1996) wrote:“Under the Mayarema Project, there are a numberof NGOs working with the Guatemalan NationalPark Service to conserve the tropical forests ofPetén, Guatemala. The NGOs, funded in part byinternational donor agencies, have made commit-ments to the consultative process, although insome instances conceptions of consultation arelimited or distorted. Although some NGOs have agenuine commitment to local-level consultation,they also strive to demonstrate to their respectiveprivate and public donors that they are consultingwith appropriate groups in Petén and, in fact,doing a better job than other NGOs. Rather thaninter-NGO coordination there tends to be competi-tion for pride of place. Energy and resources tendto be diverted away from the on-the-groundprocess of consultation to political in-fighting,shows of consultation and artfully constructed

paper trails. Some of the local elite, townsfolk andpeasants know a show when they see one, and oth-ers do not. For the latter, pseudo-consultation hasraised expectations that are almost surely going tobe frustrated.”

Such externally driven ‘pseudo-consulta-tion’ stands in stark contrast to what is actuallyneeded. Rather than demonstrating consultation toother NGOs or donors, there is a need to explorerelevant consultation options together with indige-nous peoples themselves.

Some basics for working with indigenous peoples

Unfortunately, adopting a patronizing approach iscommon when it comes to working with indige-nous peoples. Many decisions are made else-where, which for some indigenous communitiesleads to passivity, disinterest or lack of respect forthe intentions and resources involved. Well-mean-ing initiatives for indigenous peoples have a ten-dency to be founded upon external values orapproaches claiming to know what is best for thecommunities. Working with indigenous peoplesin a given country will often be quite differentfrom working with officials from forestry depart-ments or ministries in the same country. Manyinstitutions and individuals have found it difficultto work out these differences. The followingground rules provide just a few of the ‘behavioural’basics.

Get to know the people

You need to be ‘on the ground’ and get to know thestakeholders before being able to begin to assessthe situation. Work on raising your own aware-ness. Get to know the people and the communitiesas soon as possible. Let them take you around andshow their concerns. Avoid at all costs establishingivory tower models of participation that do not fitreality.

Respect and develop understanding of local cultural values, cultural practices and socialorganization

Show real interest in and concern for traditionalvalues and cultural practices, which affect all lev-els of planning and actual programme activities,and are often acknowledged in evaluations (e.g.Graham 2000). More often than not, their impactis unexpected. During consultation processes,

11.. GGeettttiinngg tthhee PPrroocceessss RRiigghhtt

57

attendance at and observer participation in com-munity meetings or government agency/communi-ty encounters can provide essential data.

Taking into account social organizationalforms such as clans, lineages and other communi-ty divisions, ask yourself the following questions:

n Is the participation of all segments or groups(including specific groups such as the poor,women or youth) culturally accepted in com-munity decision-making? Is it, for example,socially and culturally acceptable for everyoneto speak up in public meetings? Are all seg-ments and groups aware of decisions madewith or communicated to government agenciesand other stakeholders?

n Are there issues, pieces of knowledge or infor-mation on certain resources, sites or customarypractices that are considered secret, taboo orotherwise inappropriate to discuss in public?

n Is wildlife or land attributed religious or spiri-tual significance or values?

Such circumstances should be respected andeven highlighted in the Memorandum of Under-standing.

Learn to accept that:

n working with indigenous peoples as equalsmeans acknowledging differences of opinion,conflict and constant negotiations about values,cultural practices and social organization.

n religious conservation ethics or spiritual con-nections with, and responsibilities to, tradition-al lands may be threatened by internal disputesor broader cultural changes.

n current social organization or leadershipstructures may be contested and traditionalsharing practices may be undermined bypower disparities.

A clear understanding of these issues willhelp to guide the work with indigenous communi-ties and the conservation strategies that emerge.

Stress mutual learning as a key concept in working with indigenous peoples

n Encourage staff and government partners tolearn about customary institutions, values, his-tory and the local languages of the indigenouscommunities which will be engaged in the

ecoregion conservation process.

n Nurture continuous dialogue to overcome mis-takes, problems and difficulties in workingtogether.

n Accept that the agendas and expectations ofindigenous peoples may differ from yours, andthat joint agendas will probably change alongthe way.

n Accept that a common language may take timeto develop, and that initial communication ismost likely to be based on different under-standings of the situation.

Promote gender mainstreaming

The important role of women as knowledge hold-ers, resource users, household managers and foodsecurity providers in indigenous communities hasbeen well documented. Nevertheless, conserva-tionists often find themselves working mainly withmen, largely owing to, among other things, theirbilingual skills and traditional role in taking careof public issues. To avoid the risk of omittingimportant knowledge, resource use and communi-ty problems that should be addressed, promotegender mainstreaming through hiring project staffwho can voice women’s issues explicitly in com-munity meetings or through separate consulta-tions, and by further engaging women in pro-gramme activities.

Be flexible in ways of working

Do not expect indigenous communities to work inways similar to local authorities. Be flexible whenit comes to when and how to organize initial meet-ings. Consult with local experts or ‘cultural bro-kers’ to avoid time-wasting and inappropriatebehaviour.

n Encourage field staff to accept from the outsetdifferent ways of working and communicating.

n Seek to work in the local language whereverpossible, and make sure that key material iswritten up in local languages.

n Ask beforehand about appropriate ways ofrespecting indigenous rituals and ways oforganizing meetings. Remember that for manyrural indigenous peoples, time is a preciousresource. Also pay due respect to the seasonalor daily work loads.

Further Information

58


n Do not fix deadlines that are too tight or try topush decisions through, but pay attention toand acknowledge traditional ways of makingdecisions within the communities.

n Build such flexibility into broader planningprocesses and workplans.

Meeting complexity

The reality facing conservation practitioners wish-ing to involve indigenous communities can be con-fusing. In some countries, there may be an indige-nous people’s organization or indigenous umbrel-la organization with mandates on a broad range ofissues, which include natural resources. It is alsopossible to find several organizations each claim-ing to represent the indigenous peoples. Othercommunities will not have their own organizationsat all. It may be difficult to identify traditionalinstitutions or to recognize opportunistic non-rep-resentative ‘indigenous’ organizations22 or supportgroups. Several groups or representatives linked toa variety of issues, such as indigenous women’sgroups, indigenous handicraft producers or pas-toral cooperatives, may also form part of thediverse local reality. Neighbouring non-indige-nous communities may also wish to be involved.Rather than choosing who to work with, the ques-tion is more how to work with, and involve, every-one at the different levels. Ideally, initiativesshould involve local leaders and traditional author-ities, but also official authorities and neighbouringcommunities.

The overriding goal here is to ensure, fromthe outset, a sustainable working process. Keepinitial contacts as public and inclusive as possibleas this will help to ensure that no-one is left out ofthe process.

Identifying indigenous peoples and their communities

An initial identification and analysis of theindigenous communities and their organizationsis useful for:

n identifying the relevant and appropriate socialactors;

n providing the necessary understanding to deter-mine the type and level of cooperation;

n clarifying the stakes of indigenous communi-ties and the potential socio-cultural and eco-nomic impacts on conservation initiatives.

The value of a good stakeholder analysisbecomes increasingly apparent as decision-mak-ing stages in relationships are reached. If doneconsistently, the analysis will make it easier toanswer questions (such as those raised by Fingle-ton as shown in box 7). Still, getting the processright is more than establishing good working rela-tionships with the right people; it is about ensuringlegitimacy and accountability. While the field-worker may be acquainted with specific participa-tory tools, key questions may remain on how toorganize the whole process. Quite a few projectsgo through more or less lengthy participatory exer-cises that remain separate from or never reallyinfluence actual planning. A process will not havebeen participatory simply because village needshave been identified through focus group discus-sions, household interviews, or documentation ofthe local history or traditional myths. Such toolsare only a means of getting to the context-specificgoals of participation.

Defining these goals or the specific purposesof a consultative process rely firstly on identifyingthe needs and the interest of the indigenous com-munities in participating in the first place, and sec-ondly on determining a realistic process. Whilefrequent public meetings or informal individualcontacts might work well as effective strategies forindigenous peoples in North America, differentstrategies will be needed for dispersed forest-dwelling communities in the remote highlands ofSoutheast Asia. In some cases, it may be necessaryto undertake direct consultation in all the villagesaffected. This may be because of the magnitude ofthe initiative, the lack of proper representativeinstitutions, or general ignorance or lack of capac-ity in the communities to participate properlythrough other means. Deciding on the who, how,when and what is best done together with indige-nous peoples on the basis of jointly gatheredinformation. The following sections serve to elab-orate on aspects of the questions taken up in thereconnaissance phase.

22 There is today an increasing number of indigenous organizations and individuals representing or claiming to represent com-munities at local, national and international levels. While most are generally committed to the cause of indigenous peoples, somehave a doubtful mandate or only minimally consult with and inform the communities they represent (Braem 1999).

59

Identifying key actors and decision-makingmechanisms of communities

The heterogeneity of indigenous communities

It is sometimes assumed that indigenous peoples,as one big community, are naturally of one opin-ion. For the practitioner, such stereotypes quicklyfall apart on encountering indigenous communi-ties divided by different clans, levels of prosperity,access to resources, literacy, religion, dialects orpolitical parties.

Moreover, increasing pressure on indigenousterritories is in many places leading to further dis-integration of community-organized use and shar-ing practices. This in turn leads to further conflictsover land, resources, water, and hunting and trap-ping areas. Conflicts have been known to eruptdue to the sudden presence of outside interests orsupport. It is critical not to depend on one singlevoice, but to seek to establish consultative process-es that involve different parties. At an ecoregionallevel, such differences may be even greater, asthey may involve communities separated bynational or regional boundaries.

Assume the presence of heterogeneity fromthe beginning, document it and make sure that it istaken into consideration when designing the par-ticipatory process. Choosing, for example, to con-sult with a leader who is not considered a legiti-mate representative by half of the residents of theterritory in question will most likely make thewhole process invalid.

Traditional decision-making mechanisms

It is easy to forget traditional decision-making

structures and establish mainstream institutionalbodies, such as associations, councils or advisoryboards, that may not correspond to the functions oftraditional bodies or may impose requirementsconcerning institutional arrangements that are for-eign to the indigenous communities. For example,requiring indigenous peoples with a tradition ofdecision-making through communal discussion tosend a representative to decide on behalf of thecommunity may lead to detrimental results. Bas-ing a consultation on traditional decision-makingmechanisms is, in general, more effective andcheaper than introduced forms of consultation ordiscussion that ignore local circumstances andspecific issues.

Identifying specific institutions or mecha-nisms concerning, for example, natural resourceuse management is useful for targeting the rightpeople and avoiding placing a burden on othermembers of the community. Traditional leaders,indigenous specialists or specific user groups suchas hunters are obviously key sources of informa-

Further Information

BBooxx 77EExxaammpplleess ooff ssttaakkeehhoollddeerr qquueessttiioonnss

“There are a lot of people here. They come from every region through which the pipeline will pass.They belong to lots of different Aboriginal organizations, from Land Councils to Steering Committeesto language groups to traditional owners. They’ve had a hard job. It’s one thing to represent your ownmob, it’s another to try and work out what will be good for everybody along 2,000 kilometres ofpipeline. It’s one thing to represent your own interests, it’s another matter to represent the interestsof future generations. It’s one thing to be here, it’s another to make sure you’re not squeezing any-body out. Here again is the familiar challenge to indigenous people – a development is proposed fortheir land and they have to organize a response. Who can speak for the traditional landowners? Cana ‘steering committee’ or a ‘land council’ speak for them? Do ‘representatives’ work just for their ownpeople or do they have responsibilities to the other indigenous people affected by the project? Anddo representatives who sign an agreement have the authority to bind members of their group to theagreement?” (Fingleton 1998).

In work undertaken with the Xavante inBrazil, a WWF project invested considerablyin training and working the husband-and-wifeteam of a community leader on project plan-ning and management. A political crisis inthe community resulted in lowered supportfor the leader and disrupted project work. Notonly was the need for broader capacity rais-ing recognized, but project staff were alsoaffected by factional conflicts (Graham2000).

60

tion. At the same time, it may be the case that tra-ditional mechanisms are controlled by an elite thatneglects certain segments of the community. Deci-sions made only by men have, for example, beenfound to exclude women from access to tradition-ally used resources. In such cases, it will be appro-priate to explore ways of integrating the views ofthose not represented. The key is to recognize andsupport traditional mechanisms, rather than designnew ones.

Traditional mechanisms differ in the waythey are integrated with national legal or adminis-trative structures. Working through traditionaldecision-making mechanisms may not be support-ed by government partners who are used to work-ing through officially recognized institutions. Onthe other hand, indigenous peoples might not feelthat local-level government institutions properlyreflect their interests. It is important to seek com-promise or further develop consultative mecha-nisms that are broadly respected not just by indige-nous peoples and government representatives, butalso by neighbouring communities.

Indigenous peoples’ organizations

Many indigenous peoples have their own organi-zations that have a broad variety of functions andpurposes. Some focus on internal issues, whileothers are involved in both national and interna-tional lobbying. Ensuring appropriate engagementwith such organizations means, among otherthings, understanding their specific roles and func-tions, who they represent and their capacities.

While some organizations have a history ofnegotiating, for example, land claims with local andnational governments, others are not recognized by

government. Knowing whether and how an organi-zation actually represents the indigenous communi-ties it claims to represent is necessary if later prod-ucts are to be considered valid and credible.

n Support indigenous communities and organiza-tions in deciding upon and clearly writing upthe mandates, titles and responsibilities ofinstitutions or individuals representing them inthe ecoregion conservation process.

n Be sensitive to the experience and capacitypresent in the indigenous organization. It may


TTrraaddiittiioonnaall ddeecciissiioonn--mmaakkiinngg mmeecchhaanniissmmss:: kkeeyy qquueessttiioonnss

n How are decisions made among andbetween different communities?

n Is there general consensus that tradition-al decision-makers represent everyone inthe community?

n Are there conflicts between traditionaldecision-makers and officially recognizedcommunity leaders?

n Are traditional leaders respected, cooper-ating with, or in conflict with national/regional authorities?

IInnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeoopplleess’’ oorrggaanniizzaattiioonnss::kkeeyy qquueessttiioonnss

n Does the organization consider itself asrepresentative of all the indigenous com-munities concerned with the ecoregionalinitiative? Are the organizations consid-ered as representative by governmentand various groupings among indigenouspeoples themselves?

n What is the traditional mandate, scope,working area and capacity of the organi-zation? Does it have a constitution, a setof provisions or rules dealing with mem-bership, its functions, decision-makingstructures and conflict resolution? Thisinformation should be made available asearly as possible.

n Does the organization through rules ordecisions assign particular members theresponsibility of dealing with land, water,resource or biodiversity issues?

n Do different competing organizationsexist? WWF should not necessarilychoose one of them, but attempt to under-stand their different roles and engagewith them accordingly.

n Is the organization a member of anumbrella organization or alliance? Partic-ularly in ecoregion conservation work,alliances of indigenous peoples can pro-vide strong partnerships for work acrossregional and national boundaries.

n With what types of negotiations or con-suttations is the organization familiar?

n Is there a history of cooperation with WWFor other conservation organizations?

61

lack legal or technical expertise. Representa-tives may be young and inexperienced, particu-larly in national planning and policy matters,biodiversity policies or natural resource man-agement issues.

n Ensure that indigenous leaders or representa-tives have transparent ways of communicatingdecisions and issues back to their communities.

Government partners

Building upon existing official practices in collab-orating with indigenous peoples improves thechances of getting government partners to buy into the results of the consultative processes. Whileexisting collaboration may be fraught with prob-lems, it provides a natural starting point for gov-ernment officials and indigenous peoples alike toseek new common ground and validate a revisedconsultative process. The ecoregional initiativecan be promoted as a forum for the exchange ofopinions on how to improve existing decision-making structures, within, for example, agenciesspecialized in natural resource management.

Strengthening indigenous peoples’ resourcemanagement practices can easily become a politi-cal issue with the potential of contesting official oraccepted ways of dealing with resources. While

some governments provide a favourable policyenvironment, others may not recognize customaryrights or systematically question the capability ofindigenous peoples to manage resources properly.In such cases it is necessary to have a clear strate-gy on how to continue the participatory process:for example, long-term pilot or experimental sta-tus for activities which recognize indigenous con-cerns, or the forging of new alliances at nationallevel (see also Table 8).

Institutionalizing participation

While it may be relatively easy to ensure indige-nous peoples’ participation in WWF activities, itcan be quite another task to obtain the same levelof participation in regional and national institu-tions. This is, however, important for the consulta-tion process. Where necessary, community capac-ity should be strengthened to increase the potentialfor constructive dialogues in all fora engaged inthe ecoregion conservation process.

Addressing community concerns

Participatory experience

Most communities will have been involved inmaking decisions with other stakeholders and will

Further Information

TTaabbllee 88.. IIssssuueess aanndd aapppprrooaacchheess oonn ggoovveerrnnmmeenntt ppaarrttnneerrss

1. Is the policy environment conducive to indigenous peoples’ claims and participation?2. Are customary rights integrated in national policies?3. Are decisions concerning indigenous peoples made by specialized government agencies?

Yes No

Are government officials at national andregional levels supportive of implementingpolicies?

Consider how to raise awareness, ensure further support and promote appropriatestrategies for participation.

Are there sufficient guarantees that results willbe integrated in further planning?

If sufficient guarantees cannot beobtained, this should be openly discussed withthe indigenous communities. The objectivesfor the initiative should be more modest.

What other means are provided for securingthe rights of indigenous peoples?

Alternative solutions are sought togetherwith the indigenous communities. Specific policies on e.g. natural resource managementmay provide tenure security to indigenous communities. Initiatives supporting the development of national legislation on indigenous peoples’ rights may be supported.

What types of participatory approaches aregenerally accepted?

In a non-supportive environment theremay still be participatory mechanisms that areaccepted and can be strengthened.

62

have learnt many lessons along the way. It can beuseful to consider these lessons early on in theecoregion conservation process, along with thoseof local agencies and cross-institutional or exter-nal programmes. Much can be learned from thevarious experiences. For example, do the indige-nous communities have good experiences in work-ing with government? Do they trust agreementsmade with outsiders? What types of dialogue arevalued by the communities? Are there any externalinstitutions, individuals or support organizationsthat can be involved to give the discussions greatercredibility and validity? Do the communities havea history of working together, as well as being ableto agree together? What capacity has been gener-ated by other initiatives? Remember that manyindigenous communities will have had bad experi-ences with earlier ‘participatory’ exercises, sothere may be a need to regenerate trust.

Awareness and understanding

Choosing a participatory strategy partly dependson the awareness and understanding of the issuesat stake in the indigenous communities. For exam-ple, organizing village meetings and discussionson complicated matters should be avoided until thecommunities and their organizations have had suf-ficient time and information to thoroughly assessthe situation. Clarifying objectives beforehand andkeeping to them afterwards are fundamental toavoiding confusion. Written background materialsin local languages are essential for properlyinformed decisions. In areas with high illiteracy,other means should be sought to ensure raisedawareness. In some cases, this may involve clari-fying government policies regarding indigenous

peoples, land tenure and rights to social benefits. Awareness raising is a continuous process

that does stop once decisions have been made.Sharing experiences generated elsewhere in solv-ing similar problems will foster confidence in try-ing out alternative solutions. This can be furtherdeveloped through making scientific knowledge,conservation tool kits and guidelines available tostakeholders, in particular government officers andlocal indigenous communities.

When information is provided to indigenouscommunities, sufficient time for it to be consid-ered should be built into the process, as well asassistance given where needed to help formulateany responses.

Transparency is another key issue. Areindigenous peoples being kept informed about thescope of and changes in the ecoregion conserva-tion process? Has due consideration been given tothe channels through which information is provid-ed? Is information freely available? Can indige-nous communities access further information intheir own language?

Relevance

Do the indigenous communities consider partici-pation in the initiative relevant and worth theirtime? To get a proper answer to this question, it iscrucial that there is broad awareness and under-standing of the potential results, consequences andimpacts of the initiative. While concerned withenvironmental issues, indigenous peoples mayoften have different priorities from those of con-servation organizations.

Try to get a feel for the affinity people havewith the resources that the conservation initiativeis aiming to protect. Some people may be veryinvolved, for example in forest products, whileothers may make limited use of the naturalresource base. Nevertheless both extremes areimportant in terms of livelihoods and traditionalsocio-cultural practices. Basic notions of the dif-ferent relationships will help to convey the kind ofparticipatory focus that is most relevant.

At times, a realistic assessment (made withrepresentatives from the groups) of the importanceof the conservation initiative to indigenous peo-ples may be needed. Some may find their partici-pation irrelevant. This can have several reasons,such as:

n The resources and territory involved are notconsidered important by the communities;


In 1997, the Itelmen people of Kovran villagein Kamtchatka were made aware of theWWF principles on indigenous peoples andconservation. Following a series of discus-sions, the Itelmen applied to the local admin-istration of Koryak Autonomous Region andWWF to create a natural area reserved fortraditional resource use. Negotiations result-ed in the governor of the region establishingsuch a territory as a ‘Gift to the Earth’ in1998. Co-managed with the Council forRevival of Kamchatka Itelmen, indigenouscommunities now have fishing, hunting andreindeer breeding rights within the reserve.

63

n Negative experiences from earlier planning orconservation initiatives;

n Poor understanding of the potential impact ofthe initiative;

n Inability to afford participation in the initiative;

n Other activities which have higher priority.

In such circumstances it is important to

reassess whether communities have sufficient under-standing and awareness of the initiative. Sinceecoregion conservation involves a wide range ofactivities, tailoring a community’s participationaccordingly and feeding it back sensitively mayencourage renewed interest in participating, whetherfrom simple information sharing to full consultation.

Time and timing

Time and timing are of key importance in design-ing a consultative process. This applies both to theperiod of time allowed during each stage for stake-holders to consider and respond to ongoing dis-cussions, and to the specific dates set for the nextround of discussions or the new stage in the plan-ning process. The yearly cycles of subsistencepractices, seasonal changes and important eventssuch as harvesting or religious festivals will have ahuge impact on the time available for communitiesto participate in other events. Poverty levels, too,should be taken into account; indigenous leadersand communities will find it extremely difficult toabandon livelihood activities in order to partici-pate in meetings and discussions. Integrate suchconsiderations when scheduling and considerappropriate forms of compensation. Also ensurethat consultations or discussions take place aftersufficient information has been made available,and before crucial details are decided upon.

Further Information

“The worst thing to happen is when theresearchers start trying to make their worklook like it is relevant to us Inuit. That’s whywe are now getting invited to all these con-ferences. They want us to participate, butreally we have nothing to say because wehave nothing to do with this type of thing inthe first place. I can’t tell you how boring it isto sit all day when you are supposed to listento what other people think your culture is allabout. It’s mistake after mistake, but we real-ly don’t say much. Probably that’s becausenone of us are really bothering to listen …These conferences are completely self-cen-tred and they really have nothing to do withus in terms of the things we want to discussand work on.”

An Inupiaq from Alaska (quoted in Brooke 1993).

TTaabbllee 99.. WWhhaatt rreessoouurrcceess aarree aavvaaiillaabbllee ffoorr tthhee ppaarrttiicciippaattoorryy pprroocceessss??

TTiimmeeWhile the ecoregion conservation process is long term, most conservation initiatives have a ratherlimited time-frame. Ideally, there should be enough time for:n building rapport and good working relationships;n developing and implementing an appropriate process of local participation;n preparing, translating and distributing background documents to achieve informed decisions;n follow-up activities such as writing up results and integrating them in further planning.

HHuummaannDo team members have sufficient knowledge and experience in working with indigenous communi-ties? Are the social and language skills present enough to ensure a reasonable dialogue with theindigenous communities?

FFiinnaanncciiaallAre there financial resources available to cover the costs of the participatory process, including prepa-ration, capacity building and follow-up activities? Indigenous peoples cannot be expected to cover thecosts of abandoning their livelihood practices to participate in meetings and related activities.

64


Capacity building

The term ‘capacity raising’ frequently appears inproject documents, but what exactly does it mean?

Whereas the traditional approach has been tostrengthen the capacity of protected area staff orgovernment officials, the new conservation prac-tice of engaging in partnerships with indigenouspeoples poses a double challenge:

n Raising the capacity of indigenous communi-ties and their organizations to deal with naturalresource management issues and governmentagencies in a formal setting; and

n Raising the capacity of government agencies(policy-makers and on-the-ground officials)and conservation agencies to work effectivelywith indigenous communities.

As partnerships are established and conser-vation agendas agreed, indigenous peoples mayfind their rights to involvement and managementstrengthened, but at the same time they face thechallenge of taking up new responsibilities. Poli-cy changes devolving management rights andresponsibilities to indigenous peoples may alsocreate a need for capacity building at the grassroots level. In both cases, support from conserva-tion organizations is fundamental to concretizingthe partnerships.

Identifying the capacities needed is a naturalfollow-up once agreement has been reached withindigenous partners on the content and direction ofa conservation partnership. Key points to bear inmind are:

n Make sure that capacity building is seen as rel-evant by the indigenous organizations involved.

n Strengthen indigenous institutions and organi-zations rather than concentrating on individuals.

n Encourage and support indigenous organiza-tions and communities to practice newlyacquired skills by, for example, obtaining pol-icy support, institutionalizing capacity build-

ing exercises, and negotiating governmentassistance.

n Be ready to support further capacity building asnew needs arise.

Raising the capacity of indigenous communities and their organizations

While it may be tempting to focus on conserva-tion-related skills and knowledge building, indige-nous communities may also require other skills inorder to participate effectively in ecoregion con-servation activities. Depending on the communi-ties involved, this may call for training pro-grammes on literacy,23 numeracy and basic man-agement skills. Increased rights and responsibili-ties of a community in terms of natural resourcemanagement can profoundly change the way deci-sion-making mechanisms within or between com-munities work. Literacy can, for example, ensurebroader awareness of and access to decisions madeby indigenous organizations.

Long-term consultation processes requiredin ecoregion conservation partnerships are contin-gent upon not only an appropriate legal frame-work, but also the capacity of indigenous people toengage in and actively shape the outcome. Suchcapacity should be firmly established within theindigenous organizations. Capacity building activ-ities can begin as soon as agreement has beenreached to work together, enabling key representa-tives to join training sessions and informationseminars.

Ecoregional planning involves such a broadrange of issues that it is important for indigenouscommunities and organizations to be able to par-ticipate in consultations in a full and proper man-ner. Key questions here are:

n Is there capacity within the communities andtheir organizations to involve different seg-ments of the communities, such as youth,women, different lineages and clans, in theconsultative and decision-making process?

n Is there adequate capacity to participate inregional and national discussions and hearingson the ecoregion conservation initiative?

Organizational capacity has consequences

23 Literacy is an unquestionable asset in engaging with government agencies. As Townsend (2000: 82) notes, based on work withthe Sirionó in Bolivia, it is also fundamental for community participation in scientific wildlife monitoring.

22.. IInnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeoopplleess,, ccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn aanndd ccaappaacciittyy bbuuiillddiinngg

65

beyond the initial planning process, as it involvesensuring that indigenous peoples’ own institutionsare strong and representative enough to take onconservation management. This requires a realisticassessment of the experience with and potentialfor dealing with new conservation-oriented activi-ties within the indigenous organization.

It is also clear that although decentraliza-tion and devolution of rights and responsibilitiesmay strengthen local communities’ interest androle in managing resources on their territories,there are also limits to what local communitiescan do. For example, a local community mayacquire tenure rights within a protected areawithout necessarily being willing or able to takeover the responsibilities of the governmentdepartment formerly in charge. Or an indigenousorganization with experience in political mobi-lization may lack the expertise to organize com-munities around natural resource managementissues or make deals with government agencies.In such cases indigenous communities requiresupport to organize themselves.

Increasingly sophisticated legislation alsorequires legal and technical capacity amongindigenous peoples’ organizations. While someindigenous associations and representatives arestrongly involved in both national and internation-al fora, the vast majority of indigenous communi-ties lack knowledge and experience when it comesto making agreements and filing claims, not tomention seeking provisions in support of custom-

ary law in national legislation. While in a majorityof cases legal assistance will be the most appropri-ate solution in the short term, capacity to managetheir basic rights and policies concerning naturalresource management can be highly beneficial inestablishing real dialogue between indigenouscommunities and government agencies. Further-more, capacity to deal with intellectual propertyrights is becoming more and more necessary, as israising awareness about bioprospecting, legalrequirements governing research practice, benefit-sharing mechanisms, and sui generismanagementand protection regimes. The issue is under exten-sive discussion, not least in connection with theConvention on Biological Diversity. Several publi-cations raise the issue and provide more detailedguidance (Posey and Dutfield 1996; Simpson1997).

A related capacity is negotiation. The major-ity of indigenous leaders engaging in the ecore-gion conservation process will in most cases berelatively unacquainted with negotiating decisionson behalf of their communities. Whether dealingwith economic development, settlements or agree-ments, there is a need for the representatives toclearly understand the implications of the deci-sions, with whom they should talk, and how bestto represent the communities’ interests. This pro-vides a better guarantee for solutions reached withthe government parties involved (see Barsh andBastien 1997 for a more detailed discussion).

Building conservation capacity

Building on existing traditional resource manage-ment institutions or mechanisms has a number ofadvantages over creating new structures. Interest-ing work in this field has been taking place, notleast in the Pacific region where WWF supportscommunities in taking up conservation activities.In Australia, a consultation with indigenous peo-ples expressing their views on a process to estab-lish indigenous protected areas highlighted that‘capacity building... to acquire skills to enhance...management of land’ combined with financialresources and influence on the process wereamong the key issues. This may involve, for exam-ple, supporting local institutions in establishingcommunity management plans, introducing sus-tainable harvesting methods, and planning andrunning project activities. While the differentcapacities needed are highly context-specific,some common capacities are increasingly beingused in conservation work.

Further Information

Through support from the Inuit CircumpolarConference to the Inuit in the Russian North,Canadian Inuit provided help to Russia’snorthern indigenous peoples in decision-making processes, training and internships.Support was also given to regional indige-nous peoples’ offices, as well as the RussianAssociation of Indigenous Peoples of theNorth (RAIPON), in promoting improvedunderstanding of indigenous peoples issuesamong Russian government officials. A sim-ilar, indigenous-to-indigenous example isthat of the Runa people in Ecuador: they vis-ited another indigenous community, the Awá,who were involved in natural resource man-agement and conservation, and receivedtraining from Kuna specialists from Panamaand Yanesha trainers from Peru (Irvine1999).

66


n Community-based or participatory resourcemapping has been taken up as a way of raisingthe capacity of indigenous peoples and organi-zations in the important initial steps of negoti-ating and designing conservation plans. Thismodel has been successfully applied in LatinAmerica and parts of Africa and Asia. Mappingmaterial and guidance is available on a range ofwebsites such as the Aboriginal Mapping Net-work http://www.nativemaps.org/index.html,but also through documents that specificallylink mapping to conservation action(Momberg, Atok and Sirait 1996; Poole 1995).

n Manuals for local people are increasingly beingdeveloped. In the CAMPFIRE24 experience inZimbabwe, for example, WWF has produced aseries of guide booklets on wildlife manage-ment for rural communities, covering topicssuch as managing safari hunting, setting quotas,marketing wildlife leases and ‘problem animalreporting’. A range of other manuals, typicallywithin projects, is being developed on non-tim-ber forest products, management planning andsustainable use (e.g. Freese et al.1998).

n Also being developed are environmentalawareness and education programmes forindigenous peoples, some of which aim to sup-port indigenous communities in elaboratingtheir conservation ethic.

n Capacity building of indigenous communitiesto strengthen, apply and protect their indige-nous knowledge systems and practices is beingtaken up by the World Bank (e.g. World Bank1998), UN agencies such as the ILO, bilateralagencies and various NGOs, as well as byinternational documentation initiatives such asthe ‘Indigenous Knowledge Pages’ (see thewebsite at http://www.nuffic.nl/ik-pages/).While these initiatives are important globalindicators of changing attitudes, the actual out-reach to indigenous communities is still verylimited. Supporting capacity building forindigenous peoples to manage and controlresearch regarding their territories and indige-nous knowledge systems and practices is offundamental importance. Several declarationsand guidelines for sound research practice andconcrete steps to take are available (Posey andDutfield 1996; Laird 1999a).

n There is also a widespread practice of directlytraining indigenous communities in methodsapplied in conventional protected area and natu-ral resource management. Such methods includeforest inventorying, biological assessments, sus-tainable harvest techniques, management plan-ning, day-to-day management, and monitoringand evaluation. WWF in the South Pacific, forexample, has developed a tool kit for localknowledge, plant conservation and ecology

24 CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) was established in 1989 and works withcommunity-based wildlife management schemes.

The WWF Indochina Programme, working in the Phong Nha Ke Bang area of Vietnam, tested par-ticipatory resource use mapping as a means of engaging ethnic minority communities and district-level land-use planning and forestry officials in developing protected area zoning and collaborativemanagement solutions. Village members from several communities and local officials were jointlytrained and later worked together in three villages to map traditional resource use areas. An addi-tional goal was to test the mapping methodology and continue mapping activities in other communi-ties. While in many ways successful in fostering collaboration and generating knowledge about local-ly relevant methodologies and results, important lessons learned included:

n Lowering ambitions: the objective to train local officials and community representatives together,generate knowledge on mapping methods and produce good maps within a short time-frameproved difficult to achieve;

n Recognizing and addressing the gaps in capacity, knowledge and experience between indige-nous representatives and local officials;

n The need for sufficient guarantees that results will be integrated in the planning process;

n Keeping technological input to a minimum.

67

(Tabunakawai and Goodwillie 1999). Work by alocal NGO among the Sirionó of Boliviainvolved a community survey, woodland inven-tories, and developing schemes for firewood cut-ting and honey production as part of an integrat-ed forest management plan (Townsend 2000).There are also attempts to link these efforts withtraditional management practices such as thosecarried out in village commons.

n Whether within the framework of integratedconservation and development or that of com-munity forestry or other forms of income gen-eration, capacity building for small-scale enter-prises or cooperative development, marketingof local products, micro-credit management, orbusiness planning linked to sustainable harvestplanning is increasingly common. Economicimpoverishment remains one of the main prob-lems for most indigenous peoples. Raisingcapacity on these issues is considered by manya necessity before conservation issues can beaddressed.

Channelling capacity building

Deciding who to involve in capacity buildingactivities is often more difficult than identifyingneeds. It is often tempting to work with the mostliterate, outspoken or bilingual community mem-bers. This may be effective for short-term activi-ties such as appraisals or initial dialogues, but canpose problems in the long term. Developing local-ly relevant and representative selection criteria isimportant to avoid being affected by internal con-flicts, or risking only minimal involvement ofimportant user groups such as poor householdsand women. Furthermore, capacity raising maycreate or fuel ongoing power struggles withincommunities. A number of other issues shouldalso be taken into consideration:

n Are communities or organizations prepared totake on new capacities? They may need to sortout new representative structures, delegate newresponsibilities or solve internal disputesbeforehand.

n Clarify with indigenous communities andorganizations the socio-cultural implications ofcapacity building. Are the selected communitymembers, for example, considered appropriateand representative in taking on new capacitiesand roles?

n Have relations between and within communi-ties been taken into account in choosing who toinvolve in capacity raising? And how?

n Have capacity building needs been identifiedby communities or organizations themselves oronly by the partnering conservation body andgovernment agencies?

n Are there financial resources available withinthe community or from government agencies toput new capacity into practice?

n Is the policy environment conducive to newpractices and methodologies? Is there sup-port from government agencies to take upnew skills, or is there a risk of raising falseexpectations?

n Start small, be adaptive and sustain capacitysupport. Unlike forest guards and governmentextension workers, who have been trained andgenerally have clear-cut roles, indigenous par-ticipants will, in most cases, be taking up newroles and responsibilities, resulting in unex-pected changes and new needs.

n Choose locally appropriate training techniques,language and literature. ‘Learning by doing’ orvisually oriented methodology will for manybe more appropriate and familiar than conven-tional teaching.

Raising the capacity of government agenciesand conservation practitioners

Local government officials and conservation prac-titioners require a wide range of skills to work withindigenous peoples. These include communica-tions, the ability to cooperate and, depending onthe specific context, ethnobiology, participatoryplanning, language training, conflict resolution,and indigenous knowledge. Experiences from proj-ect work with indigenous communities also pointto the need for good interpersonal skills, ethno-graphic knowledge and gender sensitivity. A wholerange of documents and manuals dealing withcapacity building in this context are now available.

n WWF’s Integrated Conservation and Develop-ment: A Trainer’s Manual(Worah, Svendsen,and Ongleo 1999) includes key tools on partic-ipatory planning, conflict management andpartnership building. (See also Borrini-Feyer-abend 1997; Barton et al. 1997; Jackson andIngles 1998).

Further Information

68

n Issues of co-management are increasinglyexplicitly addressed in capacity building andtraining exercises with conservation partners(see Borrini-Feyerabend et al.2000).

n Documentation and manuals, as well as lessonslearned, in ethnobotany have resulted from thejoint WWF/UNESCO/Kew Gardens’ Peopleand Plants Initiative (see website athttp://www.rbgkew.org.uk/peopleplants). Keypublications include manuals on ethnobotany(Martin 1995) and plants and protected areas(Tuxill and Nabhan 1998).

n There is increasing focus on indigenous knowl-edge systems and practices. Guidelines havebeen developed and tested by ILO and CIDAon environmental assessments, traditionalknowledge and ways of integrating traditionalknowledge in the development process (Emery2000) (see also http://www.kivu.com/cidacon-tents.html). Other manuals available on theInternet include Grenier (1998): http://www.idrc.ca/books/847/index.html and http://www.panasia.org.sg/iirr/ikmanual. The publicationLearning for a Sustainable Environment pro-vides online access to teaching materials onindigenous knowledge and environmental edu-cation, as well as a set of useful transparenciesbased on actual experiences from the Asia-Pacific region (Fien, Heck and Ferreira 1999).The World Bank database on indigenousknowledge and practices, mainly from Sub-Saharan Africa, (http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/datab.htm) and the UNESCO site on‘Best Practices on Indigenous Knowledge’(http://www.unesco.org/most/bpindi.htm) pro-vide good case studies.

n The Biodiversity Support Program offers awide range of downloads, particularly relatedto people and conservation issues(http://www.bsponline.org). The Peoples,Forests and Reefs Program has generated arange of country-specific projects and lessonslearned in strengthening the capacities andrights of marginalized groups to manage andbenefit from biodiversity. The Program hasbeen particularly active in community-basedresource use mapping.

n Other types of documents include trainingmanuals on working with villagers or indige-nous and tribal peoples. Some of these can alsobe found in local languages, developed by agri-cultural extension, development-oriented pro-

grammes such as the ILO-INDISCO pro-gramme, which has elaborated guidelines forextension workers on participatory extensionand training methods, natural resource man-agement, and microcredit, among others.

The need for follow-up

Much of the above-mentioned material is directlyfield-oriented, providing methods and approachesfor interacting with indigenous peoples in a fieldsetting. Although such capacity raising may providepeople with needed tools, institutionalizing newpractices is altogether another issue. For example, ithas proven difficult for conservation practitionersand government officials to move away from theirformer working methods and adopt new participa-tory approaches. Making such changes requires suf-ficient resources, an active interest in working withsocial scientists and a preparedness to make mis-takes along the way. Building new cooperative andculturally sensitive mechanisms and capacity takestime and financial resource, as well as commitmentto work directly with people. Although there is anincreasing number of participatory tools, the chal-lenge lies in making the right ones work in the localcontext. Workshops or training courses on partici-patory planning techniques are the first step; know-ing when and how to apply the skills learnt is a sec-ond step requiring much care and attention. Suchskills are best developed by working directly withindigenous peoples on specific activities.

Working successfully with indigenous peo-ples demands a continuous process of two-wayfeedback. The long-term time-frame and nature ofecoregion conservation provides the ideal opportu-nity to achieve this.

Introducing traditional management

Many indigenous communities live in areas ofhigh biodiversity and have developed particularand ecologically adapted livelihood and manage-ment practices.

Many traditional resource use managementsystems have become neglected in the wake ofnational management regimes which regard thetraditional areas of indigenous peoples asuntenured, wasteland or wilderness. In this contextit has not been uncommon for indigenous peoples


33.. TTrraaddiittiioonnaall rreessoouurrccee uussee aannddmmaannaaggeemmeenntt

69

to find themselves classified as squatters, poachersor ‘encroachers’. With the increased interest in,and documentation of, community-based manage-ment systems, national policy frameworks thatrecognize indigenous peoples’ user rights andtenure systems, and support collaborative manage-ment and participatory planning, are on theincrease. While traditional knowledge and man-agement practices offer relevant techniques andinsights for foresters and others (see e.g. Laird1999b), much still remains to be worked out inpractice (Pimbert and Pretty 1999).

Like the Iwingi, most indigenous communi-ties care much about their surrounding environ-ments and employ a variety of systems and prac-tices to deal with landresources, wildlife,plants and water. Basedon extensive traditionalecological knowledge,these systems differfrom mainstream man-agement systems in theway in which theydefine tenure, regulateresource use and preventresource depletion.Tenure systems can varybetween the extremelycomplex – with varyingresponsibilities andrights affecting, forexample, grazing andarable lands and huntingareas – and the relative-ly simple, in which waysof working together arebased on informal agreements.

Most commonly, wild species are managedalongside crops, livestock and human settlements.The management of ‘wild’ species, habitats andlandscapes for specific subsistence or livelihoodpurposes has been extensively documented. Com-munities may have rules on respecting certainboundaries, seasons and harvesting techniqueswhen gathering certain plants. Hunting areas maybe assigned, quotas fixed and game shared. Tradi-tional management of fisheries, with strict restric-tions on types of fishing gear, quantities and typesof fish species taken according to season, is alsowidespread (Chambers 1999).

Communities have found ‘collective institu-tions’ most appropriate as a means of regulatingcontrol and access to resources, for example

forests, assigning exclusive rights to a particulargroup of users. Indeed, much tenure is group-based, with individuals – or rather members –holding particular rights and responsibilities.However, many of these mechanisms to regulateuse and access have suffered from not being rec-ognized in official legislation. Communal proper-ty arrangements illustrate this by often being dis-regarded by states and reclassified as public prop-erty, as well as being threatened by market mech-anisms and socio-cultural changes.

Rules governing resource access or landinheritance may be more or less explicit amongindigenous communities. Such systems or prac-tices are not static and are constantly revived,

improved, changed oreven abolished.

In short, tradition-al management systemshave both strengths andweaknesses, both interms of efficiency andorganization. Whilemany communitieshave certainly devel-oped effective activitiesand mechanisms, otherswill have lost formerlygood working practices.The tendency to pro-pose broad solutionssuch as ‘empowerment’or ‘increased control’without taking intoaccount the specificityof local problems runsthe risk of making little

impact or failing, for example in initiatives where‘blueprint’ social forestry models have beenapplied to highly diverse situations (Arnold 1998).

Supporting appropriate policies

Although in many cases they are de factoman-agers of collective areas such as forests, indige-nous communities may have difficulties in obtain-ing corresponding tenure security and rights toresources, owing to private property regimes andrestrictive protected area policies.

The importance of a conducive policy envi-ronment is fundamental to any support given totraditional use and management institutions.Indigenous peoples repeatedly state that recogni-tion of their role and rights is necessary if they are

Further Information

“When I discuss biodiversity with my people,they want to know what it is. When I startexplaining the concept in terms of plant andanimal species, the whole existence, theystart to realize what I am describing. It’s partof their land, of their very existence as Iwingipeople in this entire area. Not only is it theland and soil that forms our connections withthe earth but also our entire life-cycle touch-es much of our surroundings. The fact thatour people hunt and gather these particularspecies on the land means that emphasis isplaced on maintaining their presence in thefuture. At the same time, we want to maintainour practices of eating some of the flora andfauna. What is sometimes called wildlife inAustralia isn’t wild, rather it’s something thatwe have always maintained and will continuegathering.” (Fourmile 1999)

70


to effectively focus their efforts to promote sus-tainable use and conservation of biodiversity.Legal systems and policies regarding indigenouspeoples’ role in land and natural resource manage-ment vary widely. In the Pacific region, for exam-ple, customary law and tenure form part of manyindependence constitutions and other laws. Spe-cialist bodies are in place to maintain customaryauthority and control over land (Fingleton 1998).

In other regions, not least in Africa and Asia,the role of traditional institutions, managementpractices and use when addressing land and natu-ral resource issues at the policy level is oftendownplayed or absent. Indigenous communitiesmay be recognized as the de factousers, but to amuch lesser extent are they recognized as the dejure users. However, an increasing number ofcountries are changing policies and granting morerights to indigenous peoples. In Asia, the 1997Philippines Indigenous Peoples Rights Act pro-vides indigenous communities with considerableinfluence in natural resource management issues.Despite the diversity of policies and specific cir-cumstances, the most common policy problemsencountered by indigenous peoples regarding theirtraditional natural resource use and managementare effectively summarized in Table 10.

Many countries are exploring new models ofcommunity forestry, collaborative protected areamanagement strategies and community land-useplanning. Such transitions are not without prob-lems for previously centralized government agen-cies and disempowered communities. Many coun-

tries have serious implementation needs. In suchcases, supporting policy reform can be a signifi-cant action at the ecoregional level, bearing inmind that the level and kind of support will varyconsiderably across ecoregions. As protected areasremain a component of the ecoregion conservationapproach, supporting policy-makers in developingsuitable collaborative management policies will bea cornerstone strategy.

Other models of in situ conservation willneed further exploration, in particular those whereconservation practitioners work directly withindigenous communities and organizations. Poli-cies concerning tenure security, government fund-

UUsseeffuull ccoonncceeppttss oonn ttrraaddiittiioonnaall rreessoouurrccee uussee

n Common or communal property resources: in contrast to private and public property, access tocommon property resources is restricted to a limited group of individuals or communities.

n Devolution: transfer of authority and responsibility to recognize and empower local-level institu-tions.

n Free-riding: the act of benefiting from the exploitation of a resource without contributing to thecosts of maintaining or renewing it.

n Open access: free from regulation or management of resources; access is free and unlimited.

n Public property: in contrast to common property resources which are owned by a group, publicproperty is owned by ‘everyone’ – generally meaning the state.

n Tenure: the rights and responsibilities of an individual or institution over access to a resource.

n Traditional or indigenous resource management systems: a general term to describe often highlylocalized practices, institutions, rules and regulations related to natural resource management,typically differing from, or existing prior to, management as defined by the state.

In Bolivia, the Forests, Trees and PeoplesProgramme under the Food and AgricultureOrganisation (FAO) developed a partnershipwith the forest-dwelling Yuracaré communi-ties, supporting management planning andimplementation involving both communitiesand the state forestry service. Forest man-agement plans, based on user-group-orient-ed methodology, took into account traditionalindigenous institutions and user rights to thesurrounding forest areas. While establishingeffective solutions at the grass roots level,lack of legal approval of the managementplan, granting the Yuracaré communitiesexclusive user rights and formal managementresponsibilities, impeded long-term sustain-ability (Andersson and Ortiz-Chour 1996).

71

Further Information

ing schemes, agriculture, forestry and administra-tive power will have enormous influence on suchpartnerships. A two-pronged strategy targetingboth policy work and field-level activities will bethe most fruitful avenue for action.

Field and policy links

Supporting policy work through field-level activi-ties will in many cases correspond to the needs ofboth governments and indigenous communitiesgrappling with complex policy environments. Thismay involve:

n Engaging in direct implementation of conducivepolicies by supporting field-level activities rec-ognizing traditional management institutionsand use. Examples include mapping, demarca-tion, institution building and the direct provisionof legal and financial support. WWF is buildingstrong partnerships in this regard, for example inthe Arctic, where indigenous peoples areincreasingly managing their own territories.

n Supporting pilot projects to develop field-levelknowledge and experiences which can informpolicy-making on, for example, customarytenure rights and management practices. Incountries where legal and political support totraditional resource use and management isinsufficient, WWF can provide the technicaland financial assistance to develop on-the-ground experiences and locally appropriatemodels for supporting the use and tenure secu-rity of indigenous peoples. Many governmentagencies lack confidence in traditional institu-tions, but are willing to engage in testing exer-cises in order to find viable solutions. Pilotprojects have in fact become a standard way ofaddressing policy-field linkages. More oftenthan not, however, these are implemented byexternal institutions which create mechanismswith high dependence on limited, externalfunding, instead of support to more sustainablegovernment programmes. In addition, follow-up activities and broader implementation oftenlag behind.

TTaabbllee 1100.. CCoommmmoonn ppoolliiccyy pprroobblleemmss aanndd ppootteennttiiaall aaccttiioonn

SSaammppllee ooff ccoommmmoonn ppoolliiccyy pprroobblleemmss

n Non-recognition of traditional commons tenurearrangements (e.g. emphasis on private property or state (public) control

n No legal recognition of traditional institutions

n Direct prohibition of traditional natural resourceuse or livelihood practices

n No legal recognition of traditional tenure and usewithin protected area policies

n Lack of benefits and management roles in natural resource management

n Land-use plans/policies opening up indigenouspeoples’ territories for commercial timber extraction or heavy in-migration

n Prohibition of commercial extraction by indigenous communities

n General lack of recognition of customary lawpractices.

PPootteennttiiaall aaccttiioonn

n Support the recognition of common propertytenure by indigenous peoples whether as transfer of ownership, management responsibilities or issuance of usufruct rights.

n Support recognition of indigenous institutions

n Traditional resource use and livelihood practicesacknowledged and legalized

n Protected area policies expanded with clear provisions for indigenous peoples’ tenurearrangements

n Support increased involvement in naturalresource management institutions and benefit-sharing mechanisms

n Support land-use planning/policies that recognize indigenous territory and requires Prior Informed Consent

n Support user rights and sustainable marketingpolicies for indigenous communities

n Be open to and seek to integrate traditionaltenure and land entitlement practices that maydiffer from those that are officially recognized.

72

When developing policies:

n Identify in which ways the broader policy envi-ronment affects specific legislation and poli-cies; seek to establish linkages to broaderprocesses;

n Be gradual and adaptive; acknowledge that‘participation in management’ and the ‘devolu-tion of responsibilities’ are considered by somecountries a threat to centralized politicalregimes;

n Seek to make policy suggestions compatiblewith existing political structures and practices;

n Take the advice of both indigenous organiza-tions and specialized government agencieswhen designing national level interventions;

n Be concrete and realistic in recommendations.Many reports make very broad policy state-ments about ‘increasing participation’ or‘changing the system completely’ rather thanformulating concrete recommendations.

Strengthening the capacity for sustainableresource use

A number of different processes are leading con-servation practitioners to work directly with tradi-tional management institutions and mechanisms.First, customary tenure is increasingly being rec-ognized in national policies on natural resourcemanagement and land use. Secondly, the new con-

servation and development paradigms recognizethe central role of indigenous institutions in sus-taining biodiversity. And thirdly, traditional man-agement institutions are encountering new internalas well as external challenges, highlighting theneed for adaptive strategies. Conservation practi-tioners, however, are hesitant to support indige-nous management systems, based on the argumentthat these institutions and mechanisms are outdat-ed, insufficient or inept. The approach suggestedhere is to acknowledge both the strengths andweaknesses of traditional institutions and to pro-vide support accordingly.

Rather than starting from scratch, acknowl-edging the existence of traditional managementpractices not only provides access to accumulatedexperiences, but leads to identifying the priorityresource and management concerns of the com-munities. These are often poorly understood andnot taken into account when dealing with indige-nous peoples.

Much research has documented the differentinternal and external pressures affecting tradition-al management practices. The range of factorsleading to crumbling institutions is considerableand includes the heavy influx of outsiders, socio-cultural changes, land limitations, resource scarci-ty, policy contradictions and market pressures.However, much less research has been devoted totranslating this knowledge into action-orientedsolutions. Researching and documenting tradition-al resource use and management practices jointlywith the indigenous communities and their organ-izations will be a necessary starting point.Although resource depletion may be observed and


In the Philippines, the Tagbanuas have usedand protected the waters around CoronIsland, considered as sacred, for genera-tions. Recent settlements of migrant fisher-men, who use dynamite among their fishingmethods, have put increasing pressure onmarine resources. Through PAFID, a localNGO, WWF has supported the mapping anddocumentation of the Tagbanuas’ ancestralwaters, which has led to discussions at thepolicy level confirming the coverage of ances-tral waters under the Ancestral Domain Act.

In East Kalimantan, WWF supportedthe Bentian Dayak through an IndonesianNGO (PLASMA) to map their forests anddocument traditional resource managementpractices. This led to a policy change exclud-ing Bentian forests and rattan gardens fromtimber conversion, leaving 100,000 hectaresof intact forest under indigenous stewardship.

“Given all the management responsibility forresources like wildlife, [the Bowankez inBotswana] knew they could go out and huntany time. They had their own regional con-servation systems that allowed them to knowthat certain animals should not be killed dur-ing specific periods of the year. Even if theywere on a hunting mission and tracking ani-mals, they could detect whether a particularanimal was male or female and, on thisbasis, know very well which animal to kill.They are now given a hunting permit, whichstipulates what they can take. With the per-mit system, the people wouldn’t really takeon the conservation aspect as their responsi-bility. They are just now out to kill’ (Mulazana1999).

73

discussed early in the data-collecting phase, fur-ther documentation and collective discussions maybe needed before community institutions as awhole take on the lessons learned in managementpractices and mechanisms.

Indigenous management cannot be isolatedfrom its broader context. The danger of partial orhistorical descriptions of ‘traditional management’is ever present. The point is to identify from anaction perspective how mechanisms under stresscan best be supported to take up current chal-lenges. This requires looking at traditional man-agement from different angles. Some features oftraditional management systems are given in Table11.

In seeking to strengthen traditional manage-ment institutions:

n Ensure that institutional arrangements and sup-port are in place. Are both government agen-cies and indigenous organizations receptive tonew ideas and ready to cooperate? Are finan-cial and technical resources and appropriatepolicies in place for the long term?

n Beware of stereotypes: support site-specificanalysis rather than standard approaches;

n Support adaptive capacities rather than intro-ducing models that may have worked else-where;

n Seek to identify and apply existing manage-ment practices; find out how they correspond toindigenous habitat and landscape categories;

n Look at interconnected habitats and land-scapes; remember that indigenous peoplesoften use and manage a multitude of differentareas in different ways and at different times;

n From an institutional perspective, bring link-ages at village, regional and national levels intothe support programme. Traditional manage-ment systems and practices are generally tiedup with those of surrounding communities andbroader government structures. Developing‘closed’ indigenous models might increase con-flict or disrupt pre-existing modes of collabora-tion, shared use and management structures.

Addressing traditional use

Use of a particular resource is far from alwaysbeing a problem for conservation. Some argue it isa prerequisite for long-term conservation, while

others argue that traditional use forms are crucialfor shaping habitat and landscape types and thusincrease biodiversity. Conservation by indigenouspeoples is generally linked to continued useinvolving, for example, restrictions on where for-est land may be cleared for agriculture, wheregrazing may take place or where fuel wood may becollected. Restricted access to such sites is appliedto sustain resources that serve to fulfil daily needs.Most indigenous communities are constantlyadapting according to their subsistence needs, aswell as to new opportunities presented by the mar-ket economy. Nevertheless, the traditional conser-vation approach has been to limit or hinder tradi-tional use, particularly within protected areas, byimposing scientifically defined regulations, permitsystems and suchlike.

Indigenous communities are often reliant ona whole range of species depending on the season,harvest yields and household composition. Suchbroad-ranging livelihood strategies enable com-munity members to adapt to changing circum-stances, while also giving them a stake in environ-mental issues such as ecoregion conservation.

Traditional use by indigenous peoples hasbeen and continues to be a source of conflict.Whether hunting of marine mammals in the Arc-tic, collection of non-timber forest products, orhunting or shifting cultivation practices in thetropics, the conservation practitioner enters a fieldloaded with sensitivities and politics. This makes it

Further Information

Despite problems in securing good baselinedata, research and training on wildlife sur-veying carried out in the WWF project withthe Xavante in Brazil eventually led to theformulation of wildlife management propos-als and recommendations. The projectencountered numerous problems, not leastfactionalism among and within the communi-ties and lack of socio-cultural knowledge onthe part of WWF. While agreement waseventually reached among the four Xavantecommunities, based on their own interpreta-tion of WWF’s recommendations, inter-vil-lage rivalries resurfaced before formal ratifi-cation was reached and raised the broadercontext of Xavante factionalism. Graham(2000) argues that this factionalism is part ofXavante culture and as such represents asocio-cultural issue that could have beenaddressed earlier.

74


TTaabbllee 1111.. SSoommee ffeeaattuurreess ooff ttrraaddiittiioonnaall mmaannaaggeemmeenntt ssyysstteemmss

MMeemmbbeerrsshhiippResearch themes: Are membership criteria for people directly involved in or under the management systemclear? Is this group confined to a specific number of people? What is the impact and what are thebenefits/opportunities of different group sizes/local units and changing member composition (homogeneity/heterogeneity)? What ability does the group have to exclude outsiders/free-riders?

Action support to: Formalizing membership criteria and statutes; clarifying members’ rights and responsibilities; collaborating with government agencies in addressing encroachment problems.

OOrrggaanniizzaattiioonnResearch themes: To what extent and in what form is management organized? To what extent is traditionalmanagement recognized by local authorities and policy provisions?

Action support to: Applying and instrumentalizing rights; organization building (leadership training, financial management training, etc.); legal recognition of traditional institutions and mechanisms.

DDeeffiinnaabbllee bboouunnddaarriieessResearch themes: Assessment of boundaries; indigenous forms of demarcation; boundary knowledge and use;outside attitudes; effectiveness of boundary maintenance.

Action support to: Mapping; documentation; demarcation; conflict resolution; formalization and legalization of traditional use areas and land categories.

SSttrroonngg iinntteerrnnaall iinnssttiittuuttiioonnssResearch themes: Identification of local institutions/bodies; identification of incentives/disincentives for individuals; comparison of benefits for collaboration over individualistic action; identification of collective mechanisms for decision-making; effectiveness of community-level monitoring.

Action support to: Raising capacity of local institutions; addressing disincentives; strengthening monitoring practices.

MMaannaaggeemmeenntt rruulleess aanndd rreegguullaattiioonnssResearch themes: Do rules guide behaviour? Who makes the rules? Are traditional management rules andregulations effective? Do they affect all members equally? Are rules defined and compatible with national legislation and local conditions? How are the rules enforced? Are sanctions adapted to local circumstances?

Action support to: Strengthening and institutionalizing rules; securing policy recognition.

CCoonnfflliicctt rreessoolluuttiioonn mmeecchhaanniissmmssResearch themes: Assess the level of internal and external conflicts involving the indigenous communities.Assess different existing conflict resolution mechanisms. To what extent are they successful in solving conflicts?

Action support to: Addressing unresolved conflicts; revitalizing or strengthening local conflict resolutionmechanisms; conflict prevention.

RReessoouurrccee cchhaarraacctteerriissttiiccssResearch themes: Size and boundaries of resource/population; mobility; regeneration characteristics; sustainability levels/yields of resources/use; the extent to which the resource can it be used by several users;dependence on resources (i.e. do resources meet the needs?); biodiversity impact.

Action support to: Joint biological/use assessments; monitoring; analysis and recommendations.

MMaarrkkeettResearch themes: Assessing market/demand impacts; marketing potential of local products.

Action support to: Cooperative/enterprise institution building; exploring and promoting certificationopportunities.

SSoouurrccee: Inspired by Arnold 1998

all the more important that the issue be addressedin a systematic manner, jointly with the indigenouscommunities. While there is an emerging consen-sus among conservation practitioners that sustain-able use by indigenous communities should besupported, there are differing notions of what this

implies and how it should be approached. In sev-eral regions, WWF has actively addressed theissue of sustainable or wise consumptive resourceuse by indigenous groups.

Within protected areas, the issue of naturalresource use by indigenous communities is being

75

developed under various types of collaborativemanagement arrangements. In practice thisrequires guidance to support indigenous commu-nities in determining what can be used and to whatextent. Different types of mapping, zoning andregulatory arrangements are evolving to reflectthese changes. Considerable efforts are being putinto identifying sustainable levels of resourceextraction and putting mechanisms in place toenforce them within protected areas. However,there remain many challenges in terms of:

n Obtaining representative baseline data;

n Reaching appropriate zoning and harvestingagreement with indigenous communities;

n Identifying sustainability levels in complex and‘unpredictable’ ecosystems;

n Addressing root causes behind unsustainableexploitation;

n Developing locally appropriate solutions;

n Engaging traditional ecological knowledge inpractical ways;

n Establishing low-cost monitoring of resourceuse; and

n Ensuring sustainable practices.

The most productive efforts being undertakenare joint activities that realistically involve action-oriented research into ecology, use profiles andmarkets. Some research projects conduct extensivedocumentation on all three aspects, while others arerapid assessments with local communities. Initia-tives that lead to community-based resource usemonitoring activities are increasingly being takenup. One such is the partnership between WWF andthe Foi in Papua New Guinea, under which WWFhas produced a set of specific recommendations fol-lowed up by community meetings, awareness-rais-ing activities and assistance to the communities inimplementing the recommendations adopted.

In Bwindi National Park in Uganda, lessonslearned from sustainable use programmes included:

n predictive ecological, anthropological and eco-nomic tools should be used to avoid cases wheregood intentions catalyse resource depletion;

n predicting the sustainability of harvestingrequires an assessment of the biological factorsinfluencing the growth of the species con-cerned, as well as the socio-economic factorsthat drive demand;

n the complexities of implementation increaseexponentially with increasing numbers ofspecies and higher numbers of resource users;

n monitoring the success of multiple-use pro-grammes is essential – monitoring proceduresmust be robust, pragmatic and cheap;

n ecological impacts must be considered beyondthe individual plant level, hence monitoringshould be at the plant population and forestdynamics level (Cunningham 2000).

Further Information

The importance of traditional use for themaintenance of landscape or habitat is illus-trated in two National Parks in Nepal, whereannual grass cutting was first permitted inRoyal Chitwan National Park and later inRoyal Bardia National Park. Cutting andburning of tall grasses in riverine grasslandshad long been a part of ecosystem manage-ment in these areas, creating grasslands andmaintaining them against forest encroach-ment to provide material for local wattle andthatching. The habitat also support importantspecies such as rhinoceros. Although grasscutting and burning in Royal Chitwan was ini-tially banned, along with other local naturalresource uses, protests by local people andthe realization by park officials of the impor-tance of these practices for maintaining vitalrhinoceros habitat led to a change in think-ing. The park is now open for a limited peri-od each year and villagers pay a nominal feefor access and are allowed to harvest asmuch as they can cut and carry out. In 1993,60,000 people harvested more than USD 0.5million worth of products (Stevens 1997b).

TTrraaddiittiioonnaall uussee cchhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss

n High diversity of species and multipleuses of each species;

n Low-intensity use;

n Quick feedback mechanisms (in cases ofchanges in resource base);

n Manipulation or simulation of ecologicalprocesses to produce certain characteris-tics (for e.g. hunting, agro-forestry, graz-ing, trapping purposes);

n Traditional ecological knowledge of species,habitat and landscape inter-linkages.

76


While similar initiatives will be relevant out-side protected areas, it is also clear that the broad-er focus of ecoregion conservation will require avariety of different strategies in addressing sus-tainable use. An interesting case is the WWF workon consumptive use of species in the Arctic. Basedon earlier guidelines on commercial, consumptiveuse of wild species on a global scale, studies wereundertaken in three indigenous communities tolook at their appropriateness. This resulted in:

n Identifying places where guidelines could beamended to make them more appropriate to thesocio-economic and ecological conditions of theArctic, as represented in the study communities;

n Providing a preliminary assessment of howwell wild species use and management in thestudy communities conform to the currentguidelines’ criteria for sustainability (Freese,Ewins and Prokosch 1998).

Important conclusions include the roleplayed by co-management systems and policyframeworks in assigning priority to traditional har-vesting rights, as well as to biodiversity conserva-tion. However, such arrangements cannot beexpected to be in place in all ecoregions. Tradi-tional resource use by indigenous peoples is understress due to ever-growing market demands put-ting increased internal pressures on the communi-ties, as well as leading to higher external pressureson limited resources. To reverse these trends with-in an ecoregion conservation framework, thethreats to traditional use will need to be addressedwith the indigenous communities involved. Forsustainable use to make sense to indigenous com-munities, they need assurances of long-term tenuresecurity and maintenance of exclusive user rights.Indigenous communities are generally wellinformed on problems of resource limits andaccess and will in broad terms be able to identifyoverexploitation. This puts them in a favourableposition when it comes to addressing causes lead-ing to unsustainable use and designing joint actionwith conservation practitioners.

Promoting alternatives to traditional presenceand use – addressing the implications of development

While conservation practitioners are increasinglyexploring ways of enabling indigenous peoples toremain in their traditional settlements and contin-ue their livelihood strategies, many conservationprojects directly or indirectly encourage indige-nous peoples to move out of protected areas orchange their livelihood strategies. Such ‘encour-agements’ may take the guise of resettlement pro-grammes, legally prohibiting traditional use, pro-moting alternative income generation, or integrat-ed conservation and development projects underwhich people become less dependent on theresources traditionally used within the designedprotected area.

A frequently overlooked argument whenalternative income generation is proposed toindigenous communities is the broader importanceof traditional practices. A common approach isstill to consider traditional practices as somethingthat is non-viable and that should be abandoned, tobe replaced by other livelihood strategies, particu-larly in places where traditional practices are con-sidered destructive. In practice, developmentchoices include promotion of new crops, small-scale industry or other new income- or employ-ment-generating activities linked to the generalnotion that most land-use forms are a major causeof biodiversity erosion. While this holds good formajor land conversion/mono-cropping schemes,the situation is different when it comes to tradi-tional practices, and there may be several unex-pected disadvantages of pursuing such ‘socio-eco-nomic engineering’ activities, for example:25

n Changes in key habitats and landscapes, wheretraditional practices serve to retain landscape,habitat and species diversity;

n Loss of interest in traditional forest and marineareas, and an increase in unsustainable activi-ties and encroachment;

n Destabilization of food security mechanisms,often putting extra pressure on habitats andthreatened species.

25 The danger of undermining traditional practices is also frequently present in other well-intentioned activities. Health-supportactivities may undermine traditional health practices, tourism activities risk destabilizing religious sites and practices, and for-mal education can threaten language and traditional knowledge.

77

Supporting indigenous natural-resource-basedeconomic activities and biocultural diversity

In West Java, forestry officials have started work-ing with the Kasepuhan people on repairingdegraded forests by using a local practice called‘tumpangsari’ or ‘inter-cropping’, based on thecontinuous use of swidden agriculture (Adimi-hardja 1999). Indigenous knowledge is importantnot just in terms of the description, proper man-agement and harvesting of a product, but also interms of the maintenance of the ecologicalprocesses and biodiversity linked to traditionaleconomic activities, such as cultivation or animalhusbandry. Although such diversity in terms oflandscape, habitats and species is being document-ed and acknowledged, it is increasingly underthreat from agricultural policies, the promotion ofmono-cropping, the introduction of high-yieldcrop varieties, lack of tenure security, use of pesti-cides and a range of other factors. The ecoregionconservation approach offers an opportunity toaddress these jointly issues with indigenous peo-ples, through:

n addressing the threats which lead to the break-down of traditional practices, such as tenureand property problems;

n promoting the sustainability and continuoususe of these practices through agro-forestry,indigenous seed experimentation and the devel-opment of market opportunities;

n promoting incentive mechanisms for tradition-al agricultural practices;

Further Information

IIss rreesseettttlleemmeenntt aa ccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn ssoolluuttiioonn??

There is a general tendency to confuse the presence of people with their impact. This not only neg-lects the potential positive impact of local presence in the area, but also omits the multitude of alter-native means of reducing pressure. Moreover it is often assumed that erasing a human settlementwithin a protected area has the effect of removing all presences from the area. People’s mobility andwillingness to travel over long distances in search of resources and land for agriculture, combined withthe frequent inefficacy of efforts to keep people out, proves the opposite. Involuntary resettlement typ-ically does not serve conservation to any great extent, but it does have tremendous negative impactson local communities: landlessness, marginalization, increased mortality, food insecurity, social disin-tegration and increased dependence on scarce resources in new environments are just a few exam-ples. Resettlement may also provoke settler-host conflicts, as more people compete over the sameresources, leading to heightened pressures on the natural resource base (Cernea 1997). While thismay not necessarily impact the core zone of a protected area, ecoregional impact is considerable.

In response to the mounting criticism of the use of resettlement programmes, resettlementplans are increasingly required to undergo impact assessments, consultation and participatory plan-ning processes, and adequate compensation provisions, as well as obtaining prior informed consentfrom the communities involved. In the World Bank-funded Rajiv Gandhi National Park project in India,indigenous communities were offered the choice between staying in their existing settlements orresettling in communities outside the park. In reality, all benefits and development efforts provided bythe local forest department were concentrated in the resettlement areas, making the choice consid-erably less voluntary (Samithi 2000). Despite refined policies on resettlement, putting them into prac-tice remains a problem. More importantly, financing resettlement programmes reduces the fundsavailable for activities that foster innovative conservation approaches to support continuous tradi-tional presence, use and management.

The Indian ‘Honey Bee’ network and maga-zine (published in seven languages), found-ed by Anil Gupta, works against the erosionof ecological and technological knowledgeand promotes the sharing of traditional tech-niques and innovations between farmers. Ithas two basic values:

“To collect knowledge from people sothat they do not complain, just as flow-ers do not complain when the honeybee collects their pollen;

To connect farmer to farmer in local lan-guages; just as the honey bee connectsflower to flower through pollination.”

Other activities include biodiversity contestsamong schoolchildren, database documen-tation of farmer’s innovations and supportinginnovators as researchers (Gupta 1999).

78

n promoting policy reform to eliminate subsidiesand credit policies for high-yield varieties, fer-tilizers and pesticides. (Thrupp 1999)

For ecoregion conservation to work in practice,there is a need to strengthen alternatives to cen-tralized protection approaches. While co-manage-ment of protected areas presents one solution,other approaches such as benefit sharing, compen-sation and incentives are needed for areas that falloutside this category. Addressing local needs andsecuring local benefits has become part of stan-dard conservation language. However, what thisimplies in practice varies tremendously.

Benefit-sharing and incentive systems rest onthe foundation that if stakeholders – in this caseindigenous communities – have neither benefits norincentives, then a conservation initiative will havedifficulties in getting off the ground. This is not toargue that benefits and incentives automaticallylead to better conservation. The difficulty has oftenbeen finding benefit systems that satisfy everyone,and to a sufficient degree. Part of the problem hasbeen the predominance of externally devised bene-fit mechanisms that restrict potential benefits andare of limited relevance to indigenous communities.

The obligation of conservationists to supportindigenous peoples in receiving benefits is paral-leled by a need to ensure proper cost-sharingmechanisms among the parties involved. A com-pany or government agency may be profiting fromtourism or research without contributing to theconservation of the resources that typically are inthe hands of already impoverished communities orunderpaid forest protection staff. Conservationpractitioners can push for more equitable sharingmechanisms, and support the participation ofindigenous communities in devising benefit-shar-ing agreements. Not all problems however are par-ticipation-related: benefit-sharing mechanisms atthe community level need to take into account arange of internal issues and problems.

Imposing benefits – the legacy of development

Where the stakes and needs of local communitiesare at issue, community development schemessuch as alternative income generation, the buildingof schools, health, and tree plantations often arise.In some cases, big schemes such as road building,

dam construction or plantations are also put for-ward. Such large-scale initiatives have been wide-ly criticized for their top-down approach and inef-ficiency in reaching the poorest, and are rarelyproposed or supported by conservation projects. Inmany cases, even small-scale community develop-ment schemes may not cover the needs of indige-nous peoples or secure the benefits in which theyare interested. This would typically include bettersocial justice, continuous and secure access to tra-ditionally used resources, the enduring right totheir settlements and support in preventingencroachment on their territories. Beyond the par-ticular collective benefits for indigenous peoples,this may also involve access to basic services pro-vided by the state, such as citizenship, formal edu-cation, health, and agricultural extension services.

Global notions of benefits, whether in termsof money, development or influence need to bereplaced by or embrace local ideas of relevant ben-efits. Ignoring them will most likely make conser-vation work difficult, and in any case would standin contradiction to indigenous peoples’ right todetermine their own development choices.


In an analysis of eco-development in twoIndian protected areas, one author conclud-ed that: “The Department seems quite ill-equipped to handle development work in asocially and ecologically sensitive way....there is not much involvement of the villagersin planning out the eco-development activi-ties... the eco-development process does notseem to be integrated with the managementplans for the sanctuaries themselves... ben-efits are more in terms of charity than asrights... if these shortcoming can beaddressed, eco-development would be animportant form of benefit-sharing” (Kothari1997). The lessons are clear:

n Indigenous community benefits shouldnot be treated in isolation from broadermanagement issues;

n Indigenous communities should beinvolved in designing appropriate benefitsrecognizing their particular rights;

n Benefit sharing requires a specific set ofskills whether in terms of rural develop-ment, revenue sharing, co-managementarrangements or compensation schemes.

44.. BBeenneeffiitt sshhaarriinngg,, ccoommppeennssaattiioonn,,iinncceennttiivveess aanndd iinnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeoopplleess

79

Compensation schemes and indigenous peoples

Compensating local communities for lost access,tenure, user rights, development opportunities,crop damage and use of knowledge is a tricky butunavoidable issue. This is particularly so – and hasimplications for conservation work – when itcomes to commercial agreements concerningindigenous peoples’ knowledge of biogeneticresources (Posey and Dutfield 1996). Compensa-tion through buying or leasing land from tradition-al owners is common practice among some gov-ernment agencies and NGOs. Typically, landown-ers are compensated financially when they agreecessation of cultivation or use restrictions on theirlands. However, many indigenous peoples cannotbenefit from such schemes as their rights to landare often not recognized or are overruled bynational interests in preserving wilderness. Otherswho do benefit face the challenge of findingappropriate compensation schemes which reflect,for example, common property systems, non-mon-etary economies or overlapping claims.

Of key importance is whether compensationschemes have been imposed or voluntarily estab-lished through prior informed consent. Whilst thelatter is essential, it presents a number of prob-lems. As incentives and compensation schemes areoften formulated or provided by outsiders, exter-nal monitoring is necessary, expensive and oftenonly possible in retrospect.

Monetary compensation may also result inparticular problems for indigenous communities.Corruption and unreliable governance structurespose a serious problem in many countries, fre-quently affecting indigenous communities. Insome cases, indigenous communities do notreceive the promised share, while in others com-plicated bureaucratic practices, remoteness or lackof papers may make it difficult for indigenouscommunities to access benefits.

Many indigenous communities have onlylimited experience of monetary economies. Thesudden influx of money has, in some cases, led toincreased rates of alcoholism, gambling, depend-

ency on welfare and external funds, rather thanleading to new subsistence or income-generatingactivities. As the safety net of traditional foodsecurity has been removed, the result can be dete-riorating health conditions, under-nourishmentand lack of self-reliance. In such cases, seekingagreement on non-cash compensation forms ishighly advisable.

Agreeing on the institutional framework forchannelling compensation, monetary or otherwise,back to communities requires considerable atten-tion. Community development funds or activitiessuch as the building of schools are often pursuedto avoid some community members being left out.Such schemes may, however, suffer from inade-quacy in properly addressing internal differenceswithin the community. Some groups of users, typ-ically the poorest, will suffer more from restrictedrights and may not be compensated accordingly.Further, the provision of compensation to repre-sentative organizations runs the risk that users’interests are not sufficiently represented in themanagement of funds. Such criticism has beenlevelled against the panchayat institutions in Indiaand Nepal and the CAMPFIRE programme inZimbabwe (Arnold 1998:45).

Certification and the potential of marketincentives

Certification provides market-based incentives forimproving management, conservation and the pro-tection of indigenous peoples’ rights. Much workis being done in the area of aquatic, marine, agri-cultural, and forest products. The principles of theForest Stewardship Council (FSC), for example,provide clear guidance on both conservation andindigenous peoples issues.

The guidelines developed by the Center forInternational Forestry Research (CIFOR) on Sus-tainable Forest Management include useful indica-tors, tools and methods for assessing human well-being. Based on field testing of criteria and indi-cators, practical ways of, for example, conducting

Further Information

In Alaska, native communities were com-pensated with funds from the Exxon-Valdezoil spill for giving up development rights andtransferring land to a wildlife refuge(Spergel 1997).

In Amboseli National Park, Kenya, indige-nous Maasai were to receive up to 25 percent of park entrance fees, as well as feesfrom hunting concessions. Government laterbanned hunting and failed to compensatethe Maasai accordingly (Spergel 1997).

80

a stakeholder analysis are suggested. It is notewor-thy that indigenous peoples in general will gethigh scores when ranked according to the eightdimensions identified – proximity, pre-existingrights, dependency, poverty, local knowledge, cul-ture/forest link, power deficit, and mean (Colfer etal. 1999). In other words, there is usually no prob-lem in identifying their stakes; difficulties mayarise in trying to agreeappropriate manage-ment solutions lead-ing to certification.

It was original-ly assumed that certi-fication would signif-icantly benefit com-munity forestry oper-ations. However,most certified opera-tions are industrialand focus on timberproduction for inter-national markets. Thelimited number ofcertified communityforestry operationsare typically depend-ent on external sup-port, for example topay for the certifica-tion process. AsIrvine (1999:9) con-cludes: “No blueprintmodel has beendeveloped that worksfor the large majorityof communities whomanage their forestlands for agriculturaland agro-forestryproduction as well as subsistence and market pro-duction of forest products, especially NTFPs”.The challenge of developing socially and eco-nomically appropriate models and practicesremains and could play a central role in support-ing indigenous peoples within the ecoregion con-servation framework.

The following three actions are recommended:

1. Avoid imposing preconceived types of bene-fits; conduct an assessment of, or consulta-tion on, existing benefits and incentives, aswell as evaluating the potential for loss ofsuch benefits and the related costs.

This may involve:

n customary management of areas and resourcesthat may be threatened by new managementregimes;

n resource, land or water access that may beaffected by a conservation initiative;

n traditional livelihood opportunities that aredirectly affected ormay be indirectlyaffected in the longrun.

Existing benefitsmay subsist under aconservation initiativeor may be altered sig-nificantly if, for exam-ple, the establishmentof a protected arearules out or seriouslyrestricts traditional use.Indeed, governmentregulations on conser-vation may severelylimit indigenous com-munities’ rights to cul-tivation, use and tradeof resources and otherdevelopment activities.Consultative analysisof the actual impact ofthese activities shouldbe undertaken. Sincemany conservation ini-tiatives rely on rela-tively simplisticassumptions thathuman presence or

resource use are negative as such, initial researchshould therefore identify the shared benefits of theconservation initiative (e.g. improved tenure secu-rity and protection against encroachment).

2. Analyse the information collected togetherwith the indigenous partners to identify thepotential benefits and compensation formsthey are interested in. WWF has recognizedthe rights of indigenous peoples to a numberof benefits (WWF 1996). Include these injointly determining not just existing bene-fits, but future potential benefits as well.

This may involve supporting indigenous commu-


Forest Stewardship Council Principle 3 on indige-nous peoples’ rights states: “The legal and cus-tomary rights of indigenous peoples to own, useand manage their lands, territories, andresources shall be recognized and respected.”

3.1 Indigenous peoples shall control forest man-agement on their lands and territoriesunless they delegate control with free andinformed consent to other agencies.

3.2 Forest management shall not threaten ordiminish, either directly or indirectly, theresources or tenure rights of indigenouspeoples.

3.3 Sites of special cultural, ecological, eco-nomic or religious significance to indigenouspeoples shall be clearly identified in cooper-ation with such peoples, and recognizedand protected by forest managers.

3.4 Indigenous peoples shall be compensatedfor the application of their traditional knowl-edge regarding the use of forest species ormanagement systems in forest operations.This compensation shall be formally agreedupon with their free and informed consentbefore forest operations commence.

SSoouurrccee: FSC 1999.

81

nities in obtaining legal titles to their lands andresources, and/or supporting them in prioritizingdevelopment and conservation activities on theirtraditional territories. It may also involve assistingindigenous communities in benefiting fromresource exploitation, tourism activities and theconservation initiative as such (see Table 12).

n Review potential compensation schemes andidentify solutions suitable to the local socio-economic context;

n Aim at compensation forms that support com-munities as a whole, but nevertheless specifi-cally address the different user groups or seg-ments within the communities to ensure thatthey receive compensation proportionate totheir previous benefits. Base initiatives onexisting benefit-sharing mechanisms within thecommunity;

n Ensure prior informed consent on compensa-tion and incentive schemes.

Be ready to make trade-offs to reach long-term solutions supported by indigenous communi-ties. Effective – and realistic – solutions are highlydependent on rich baseline data and a clear set ofbiodiversity and ecological priorities leading tooptimal choices of particular inter-linked habitats,landscapes and species compositions. Maintaincompensation schemes on a trial basis, with in-builtmonitoring and evaluation. Supporting indigenouscommunities’ right to future potential benefits iscrucial, and will be relevant, for example, in cases

of changing policy environments or new incomeopportunities through ecotourism, bio-prospectingor use of resources on their traditional territories.

3. Formalize benefit-sharing and compensa-tion mechanisms in an agreement clarifyingrights to benefits, cost sharing and conserva-tion responsibilities for both indigenouscommunities and government agencies.

The agreement could include a clear description ofthe area concerned, agreed-upon benefits and limi-tations on, for example, use, development activities,penalty systems and monitoring mechanisms(including baseline data on both ecological andsocio-economic issues). Benefit-sharing arrange-ments should be linked explicitly to indigenouscommunity-based conservation strategies. In somecases, while indigenous communities may receive acertain number of benefits, conservation is still con-sidered the task of outside management agencies.

It is important to agree on benefits that canbe provided on a long-term basis. The temptationto secure, for example, a considerable influx ofdevelopment funds through an internationallyfunded integrated conservation and developmentproject might be high, but it comes with the risk ofraised expectations and lack of ability on the partof under-funded government agencies to respondto such expectations in the long run. In such cases,there is a need to ensure a strong commitment tolong-term funding (and cost sharing) of conserva-tion; most protected areas, for example, hardlyearn enough to pay their staff’s salaries.

Further Information

TTaabbllee 1122.. CCoommmmoonn iissssuueess ttoo ccoonnssiiddeerr

SSuubbssiisstteennccee

n Fueln Foddern Non-timber forest productsn Timber and aquatic

resources.

EEccoonnoommiicc // LLiivveelliihhoooodd

n Forest / aquatic / grasslandresources

n Value enhancement of traditional products

n Employmentn Returns from commercial

use of knowledge of localresources

n Tourism revenuen Compensation for wildlife

damage/ opportunities lostn Development inputs.

SSoocciiaall // CCuullttuurraall // PPoolliittiiccaall

n Protection of cultural valuesn Social recognitionn Traditional health care

(plant-based medicinal systems)

n Empowerment / controln Educationn Capacity raising.

SSoouurrccee: Adapted from Kothari 1997.

82


In cases in which indigenous communitiesare given or are expected to undertake certain con-servation tasks in high biodiversity areas, attentionshould be paid to sharing costs. Where indigenouspeoples, for example, have been granted tenuresecurity, it cannot be expected that they will takeon the cost of monitoring use. Specific budgets orpercentages of protected area entrance fees can bedevoted to such initiatives.

The presence and size of protected areas have long

been the standard indicators for the biodiversityconsciousness of governments. Unfortunately,insensitive planning and policy-making have inmany places led to cultures of distrust, protest andresistance among indigenous peoples, making itespecially difficult to reach constructive dialogueson shared advantages. Recent policy developmentand guidance, particularly in the international con-servation arena, promote more collaborativearrangements. Many conservation practitioners arerecognizing a number of advantages to involvingindigenous peoples in protected area management:

n Use by indigenous communities serves as aconservation incentive to generate a local con-servation ethic and ensure local commitment toresist outside exploitation and encroachment;

n Similarly, it is being recognized that customaryuse and tenure of resources, in comparison tooverall no-use regulations, maintains the pres-ence and responsible interest of indigenouscommunities in preserving their environments.For some indigenous peoples, protected areascan serve as a viable strategy to secure custom-ary use and tenure rights, avoid furtherencroachment and increase their actual controlover development activities on their territories;

n There is an added value to integrating indige-nous knowledge systems and practices inunderstanding ecological processes and design-ing appropriate conservation strategies;

n Community institutions and traditional conser-vation mechanisms are a strong – and low-cost

– solution to sustainable use practices and pro-tecting watersheds and sacred sites;

n Indigenous peoples have a long-term interest inmaintaining healthy ecosystems.

Identifying specific joint advantages early onin the process further facilitates real commitmentfrom both indigenous peoples and conservationagencies. This in turn leads to the important processof identifying the different levels in the conservationstrategy. In a politicized context, the objective ofpromoting collaborative management with indige-nous peoples should be based on broad principles atthe outset, later contextualizing them within specif-ic socio-political and ecological frameworks.

Reforming protected area policies

Protected area policies and categories are highlydiverse for the approximately 10,000 protectedareas that exist worldwide. The majority have beenestablished within the last three decades. Howev-er, despite increasing international support forindigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation,many government policies are far from conducivewhen it comes to involving indigenous peoples inconservation activities. Even where appropriatepolicies are present, many field-level conserva-tionists or government agencies find it difficult toput the ideals into practice; such policies maytherefore need further elaboration or amendmentto clearly reflect the concrete steps needed tosecure co-management and participatory solu-tions. Securing conducive policies and categoriesis fundamental for the long-term sustainability ofefforts linking indigenous peoples and protectedareas. While interim or practical solutions may befound on the ground between communities andguards, local authorities and others, they stand lit-tle chance of surviving unless supportive policiesand legislation are in place.

At the international level, IUCN-The WorldConservation Union and the World Commissionon Protected Areas (WCPA) play an importantrole. Among the international IUCN/WCPA Pro-tected Area Management Categories, categories 5and 6 provide clear opportunities for indigenouspeoples’ involvement (Table 13).

27 Although low-cost in the long run, the actual consultation process, particularly in countries that are in the transition stage oftaking up collaborative management, may initially require higher levels of funding.

55.. SSuuppppoorrttiinngg ccoollllaabboorraattiivveemmaannaaggeemmeenntt

83

Even where countries have based their pro-tected area system on the IUCN categories, indige-nous peoples may encounter difficulties in secur-ing participatory rights. Such problems have longbeen recognized and recent action in terms of poli-cies and guidance testifies to the current interna-tional commitment to guide country-level work ina more constructive direction. The 1996 IUCNWorld Conservation Congress decision to promote“clear policy in relation to protected areas estab-lished in indigenous lands and territories”, and thejoint guidelines from IUCN/WCPA and WWF onindigenous and traditional peoples and protectedareas (IUCN/WCPA and WWF 1999; Beltran2000) are a clear indication of this intent. In thelatter, five principles are identified, accompaniedby specific guidelines:

Principle 1Indigenous and other traditional peopleshave long associations with nature and adeep understanding of it. Often they havemade significant contributions to themaintenance of many of the Earth’s mostfragile ecosystems, through their tradi-tional sustainable resource use practicesand culture-based respect for nature.Therefore, there should be no inherentconflict between the objectives of protect-ed areas and the existence, within and

around their borders, of indigenous andother traditional peoples. Moreover, theyshould be recognized as rightful, equalpartners in the development and imple-mentation of conservation strategies thataffect their lands, territories, waters,coastal seas, and other resources, and inparticular in the establishment and man-agement of protected areas.

Principle 2Agreements drawn up between conserva-tion institutions, including protected areamanagement agencies, and indigenousand other traditional peoples for theestablishment and management of pro-tected areas affecting their lands, territo-ries, waters, coastal seas and otherresources should be based on full respectfor the rights of indigenous and other tra-

Further Information

TTaabbllee 1133.. IIUUCCNN PPrrootteecctteedd AArreeaass MMaannaaggeemmeenntt CCaatteeggoorriieess 55 aanndd 66

Objectives

Management

n To bring benefits to the local community through the provision ofnatural products and services

n To maintain the harmonious interaction of nature and culture andthe continuation of traditional use

n To support lifestyles and economicactivities that are in harmony withnature and the preservation of thesocial and cultural fabric of the communities concerned.

n To provide a sustainable flow of natural products and services tomeet community needs, withoutresulting in the decline of the area’sbiological diversity.

CCaatteeggoorryy 55PPrrootteecctteedd LLaannddssccaappee // SSeeaassccaappee

CCaatteeggoorryy 66MMaannaaggeedd RReessoouurrccee PPrrootteecctteedd AArreeaa

By a public authority or a mosaic of private and public ownership operatinga variety of management regimes.

Ownership may be by government,community, private individuals or a combination of these: management maybe provided through local custom, supported and advised by governmentsand NGOs.

Encourage the reform of protected area poli-cies and categories to enable the participa-tion of indigenous peoples in redesigningzones; establish user rules and regulations;and ensure tenure security and representa-tion in existing management decision-mak-ing processes.

84

ditional peoples to traditional, sustain-able use of their lands, territories,waters, coastal seas and other resources.At the same time, such agreements shouldbe based on the recognition by indige-nous and other traditional peoples oftheir responsibility to conserve biodiver-sity, ecological integrity and naturalresources harboured in those protectedareas.

Principle 3The principles of decentralization, par-ticipation, transparency and accountabil-ity should be taken into account in allmatters pertaining to the mutual interestsof protected areas and indigenous andother traditional peoples.

Principle 4Indigenous and other traditional peoplesshould be able to share fully and equi-tably in the benefits associated with pro-tected areas, with due recognition to therights of other legitimate stakeholders.

Principle 5The rights of indigenous and other tradi-tional peoples in connection with protect-ed areas are often an internationalresponsibility, since many of the lands,territories, waters, coastal seas and otherresources that they own or otherwiseoccupy or use cross national boundaries,as indeed do many of the ecosystems inneed of protection.

These principles and their accompanyingguidelines provide useful steps and components aswell as the broader conceptual framework for thedevelopment of appropriate policies and manage-ment strategies. The WWF statement of principlesprovides similar input (WWF 1996). Again, the

actual work requires translating these principlesinto country-specific solutions. Beyond translatingkey documents into local languages, this involvespromoting collaborative management policies thatare suitable and relevant to local circumstances.This will require proving the validity of one’sarguments to both governments and indigenouspeoples. Engage policy-makers in a process of:

n Examining existing institutional arrangements,categories, and levels of participation;

n Identifying opportunities for gradually improv-ing such practices through the establishment ofnew categories;

n Trying out new solutions through pilot projects;

n Looking at institutional arrangements such asthe agencies in charge;

n Streamlining policies and administrativearrangements such as those influencing ruralareas in the buffer zones of protected areas,based on the understanding that protected areasare not isolated systems, whether in terms ofecology, economy or social linkages.


In Australia, discussions surrounding theprocess of establishing a comprehensiveprotected area system led to the explorationof collaboration possibilities with indigenouscommunities. Through dialogues betweenindigenous groups and government bodiesthe concept of ‘Indigenous Protected Areas’was developed. The concept was broadlyreviewed and consultations were undertakenby federal government authorities. Severaloperational issues concerning planningprocesses, trade-offs, financial support,expertise management and linkagesbetween land rights and national reserve sta-tus were raised. An Indigenous Task Forcecomprised of indigenous representativesfrom each of the six states was establishedand put in charge of overseeing 12 federalgovernment-funded pilot projects to test theconcept. Six provisional principles wereestablished to guide the pilot process on var-ious issues, including voluntary establish-ment, cultural heritage and the decision-making process. Although running into somejurisdictional problems, the experience hasgenerally been positive (WWF International1997).

Facilitate the establishment of protected areaplanning processes requiring indigenouspeoples’ participation or prior informed con-sent on issues affecting their lands, resourcemanagement strategies and knowledge.Ensure that customary settlement, tenureand use rights are fully respected when sup-porting the establishment of a new protected

85

Demystifying collaborative and participatorymanagement

The main concerns of indigenous peoples centrearound recognition of their rights to customarypresence, tenure and resource use practices. Suchissues are best addressed through an appropriateplanning process aiming at collaborative manage-ment. A basic definition of collaborative or partic-ipatory management is: ‘a situation in which twoor more social actors negotiate, define and guaran-tee amongst themselves a fair sharing of the man-agement functions, entitlements and responsibili-ties for a given territory, area or set of naturalresources’ (Borrini-Feyerabend et al.2000:1).

This may imply indigenous communitiesestablishing their own management of territoriesor protected areas in agreement with nationalgovernment, or agreements made under conven-tional protected area models with governmentagencies such as forestry departments. Suchagreements are the end-products of long process-es of negotiation, discussion and policy develop-ment. While some parties may be eager to startdeveloping management agreements right away,there is a need to ground the concept and deter-mine its feasibility in relation to existing policies,biodiversity protection strategies and fundingmechanisms.

Besides the paperwork and juridical aspectsof collaborative action, much will depend on peo-ple’s confidence in or resistance to collaborativeapproaches. In many cases it is quite likely thatlong dialogue, facilitation and conflict resolutionwill have to take place before co-managementwill be considered by the parties involved. It isnot uncommon to find government agenciesresisting the idea of sharing responsibilities withlocal communities, and likewise many local com-munities may not trust or be willing to work withgovernment agencies. The initial phases of datagathering should place activities in an appropri-ate context and seek to inform key assumptions ina long-term perspective. For example, in coun-tries lacking conducive policies, activities tostrengthen indigenous management practices andbiodiversity conservation may not work in aframework based on protected areas. In suchcases, rephrasing project objectives in terms ofstrengthening indigenous management practicesrather than supporting protected area establish-ment could be advantageous.

Some co-management initiatives withindigenous communities are highly dependent on

external advice and funding, and disappear oncethe supporting project comes to an end. It shouldalso be remembered that developing newapproaches requires extra time and funding interms of finding new approaches and solutions toinherently difficult problems.

Boundary demarcation, site selection, appro-priate management systems, formulating regula-tions, zoning, ecotourism, budget prioritization,hiring policies, benefit-sharing mechanisms,research plans, survey work, monitoring mecha-nisms, patrolling structures, appropriate finingsystems, resettlement, compensation mechanisms,and the role of external support are just some ofthe issues related to protected area policies andstrategies where indigenous peoples are con-cerned. For the conservation practitioner or gov-ernment agent confronting such needs for the firsttime, the following recommendations are offered:

n Avoid imposing your own agenda whendesigning a support programme, but promotedialogue between indigenous peoples and gov-ernment agencies on protected area manage-ment issues and problems;

n Use the available guidelines and principles as areminder of the key issues and find country-specific ways of integrating them;

n Do not commit financial or moral supportbefore government agencies have themselvesgiven such commitments. Be as concrete aspossible in wording objectives and activities inorder to avoid misinterpretations;

n Involve indigenous peoples in writing manage-ment plans either directly or through a processof consultation whereby communities givecomments on and endorse scientific reports, ordraft reports or recommendations with specificattention to use issues, zoning, boundarydemarcation, compensation agreements andinfluence on decision-making structures;

n Seek to formalize the inputs of indigenous peo-ples in planning, implementation and evalua-tion phases;

n Provide technical and financial support to pro-tected areas inhabited by indigenous peoples forapplication of consultative methodologies suchas customary resource use and tenure mappingin order to integrate and formalize customaryuser rights, settlements and tenure practices inco-management plans and agreements. Stevens

Further Information

86


(1999b:269) identifies a number of pointswhere protected areas inhabited by indigenouspeoples differ in terms of acknowledgement ofcommunity rights, management strategies andadministration (Table 14).

n When supporting change of practices in pro-tected areas inhabited by indigenous peoples,keep in mind that collaborative management isan open-ended process. As recent literature con-cludes, concepts of participation, involvementand consultation can mean anything from infor-mal meetings with villagers to active represen-tation and involvement in decision-making;

n Do not expect to introduce effective participa-tion overnight. Developing working relation-ships between policy-makers or practitionersschooled in ‘no-use’ conservation and localcommunities takes long efforts of sensitization,dialogue and experimentation;

n Support protected area agencies and indige-nous peoples in finding flexible solutions. Startout with small issues; suggesting, for example,land rights and collaborative managementboards at the outset may lead to abandonmentof the co-management idea altogether;

n Avoid preconceived co-management solutions,but build on existing practices. Many generalsupport programmes for protected areas offer

opportunities and provisions for indigenouspeoples’ involvement, for example throughresearch or ecotourism activities;

n Assist in the formulation of protected arearesearch agreements and regulations concern-ing indigenous peoples’ knowledge and theirinterests;

n Seek policy support. While in some countries itmay be beneficial to develop and demonstrateeffective solutions with indigenous peoplesbefore reaching the policy level, in most coun-tries securing policy commitment will probablybe necessary to persuade local agencies to con-sider indigenous peoples as partners;

n Sensitize and seek to understand the protectedarea administrative body; it may not be inter-ested in sharing its institutional power;

n Involve indigenous peoples in rewriting man-agement plans. Encourage participatory reformof user regulations and zoning to recognizeindigenous peoples’ rights to sustainable userather than statically defined traditional use(Stevens 1997a);

n Encourage reform of management institutionsto progressively involve and have indigenouspeoples represented in advisory and manage-ment councils;

TTaabbllee 1144.. IInnhhaabbiitteedd PPrrootteecctteedd AArreeaass:: LLaanndd UUssee aanndd MMaannaaggeemmeenntt

SSeettttlleemmeenntt aanndd ssuubbssiisstteennccee rriigghhttss1. Fully respected throughout the protected area.2. Limited to particular zones (as biosphere reserves).3. Limited to particular practices (traditional use only; specified subsistence or commercial use only;

sustainable use only).

NNaattuurraall rreessoouurrccee mmaannaaggeemmeenntt1. Management by local residents through traditional institutions.2. Management by local residents through modified local or national institutions.3. Co-management by local residents (e.g. via representatives on protected area forest or wildlife

management committees).4. Local enforcement of protected area regulations, with or without policy-making involvement.5. Local participation in policy-making and monitoring.

PPrrootteecctteedd aarreeaa aaddmmiinniissttrraattiioonn1. Local management.2. Co-management power-sharing arrangements.3. Lease of land for use as protected areas with specified conditions.4. Ratification of protected area status and management plans.5. Participation in devising protected area boundaries, goals and management plans.6. Consultation (informal) only.

87

n Aim at securing the basic building blocks ofcollaborative management (such as developingtrust between the parties; sensitizing govern-ment agencies to the importance of local useand tenure, as well as raising natural resourcemanagement issues with indigenous peoples;obtaining commitment from both sides to a par-ticipatory planning process and its results; andensuring that sufficient knowledge is available);

n Although co-management is best addressedand is usually achieved more rapidly in coun-tries that recognize the rights of indigenouscommunities, the conservation practitioner canbuild this goal into both planning and imple-mentation phases.

Further Information

88


This report was prepared by Gonzalo Oviedoand Peter Bille Larsen in WWF Interna-tional’s People & Conservation Unit, and

Luisa Maffi of Terralingua: Partnerships for Lin-guistic and Biological Diversity, an internationalNGO devoted to fostering the world’s linguisticdiversity and to researching the links between lin-guistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Itincludes contributions from Anthea Fallen-Bailey,David Harmon (both also of Terralingua) and Gra-ham Dutfield of the Working Group on Tradition-al Resource Rights.

The data in Table 1 are reproduced with per-mission from David Harmon (1998a). Map 1, alsobased on Harmon’s data (Harmon 1996), is repro-duced with permission from Maffi (1998). DavidHarmon made valuable comments and suggestionson earlier drafts of this report. Anthea Fallen-Bai-ley compiled preliminary data used for the analy-sis of correlations between ethnolinguistic groupsand Global 200 ecoregions, and helped with datainterpretation. Preston Hardison (ICONS Project)is thanked for providing the source of the data pre-sented in Table 2.

A preliminary phase of the research onindigenous peoples living in Global 200 ecore-gions was developed for WWF International in1998 by the Centre for People Education and Pro-motion (CEPP) and Paola Silva, with contributionsfrom Swad Newby and Belinda Bush. Later work,resulting in the cross-mapping of ethnolinguisticgroups onto the Global 200 map, as discussed inthis report, was carried out by Terralingua mem-bers and collaborators. Revision of the previoustabulated list of indigenous peoples by Global 200ecoregion was taken up in 1998-99 by AntheaFallen-Bailey, who identified ethnolinguisticgroups based mainly on the data from Ethnologue(Grimes 1996a,b) and David Harmon’s Ethno-logue-derived database of the world’s languages(Harmon 1995). The approximate locations of theethnolinguistic groups identified were hand-marked by Fallen-Bailey on a hard copy of the

Global 200 map (February 1998 version).Cross-mapping of the world’s ethnolinguistic

groups onto the digitized map produced by theWWF-US Conservation Science Laboratory wasled by Gonzalo Oviedo and coordinated by ManuelLizarralde (Connecticut College, USA) and LuisaMaffi. Regional-scale mappings of ethnolinguisticgroups onto ecoregions were carried out by Eric A.Smith and Emily L. Jones (University of Washing-ton) for North America north of Mexico; Victor M.Toledo (National Autonomous University of Mexi-co) for Mexico (in collaboration with P. Alarcón-Cháires, A. Rodríguez Aldabe and M.J. Ordoñez);and Manuel Lizarralde (Connecticut College) forSouth America. Lizarralde oversaw the overallmapping of the data on overlap of ethnolinguisticgroups and ecoregions onto the digitized Global200 map (carried out at Connecticut College’s GISlaboratory, directed by Peter Siver, Department ofBotany), using information from Ethnologue for allregions of the world except North America, Mexi-co and South America. Anne Lott (ConnecticutCollege) assisted in the digitization, production andmanipulation of the cross-mapping files. Tom All-nut, Holly Strand and Meghan McKnight of theConservation Science Program of WWF-US inWashington, DC provided input and advice on thehandling of the ecoregional map files. A draft of theresulting map ‘Indigenous Peoples and Ethnolin-guistic Groups of the World and the Global 200Ecoregions’ was then printed in the ConservationScience Laboratory of WWF-US. The final versionof the map was assembled by Dominique DelPietro (UNEP/DEIA & EW/GRID-Geneva,Switzerland) in July 2000.

The poster-size map was designed and pro-duced by Diwata Olalia Hunziker, and printed byMédecine et Hygiène in Geneva, Switzerland, inNovember 2000.

This work has been possible thanks to finan-cial support from WWF-Switzerland and WWF-US (Ecoregion Strategies Unit).

AAcckknnoowwlleeddggeemmeennttss

BBiibblliiooggrraapphhyy

90


Adimihardja, K. 1999. “Cosmology and Biodiversity ofthe Kasephuan Community in Mount Halimun Areaof West Java, Indonesia.” In Cultural and SpiritualValues of Biodiversity – A Complementary Contri-bution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment, ed. byD.A. Posey. Pp. 223-227. London/Nairobi: Interme-diate Technology Publications/UNEP.

Alcorn, J.B. 1984. Huastec Mayan Ethnobotany.Austin: University of Texas Press.

Alcorn, J.B. 1996. “Is Biodiversity Conserved byIndigenous Peoples?” In Ethnobiology in HumanWelfare, ed. by S.K. Jain. Pp. 234-238. New Delhi:Deep Publications.

Alcorn, J.B. 1997. “Indigenous Peoples and ProtectedAreas.” In Beyond Fences: Seeking Sustainability inConservation, ed. by G. Borrini-Feyerabend. Vol. 2:A Resource Book. Pp. 44-49. Gland: IUCN.

Alcorn, J.B. 1999. “Indigenous Resource ManagementSystems.” In Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodi-versity – A Complementary Contribution to theGlobal Biodiversity Assessment, ed. by D.A. Posey.Pp. 203-206. London/Nairobi: Intermediate Tech-nology Publications/UNEP.

Amend, S. and T. Amend 1992. Espacios sin Habi-tantes. Parques Nacionales de América del Sur.Caracas: IUCN.

Anderson, E.N. 1996. Ecologies of the Heart: Emotion,Belief, and the Environment.New York/Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Arnold, J.E.M. 1998. Managing Forests as CommonProperty. Community Forestry Paper 136. Rome:FAO.

Atran, S. 1990. Cognitive Foundations of Natural His-tory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Atran, S. 1993. “Itza Maya Tropical Agro-Forestry.”Current Anthropology34: 633-700.

Atran, S. in press. “The Vanishing Landscape of thePetén Maya Lowlands: People, Plants, Animals,Places, Words and Spirits.” In On Biocultural Diver-sity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Envi-ronment, ed. by L. Maffi. Washington, DC: Smith-sonian Institution Press.

Atran, S. and D. Medin 1997. “Knowledge and Action:Cultural Models of Nature and Resource Manage-ment in Mesoamerica.” In Environment, Ethics andBehavior, ed. by M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tin-brunsel and K. Wayde-Benzoni. Pp. 171-208. SanFrancisco: New Lexington Press.

Bahn, P. and J.R. Flenley 1992. Easter Island, EarthIsland.London: Thames and Hudson.

Balée, W. 1994. Footprints of the Forest: Ka’apor Eth-nobotany – The Historical Ecology of Plant Utiliza-tion by an Amazonian People. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Bannister, K. and K. Barrett 2000. “Weighing theProverbial ‘Ounce of Prevention’Versus the ‘Poundof Cure’ in a Biocultural Context: A Role for thePrecautionary Principle in EthnobiologicalResearch.” In Ethnobotany and Conservation ofBiocultural Diversity, ed. by L. Maffi and T. Carl-son. In preparation for Advances in EconomicBotany Series. New York: New York Botanical Gar-den Press.

Barsh, R.L. 1999. “Indigenous Knowledge and Biodi-versity.” In Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodi-versity – A Complementary Contribution to theGlobal Biodiversity Assessment, ed. by D.A. Posey.Pp.73-76. London/Nairobi: Intermediate Technolo-gy Publications/UNEP.

Barsh, R.L. and K. Bastien 1997. Effective Negotiationby Indigenous Peoples: An Action Guide with Spe-cial Reference to North America. Geneva: Interna-tional Labour Office.

Barton, T., G. Borrini-Feyerabend, A. de Sherbinin andP. Warren 1997. Our People, Our Resources: Sup-porting Rural Communities in Participatory ActionResearch on Population Dynamics and the LocalEnvironment. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Beltran, J. (ed.) 2000. Indigenous and Traditional Peo-ples and Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelinesand Case Studies. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN andWWF International.

Bennet, A. 1999. Linkages in the Landscape, The role ofCorridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conserva-tion. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Forest Programme.

BBiibblliiooggrraapphhiicc rreeffeerreenncceess

91

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecologi-cal Knowledge and Resource Management Systems.Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.

Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Princi-ples of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Tra-ditional Societies. Princeton, New Jersey: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Berlin, E.A. and B. Berlin 1996. Medical Ethnobiologyof the Highland Maya of Chiapas, Mexico: TheGastrointestinal Diseases. Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press.

Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove and P.H. Raven 1974. Prin-ciples of Tzeltal Plant Classification: An Introduc-tion to the Botanical Ethnography of a MayanSpeaking Community in Highland Chiapas. NewYork: Academic Press.

Bernard, R. 1992. Preserving Language Diversity.Human Organisation51(1): 82-89.

Blackburn, T.C. and K. Anderson (eds.) 1993. Before theWilderness: Environmental Management by NativeCalifornians. Menlo Park, California: Ballena Press.

Blount, B. and T. Gragson (eds.) 1999. Ethnoecology:Knowledge, Resources and Rights. Athens, Georgia:University of Georgia Press.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (ed) 1997. Beyond Fences:Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation.Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 1999. Participatory Manage-ment of Natural Resources(August 1999 draft ver-sion). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/GTZ.

Braem, F. 1999. Indigenous Peoples: In Search of Part-ners, Working Paper No. 5. Brussels: Avenir desPeuples des Forêts Tropicales (APFT).

Brokensha, D., D.M. Warren and O. Werner (eds.) 1980.Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development.Washington, DC: University Press of America.

Bulmer, R.N.H. 1982. “Traditional Conservation Prac-tices in Papua New Guinea.” In Traditional Conser-vation in Papua New Guinea: Implications forToday, ed. by L. Morauta, J. Pernetta and W.Heaney. Pp. 59-77. Bokoro, PNG: Institute ofApplied Social and Economic Research.

Burger, J. 1987. Report from the Frontier: The State ofthe World’s Indigenous Peoples. Atlantic Highlands:Zed Books.

Castilleja, G. et al.1993. The Social Challenge of Bio-diversity Conservation. Working Paper #1, GlobalEnvironment Facility. Washington, DC: The WorldBank.

Cernea, M.M. 1997. “Social Concerns in PopulationResettlement.” In Beyond Fences: Seeking SocialSustainability in Conservation, ed. by G. Borrini-Feyerabend, Vol. 2. Pp. 50-54. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN.

Chambers, P. 1999. “Aquatic and Marine Biodiversity.”In Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity – AComplementary Contribution to the Global Biodi-versity Assessment, ed. by D.A. Posey. Pp. 399-402.London/Nairobi: Intermediate Technology Publica-tions/UNEP.

Chapin, M. 1992. “The Coexistence of Indigenous Peo-ples and Environments in Central America.”Research and Exploration8(2) [inset map].

Chapin, M. 1994. “Recapturing the Old Ways: Tradi-tional Knowledge and Western Science Among theKuna Indians of Panama.” In Cultural Expressionand Grassroots Development: Cases from LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, ed. by C.D. Kleymey-er. Pp. 83-101. Boulder and London: Lynne RiennerPublishers.

Clay, J.W. 1993. “Looking Back To Go Forward: Pre-dicting and Preventing Human Rights Violations.”In State of the Peoples: A Global Human RightsReport on Societies in Danger, ed. by M.S. Miller.Pp. 64-71. Boston: Beacon Press.

Colchester, M. 1994. Salvaging Nature: IndigenousPeoples, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conser-vation. Geneva: United Nations Research Institutefor Social Development.

Colfer, C.J.P. et al.1999. “Who Counts Most? Assess-ing Human Wellbeing in Sustainable Forest Man-agement.” The Criteria and Indicators ToolboxSeries, no. 8: Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. Available athttp://www.cgiar.org/cifor.

Commission Européenne 1994. Situation des Popula-tions Indigènes des forêts denses et humides. Docu-ment. Luxembourg: Office des Publications Offi-cielles des Communautés Européennes.

Cox, P.A. 1997. “Indigenous Peoples and Conserva-tion.” In Biodiversity and Human Health, ed. by F.Grifo and J. Rosenthal. Pp. 207-20. Covelo, Cali-fornia: Island Press.

Bibliography

92

Cunningham, A.B. 2000. Sustainable Use: Lessonsfrom the Multiple Use Programme in BwindiNational Park. People and Plants Discussion Paper,People & Plants Programme. Paris: UNESCO.

Daes, E.-I. 1997. Protection of the Heritage of Indige-nous People. Study Series 10, Human Rights. NewYork and Geneva: United Nations.

Dasmann, R.F. 1964. Wildlife Biology. New York:Wiley.

Dasmann, R.F. 1991. “The Importance of Cultural andBiological Diversity.” In Biodiversity: Culture, Con-servation and Ecodevelopment, ed. by M.L. Old-field and J.B. Alcorn. Pp. 7-15. Boulder, Colorado:Westview Press.

Dembner, S. 1996. “Forest Peoples in the CentralAfrican Rain Forest: Focus on the Pygmies”. Una-sylva186, Vol. 47. Rome: FAO.

Denevan, W.M. 1992. “The Pristine Myth: The Land-scape of the Americas in 1492.” Annals of the Asso-ciation of American Geographers82(3): 369-385.

Diamond, J.M. 1986. “The Environmentalist Myth.”Nature344: 19-20.

Diamond, J.M. 1987. “The Worst Mistake in the Histo-ry of the Human Race.” Discover, May 1987: 64-66.

Diamond, J.M. 1991. The Rise and Fall of the ThirdChimpanzee.New York: Harper and Collins.

Diamond, J.M. 1993. “Speaking with a Single Tongue.”Discover, February 1993: 78-85.

Durning, A.T. 1992. Guardians of the Land: IndigenousPeoples and the Health of the Earth. WorldwatchPaper no. 112. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Insti-tute.

Durning, A.T. 1993. “Supporting Indigenous Peoples.”In State of the World 1993: A Worldwatch InstituteReport on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society.Pp. 80-100. New York: Norton and Co.

Eade, D. 1997. Capacity-Building: An Approach toPeople-Centered Development. UK/Ireland: Oxfam.

Eldredge, N. 1995. Dominion. New York: H. Holt.

Ellen, R. 1994. “Rhetoric, Practice and Incentive inthe Face of Changing Times: A Study in NuauluAttitudes to Conservation and Deforestation.” InEnvironmentalism: The View from Anthropology,ed. by K. Milton. Pp. 127-143. London/New York:Routledge.

Fien, J., D. Heck and J-A. Ferreira 1999. Learning fora Sustainable Environment: A Professional Devel-opment Guide for Teacher Educators. UNESCO-Asia: Centre of Educational Innovation for Devel-opment and Griffith University. Available at http://www.ens.gu.edu.au/ciree/LSE/INDEX.HTML.

Fingleton, J.S. 1998. Legal Recognition of IndigenousGroups. Rome: FAO. Available at http://www.fao.org/Legal/default.htm.

Fishman, J.A. 1996. “What Do You Lose When YouLose Your Language?” In Stabilizing IndigenousLanguages, ed. by G. Cantoni. Pp. 80-91. Flagstaff,Arizona: Center for Excellence in Education,Northern Arizona University.

Flannery, T. 1995. The Future Eaters: An EcologicalHistory of the Australasian Lands and People. NewYork: George Braziller.

Florey, M. in press. “Threats to Indigenous Knowledge:A Case Study from Eastern Indonesia.” In On Bio-cultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge,and the Environment, ed. by L. Maffi. Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Forman, R. and M. Godron 1986. Landscape Ecology.New York: J. Wiley and Sons.

Four Directions Council 1996. “Forests, IndigenousPeoples and Biodiversity: Contribution of the FourDirections Council to the Secretariat of the Conven-tion on Biological Diversity.” Lethbridge: FourDirections Council.

Fourmile, H. 1999. “Voices of the Earth:Australia/Poldingi.” In Cultural and Spiritual Val-ues of Biodiversity – A Complementary Contribu-tion to the Global Biodiversity Assessment, ed. byD. A. Posey. Pp. 125-126. London/Nairobi: Inter-mediate Technology Publications/UNEP.

Freese, C.H. 1996. The Commercial, Consumptive Useof Wild Species: Managing it for the Benefit of Bio-diversity. Washington, US: WWF-US and WWFInternational Co-operative Publication.

Freese, C.H, P.J. Ewins and P. Prokosch 1998. Guide-lines for the Consumptive Use of Wild Species in theArctic: Synthesis of the Clyde River and InuvikPaulatuk Case Studies. Oslo: WWF Arctic Pro-gramme Discussion Paper. Available at http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/.

FSC 1999. Forest Stewardship Council Principles andCriteria. Document 1.2, revised January 1999.Mexico: Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).


93

Godoy, J.C. et al.1997. Buscando Respuestas: NuevosArreglos Para la Gestión de Areas Protegidas y delCorredor Biológico en Centroamérica. San José,Costa Rica: IUCN.

Goehring, B. 1993. Indigenous Peoples of the World:An Introduction to Their Past, Present and Future.Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Purich Publishing.

Graham, L. 2000. “Lessons in Collaboration: theXavante/WWF Wildlife Management Project inCentral Brazil.” In Indigenous Peoples and Conser-vation Organisations: Experiences in Collabora-tion, ed. by R. Weber, J. Butler and P. Larson. Pp.47-71. WWF-US/The Ford Foundation/BSP.

Gray, A. 1991. Between the Spice of Life and the Melt-ing Pot: Biodiversity Conservation and Its Impacton Indigenous Peoples. IWGIA Document no. 70.Copenhagen: IWGIA.

Gray, A. 1999. “Voices of the Earth: Introduction.” In Cul-tural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity – A Comple-mentary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assess-ment, ed. by D.A. Posey. Pp. 61-66. London/Nairobi:Intermediate Technology Publications/UNEP.

Grenand, P. 1980. Introductiona a l’Étude de l’UniversWayãpi: Ethnoécologie des Indiens de Haut-Oyapock (Guyane Française). Langues et Civilisa-tions à Tradition Orale n. 40. Paris: SELAF.

Grenier, L. 1998. Working with Indigenous Knowledge:A Guide for Researchers. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC.

Grimes, B.F. (ed.) 1996a. Ethnologue : Languages ofthe World. 13th edition. Dallas, Texas: SummerInstitute of Linguistics.

Grimes, B.F. (ed.) 1996b. Ethnologue : Language NameIndex. 13th edition. Dallas, Texas: Summer Instituteof Linguistics.

Groombridge, B. (ed.) 1992. Global Biodiversity: Sta-tus of the World’s Living Resources. London: Chap-man and Hall.

Gupta, A.K. 1999. “Managing Environments Sustain-ably through Understanding and Assimilating LocalEcological Knowledge: The Case of the HoneyBee.” In Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiver-sity – A Complementary Contribution to the GlobalBiodiversity Assessment, ed. by D.A. Posey. Pp.535-538. London/Nairobi: Intermediate TechnologyPublications/UNEP.

Hale, K. et al. 1992. “Endangered Languages.” Lan-guage68(1): 1-42.

Hames, R.B. 1991. “Wildlife Conservation in Tribal Soci-eties.” In Biodiversity: Culture, Conservation andEcodevelopment, ed. by M.L. Oldfield and J.B. Alcorn.Pp. 172-199. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Hames, R.B. and W.T. Vickers (eds.) 1983. AdaptiveResponses of Native Amazonians. New York: Acad-emic Press.

Harmon, D. 1992. “Indicators of the World’s CulturalDiversity.” Paper presented at the Fourth WorldCongress on National Parks and Protected Areas,Caracas, Venezuela, February 1992.

Harmon, D. 1995. “The Status of the World’s Lan-guages as Reported in Ethnologue.” SouthwestJournal of Linguistics14: 1-33.

Harmon, D. 1996. “Losing Species, Losing Lan-guages: Connections Between Biological and Lin-guistic Diversity.” Southwest Journal of Linguis-tics 15: 89-108.

Harmon, D. 1998a. “The Other Extinction Crisis:Declining Cultural Diversity and its Implications forProtected Area Management.” In Linking ProtectedAreas with Working Landscapes, Conserving Biodi-versity, ed. by N.W.P. Munro and J.H.M. Willison.Pp. 352-359. Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada: Sci-ence and Management of Protected Areas.

Harmon, D. 1998b. “Sameness and silence: LanguageExtinctions and the Dawning of a Biocultural Approachto Diversity.” Global Biodiversity8(3): 2-10.

Harris, D.R. and G.C. Hillman (eds.) 1989. Foragingand Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation.London: Unwin Hyman.

Hill, J.H. in press. “Dimensions of Attrition in Lan-guage Death.” In On Biocultural Diversity: LinkingLanguage, Knowledge and the Environment, ed. byL. Maffi. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Hunn, E.S. 1977. Tzeltal Folk Zoology: The Classifica-tion of Discontinuities in Nature. New York: Acade-mic Press.

Hunn, E.S. 1990. Nchi’-Wana, The Big River: Mid-Columbia Indians and Their Land. Seattle: Univer-sity of Washington Press.

Hunn, E.S. in press. “Prospects for the Persistence of‘Endemic’ Cultural Systems of Traditional Environ-mental Knowledge: A Zapotec Example.” In OnBiocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowl-edge and the Environment, ed. by L. Maffi. Wash-ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Bibliography

94

Huntington, H.P. and N.I. Mymrin 1996. Traditional Eco-logical Knowledge of Beluga Whales: An IndigenousPilot Project in the Chukchi and Northern Bering.Ottawa, Canada: Inuit Circumpolar Conference.

Irvine, D. 1999. “Certification and CommunityForestry: Current Trends, Challenges and Poten-tial.” Background Paper for the World Bank/WWFAlliance Workshop on Independent Certification.Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.

IUCN 1994. “The Diversity of Human Life: A MitchellBeazley Atlas on Indigenous Peoples.” Preliminaryoutline, proposal by the IUCN Biodiversity Pro-gram. Gland: IUCN.

IUCN 1997. Resolutions and Recommendations. WorldConservation Congress, Montreal, Canada, 13-23October 1996. Gland: IUCN.

IUCN/WWF 1998. “Implementation of Article 8 (j) andRelated Provisions. Policy Recommendations onCOP4 Agenda item 10.” 4th Meeting of the COP tothe Convention on Biological Diversity, Bratislava,Slovakia, 4-15 May 1998.

IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991. Caring for the Earth: AStrategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN/UNEP/WWF.

IUCN-WCPA and WWF 1999. Principles and Guide-lines on Indigenous and Traditional Peoples andProtected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN-WCPA, WWF.

IUCN/WRI/WWF 1999. “Joint statement on Conserva-tion in the 21st Century.” Gland, Switzerland:IUCN/WRI/WWF.

Jackson, W.J. and A.W. Ingles 1998. ParticipatoryTechniques for Community Forestry: A Field Manu-al. Gland Switzerland/Cambridge, UK: IUCN andWWF International.

Johnson, A. 1989. “How the Machiguenga ManageResources: Conservation or Exploitation ofNature?” In Resource Management in Amazonia:Indigenous and Folk Strategies, ed. by D.A. Poseyand W. Balée. Pp. 213-222. Advances in EconomicBotany Vol. 7. Bronx, New York: New York Botani-cal Garden Press.

Kemf, E. 1993. The Law of the Mother: ProtectingIndigenous Peoples in Protected Areas. San Fran-cisco: Sierra Club Books.

Kirch, P.V. and T.L. Hunt (eds.) 1996. Historical Ecol-ogy in the Pacific Islands: Prehistoric Environmen-tal and Landscape Change. New Haven, Connecti-cut: Yale University Press.

Kothari, A. 1997. “Key Issues in Joint Protected AreaManagement.” In Collaboration for Conservation:Towards Joint Management of Protected Areas inIndia, ed. by A. Kothari, F. Vania, P. Das, K.Christopher and S. Jha. New Delhi: Indian Instituteof Public Administration.

Kothari, A., N. Singh and S. Suri (eds.) 1996. Peopleand Protected Areas: Towards Participatory Con-servation in India. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Krauss, M. 1992. “The World’s Languages in Crisis.”Language68(1): 4-10.

Krauss, M. 1996. “Linguistics and Biology: ThreatenedLinguistic and Biological Diversity Compared.”CLS 32, Papers from the Parasession on Theory andData in Linguistics. Pp. 69-75. Chicago: ChicagoLinguistic Society.

Laird, S.A. 1999a. Equitable Biodiversity ResearchRelationships in Practice: Written AgreementsBetween Communities and Researchers. Gland,Switzerland: WWF International.

Laird, S.A. 1999b. “Forests, Culture and Conservation.”In Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity – AComplementary Contribution to the Global Biodi-versity Assessment, ed. by D.A. Posey. Pp.347-358.London/Nairobi: Intermediate Technology Publica-tions/UNEP.

Laird, S.A. and E.E. Lisinge 1999. “Protected AreaResearch Policies: Developing a Basis for Equityand Accountability.” Draft Chapter (October) pre-pared for Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge:Equitable Partnerships in Practice, ed. by S.A.Laird. A WWF UNESCO/Kew People and PlantsProgramme Conservation Manual: Earthscan.

Larson, P.S., M. Freudenberger and B. Wyckoff-Baird1998. WWF Integrated Conservation and Develop-ment Projects: Ten Lessons from the Field 1985-1996. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.

Lawton, J.H. and R.M. May (eds.) 1995. ExtinctionRates. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lizarralde, M. 1993. Índice y Mapa de Grupos Etno-lingüísticos Autóctonos de América del Sur. Cara-cas: Fundacion La Salle de Ciencias Naturales.


95

Lizarralde, M. in press. “Biodiversity and Loss ofIndigenous Languages and Knowledge in SouthAmerica.” In On Biocultural Diversity: LinkingLanguage, Knowledge, and the Environment, ed. byL. Maffi. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Loh, J. (ed.) 2000. Living Planet Report 2000. Gland,Switzerland: WWF International, UNEP-WCMC,Redefining Progress, The Centre for SustainabilityStudies.

López Zent, E. and S. Zent 2000. “The Hoti as CreativeAgents in the Ecological Dynamics of The SierraMaigualida, Venezuelan Amazon.” In Ethnobotanyand Conservation of Biocultural Diversity,ed. byMaffi, L. and T. Carlson. In preparation forAdvances in Economic Botany Series. New York:New York Botanical Garden Press.

Maffi, L. 1998. “Language: A Resource for Nature.”Nature and Resources: The UNESCO Journal onthe Environment and Natural Resources Research34(4): 12-21.

Maffi, L. 2000. “Language Preservation vs. LanguageMaintenance and Revitalization: Assessing Con-cepts, Approaches, and Implications for the Lan-guage Sciences.” International Journal of the Soci-ology of Language142: 175-190.

Maffi, L. (ed.) in press a. On Biocultural Diversity: Link-ing Language, Knowledge and the Environment.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Maffi, L. in press b. “Linking Language and the Envi-ronment: A Co-evolutionary Perspective.” InAnthropology and Environment: New Directions,ed. by C.L. Crumley. Walnut Creek, California:AltaMira Press.

Maffi, L., T. Skutnabb-Kangas and J. Andrianarivo1999. “Linguistic Diversity.” In Cultural and Spiri-tual Values of Biodiversity – A Complementary Con-tribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment, ed.by D.A. Posey. Pp. 21-57. London/Nairobi: Inter-mediate Technology Publications/UNEP.

Maffi, L. and G. Oviedo 1999. Indigenous and TribalPeoples, Biocultural Diversity, and WWF’s Ecore-gion Conservation. WWF International (People andConservation Unit)/Terralingua.

Majnep, I.S. and R.N.H. Bulmer 1977. Birds of MyKalam Country. Auckland: Auckland and OxfordUniversity Presses.

Majnep, I.S. and R.N.H. Bulmer 1990. Kalam HuntingTraditions. University of Auckland: Department ofAnthropology.

Martin, C. 1993. Introduction. In The Law of the Moth-er: Protecting Indigenous Peoples in ProtectedAreas, by E. Kemf. San Francisco: Sierra ClubBooks.

Martin, G.J. 1995. Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual.People and Plants Conservation Manuals, Vol. 1,London: Chapman and Hill (available in English.Bahasa Malaysia, Chinese and Spanish in prepa-ration).

McNeely, J.A. 1997. “Interaction Between Biologicaland Cultural Diversity.” In Indigenous Peoples,Environment and Development, ed. by S. Buchi etal. Pp. 173-196. IWGIA Document 85.

McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller (eds.) 1984. NationalParks, Conservation, and Development: The Role ofProtected Areas in Sustaining Society.Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

McNeely et al. 1990. Conserving the World’s Biologi-cal Diversity. Gland/Washington: IUCN, WRI,Conservation International/WWF-US/The WorldBank.

Medin, D.L. and S. Atran (eds.) 1999. Folkbiology. Cam-bridge, Massachusetts/London, UK: MIT Press.

Meffe, G.K., et al. 1997. Principles of ConservationBiology. 2nd ed. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sin-auers Assoc.

Miller, M.S. (ed.) 1993. State of the Peoples: A GlobalHuman Rights Report on Societies in Danger.Boston: Beacon Press.

Momberg, F., K. Atok and M. Sirait 1996. Drawing onLocal Knowledge: A Community Mapping TrainingManual. Jakarta: WWF-Indonesia Programme.

Mühlhäusler, P. 1995. “The Interdependence of Lin-guistic and Biological Diversity.” In The Politics ofMulticulturalism in the Asia/Pacific, ed. by D.Myers. Pp. 154-161. Darwin, Australia: NorthernTerritory University Press.

Mühlhäusler, P. 1996. Linguistic Ecology: LanguageChange and Linguistic Imperialism in the PacificRim. London: Routledge.

Bibliography

96

Mulazana, K. 1999. “Voices of the Earth:Botswana/Bowankez.” In Cultural and SpiritualValues of Biodiversity – A Complementary Contri-bution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment, ed. byD.A. Posey. Pp. 128-129. London/Nairobi: Interme-diate Technology Publications/UNEP.

Nabhan, G.P. 1989. Enduring Seeds: Native AmericanAgriculture and Wild Plant Conservation. San Fran-cisco: North Point Press.

Nabhan, G.P. 1997. Cultures of Habitat: On Culture,Nature, and Story. Washington, DC: Counterpoint.

Nabhan, G.P. in press. “Cultural Perceptions of Ecolog-ical Interactions: An ‘Endangered People’s’ Contri-bution to the Conservation of Biological and Lin-guistic Diversity.” In On Biocultural Diversity:Linking Language, Knowledge and the Environ-ment, ed. by L. Maffi. Washington, DC: Smithson-ian Institution Press.

Nabhan, G.P. and S. St. Antoine 1993. “The Loss ofFloral and Faunal Story: The Extinction of Experi-ence.” In The Biophilia Hypothesis, ed. by S.R.Kellert and E.O. Wilson. Pp. 229-250. Washington,DC: Island Press.

Nations, J.D. in press. “Indigenous Peoples and Con-servation: Misguided Myths in the Maya TropicalForest.” In On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Lan-guage, Knowledge, and the Environment, ed. by L.Maffi. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Nietschmann, B.Q. 1992. The Interdependence of Bio-logical and Cultural Diversity. Occasional Paper#21, Center for World Indigenous Studies, Decem-ber 1992.

Norgaard, R.B. 1994. Development Betrayed: The Endof Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of theFuture. London/New York: Routledge.

Oldfield, M.L. and J.B. Alcorn (eds.) 1991. Biodiversi-ty: Culture, Conservation and Ecodevelopment.Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Olson, D.M. and E. Dinerstein 1998. “The Global 200:A Representation Approach to Conserving theEarth’s Distinctive Ecoregions.” Draft, March 1998.Washington, DC: Conservation Science Program,World Wildlife Fund-US.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Oviedo, G. 1998a. Towards a Policy on Indigenous Peo-ples and Protected Areas. October 1998. Gland,Switzerland: WWF International.

Oviedo, G. 1998b. WWF’s Perspective on Conservationwith Indigenous Peoples. Gland, Switzerland: WWFInternational.

Padoch, C. and M. Pinedo-Vasquez in press. “ResourceManagement in Amazonia: Caboclo and RibereñoTraditions.” In On Biocultural Diversity: LinkingLanguage, Knowledge and the Environment, ed. byL. Maffi. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Pattanayak, D.P. 1988. “Monolingual Myopia and thePetals of the Indian Lotus: Do Many LanguagesDivide or Unite a Nation?” In Minority Education:From Shame to Struggle, ed. by T. Skutnabb-Kan-gas and J. Cummins. Pp. 379-389. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.

People and Plants 1996. People and Plants Handbook,Issue 1. Paris: WWF/UNESCO/Kew Gardens.

Pereira, W. and A.K. Gupta 1993. “A Dialogue onIndigenous Knowledge.” Honey Bee4(4): 6-10.

Pimbert, M.P. and J.N. Pretty 1999. “Diversity and Sus-tainability in Community-Based Conservation.” InCultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity – AComplementary Contribution to the Global Biodi-versity Assessment, ed. by D.A. Posey. Pp. 206-211.London/Nairobi: Intermediate Technology Publica-tions/UNEP.

Poffenberger, M., P. Walpole, E. D’Silva, K. Lawrenceand A. Khare 1997. Linking Government with Com-munity Resource Management: What’s Working andWhat’s Not. Report of the 5th Asia Forest NetworkMeeting. Research Network Report, No. 9. Sura-jkund, India: Asia Forest Network.

Ponting, C. 1991. A Green History of the World. Lon-don: Sinclair-Stevenson.

Poole, P. 1995. Indigenous Peoples, Mapping and Bio-diversity Conservation: An Analysis of CurrentActivities and Opportunities for Applying Geomat-ics Technologies. Washington DC: BiodiversitySupport Program, Peoples and Forest Program.Available at http://www.bsponline.org/publica-tions/showhtml.php3?15.

Posey, D.A. (ed.) 1996. Traditional Resource Rights:International Instruments for Protection and Com-pensation for Indigenous Peoples and Local Com-munities. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.


97

Posey, D.A. (ed.) 1999a. Cultural and Spiritual Valuesof Biodiversity – A Complementary Contribution tothe Global Biodiversity Assessment. London/Nairo-bi: Intermediate Technology Publications/UNEP.

Posey, D.A. 1999. “Introduction: Culture and Nature –the Inextricable Link.” In “Voices of the Earth.” InCultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity – AComplementary Contribution to the Global Biodi-versity Assessment. Pp. 1-18. London/Nairobi:Intermediate Technology Publications/UNEP.

Posey, D.A. in press. “Biological and Cultural Diversity:The Inextricable, Linked by Language and Politics.”In On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language,Knowledge, and the Environment, ed. by L. Maffi.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Posey, D.A. and W. Balée (eds.) 1989. “Resource Man-agement in Amazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strate-gies.” Advances in Economic BotanyVol. 7. Bronx,New York: New York Botanical Garden Press.

Posey, D.A. and G. Dutfield. 1996. Beyond IntellectualProperty: Toward Traditional Resource Rights forIndigenous Peoples and Local Communities.Ottawa, Canada: International DevelopmentResearch Centre.

Redford, K.H. 1991. “The Ecologically Noble Savage.”Cultural Survival Quarterly13(1):46-48.

Reid, W.V. and K.R. Miller. 1993. Keeping OptionsAlive: The Scientific Basis for Conserving Biodiver-sity. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Robins, R.H. and E.M. Uhlenbeck (eds.) 1991. Endan-gered Languages. Oxford: Berg.

Samithi, H. 2000. Nagarahole: Adivasi Peoples’ Rightsand Ecodevelopment. Workshop on Indigenous Peo-ples, Forests and The World Bank: Policies andPractice. Washington DC: Forest and Peoples Pro-gramme Bank Information Center.

Schwartz, N. and A. Deruyttere 1996. “Community Con-sultation, Sustainable Development and the Inter-American Development Bank: A Concept Paper.”Washington DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

Shiva, V. 1993. Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectiveson Biodiversity and Biotechnology. London: ZedBooks.

Shiva, V. et al.1991. Biodiversity: Social and Ecologi-cal Perspectives. London: Zed Books.

Simpson, T. 1997. Indigenous Heritage and Self-Deter-mination. IWGIA Document 86. Copenhagen:IWGIA.

Smith, E.A. in press. “On the Co-evolution of Cultural,Linguistic and Biological Diversity.” In On Biocul-tural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, andthe Environment, ed. by L. Maffi. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Smith, F.D., R.M. May, R. Pellew, T.H. Johnson andK.S. Walker 1993. “Estimating Extinction Rates.”Nature364: 494-496.

Spergel, B. 1997. “Compensation and Substitution Pro-grammes.” In Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sus-tainability in Conservation,ed. by G. Borrini-Feyer-abend, Vol. 2. Pp. 91-93. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Stattersfield, A.J. et al.(eds.) 1998. Endemic Bird Areasof the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conserva-tion. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.

Steinmetz, R. 1999. “The Ecological Science of theKaren in Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary,Western Thailand.” In Indigenous Peoples and Pro-tected Areas in South and Southeast Asia: FromPrinciples to Practice,ed. by M. Colchester and C.Erni. IWGIA Document 97. Copenhagen: IWGIA.

Stevens, S. (ed.) 1997a. Conservation through CulturalSurvival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas.Washington DC: Island Press.

Stevens, S. 1997b. “Consultation, Co-Management andConflict in Sagarmatha (Mount Everest) NationalPark, Nepal.” In Conservation through CulturalSurvival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas,ed. by S. Stevens. Pp. 63-97. Washington DC:Island Press.

Taylor, P.M. 1990. “The Folk Biology of the TobeloPeople : A Study in Folk Classification.” Smithson-ian Contributions to AnthropologyNo. 34. Wash-ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Thompson, J.N. 1996. “Evolutionary Ecology and theConservation of Biodiversity.” Trends in Ecologyand Evolution11: 300-303.

Thrupp, L.A. 1999. “Linking Biodiversity and Agricul-ture: Challenges and Opportunities for SustainableFood Security.” In Cultural and Spiritual Values ofBiodiversity – A Complementary Contribution to theGlobal Biodiversity Assessment. Pp. 316-320. Lon-don/Nairobi: Intermediate Technology Publica-tions/UNEP.

Tindale, N.B. 1974. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Toledo, V.M. 1994. “Biodiversity and Cultural Diversi-ty in Mexico.” Different Drummer 1(3): 16-19.

Bibliography

98

Toledo, V.M. in press a. “Indigenous Peoples and Bio-diversity.” In Encyclopedia of Biodiversity.SanDiego: Academic Press.

Toledo, V.M. in press b. “Biocultural Diversity and LocalPower in Mexico: Challenging Globalization.” In OnBiocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowl-edge, and the Environment,ed. by L. Maffi. Wash-ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Townsend, W.R. 2000. “Holding on to the Land: TheLong Journey of the Sirionó Indians of EasternLowland Bolivia.” In Indigenous Peoples and Con-servation Organisations: Experiences in Collabora-tion, ed. by R. Weber, J. Butler and P. Larson. Pp.73-89. Washington DC: WWF-US/The Ford Foun-dation/BSP.

Tuxill, J. and G.P. Nabhan 1998. Plants and ProtectedAreas. People and Conservation Manuals, Vol. 3,Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.

UNEP 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment (V.H.Heywood, general ed.). Cambridge/New York:Cambridge University Press/UNEP.

Warren, D.M. in press. “The Role of the Global Networkof Indigenous Knowledge Resource Centers in theConservation of Cultural and Biological Diversity.”In On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language,Knowledge, and the Environment, ed. by L. Maffi.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Warren, D.M., L.J. Slikkerveer and D. Brokensha (eds.)1995. The Cultural Dimension of Development:Indigenous Knowledge Systems. London: Interme-diate Technology Publications.

Weber, R., J. Butler and P. Larson (eds.) 2000. Indige-nous Peoples and Conservation Organisations:Experiences in Collaboration. WashingtonDC:WWF-US/The Ford Foundation/BSP.

Whitington, D. and L.G. Paru 1998. “Considerationsof the Rights, Interests and Knowledge of Indige-nous People in the Development of Kayan Men-tarang National Park, East Kalimantan, Indone-sia.” Paper presented at the Asian Conference onIndigenous Rights and Protected Areas, Sabah,Malaysia.

Wilcox, B.A. and K.N. Duin 1995. “Indigenous Cultur-al and Biological Diversity: Overlapping Values ofLatin American Ecoregions.” Cultural SurvivalQuarterly18(4): 49-53.

Wilkins, D. 1993. “Linguistic Evidence in Support of aHolistic Approach to Traditional Ecological Knowl-edge.” In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wis-dom for Sustainable Development,ed. by N.M.Williams and G. Baines. Pp. 71-93. Canberra: Cen-tre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Aus-tralian National University.

Williams, N.M. and E.S. Hunn (eds.) 1982. ResourceManagers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers. AAAS Selected Symposium No. 67.Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Williams, N.M. and G. Baines (eds.) 1993. Tradition-al Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for SustainableDevelopment. Canberra: Centre for Resource andEnvironmental Studies, National Australian Uni-versity.

Wilson, E.O. (ed.) 1988. Biodiversity. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Woodbury, A.C. 1993. “A Defense of the Proposition,‘When a Language Dies, a Culture Dies’.” In SALSAI: Proceedings of the 1st Annual Symposium aboutLanguage and Society, ed. by R. Queen and R. Bar-rett. Texas Linguistic Forum 33. Pp. 101-129.Austin, Texas: University of Texas.

Worah, S., D. Svendsen and C. Ongleo 1999. Integrat-ed Conservation and Development: A Trainer’sManual. Godalming: WWF-UK.

World Bank. 1998. Indigenous Knowledge for Develop-ment: A Framework for Action. Washington DC:World Bank, African Region, Knowledge andLearning Center.

WRI/IUCN/UNEP 1992. Global Biodiversity Strategy:Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and UseEarth’s Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably.Washington, DC: WRI/IUCN/UNEP.

WWF 1996. Indigenous Peoples and Conservation:WWF Statement of Principles. Gland, Switzerland:WWF International.

WWF 1998a. Notes on Indigenous Peoples and theGlobal 200. Gland, Switzerland: WWF Internation-al, People and Conservation Unit.

WWF 1998b. WWF’s Global Conservation Priorities.Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.

WWF 1998c. Map of Global 200 Ecoregions. Interimversion, February 1998. Washington, DC: WWF-US.


99

Bibliography

WWF 1999a. “Ecoregion conservation: A User’sGuide” [working title]. Draft, 5 November 1999.Washington, DC: WWF-US

WWF 1999b. Protect Forests For Future Generations.Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.

WWF 1999c. WWF’s Global Conservation Programme1999/2000. Gland: WWF International.

WWF International 1997. The Role of Indigenous Peo-ple in Protected Area Management in Australia.Sydney, Australia: Manidis Roberts International.

WWF-WCPA/IUCN 1999. “Principles and Guidelineson Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protect-ed Areas.” Gland, Switzerland: WWF-WCPA/IUCN. Available at Http://panda.org/resources/publications/sustainability/indigenous2/index.html.

Zent, S. 1999. “The Quandary of Conserving ethnoeco-logical Knowledge: A Piaroa Example.” In Ethnoe-cology: Knowledge, Resources and Rights,ed. by B.Blount and T. Gragson. Pp. 90-124. Athens, Geor-gia: University of Georgia Press.

Zent, S. in press. “Acculturation and EthnobotanicalKnowledge Loss Among the Piaroa of Venezuela:Demonstration of a Quantitative Method for theEmpirical Study of TEK Change.” In On Biocultur-al Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge and theEnvironment, ed. by L. Maffi. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Zent, S. and E. López Zent 2000. “Ethnobotanical Con-vergence, Divergence, and Change Among theHoti.” In Ethnobotany and Conservation of Biocul-tural Diversity, ed. by L. Maffi and T. Carlson. Inpreparation for Advances in Economic BotanySeries. New York: New York Botanical GardenPress.

AAppppeennddiicceess

103

AAppppeennddiixx 11

EEtthhnnoolliinngguuiissttiicc GGrroouuppss iinn tthhee GGlloobbaall 220000 EEccoorreeggiioonnss:: SSeelleecctteedd AAggggrreeggaatteess ppeerr BBiioommee,, MMaajjoorr HHaabbiittaatt TTyyppee,, aanndd RReeaallmm

BBiioommeess // MMaajjoorr HHaabbiittaatt TTyyppee // RReeaallmmss NNuummbbeerr %% ooff EEGG %% ooff wwoorrllddooff EEGG iinn GGlloobbaall 220000 EEGG

Tropical and Subtropical Forests 2683 57.89 39.07

Temperate Forests 395 8.5 5.75

Boreal Forests 35 0.75 0.51

TToottaall FFoorreessttss 33111133 6677..1166 4455..3333

TToottaall TTrrooppiiccaall aanndd SSuubbttrrooppiiccaall FFoorreessttss,, aassssoocciiaatteedd FFrreesshhwwaatteerr aanndd MMaannggrroovveess 22888822 6622..1177 4411..9977

Tropical, Subtropical, Montane, Flooded Grasslands, Savannas and Shrublands 775 16.72 11.29

Temperate Grasslands, Savannas and Shrublands 111 2.39 1.62

TToottaall GGrraassssllaannddss aanndd SSaavvaannnnaass 888866 1199..1122 1122..9900

Nearctic Rivers, Streams, Lakes and Closed Basins 31 0.67 0.45

Tropical Rivers, Streams, Lakes and Closed Basins 200 4.31 2.91

Palearctic Rivers, Streams, Lakes and Closed Basins 8 0.17 0.12

Australasia Rivers, Streams, Lakes and Closed Basins 94 2.03 1.37

TToottaall FFrreesshhwwaatteerr EEccoorreeggiioonnss 333333 77..1188 44..8855

Nearctic Large Deltas, Mangroves and Estuaries 1 0.02 0.01

Tropical Large Deltas, Mangroves and Estuaries 68 1.47 0.99

Palearctic Large Deltas, Mangroves and Estuaries 6 0.13 0.09

Australasia Large Deltas, Mangroves and Estuaries 22 0.47 0.32

Coral Reef and Associated Marine Ecosystems 194 4.16 2.83

Coastal Marine Ecosystems 10 0.22 0.15

Polar and Subpolar Marine Ecosystems 2 0.04 0.03

TToottaall MMaarriinnee EEccoossyysstteemmss 330033 66..5544 44..4411

TToottaall WWoorrlldd GGlloobbaall 223333 ((OOvveerrllaapp bbeettwweeeenn bbiioommeess aanndd eeccoorreeggiioonnss nnoott eexxcclluuddeedd)) 77444455 116600..6633 110088..4422

TToottaall WWoorrlldd GGlloobbaall 223333 ((OOvveerrllaapp bbeettwweeeenn bbiioommeess eexxcclluuddeedd)) 44663355 110000 6677..5500

104


AAppppeennddiixx 22

EEtthhnnoolliinngguuiissttiicc GGrroouuppss iinn tthhee GGlloobbaall 220000 EEccoorreeggiioonnss:: TToottaall GGrroouuppss ppeerr BBiioommee,, MMaajjoorr HHaabbiittaatt TTyyppee,, aanndd RReeaallmm

MMaajjoorr HHaabbiittaatt TTyyppeess RReeaallmm GGrroouuppss GGrroouuppss ppeerr TToottaallppeerr rreeaallmm mmaajjoorr hhaabbiittaatt ttyyppee

AALLLL EECCOORREEGGIIOONNSS 44663355

TTEERRRREESSTTRRIIAALL EECCOORREEGGIIOONNSS 33999999

Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests 2489Neotropical 247Afrotropical 619Indo-Malayan 790Australasia 824Oceania 9

Tropical and Subtropical Dry and Monsson Broadleaf Forests 187Neotropical 39Afrotropical 6Indo-Malayan 137Australasia 5Oceania 0

Tropical and Subtropical Conifer Forests 7Neotropical 7

Temperate Conifer and Broadleaf Forests 395Neotropical 3Nearctic 42Palearctic 330Australasia 20

Boreal Forests and Taiga 28Nearctic 13Palearctic 15

Arctic Tundra 7Nearctic 1Paleartic 6

Temperate Grasslands, Savannas and Shrublands 31Neotropical 1Nearctic 12Palearctic 18

Tropical and Subtropical Grasslands, Savannas and Shrublands 597Neotropical 51Afrotropical 359Indo-Malayan 23Palearctic 15Australasia 149

Flooded Grasslands and Savannas 40Neotropical 7Afrotropical 33

105

Appendix 2. Ethnolinguistic Groups in the Global 200 Ecoregions

MMaajjoorr HHaabbiittaatt TTyyppeess RReeaallmm GGrroouuppss GGrroouuppss ppeerr TToottaallppeerr rreeaallmm mmaajjoorr hhaabbiittaatt ttyyppee

Tropical Montane Grasslands and Savannas 64Neotropical 2Afrotropical 57Indo-Malayan 0Australasia 5

Deserts and Xeric Shrublands 74Neotropical 28Afrotropical 8Palearctic 3Australasia 35

Mediterranean Shrublands and Woodlands 80Neotropical 13Afrotropical 1Palearctic 64Australasia 2

FFRREESSHHWWAATTEERR EECCOORREEGGIIOONNSS 333333

Small Rivers and Streams 217Nearctic 20Neotropical 5Afrotropical 23Indo-Malayan 72Palearctic 5Australasia 92

Large Rivers 61Nearctic 7Neotropical 18Afrotropical 6Indo-Malayan 30

Lake and Closed Basin Freshwater Ecosystems 55Nearctic 4Neotropical 13Afrotropical 28Palearctic 3Indo-Malayan 5Australasia 2

MMAARRIINNEE EECCOOSSYYSSTTEEMMSS 330033

Large Deltas, Mangroves and Estuaries 97Nearctic 1Neotropical 8Afrotropical 42Palearctic 6Indo-Malayan 18Australasia 22

Coral Reef and Associated Marine Ecosystems 194Western Atlantic 2Western Indian Ocean 4Northern Indian Ocean 13

106


EEccoorreeggiioonnss EEccoorreeggiioonnss EEccoorreeggiioonnss IIPP//EEGG iinn wwiitthh IIPP//EEGG wwiitthh IIPP//EEGG %% EEccoorreeggiioonnss

11.. WWoorrlldd EEccoorreeggiioonnss ((TToottaallss)) 223333 222211 9955 44663355

2. Afrotropical Ecoregions 40 40 100 1182

3. Neotropical Ecoregions 44 44 100 442

4. Nearctic Ecoregions 16 16 100 100

5. Indo-Malayan Ecoregions 36 36 100 1075

6. Oceania Ecoregions 3 3 100 9

7. Palearctic Ecoregions 30 30 100 465

8. Australasia Ecoregions 20 20 100 1156

9. Western Atlantic Ocean Ecoregions 4 4 100 3

10. Eastern Atlantic Ocean Ecoregions 2 2 100 1

11. Northern Atlantic Ocean Ecoregions 3 1 33 1

12. Southern Atlantic Ocean Ecoregions 2 0 0 0

13. Western Pacific Ocean Ecoregions 8 8 100 61

14. Eastern Pacific Ocean Ecoregions 6 3 50 5

15. Southern Pacific Ocean Ecoregions 5 4 80 114

16. Western Indian Ocean Ecoregions 4 4 100 4

17. Eastern Indian Ocean Ecoregions 1 1 100 2

18. Northern Indian Ocean Ecoregions 3 3 100 13

19. Mediterranean Sea Ecoregions 1 0 0 0

20. Antarctic Seas Ecoregions 2 0 0 0

21. Arctic Ocean and Seas Ecoregions 3 2 67 2

IP = Indigenous PeoplesEG = Ethnolinguistic Groups

AAppppeennddiixx 33

EEtthhnnoolliinngguuiissttiicc GGrroouuppss iinn tthhee GGlloobbaall 220000 EEccoorreeggiioonnss:: DDiissttrriibbuuttiioonn ppeerr RReeaallmm

107

Banco Mundial y Grupo de Trabajo Gubernamental1999. Perfil Nacional de los Pueblos Indígenas deMéxico. Informe técnico.

Confederation of American Indians 1986. Indian Reser-vations: A State and Federal Handbook.Jefferson,NC: McFarland.

Cultural Survival/National Geographic Society 1992.“The co-existence of indigenous peoples and thenatural environment in Central America.” Researchand Exploration8(2) [map].

Damas, D. (ed.) 1984. Handbook of North AmericanIndians. Vol. 5: Arctic. Washington, DC: Smithson-ian Institution Press.

d’Azevedo, W.L. (ed.) 1986. Handbook of North Amer-ican Indians. Vol. 11: Great Basin. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Gobierno del Estado de Oaxaca. OAXACA: Magnitudy Localización de la Población Indígena. Informetécnico.

Griggs, R.A. 1993. The Role of Fourth World Nationsand Synchronous Geopolitical Factors in the Break-down of States.Ph.D. Dissertation. University ofCalifornia at Berkeley, California: Department ofGeography.

Grimes, B.F., ed. 1996. Ethnologue: Languages of theWorld. 13th edition. Summer Institute of Linguis-tics, Inc.: Dallas, Texas. [11th ed., 1988, and 12thed., 1992, also consulted.]

Grimes, B.F., ed. 1996. Ethnologue: Language NameIndex. 13th edition. Summer Institute of Linguistics,Inc.: Dallas, Texas. [11th ed., 1988, and 12th ed.,1992, also consulted.]

Heizer, R.F. (ed.) 1978. Handbook of North AmericanIndians. Vol. 8: California. Washington, DC: Smith-sonian Institution Press.

Helm, J. 1981 (ed.). Handbook of North American Indi-ans. Vol. 6: Subarctic. Washington, DC: Smithson-ian Institution Press.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Infor-mática 1993. Censo de Población y Vivienda 1990.Aguascalientes, Ags.: INEGI.

Instituto Nacional Indigenista 1981/82. Grupos Étnicosde México. Tomo 1 y 2. México, DF: INI/IBAI.

Instituto Nacional Indigenista et al. 1992. Cuadernosde Demografía Indígena 1990. México, DF: INI.

Jorgensen, J.G. 1980. Western Indians: ComparativeEnvironments, Languages, and Cultures of 172Western American Indian Tribes. San Francisco:W.H. Freeman and Co.

Kehoe, A.B. 1992. North American Indians: A Com-prehensive Account. 2nd ed. Englewood cliffs, NewJersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kroeber, A.L. 1939. Cultural and Natural Areas ofNative North America. University of CaliforniaPublications in American Archaeology and Ethnol-ogy 38. [Reprinted 1963 by University of CaliforniaPress.]

Lizarralde, M. 1993. Îndice y Mapa de Grupos Etno-lingüísticos Autóctonos de América del Sur. Cara-cas: Fundación La Salle de Ciencias Naturales.

Manrique Castañeda, L. 1994. La Población IndígenaMexicana. Informe técnico. México, DF: INEGI.

McNickle, D’Arcy 1973. Native American Tribalism:Indian Survivals and Renewals. London: OxfordUniversity Press.

Miller, W.R. 1986. “Numic languages.” In Handbook ofNorth American Indians. Vol. 11: Great Basin. Pp.98-106. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

O’Leary, T.J. and D. Levinson (eds.) 1994. Ency-clopaedia of World Cultures. Vol I. Boston, Massa-chusetts: G.K. Hall and Company.

Ortiz, A. (ed.) 1980. Handbook of North AmericanIndians. Vol. 9: Southwest (Pueblo). Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Ortiz, A. (ed.) 1983. Handbook of North American Indi-ans. Vol. 10: Southwest (Non-Pueblo). Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Ortiz Álvarez, M.I. y M.C. Gómez Escobar 1997. Dis-tribución Espacial de la Población Hablante deLenguas Indigenas. Geografía y Desarrollo14: 37-52.

AAppppeennddiixx 44

MMaaiinn SSoouurrcceess CCoonnssuulltteedd ffoorr CCrroossss--MMaappppiinngg ooff EEtthhnnoolliinngguuiissttiicc GGrroouuppss oonnttoo GGlloobbaall 220000 EEccoorreeggiioonnss

108


Pérez González, B. 1992. Entorno a las Lenguas deMéxico. Informe técnico. Gobierno del Estado deMichoacán.

Price, D. H. 1990. Atlas of World Cultures: A Geo-graphic Guide to Ethnographic Literature. London:Sage Publications.

Shipley, W.F. 1978. “Native languages of California.”In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8:California. Pp. 80-90. Washington, DC: Smithson-ian Institution Press.

Smith, E.A. in press. “On the co-evolution of cultural,linguistic, and biological diversity.” In Language,Knowledge, and the Environment: The Interdepen-dence of Biological and Cultural Diversity, ed. byL. Maffi. Washington DC: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Suttles, W. (ed.) 1990. Handbook of North AmericanIndians. Vol. 7: Northwest Coast. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Thornton, R. 1987. American Indian Holocaust andSurvival: A Population History Since 1492. Nor-man: University of Oklahoma Press.

Toledo,V.M. 1995. Diversidad de las Culturas. México,D.F. CEMEX.

Trigger, B. (ed.) 1978. Handbook of North AmericanIndians. Vol. 15: Northeast. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press.

United States Department of Commerce 1974. Federaland State Indian Reservations and Indian TrustAreas. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice.

Valdés, L.M. 1995. Los Indios en los Censos dePoblación. México, DF: Editorial UNAM.

Walker, D.E. (ed.) 1998. Handbook of North AmericanIndians. Vol. 12: Plateau. Washington, DC: Smith-sonian Institution Press.

Woodbury, A.S. 1984. “Eskimo and Aleut languages.”In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 5:Arctic. Pp. 49-64. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

World Reference Atlas. 1994. London, UK: DorlingKindersley Limited.

Wurm, S.A., ed. 1996. Atlas of the World’s Languagesin Danger of Disappearing. UNESCO/Pacific Lin-guistics: Paris/Canberra.

WWF 1998. “Notes on Indigenous Peoples and the Glob-al 200.” Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.

109

WWF has produced many publications andresources focusing on conservation withindigenous and traditional peoples. Some of

these resources are general; some are topical and/orcome from field projects or regional activities; some ofthem are broader in scope but include sections or chap-ters on experiences with, or applications to, issues relat-ed to indigenous and traditional peoples. Below is anon-exhaustive list of the WWF resources that havebeen collected by the People & Conservation Unit ofWWF International. Many more exist in regional andproject offices (especially project documents), but thoseresources listed here are recommended as a good start-ing point.

I. General Policies on Indigenous Peoples andConservation

1. Indigenous Peoples and Conservation: WWFStatement of Principles published in 1996 byWWF International. Available on the web athttp://panda.org/resources/publications/sustain-ability/indigenous/download.html

This WWF Position Paper is the main refer-ence for developing plans and strategies for work-ing with indigenous and traditional peoples at theecoregional level. Available in English, French,Spanish, and Russian.

2. Indigenous Peoples and Conservation Organisa-tions: Experiences in Collaboration by Ron Weber,John Butler and Patty Larson (eds.), published in2000 by WWF-US, The Ford Foundation and BSP.

Contains a useful explanation of WWF’s poli-cies on indigenous peoples (Chapter 2), five casestudies, and a summary of conclusions and recom-mendations from a review workshop. Its conclu-sions and recommendations are relevant for any-one working with indigenous and traditional peo-ples in ecoregion conservation.

3. “WWF’s perspective on conservation with indige-nous peoples” by Gonzalo Oviedo, in Report of thePeople and Conservation Workshoppublished in1999 by WWF International.

Workshop report containing a useful paper andrecommendations on indigenous peoples issues.

II. Indigenous Peoples and ecoregion conservation

4. This Research Report is complemented by:- A poster-size map of the distribution of ethnolin-

guistic groups in the Global 238 ecoregions- An Excel database of ethnolinguistic groups inthe Global 238 ecoregions, plus various statisticaltables- A report summarizing WWF projects withindigenous and traditional peoples worldwide.

5. “Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, BioculturalDiversity, and WWF’s Ecoregion conservation” byLuisa Maffi and Gonzalo Oviedo, in Report of thePeople and Conservation Workshoppublished in1999 by WWF International.

A summary, preliminary version of the presentreport.

6. “Indigenous and traditional peoples in the world’secoregions: WWF’s views on conservation of bio-diversity with indigenous and traditional peoples”by Luisa Maffi and Gonzalo Oviedo, published in2000 by WWF International.

A shorter version of the same report, preparedfor the Congress on Cultures and Biodiversity inKunming, China. Useful as a brief for externalaudiences.

III. Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas

7. Principles and Guidelines on Indigenous and Tra-ditional Peoples and Protected Areas published in1999 by WCPA/IUCN and WWF.

The official IUCN/WCPA-WWF policy on pro-tected areas inhabited by indigenous and tradi-tional peoples. A useful resource for promoting co-management approaches. Available in English,French and Spanish, and on the web athttp://panda.org/resources/publications/sustain-ability/indigenous2/download.html

8. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and ProtectedAreas: Principles, Guidelines, and Case Studies.Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series,No. 4, published in 2000 by WCPA/IUCN andWWF. Edited and coordinated by Javier Beltrán,Series edited by Adrian Phillips. IUCN-WWF-Cardiff University. Cambridge, UK.

Contains the policy document above, a num-ber of short descriptions of co-management casesaround the world, and lessons learned. A key doc-ument for protected area practitioners involved incollaborative work with indigenous and tradition-al communities in protected areas.

9. The Law Of The Mother: Protecting Indigenous

AAppppeennddiixx 55

WWWWFF RReessoouurrcceess

110

Peoples In Protected Areasby Elizabeth Kemf,published in 1993 by Sierra Club Books.

A product of the IVth World Congress onNational Parks and Protected Areas (Caracas1992) where WWF played a leading role in dis-cussions on people and protected areas. Providesa useful overview of the issues at stake, goodexamples, and valuable policy guidance. Availablealso in German.

10. “Notes For A Proposal On Indigenous PeoplesAnd Protected Areas” by Gonzalo Oviedo, pages19-22 in Indigenous Affairs, IWGIA QuarterlyMagazine No.1 Jan-Mar 1997 (Copenhagen).

Provides the background to the development ofthe Principles and Guidelines, and contains guid-ance on steps that can be taken at the nationallevel. Available in English and Spanish.

11. “Building Alliances with Indigenous Peoples toEstablish and Manage Protected Areas” by Gonza-lo Oviedo and Jessica Brown, in Partnerships ForProtection: New Strategies for Planning and Man-agement for Protected Areas, published in 1999 byWWF-IUCN-Earthscan Publications, London.Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley (eds).

Similar to the previous document, but exploresmore broadly the potential of IUCN categories tohelp solve conflicts with indigenous and tradition-al peoples. Also provides some rationale on theneed and directions for policy changes on protect-ed areas.

12. “Políticas y Acciones del WWF sobre Áreas Prote-gidas y Pueblos Indígenas. Presentación en elTaller sobre Experiencias Prácticas en Gestión deÁreas Protegidas por los Pueblos Indígenas enIberoamérica” by Gonzalo Oviedo, published in1999. Cartagena, Colombia.

Spanish (only) summary of WWF’s policieson protected areas and indigenous peoples, plusa short description of a selection of projectsaround the world in which WWF is promotingcloser involvement of indigenous and traditionalcommunities.

13. “The ecological science of the Karen in Thung YaiNaresuan Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Thailand”by R. Steinmetz, pages 84-107 in Indigenous Peo-ples and Protected Areas in South and SoutheastAsia, published in 1998 by IWGIA, Copenhagen.Marcus Colchester and Christian Erni (eds.).

WWF has been working with the Karen peoplefor nearly a decade, focusing on the applicationsand values of traditional ecological knowledge(TEK) to protected area management. Describesthe project’s findings and highlights the impor-tance of TEK for ensuring proper management of

the area.

14. “Considerations of the Rights, Interests andKnowledge of Indigenous Peoples in the Develop-ment of Kayan Mentarang National Park, EastKalimantan, Indonesia” by Dale Whitington andLewie Paru, pages 220-237 in Indigenous Peoplesand Protected Areas in South and Southeast Asia,published in 1998 by IWGIA, Copenhagen. Mar-cus Colchester and Christian Erni (eds.).

Describes WWF’s work in a protected area inIndonesia to help indigenous communities keeptheir traditional use rights in the face of hostileprotected area policies. Interesting technicalapproaches are explored, such as traditional useapplications to zonation.

IV. Project Level and Regional Experiences

15. Conservation with People, published in 1993 byWWF International.

Describes projects involving indigenous andtraditional peoples. Contains good examples ofWWF’s fieldwork with local people. Available inEnglish, French and Spanish.

16. Spotlight on Solutions: A People’s Agenda. AHandbook of Case Studies on Local Implementa-tion of Agenda 21 by Sue Stolton and Nigel Dud-ley, published in 1997 by WWF International.

Contains cases illustrating local implementa-tion of Agenda 21, highlighting experiences withindigenous and traditional peoples.

17. Lessons from a Different Europe: CADISPAeditedby Sally Zalewski, published in 1999 by the WWFMediterranean Progtramme Office, Rome.

Covers aspects of the history of the CADISPAproject which worked in sparsely populated areasof Europe inhabited by indigenous and traditionalpeoples. Strong focus on capacity building.

18. “Arctic People and Conservation”, Quarterly Bul-letin No. 3 published in 1996 by the WWF ArcticProgramme, Oslo.

The WWF Arctic Programme has long beeninvolved in working with indigenous peoples of theArctic, from protected areas to wildlife manage-ment and tourism. Offers much in terms of lessonsand experience, and explores aspects of workingwith Arctic peoples.

V. Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights issues

19. Fair Play, Fair Pay: Laws to Preserve TraditionalKnowledge and Biological Resourcesby D. Shel-ton, published in 1995 by WWF International.


111

Addresses the topics of compensation, benefitsharing, and intellectual property rights (IPR) relat-ed to the commercial use of traditional knowledge.

20. The Biodiversity Convention and IntellectualProperty Rightsby Farhana Yamin, publsihed in1995 by WWF International.

An exploration of intellectual property rightsissues in the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) from a legal and policy perspective, withreference also to traditional knowledge.

21. Fair Deals in the Search for New Natural Productsby Sarah Laird, published in 1995 by WWF Inter-national.

Describes how WWF can help promote fairagreements and regulations at project, nationaland international levels to make sure that bio-prospecting for commercial purposes respects therights and interests of providers of materials andknowledge, including traditional communities.

22. Equitable Biodiversity Research Relationships inPractice: Written Agreements Between Communi-ties and Researchersby Sarah Laird, published in1999 by WWF International.

Explores experiences in para-legal mecha-nisms by which traditional communities exercisetheir right to provide consent for research underagreed-upon, transparent conditions, and providesuseful guidance on developing agreements for bio-diversity research at community level. Available inEnglish and Spanish.

23. Ethics, Biodiversity and New Natural ProductsDevelopmentby A.B. Cunningham, published in1993 (reprinted in 1996) by WWF International.

A pioneer document in WWF in dealing withIPR issues in connection with commercial use ofbiodiversity. A good analysis of the subject and,although somewhat outdated, still worthwhile anduseful.

24. “Report of an Informal Workshop on IntellectualProperty Rights and Indigenous Peoples” pub-lished in 1994 by International Academy of theEnvironment, IUCN, WWF and the UN Centre forHuman Rights, Geneva, Switzerland.

Of historical value since it reports on the firstdiscussion held by WWF (and others) with indige-nous peoples’ organizations on IPR.

25. Beyond Intellectual Property: Toward TraditionalResource Rights for Indigenous Peoples and LocalCommunitiesby Darrell Posey and Graham Dut-field, published in 1996 by IDRC and WWF,Ottawa, Canada.

Outcome of the four-year, WWF International

supported project of the Working Group on Tradi-tional Resource Rights to explore IPR and TEKproblems. A key tool internationally in furtheringthe cause of TEK protection and the need forappropriate IPR systems. Available in English,French, Spanish, and Chinese (in preparation).

26. The Life Industry. Biodiversity, People and Profitspublished in 1996 by Swissaid and WWF, Inter-mediate Technology Publications, London.

Contains a compilation of papers, presenta-tions and discussion notes arising from a work-shop in Switzerland to discuss IPR and TEKissues. Of interest for those exploring legal per-spectives on this front.

27. Biodiversity and Intellectual Property Rights inthe South Pacificpublished in 1999 by the WWFSouth Pacific Programme Office, Fiji.

Concise, up-to-date and illustrative regionaloverview, backed by a case study on the use of theKava plant. Shows how the subject is being tack-led in regions where such issues are important, butwhere nations lack the necessary legal and policytools.

VI. Indigenous Peoples and Species (Plants and Wildlife)

28. The commercial, consumptive use of wild species:managing it for the benefit of biodiversityby Cur-tis Freese, published in 1996 by WWF-US andWWF International.

Provides guidelines on the commercial, con-sumptive use of wildlife, addressed from a sustain-able use perspective. Extremely useful for thedevelopment of area-based or species-based man-agement plans.

29. “Guidelines for the consumptive use of wildspecies in the Arctic: Synthesis of the Clyde Riverand Inuvik Paulatuk Case Studies” by CurtisFreese, Peter J. Ewins and Peter Prokosch, pub-lished in 1998 by WWF Arctic Programme, Oslo.

Provides a good model and example of com-bining traditional knowledge and managementpractices with positive, science-based sustainabil-ity criteria.

30. “Sustainable Use of Marine Species by the Inuitand Inuvialuit in the Canadian Arctic” pages 21-24in Case Studies on the Role of Major Groups inSustainable Oceans and Seas, published in 1999by WWF International and UNDSD, UN Depart-ment of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.

Prepared for the Commission on SustainableDevelopment (CSD).

31. People and Plants Handbook, an output of WWF’s

Appendix 5. WWF Resources

112

People and Plants Programme, published in 1996by WWF, UNESCO and Kew Botanical Gardens.

Focuses on plant conservation with traditionalcommunities. Accessible on the web athttp://www.rbgkew.org.uk/peopleplants/

32. Wildlife Management at the Rio das MortesXavante Reserve, MT, Brazil. Coordinated by RosaLemos de Sá, published in 2000 by WWF-Brazil.

Contains the result of an innovative exercisewith the Xavante indigenous people to supportsustainable hunting.

VII. Information and Communications Resources

33. WWF News, Special Focus: Indigenous Peoples,pages 10-18, published in 1993 by WWF Interna-tional.

Provides, in short texts and pictures, a usefultool to brief friends, partners and especially poten-tial donors.

34. “Dossier peuples indigènes. PANDA Nouvelles” –juillet-août-septembre 1996, organe officiel duWWF-Suisse, pages 2-6, published in 1996 byWWF-Switzerland.

Similar to the above, a useful publication forFrench-speakers.

35. http://panda.org/resources/publications/sustain-ability/indig_gateway/

This is the gateway to indigenous peoplesissues on the WWF website. Started in August1999 with a short introduction, three key docu-ments (Statement of Principles, Protected AreasGuidelines, Law of the Mother) and a photogallery, it contains an increasing number of docu-ments and links.

36. Videos: Many have been produced at the projectlevel (e.g. with the Miskito people in Nicaragua,the wetlands project in Northern Australia-Indonesia-PNG, the Keoladeo National Park inIndia), some dealing with participatory ruralappraisal issues with traditional communities.Contact the People & Conservation Unit in WWFInternational.

37. Photographs: The WWF-Canon Photolibraryholds a good collection of images showing activi-ties involving indigenous and traditional commu-nities, which can be requested in slide form or indigitized format on a CDRom. Contact the People& Conservation Unit in WWF International.

VIII. Bibliographies

38. “Issues and Approaches to Integrating Conserva-

tion and Development: An Annotated Bibliogra-phy” published in 1998 by the DGIS-WWF Trop-ical Forest Portfolio, WWF International.

Although not specific to indigenous and tradi-tional peoples, this ICDP bibliography containsmany useful references.

39. “Bibliographic Database on Issues Related toIndigenous Peoples and Biodiversity Conserva-tion” compiled in 1998 by Graham Dutfield,WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. Availableonly in electronic form, a large bibliographyspecifically focusing on indigenous peoples andconservation.

IX. Other useful documents

40. Many documents exist in WWF with relevance toworking with indigenous and traditional peoples;for example, those related to ICDPs, population,gender issues, socio-economic analysis, socialimplications of trade, macroeconomics, access togenetic resources, and conservation incentives.For guidance, contact the People & Conservationprogrammes at WWF International, WWF-US,WWF-UK, South Asia (India) and South Pacific(Fiji); the Macroeconomics Programme Officebased in WWF-US; the Trade & Investment Unit atWWF International; and the Conservation PolicyDepartment at WWF International.

41. WWF Integrated Conservation and DevelopmentProjects: Ten Lessons from the Field 1985-1996by Patty Larson, Marx Freudenberger and B.Wyckoff-Baird, published in 1998 by WWF-US.

Produced from a review that included variousWWF projects with indigenous and traditionalpeoples in various parts of the world. The lessonsoffered are all of considerable importance whenplanning and implementing work with indigenousand traditional communities. Available in Englishand Spanish.

42. Stakeholder Collaboration: Building Bridges ForConservationpublished in 2000 by WWF-US.

A guide to involving stakeholders in ecoregionconservation.

43. A Guide to Socio-Economic Assessments forEcoregion Conservationpublished in 2000 by theWWF-US Ecoregion Conservation StrategiesUnit.

A summary, framework guide to understand-ing the socio-economic dimension of ecoregionconservation.


113

TTEERRRREESSTTRRIIAALL EECCOORREEGGIIOONNSSTTrrooppiiccaall aanndd SSuubbttrrooppiiccaall MMooiisstt BBrrooaaddlleeaaff FFoorreessttss

Afrotropical1 Guinean Moist Forests – Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana,

Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Togo2 Congolian Coastal Forests – Angola, Cameroon, Democ-

ratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Nige-ria, Republic of Congo, São Tomé and Príncipe

3 Cameroon Highlands Forests – Cameroon, EquatorialGuinea, Nigeria

4 Northeastern Congo Basin Moist Forests – CentralAfrican Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo

5 Central Congo Basin Moist Forests – Democratic Repub-lic of Congo

6 Western Congo Basin Moist Forests – Cameroon, Cen-tral African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo,Gabon, Republic of Congo

7 Albertine Rift Montane Forests – Burundi, DemocraticRepublic of Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda

8 East African Coastal Forests – Kenya, Mozambique,Somalia, Tanzania

9 Eastern Arc Montane Forests – Kenya, Tanzania10 Madagascar Forests and Shrublands – Madagascar11 Seychelles and Mascarenes Moist Forests – SeychellesAustralasia12 Sulawesi Moist Forests – Indonesia13 Moluccas Moist Forests – Indonesia14 Southern New Guinea Lowland Forests – Indonesia,

Papua New Guinea15 New Guinea Montane Forests – Indonesia, Papua New

Guinea16 Solomons-Vanuatu-Bismarck Moist Forests – Papua New

Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu 17 Queensland Tropical Forests – Australia18 New Caledonia Moist Forests – New Caledonia

(Provence Sur (France); Provence Nord)19 Lord Howe-Norfolk Islands Forests – AustraliaIndo-Malayan20 Southwestern Ghats Moist Forests – India21 Sri Lankan Moist Forests – Sri Lanka22 Northern Indochina Subtropical Moist Forests – China,

Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam23 Southeast China-Hainan Moist Forests – China, Vietnam24 Taiwan Montane Forests – China25 Annamite Range Moist Forests – Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam 26 Sumatran Islands Lowland and Montane Forests –

Indonesia27 Philippines Moist Forests – Philippines28 Palawan Moist Forests – Philippines29 Kayah-Karen/Tenasserim Moist Forests – Malaysia,

Myanmar, Thailand 30 Peninsular Malaysian Lowland and Montane Forests –

Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand 31 Borneo Lowland and Montane Forests – Brunei, Indone-

sia, Malaysia 32 Nansei Shoto Archipelago Forests – Japan33 Eastern Deccan Plateau Moist Forests – India34 Naga-Manupuri-Chin Hills Moist Forests – Bangladesh,

India, Myanmar 35 Cardamom Mountains Moist Forests – Cambodia, Thai-

land36 Western Java Montane Forests – IndonesiaNeotropical37 Greater Antillean Moist Forests – Cuba, Dominican

Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Puerto Rico (United States)38 Talamancan-Isthmian Pacific Forests – Costa Rica, Panama39 Chocó-Darién Moist Forests – Colombia, Ecuador, Panama 40 Northern Andean Montane Forests – Colombia, Ecuador,

Peru, Venezuela

41 Coastal Venezuela Montane Forests – Venezuela42 Guianan Moist Forests – Brazil, French Guiana (France),

Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela43 Napo Moist Forests – Colombia, Ecuador, Peru 44 Rio Negro-Juruá Moist Forests – Brazil, Colombia, Peru,

Venezuela 45 Guayanan Highlands Moist Forests – Brazil, Colombia,

Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela46 Central Andean Yungas – Argentina, Bolivia, Peru 47 Southwestern Amazonian Moist Forests – Bolivia, Brazil,

Peru 48 Atlantic Forests – Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay Oceania49 South Pacific Islands Forests – American Samoa (United

States), Cook Islands (New Zealand), Fiji, French Polyne-sia (France), Niue (New Zealand), Samoa, Tonga, Wallisand Futuna Islands (France)

50 Hawai'i Moist Forests – Hawai'i (United States)

TTrrooppiiccaall aanndd SSuubbttrrooppiiccaall DDrryy BBrrooaaddlleeaaff FFoorreessttssAfrotropical51 Madagascar Dry Forests – MadagascarAustralasia52 Nusa Tenggara Dry Forests – Indonesia53 New Caledonia Dry Forests – New Caledonia (Provence

Sur (France); Provence Nord)Indo-Malayan54 Indochina Dry Forests – Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Viet-

nam 55 Chhota-Nagpur Dry Forests – IndiaNeotropical56 Southern Mexican Dry Forests – Guatemala, Mexico57 Tumbesian-Andean Valleys Dry Forests – Colombia,

Ecuador, Peru 58 Chiquitano Dry Forests – Bolivia, Brazil59 Atlantic Dry Forests – BrazilOceania60 Hawai'i Dry Forests – Hawai'i (United States)

TTrrooppiiccaall aanndd SSuubbttrrooppiiccaall CCoonniiffeerroouuss FFoorreessttssNearctic61 Sierra Madre Oriental and Occidental Pine-Oak Forests –

Mexico, United StatesNeotropical62 Greater Antillean Pine Forests – Cuba, Dominican

Republic, Haiti 63 Mesoamerican Pine-Oak Forests – El Salvador,

Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua

TTeemmppeerraattee BBrrooaaddlleeaaff aanndd MMiixxeedd FFoorreessttssAustralasia64 Eastern Australia Temperate Forests – Australia65 Tasmanian Temperate Rainforests – Australia66 New Zealand Temperate Forests – New ZealandIndo-Malayan67 Eastern Himalayan Broadleaf and Conifer Forests –

Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal68 Western Himalayan Temperate Forests – India, Nepal,

Pakistan Nearctic69 Appalachian and Mixed Mesophytic Forests – United

StatesPalearctic70 Southwest China Temperate Forests – China71 Russian Far East Broadleaf and Mixed Forests – Russia

TTeemmppeerraattee CCoonniiffeerroouuss FFoorreessttssNearctic72 Pacific Temperate Rainforests – Canada, United States

AAppppeennddiixx 66

GGlloobbaall 220000 ((223388)) EEccoorreeggiioonnss

114

73 Klamath-Siskiyou Coniferous Forests – United States74 Sierra Nevada Coniferous Forests – United States75 Southeastern Coniferous and Broadleaf Forests – United

StatesNeotropical76 Valdivian Temperate Rainforests / Juan Fernández

Islands – Argentina, ChilePalearctic77 European-Mediterranean Montane Mixed Forests – Alba-

nia, Algeria, Andorra, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina,Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany,Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Morocco,Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia

78 Caucasus-Hyrcanian Temperate Forests – Armenia,Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iran, Russia, Turkey,Ukraine

79 Altai-Sayan Montane Forests – China, Kazakhstan, Mon-golia, Russia

80 Hengduan Shan Coniferous Forests – China

BBoorreeaall FFoorreessttss//TTaaiiggaaNearctic81 Muskwa/Slave Lake Boreal Forests – Canada82 Canadian Boreal Taiga – CanadaPalearctic83 Ural Mountains Taiga – Russia84 Eastern Siberian Taiga – China, Russia85 Kamchatka Boreal Taiga and Grasslands – Russia

TTrrooppiiccaall aanndd SSuubbttrrooppiiccaall GGrraassssllaannddss,, SSaavvaannnnaass,, aannddSShhrruubbllaannddss

Afrotropical86 Horn of Africa Acacia Savannas – Eritrea, Ethiopia,

Kenya, Somalia, Sudan87 East African Acacia Savannas – Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan,

Tanzania, Uganda 88 Central and Eastern Mopane and Miombo Woodlands –

Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Democratic Republic ofCongo, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zam-bia, Zimbabwe

89 Sudanian Savannas – Cameroon, Central African Repub-lic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea,Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda

Australasia90 Northern Australia and Trans-Fly Savannas – Australia,

Indonesia, Papua New Guinea Indo-Malayan91 Terai-Duar Savannas and Grasslands – Bangladesh,

Bhutan, India, Nepal Neotropical92 Llanos Savannas – Colombia, Venezuela93 Cerrado Woodlands and Savannas – Bolivia, Brazil,

Paraguay

TTeemmppeerraattee GGrraassssllaannddss,, SSaavvaannnnaass,, aanndd SShhrruubbllaannddssNearctic94 Northern Prairie – Canada, United StatesNeotropical95 Patagonian Steppe – Argentina, ChilePalearctic96 Daurian Steppe – China, Mongolia, Russia

FFllooooddeedd GGrraassssllaannddss aanndd SSaavvaannnnaassAfrotropical97 Sudd-Sahelian Flooded Grasslands and Savannas –

Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan,Uganda

98 Zambezian Flooded Savannas – Angola, Botswana,Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Mozambique,Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia

Indo-Malayan99 Rann of Kutch Flooded Grasslands – India, PakistanNeotropical100 Everglades Flooded Grasslands – United States101 Pantanal Flooded Savannas – Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay

MMoonnttaannee GGrraassssllaannddss aanndd SShhrruubbllaannddssAfrotropical102 Ethiopian Highlands – Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan 103 Southern Rift Montane Woodlands – Malawi, Mozam-

bique, Tanzania, Zambia 104 East African Moorlands – Democratic Republic of Congo,

Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda105 Drakensberg Montane Shrublands and Woodlands –

Lesotho, South Africa, Swaziland Australasia106 Central Range Subalpine Grasslands – Indonesia, Papua

New GuineaIndo-Malayan107 Kinabalu Montane Shrublands – MalaysiaNeotropical108 Northern Andean Paramo – Colombia, Ecuador, Peru,

Venezuela 109 Central Andean Dry Puna – Argentina, Bolivia, Chile,

Peru Paleartic110 Tibetan Plateau Steppe – Afghanistan, China, India, Pak-

istan, Tajikistan111 Middle Asian Montane Steppe – Afghanistan, China,

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan

112 Eastern Himalayan Alpine Meadows – Bhutan, China,India, Myanmar, Nepal

TTuunnddrraaNearctic113 Alaskan North Slope Coastal Tundra – Canada, United

States114 Canadian Low Arctic Tundra – CanadaPalearctic115 Fennoscandia Alpine Tundra and Taiga – Finland, Nor-

way, Russia, Sweden 116 Taymyr and Russian Coastal Tundra – Russia117 Chukotsky Coastal Tundra – Russia

MMeeddiitteerrrraanneeaann FFoorreessttss,, WWooooddllaannddss,, aanndd SSccrruubbAfrotropical118 Fynbos – South AfricaAustralasia119 Southwestern Australia Forests and Scrub – Australia120 Southern Australia Mallee and Woodlands – Australia Nearctic121 California Chaparral and Woodlands – Mexico, United

StatesNeotropical122 Chilean Matorral – ChilePalearctic123 Mediterranean Forests, Woodlands, and Scrub – Albania,

Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, CanaryIslands (Spain), Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Gibraltar(United Kingdom), Greece, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan,Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Madeira Islands (Portugal),Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia,Spain, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Western Sahara (Moroc-co), Yugoslavia

DDeesseerrttss aanndd XXeerriicc SShhrruubbllaannddssAfrotropical124 Namib-Karoo-Kaokoveld Deserts – Angola, Namibia,

South Africa 125 Madagascar Spiny Thicket – Madagascar126 Socotra Island Desert – Yemen127 Arabian Highland Woodlands and Shrublands – Oman,

Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen Australasia128 Carnavon Xeric Scrub – Australia129 Great Sandy-Tanami Deserts – AustraliaNearctic130 Sonoran-Baja Deserts – Mexico, United States131 Chihuahuan-Tehuacán Deserts – Mexico, United StatesNeotropical132 Galápagos Islands Scrub – Ecuador133 Atacama-Sechura Deserts – Chile, Peru


115

Palearctic134 Central Asian Deserts – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turk-

menistan, Uzbekistan

MMaannggrroovveessAfrotropical Atlantic135 Gulf of Guinea Mangroves – Angola, Cameroon, Democ-

ratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon,Ghana, Nigeria

Afrotropical Indian136 East African Mangroves – Kenya, Mozambique, Somalia,

Tanzania137 Madagascar Mangroves – MadagascarAustralasia138 New Guinea Mangroves – Indonesia, Papua New GuineaIndo-Malayan Indo-Pacific139 Sundarbans Mangroves – Bangladesh, India140 Greater Sundas Mangroves – Brunei, Indonesia,

Malaysia Neotropical Atlantic141 Guianan-Amazon Mangroves – Brazil, French Guiana

(France), Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago,Venezuela

Neotropical Pacific142 Panama Bight Mangroves – Colombia, Ecuador, Pana-

ma, Peru

FFRREESSHHWWAATTEERR EECCOORREEGGIIOONNSSLLaarrggee RRiivveerrss

Afrotropical143 Congo River and Flooded Forests – Angola, Democratic

Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo Indo-Malayan144 Mekong River – Cambodia, China, Laos, Myanmar, Thai-

land, Vietnam Nearctic145 Colorado River – Mexico, United States146 Lower Mississippi River – United StatesNeotropical147 Amazon River and Flooded Forests – Brazil, Colombia,

Peru 148 Orinoco River and Flooded Forests – Brazil, Colombia,

Venezuela Palearctic149 Yangtze River and Lakes – China

LLaarrggee RRiivveerr HHeeaaddwwaatteerrssAfrotropical150 Congo Basin Piedmont Rivers and Streams – Angola,

Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Repub-lic of Congo, Gabon, Republic of Congo, Sudan

Nearctic151 Mississippi Piedmont Rivers and Streams – United StatesNeotropical152 Upper Amazon Rivers and Streams – Bolivia, Brazil,

Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana (France), Guyana,Peru, Suriname, Venezuela

153 Upper Paraná Rivers and Streams – Argentina, Brazil,Paraguay

154 Brazilian Shield Amazonian Rivers and Streams –Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay

LLaarrggee RRiivveerr DDeellttaassAfrotropical155 Niger River Delta – NigeriaIndo-Malayan156 Indus River Delta – PakistanPalearctic157 Volga River Delta – Kazakhstan, Russia158 Mesopotamian Delta and Marshes – Iran, Iraq, Kuwait 159 Danube River Delta – Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania,

Ukraine, Yugoslavia160 Lena River Delta – Russia

SSmmaallll RRiivveerrssAfrotropical161 Upper Guinea Rivers and Streams – Côte d'Ivoire,

Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone

162 Madagascar Freshwater – Madagascar163 Gulf of Guinea Rivers and Streams – Angola, Cameroon,

Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Nigeria, Republic of Congo

164 Cape Rivers and Streams – South AfricaAustralasia165 New Guinea Rivers and Streams – Indonesia, Papua

New Guinea166 New Caledonia Rivers and Streams – New Caledonia

(Provence Sur (France); Provence Nord)167 Kimberley Rivers and Streams – Australia168 Southwest Australia Rivers and Streams – Australia169 Eastern Australia Rivers and Streams – AustraliaIndo-Malayan170 Xi Jiang Rivers and Streams – China, Vietnam171 Western Ghats Rivers and Streams – India172 Southwestern Sri Lanka Rivers and Streams – Sri Lanka173 Salween River – China, Myanmar, Thailand 174 Sundaland Rivers and Swamps – Brunei, Indonesia,

Malaysia, Singapore Nearctic175 Southeastern Rivers and Streams – United States176 Pacific Northwest Coastal Rivers and Streams – United

States177 Gulf of Alaska Coastal Rivers and Streams – Canada,

United StatesNeotropical178 Guianan Freshwater – Brazil, French Guiana (France),

Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela179 Greater Antillean Freshwater – Cuba, Dominican Repub-

lic, Haiti, Puerto Rico (United States) Palearctic180 Balkan Rivers and Streams – Albania, Bosnia and Herze-

govina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Macedonia,Slovenia, Turkey, Yugoslavia

181 Russian Far East Rivers and Wetlands – China, Mongo-lia, Russia

LLaarrggee LLaakkeessAfrotropical182 Rift Valley Lakes – Burundi, Democratic Republic of

Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda,Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia

Neotropical183 High Andean Lakes – Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Peru Palearctic184 Lake Baikal – Russia185 Lake Biwa – Japan

SSmmaallll LLaakkeessAfrotropical186 Cameroonian Crater Lakes – CameroonAustralasia187 Lakes Kutubu and Sentani – Indonesia, Papua New

Guinea188 Central Sulawesi Lakes – IndonesiaIndo-Malayan189 Philippines Freshwater – Philippines190 Lake Inle – Myanmar191 Yunnan Lakes and Streams – ChinaNeotropical192 Mexican Highland Lakes – Mexico

XXeerriicc BBaassiinnssAustralasia193 Central Australian Freshwater – AustraliaNearctic194 Chihuahuan Freshwater – Mexico, United StatesPalearctic195 Anatolian Freshwater – Syria, Turkey

MMAARRIINNEE EECCOORREEGGIIOONNSS PPoollaarr

Antarctic196 Antarctic Peninsula and Weddell Sea Arctic197 Bering-Beaufort-Chukchi Seas – Canada, Russia, United

States

Appendix 6: Global 200 (238) Ecoregions

116


198 Barents-Kara Seas – Norway, Russia

TTeemmppeerraattee SShheellff aanndd SSeeaassMediterranean199 Mediterranean Sea – Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herze-

govina, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Gibraltar (UnitedKingdom), Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta,Monaco, Morocco, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey,Yugoslavia

North Temperate Atlantic200 Northeast Atlantic Shelf Marine – Belgium, Denmark,

Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia,Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Swe-den, United Kingdom

201 Grand Banks – Canada, St. Pierre and Miquelon(France), United States

202 Chesapeake Bay – United StatesNorth Temperate Pacific203 Yellow Sea – China, North Korea, South Korea 204 Okhotsk Sea – Japan, RussiaSouthern Ocean205 Patagonian Southwest Atlantic – Argentina, Brazil, Chile,

Uruguay 206 Southern Australian Marine – Australia207 New Zealand Marine – New Zealand

TTeemmppeerraattee UUppwweelllliinnggNorth Temperate208 California Current – Canada, Mexico, United States South Temperate209 Humboldt Current – Chile, Ecuador, Peru 210 Benguela Current – Namibia, South Africa211 Agulhas Current – Mozambique, South Africa

TTrrooppiiccaall UUppwweelllliinnggCentral Indo-Pacific212 Western Australia Marine – AustraliaEastern Indo-Pacific213 Panama Bight – Colombia, Ecuador, Panama 214 Gulf of California – Mexico215 Galápagos Marine – EcuadorEastern Tropical Atlantic216 Canary Current – Canary Islands (Spain), Gambia,

Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Madeira Islands (Portugal),

Morocco, Senegal, Western Sahara (Morocco)TTrrooppiiccaall CCoorraall

Central Indo-Pacific217 Nansei Shoto – Japan218 Sulu-Sulawesi Seas – Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines 219 Bismarck-Solomon Seas – Indonesia, Papua New

Guinea, Solomon Islands 220 Banda-Flores Sea – Indonesia221 New Caledonia Barrier Reef – New Caledonia (Provence

Sur (France); Provence Nord)222 Great Barrier Reef – Australia223 Lord Howe-Norfolk Islands Marine – Australia224 Palau Marine – Palau225 Andaman Sea – Andaman and Nicobar Islands (India),

Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand Eastern Indo-Pacific226 Tahitian Marine – Cook Islands (New Zealand), French

Polynesia (France)227 Hawaiian Marine – United States 228 Rapa Nui – Chile229 Fiji Barrier Reef – FijiWestern Indo-Pacific230 Maldives, Chagos, Lakshadweep Atolls – Chagos Archi-

pelago (United Kingdom), India, Maldives, Sri Lanka 231 Red Sea – Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Israel, Jordan, Saudi

Arabia, Sudan, Yemen232 Arabian Sea – Djibouti, Iran, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar,

Saudi Arabia, Somalia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen 233 East African Marine – Kenya, Mozambique, Somalia,

Tanzania 234 West Madagascar Marine – Comoros, Madagascar, May-

otte and Iles Glorieuses (France), Seychelles

Western Tropical Atlantic235 Mesoamerican Reef – Belize, Guatemala, Honduras,

Mexico 236 Greater Antillean Marine – Bahamas, Cayman Islands

(United Kingdom), Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti,Jamaica, Puerto Rico (United States), Turks and CaicosIslands (United Kingdom)

237 Southern Caribbean Sea – Aruba (Netherlands), Colom-bia, Netherlands Antilles (Netherlands), Panama, Trinidadand Tobago, Venezuela

238 Northeast Brazil Shelf Marine – Brazil

AAppppeennddiixx 77

119

WWF-AUSTRALIAGPO Box 528, Sydney, NSW 2001 Tel: + 61 2 9281 5515

WWF-AUSTRIAOttakringer Str. 114-116, Postfach 1, 1162 Vienna Tel: + 43 1 488 170

WWF-BELGIUM608 Chaussée de Waterloo, 1050 Brussels Tel: + 32 2 340 09 99

WWF-BRAZILSHIS EQ QL 6/8, Conjunto E-2° andar71620-430 BrasiliaTel: + 55 61 248 2899

WWF-CANADA245 Eglinton Avenue EastSuite 410, Toronto, Ontario M4P 3J1 Tel: + 1 416 489 8800

WWF-DENMARKRyesgade 3 F, 2200 Copenhagen NTel: + 45 35 36 36 35

WWF-FINLANDLintulahdenkatu 10, 00500 Helsinki 50Tel: + 358 9 774 0100

WWF-FRANCE188 Rue de la Roquette, 75011 ParisTel: + 33 1 55 25 84 84

WWF-GERMANYRebstöcker Str. 55, 60326 Frankfurt/MainTel: + 49 69 79 14 40

WWF-GREECE26 Filellinon Street, 105 58 AthensTel: + 30 1 331 4893

WWF-HONG KONGGPO Box 12721, Hong KongTel: + 852 2526 1011

WWF-INDIA172-B Lodi Road, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi 110 003 Tel: + 91 11 469 17 60

WWF-INDONESIAPO Box 5020 JKTM 12700, JakartaTel: +62 21 576 1070

WWF-ITALYVia Po 25/c, 00198 RomeTel: + 39 06 844 971

WWF-JAPANNihonseimei Akabanebashi Building3-1-14 Shiba Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0014Tel: + 81 3 3769 1711

WWF-MALAYSIA 49 Jalan SS23/15, 47301 Petaling Jaya Tel: + 60 3 703 3772

WWF-NETHERLANDSPostbus 7, 3700 AA ZeistTel: + 31 30 6937 333

WWF-NEW ZEALANDPO Box 6237, Wellington Tel: + 64 4 499 2930

WWF-NORWAYPostboks 6784, St Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo Tel: + 47 22 03 65 00

WWF-PAKISTANPO Box 5180, Ferozepur RoadLahore 54600Tel: + 92 42 586 2360

WWF-PHILIPPINES23-A Maalindog Street, UP VillageDiliman, Quezon City 1101Tel: + 632 433 3220/21/22

WWF-SOUTH AFRICAPO Box 456, Stellenbosch 7599Tel: + 27 21 887 2801

WWF-SPAINADENA, Santa Engracia 6-2° Izd28010 Madrid Tel: + 34 91 308 23 09/10

WWF-SWEDENUlriksdals Slott, 170 81 Solna Tel: + 46 8 624 74 00

WWF-SWITZERLANDPostfach8010 ZürichTel: + 41 1 297 21 21

WWF-UNITED KINGDOMPanda House, Weyside Park, GodalmingSurrey GU7 1XRTel: + 44 1483 426 444

WWF-UNITED STATES1250 24th Street NWWashington, DC 20037-1175Tel: + 1 202 293 4800

WWWWFF AASSSSOOCCIIAATTEESS

ARGENTINA. FUNDACIÓN VIDA SILVESTREDefensa 245/51, 6 Piso, 1065 Capital FederalBuenos AiresTel: + 54 114 343 3778

ECUADOR. FUNDACIÓN NATURAAvenida República, 481 y Almagro, Casilla 17-01-253Quito Tel: + 593 2 447 922

NIGERIA. NIGERIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATIONPO Box 74638, Victoria Island, LagosTel: + 234 1 2642 498

TURKEY. DHKD – will become an NO on 26 February 2001PK 971, Sirkeci 34436, IstanbulTel: + 90 212 528 20 30

VENEZUELA. FUDENAApartado Postal 70376Caracas 1071-A Tel: + 58 2 238 2930

WWWWFF NNaattiioonnaall OOffffiicceess

WWWWFF IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall

Avenue du Mont-Blanc1196 GlandSwitzerland

Tel: +41 22 364 9111Fax: +41 22 364 5358www.panda.org

WWF is the world’s largest and most experiencedindependent conservation organization with over 4.7 millionsupporters and a global network active in 96 countries.

WWF's mission is to stop the degradation of the planet'snatural environment and to build a future in which humanslive in harmony with nature, by:

- conserving the world's biological diversity- ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is

sustainable- promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful

consumption. ©19

86,

WW

F-W

orld

Wid

e F

und

For

Nat

ure

(For

mer

ly W

orld

Wild

life

Fun

d)

®W

WF

Reg

iste

red

Tra

dem

ark

owne

r C

Impr

imé

100%

sur

pap

ier

recy

clé

Terralingua is an international, non-profit organization concernedabout the future of the world's biological, cultural, and linguisticdiversity. Within this broad focus it has two main aims:

- supporting the perpetuation and continued development of theworld's linguistic diversity

- exploring the connections between linguistic, cultural and biological diversity, through a programme of research, information, applied work, and advocacy.

indigenous and traditional peoples of the world and ecoregion conservation

Documents

wwf indigenous

conservation work

longterm conservation

conservation strategy46

wwf resources

traditional peoples

worlds indigenous

mapping of indigenous