by: Cortney Owen
It seems justifiable that the original descendents from a particular land should have some input in attempts made to conserve it. Discussion of this issue has become controversial, however, in that many large-scale NGO’s feel they have the right to make decisions about conservation and preservation management strategies in areas where indigenous peoples reside. How is one to determine whether original descendents or environmentalists are more qualified in implementing these strategies?
NGO’s such as WWF and the Nature Conservancy, which are the main actors in these situations, have accumulated considerable wealth and influence in the past few decades. Attempts for alliance with aborigines and community based management plans have decreased considerably as NGO’s focus on large-scale conservation and rely on science, rather than social realities, in determining their agendas. This new focus has allowed large organizations to dominate policy and management in areas considered to have an environmental risk.
Indigenous people have been continuously invaded, conquered, and deprived of their rights throughout history, but recently there has been an attempt to disregard the native status and rights of these peoples in relation to their environmental influence. Once-traditional cultural practices have even been deemed illegal. Some argue that natives are destructive to their land causing environmental degradation and resource depletion and are particularly hostile to deal with.
Indigenous peoples argue on their behalf that as original descendents of particular lands, they have a greater knowledge of the environment, attempt to partake in respectful resource use, and are stewards of survival for future generations. Their agenda is to respect history, religion, and culture while making a living on land without destroying resources. Many conservationists argue that some native lands should be off limits to people for the sake of preserving biodiversity and resources. With obvious conflicting interests, conservationists and aborigines strive to impose their different agendas. This frequently leads to one agenda, particularly the native’s, not being accredited.
There lies a power conflict between indigenous peoples and conservationists in that conservationists have better access to fundraising and political support than do natives. Environmental issues have become dependent upon, and rooted in financial and political affiliations, thus creating a disadvantage to native peoples. Indigenous peoples are not as well connected with their government and do not have such means to support their causes. NGO’s have become so powerful and profitable that they often do not see the fault in a lack of cooperation with the natives.
3 comments:
I believe that neither group should be given complete control over the fate of the land. It is important to develop compromises between environmentalists and the indigenous peoples who use the land. This is an example of an informal institution which must be developed.
I think that indigenous people do have a great understanding of their land because they have lived on and cultivated that land for centuries. That being said, these powerful conservationist groups can bring a wealth of new knowledge to the table. I also believe a compromise must be met between these two groups before the environmental problems in these respective native lands are solved.
I agree. It is important to keep the needs of the indigenous people in play. They have lived somewhat passively on the land for centuries. Some kind of a middle ground has to be made so that both parties feel equally represented in the outcome and there liberties are exploited. With all the knowledge we have today regarding then environment education for both groups might be a very plausible cause.
Post a Comment