dpsl dpsl

This book examines the relationship between land tenure, conservation andrural development in the context of the Southeast Asian archipelago. In particular, it is concerned with people living in and around national parks andother protected areas. It discusses the value of reinforcing indigenous tenureand sustainable resource use practices and of including them in policies andprojects that attempt to integrate conservation and development. Use is madeof a wide range of case studies from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines andPapua New Guinea.

Peter Eaton now lives in the Peak District National Park and is Visiting Professor with the Department of Geography at the University of Plymouth,UK. Much of his working life has been spent in Sarawak, Papua New Guineaand Brunei. His teaching and research interests are in rural development, landtenure and conservation. He has acted as a consultant to the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme and a number of other internationalorganizations.

Land Tenure, Conservation andDevelopment in Southeast Asia

1 Land Tenure, Conservation and Development in Southeast AsiaPeter Eaton

2 The Politics of IndonesiaMalaysia RelationsOne kin, two nationsJoseph Chinyong Liow

RoutledgeCurzon Contemporary Southeast Asia Series

Peter Eaton

Land Tenure, Conservation andDevelopment in Southeast Asia

First published 2005by RoutledgeCurzon2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby RoutledgeCurzon29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001

RoutledgeCurzon is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

2005 Peter Eaton

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted orreproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,or other means, now known or hereafter invented, includingphotocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataA catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN 0-415-30373-7

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004.

ISBN 0-203-60870-4 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-34585-1 (Adobe eReader Format)(Print Edition)

List of tables viiList of figures viiiPreface ixAcknowledgements xAbbreviations xi

PART IIntroduction 1

1 Land tenure and conservation 3

2 Protected areas 17

PART IIThe islands of Southeast Asia 31

3 Landscapes of change 33

4 Conservation policies 54

PART IIICase studies 71

5 Kalimantan 73

6 Sarawak 86

7 Palawan: protecting the Philippines last frontier 100

8 Integrating conservation and development: Indonesia 111

9 Wildlife management areas in Papua New Guinea 128

Contents

PART IVConclusion 145

10 Land policies and conservation 147

Glossary 159Bibliography 161Index 173

vi Contents

3.1 Biodiversity in the Southeast Asian archipelago 353.2 States of the Southeast Asian archipelago 373.3 Change in forest cover 423.4 Economic valuation of fire and haze damage from the

1997 Indonesian fires 494.1 Protected area coverage in the Southeast Asian archipelago 594.2 Protected areas in Indonesia (1999) 59

Tables

2.1 Land tenure and management of protected areas 212.2 Access and resource use in protected areas 223.1 The Southeast Asian archipelago 345.1 Protected areas in Borneo 756.1 Main ethnic groups in Sarawak 877.1 Protected areas in Palawan 1048.1 Location of ICDP case studies 1128.2 Ujung Kulon National Park 1168.3 Bunaken Marine National Park, North Sulawesi 1219.1 Wildlife management areas and National Parks in

Papua New Guinea 136

Figures

My interest in land tenure and conservation began during my childhood in theEnglish Peak District. This beautiful area of gritstone moors and limestonedales was popular with ramblers, but their rights were restricted by the reservation of large areas on private estates for shooting and fishing. Conflictsbetween walkers and landowners were frequent, culminating in the mass trespass by ramblers on Kinder Scout in 1932. Some years later, my own earlywanderings were often marked by confrontations with gamekeepers and waterbailiffs, prompting youthful feelings on issues of landownership and access.In 1951 the Peak District was designated Britains first national park and since then much of the landscape has been both conserved and made moreaccessible.

Much of my working life has been in Southeast Asia and the South Pacificwhere I gained fresh perspectives on land tenure and national parks. In particular, in Papua New Guinea the customary communal land tenure systems provided challenges to national parks based on Western models and instead favoured the development of wildlife management areas that reinforced traditional rights and resource management practices.

In Borneo, customary land rights have also been an issue in conservationand rural development, and indigenous communities have often been in conflict with governments and private companies over access to forestresources. One of my most vivid and distressing memories is of seeing a groupof Penans being marched, handcuffed and manacled, to the courthouse in theriver-side town of Marudi in Sarawak; their only crime had been to blockadelogging roads preventing timber companies from destroying forests to whichthey claimed customary rights. Another significant experience while in Borneo was living through the periods of thick haze and air pollution generated by the great forest fires that were largely a result of inappropriateland policies and the neglect of traditional methods of resource management.

The contents of this book then are mainly a result of my experience,teaching and research in Southeast Asia and the islands of the South Pacific.In addition, in the first two chapters I have included examples from elsewhereof policies and projects that emphasize community participation and the integration of conservation, land tenure and development.

Preface

In collecting information for this book, I have received help from a large number of individuals and organizations. I am grateful to the University ofPapua New Guinea and Universiti Brunei Darussalam for supporting my research. My students at these institutions were always enthusiastic participants in our research and learning projects, often providing valuableinsights into the customs and practices of their communities. Staff of the different government departments dealing with national parks and conser-vation have invariably proved co-operative and I would like to record my gratitude for their help. During my fieldwork I have always found the peopleliving in and around the protected areas helpful, informative and willing todiscuss their problems; I would like to thank them and express my best wishesfor their efforts to safeguard their land and resources.

I have been associated with and benefited from the networks provided by anumber of international organizations. In particular I would like to mentionthe IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, the Borneo ResearchCouncil and the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. Nationaland international NGOs working in Southeast Asia have often providedimportant data and many are listed in the bibliography.

At the University of Plymouth I wish to thank Mark Cleary for readingearly drafts of the book and for his comments and encouragement. I wouldalso like to express my gratitude to the Cartographic Unit of the GeographyDepartment for help with the preparation of maps.

Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Mavis, for her support, as always.

Acknowledgements

ADB Asian Development BankAPI Air Pollution Index (Malaysia)ASEAN Association of South East Asian NationsBAPPEDA Provincial Planning Board (Indonesia)BAPPENAS Central Planning Board (Indonesia)CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (Philippines)CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (Philippines)CAMPFIRE Communal Management Plan for Indigenous Resources

(Zimbabwe)CBD Convention on Biological DiversityCILM Commission of Inquiry into Land Matters (Papua New

Guinea)CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered SpeciesCNPPA Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, com-

mission of IUCN, now replaced by World Commission onProtected Areas.

CRISP Centre for Remote Imaging, Sensing and Processing (Singapore)

DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (Papua NewGuinea)

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Philippines)

ECAN Environmentally Critical Area Network (Philippines)EEPSEA Economy and Environment Program for Southeast AsiaEEZ Exclusive Economic ZoneEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEIA Environmental Investigation AgencyENSO El Nino Southern OscillationESSC Environmental Science for Social Change (Philippines)FAO Food and Agricultural OrganizationFELDA Federal Land Development Authority (Malaysia)GEF Global Environmental FacilityGIS Geographical Information System

Abbreviations

GPS Global Positioning SystemICAD Integrated Conservation and DevelopmentICDP Integrated Conservation and Development ProjectICONAIE Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of EcuadorITTO International Tropical Timber OrganisationIUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources (now known as the World ConservationUnion)

LATIN Indonesian Institute for Tropical ForestsLCDA Land Custody and Development Authority (Sarawak)LIF Leuser International Foundation (Sumatra)LMU Leuser Management Unit (Sumatra)MAB Man and the BiosphereNAS National Academy of Sciences (United States)NGO Non-Government OrganizationNIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas (Philippines)NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (United

States)PAMB Protected Area Management Board (Philippines)PCSD Palawan Council for Sustainable DevelopmentPHPA Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conser-

vation (Indonesia)PKA Directorate General of Nature Conservation and Protection

(Indonesia, after 1999)PNG Papua New GuineaPSI Pollution Standard IndexSAFODA Sabah Forest Development AuthoritySALCRA Sarawak Land Consolidation and Rehabilitation AuthoritySLDB Sarawak Land Development BoardSPREP South Pacific Regional Environment ProgrammeTBCA Trans-Boundary Biodiversity Conservation AreaTIHPA Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area (Sabah/Philippines)UNCED UnitedNationsConferenceonEnvironmentandDevelopmentUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organ-

izationUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentVOC United East India Company (Dutch)WALHI Indonesian Forum for the EnvironmentWARSIH Indonesian Centre for ConservationWCED World Commission on Environment and DevelopmentWCMC World Conservation Monitoring CentreWWF Worldwide Fund for Nature

xii Abbreviations

Part I

Introduction

Land tenure systems and land policies are concerned with access to naturalresources and control over their management. They decide which members of society hold these rights, and how the rights are exercised, regulated anddistributed. The nature of land tenure systems reflect the balance betweenindividual and communal interests in society, and are a major factor in determining the sustainability of development, whether it is based on short-term or long-term objectives. This book explores this relationship betweenland tenure, conservation and development with special reference to developing countries, in particular the island nations of Southeast Asia. Inthis chapter we examine some of the concepts basic to land tenure: the functions of territory in nature and the philosophical bases of private property in land. This is followed by a more detailed analysis of customarytenure and the management of common property resources. Traditional conservation practices and knowledge systems are then discussed as intrinsiccomponents of indigenous tenure and resource management. Finally,although the titles of the book and chapter specify land tenure, keeping in mind that seven-tenths of the world is covered by sea, the last section considers marine tenure and associated resource management.

Territory

In attempting to understand the origins and workings of land tenure systems,an examination of the nature and functions of territory in nature provides auseful introduction. Territory in nature has been defined by Ardrey (1969: 13)as an area of space, whether of water or earth or air, which an animal orgroup of animals defends as an exclusive preserve. Territorial behaviour in wildlife has been noted by many naturalists. In The Natural History ofSelborne (1912: 127) Gilbert White wrote that during the amorous season,such a jealousy prevails between the male birds that they can hardly bear to be together in the same hedge or field. Most of the singing and elation ofspirits of that seem to be the effect of rivalry and emulation: and it is to this spirit of jealousy that I chiefly attribute the equal dispersion of birds inthe spring over the face of the country. In his important work on the subject,

1 Land tenure and conservation

Territory in Bird Life, Howard also emphasizes the importance of breeding insecuring a territory, which he describes as part of a process which has for its goal the successful rearing of offspring; he also provides another morecomprehensive definition of territorial behaviour as a disposition to remainin a particular place in a particular environment (Howard 1920: 1518).

Defining and defending territory is not confined to birds; many other forms of wildlife have their own patterns of behaviour. Ardrey provides manyexamples in The Territorial Imperative (1966), including antelopes, deer,wasps, and fish. In all cases the securing of territory has a number of basicfunctions that are often necessary for the continued existence of a species.Territory provides the shelter and security that is important for reproductionand the rearing of young. In addition, it may serve as the place from whichdifferent species obtain their food; in this respect larger creatures may needlarger areas. As Gilbert White observed, the definition of distinct territoriesmay serve to provide more even spacing, preventing overcrowding and competition for resources.

Boundaries of this territory are carefully delimited and are defended in arange of ways: warning calls, strong scents, postures, dances, and aggression.It is usually defended most jealously against those of the same species and sexthat are likely to represent both the greatest threat to reproduction and alsocompetition for similar types of food. Territorial behaviour is generally mostevident in the breeding season and another manifestation of the identity ofwildlife with a particular area can be seen in migration patterns and the wayspecies, such as turtles, return to the same places to breed.

The extent to which the types of territorial activity found in nature alsoexist in human society is important to examining the psychological and biological bases of tenure. Ardrey suggests that the territorial instinct is also responsible for many forms of human behaviour and aggression at bothindividual and national levels, and although most of us would not acceptcompletely his hypothesis on the animal origins of property and nations,many would recognise that a feeling for territory does influence our behaviourin many ways, in our attitudes to our homes, work and leisure activities. It canbe seen in the attachment and possessive feelings individuals and groups havefor particular areas and localities. We are also aware that pre-industrial ruralcommunities are often completely reliant on their territories for the resourcesneeded for existence; these groups identify closely with their immediate environment and this often provides the basis for their social organization,political structure and religious beliefs. If separated from their territory theynot only lose their means of subsistence, but also their feeling of identity andcommunity. This has too often been the fate of indigenous peoples and is typified by problems among many Australian aborigine and American Indiangroups (Rowley 1972; Matthiessen 1986).

However, although territorial attitudes and behaviour remain significantelements in land tenure systems, these systems have also evolved so that thatthey reflect changes in society, their economies, political and legal systems.

4 Introduction

Complex systems of rights to land have developed, with shifting balancesbetween private and public interests. Landownership is often no longer justified by territorial needs, but is vindicated or rationalized in other ways.The next section examines some of the arguments for and against privateownership of land.

Rights to nature

The problem of rights to private property in land and other natural resourceshas been central to much of the philosophical analysis of land tenure.Rousseaus rhetorical statement in The Social Contract is frequently quoted,but worth repeating as one of the most dramatic criticisms of the institutionof private property:

The first man, who having enclosed a piece of land, thought of sayingThis is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was thetrue founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how muchmisery and horror the human race would have been spared, if someonehad pulled up the stakes and cried out to his fellow men Beware oflistening to the impostor. You are lost if you forget the fruits of the earthbelong to everyone and the earth itself to no one!

(Rousseau 1750: 109)

Many other radical thinkers and leaders have expressed similar sentiments.An inherent right to private property is difficult to justify in terms of naturallaw and one has to acknowledge the logic of Henry George when he wrotehistorically and ethically, private property in land is robbery and that there is no such thing in nature as a fee simple (George 1880: 240 ). A littleearlier in the nineteenth century similar views had been expressed by theFrench anarchist philosopher, Proudhon, in what he himself describes as his diabolical work What is Property (1840), in which he dismisses all the arguments for the institution to confirm his view that all property is theft. Hedistinguishes between possession which is with right and property which iswithout, referring to Ciceros example of the Roman theatre which is commonto all, but in which each spectator occupies a place that is his own for the performance.

One of the strongest arguments for private ownership of land is that somesecurity of tenure is necessary if those who work on it are to enjoy the fruitsof their labour. The labour expended in using and improving land is itselfoften regarded as a major justification for and means of acquiring propertyrights. In many customary systems of tenure, rights to use land are often firstobtained by clearing and cultivating the land, rights that can then be inheritedby descendants or members of the same lineage group. In pioneer societieswhere new frontiers of settlement are being opened up, the same principleoften applies; titles are issued to those who first occupy and develop the

Land tenure and conservation 5

land. It is a system that has often proved effective and would seem to satisfyprinciples of social justice in that it supports the land to the tiller argument.

The concepts of first occupancy and labour as the bases of the right toproperty has been endorsed by many liberal philosophers. In particular,Locke (1690) saw it as the means by which property is transferred from therealm of the commons to that of the individual. He uses the analogy of waterdrawn from the river and carried away in a bucket to show how a naturalresource could be turned into personal property. On land he writes: As muchland as man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, somuch is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, enclose it from the common. . . . God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth, . . .subduing or cultivating the earth and having dominion, we see, are joinedtogether. The one gave title to the other (Locke 1690: 32). Here we find notonly labour used to justify landed possessions but their association with theJudaeo-Christian doctrine of mans domination of nature. It is a dangerousargument and one too often associated with the destruction of naturalresources and non-sustainable forms of land use. One recent example hasbeen the Brazilian land policies that gave titles to settlers clearing the Amazonian forest on soils that rapidly proved unsuitable for permanent cultivation (Monbiot 1993).

In practice, even in Lockes seventeenth-century England, landownershipowed less to the clearing and cultivating of the soil and more to rights inherited from military conquest, the whims of monarchs, speculation bymerchants, the dissolution of the monasteries, and the enclosure of commonlands. Labour and ownership had already been separated, and the industrialrevolution was to lead to large sectors of society being alienated from theland. In more agrarian countries the development of large estates, plantationsand inequitable landlordtenant relations meant that those who worked onthe land rarely owned it. We are left with Ciceros and Proudhons distinctionbetween possession, or occupancy, and property, with little moral justificationfor the latter, except as a system that has been enshrined by convention andlaw, and has come to be regarded as a vital element in the social and economicstructure. Its basis has become a functional one and the question that then hasto be asked is how well the system works in meeting the needs of society.

In determining how effective a system of landownership is in meeting societys needs, one of the criteria that must be used is productivity. Does aparticular type of land tenure encourage greater production of crops andmaterials; does it also stimulate other forms of economic activity, such asmanufacturing and services? The answer can be measured in the amount offood and other products, or in financial rewards; it can also be assessed interms of the employment it generates and the capacity to use humanresources. We have also become increasingly aware that the economic activity,or the way the land is used, must be sustainable if it is to meet not only our short-term needs but those of the future and the generations to come.Natural resources must be renewed and where this is not possible, as in the

6 Introduction

case of minerals, the earnings from them should provide the basis for futuredevelopment. Processes that cause land degradation must ultimately destroythe sources and supports of life itself.

Careful management of the land and resources is however more than apractical requisite for societys material well-being; as ethical boundaries areextended there is a growing realization that non-human forms of being havean intrinsic value in themselves independent of their usefulness to mankind.This belief finds its expression in Aldo Leopolds concept of the land ethic,which enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters,plants, and animals, or collectively the land (Leopold 1966: 239). ForLeopold the adoption of the land ethic was both an evolutionary possibilityand an ecological necessity, and a decision on land use was right when ittends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community.It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

The land ethic and respect for other forms of being are very different precepts from Lockes justification of landownership by the subordination ofearth, but would seem to provide us with more appropriate guidelines for ourrelationship to land and nature and ones which are more relevant to problemsof conserving biodiversity and preventing habitat destruction.

Customary tenure and common property resources

In much of this book we shall be concerned with what is generally describedas customary tenure. The concept of a system of land use rights sanctioned by custom is not a very exact one and it can be applied to many different types of tenure. However, customary tenure systems generally share certaincharacteristics. One is that rights to land are inherited through membership of a kinship or lineage group claiming descent from a common ancestor.Within the group, rights are allocated, distributed and transferred accordingto traditional practice, but these processes and rights are not usually documented. There are no certificates of title and boundaries are rarely surveyed or marked, but instead rely on natural features, such as streams,trees, rocks and hills. Degrees of communal control vary but usually includerestrictions on transferring land outside the group. Decisions on land allocation and use may involve participation by the whole group or, in morehierarchical systems, will be made by chiefs or other community leaders.

Customary tenure is an integral part of a groups social structure and culture. It results in a close attachment between the community and land, andhelps to give a group identity and continuity. It provides security and a meansof subsistence. It involves long-established practices and beliefs, many ofwhich are designed to prevent over-exploitation of the natural resources anddegradation of the natural environment on which the group is so directlydependent.

The degree to which land and other resources are common property variesbetween systems, and also over space and time. The group claims ownership

Land tenure and conservation 7

over its territory and will usually deny access to outsiders, but generally allocates rights to cultivate land to a member or family within the group,either permanently or for periods that may be as short as one growing season.Within the system there is often considerable communal work, labour sharingand mutual assistance in clearing land, harvesting and house building. Thereare also areas common to the whole group; these may be specific sites such assacred places, graveyards and village communal areas, but often include all the forest and uncultivated land. Hunting and fishing are often consideredcommon rights but are frequently subject to elaborate rules, such as thoserelating to the methods used and the division of the catch.

The concept of tenure as a bundle of different rights (Maine 1861; Simpson1976) is especially applicable to customary systems and in particular to treetenure, where we may find that rights to a tree and its products may be verydistinct from those to the land where the tree is located. The owner of a treemay be a different person or household to the one owning the land. Rights toharvest fruit or nuts or collect firewood may also be distinct; in some casesthese may be regarded as common property and gathered by anybody in thelandowning group, in others the communal right is limited to fruit and woodthat has already fallen under the tree. Often ownership is more closely definedand jealously guarded where the trees represent a particular valuable resource,such as bark for tapa cloth in the islands of the South Pacific. Rights to treesand their products are often acquired by planting them, and this may also be the basis of claiming the land itself. Under customary systems there are generally restrictions on cutting down trees that are of particular economicvalue.

The communal controls and regulations existing in customary tenure meanthat it rarely leads to the unregulated over-exploitation of common propertyresources as envisaged by Gareth Hardin (1968) in his tragedy of the commons argument. Hardin used the example of overgrazing by cattle oncommon land to show that although it is in each individual herdsmans interest to acquire additional cows the inevitable result of this process will bedisaster for all the pastoralists: freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. Heapplies the same argument to the over-exploitation of marine resources,crowding in national parks, pollution and population growth, and suggeststhat we cannot expect these problems to be solved by appeals to conscience orvoluntary responsible behaviour, but rather by mutual coercion. Both publicregulation and the institution of private property are regarded as being preferable to the horror of the commons. In many ways Hardins argumentis similar to that of earlier justifications of private ownership, such as thatfrom Aristotle: that which is common to the greatest number has the leastcare spent upon it, but it has a wider significance as population pressure onresources increases. It applies when the exploitation of a living resource ceasesto be sustainable and resource becomes diminished and degraded, but has lessrelevance to economies and population densities where hunting, collecting,fishing and grazing have only a limited impact.

8 Introduction

Another aspect of the tragedy of the commons is that it really only refersto situations where there is completely open access without the elements of control and management that are more frequently associated with communally owned resources. The customary rules of traditional conser-vation systems often place close limits on rates and methods of exploitation,and customary tenure may exclude those who are not members of the particular community associated with the land and its resources. It is onlywhen these systems break down that there is danger of a free-for-all and consequent resource depletion and degradation. At this stage the alternativeshave historically been either state intervention and control, or the alienationof land from communal tenure into private ownership; both are processeslikely to hasten the decline of the traditional systems of resource manage-ment. A third alternative is the adoption of policies that reinforce rather thandestroy traditional institutions, and return control over land and resources tolocal communities.

Customary land tenure and rights to common property resources in manydeveloping countries changed when they were abruptly brought into contactwith, and often replaced by, new forms of tenure imposed by colonial powers.Indigenous rights to land were often displaced by European settlement or by new forms of land use as in the plantations. Elsewhere, demands by thecolonial power for export crops distorted traditional tenure systems and created new landlordtenant relations, as in the case of the Culture System inJava (Cleary and Eaton 1996) and the Zamindari in Bengal (Bromley 1991:11620). Often both a dual economy and system of land tenure were created;traditional and mainly subsistence agriculture based on customary tenure co-existed with commercial agriculture on alienated land, where ownershipand transfer were facilitated by new land laws and registration of titles.Control over areas regarded as common property was gradually taken over bythe state; the colonial land legislation frequently contained provisions givinggovernments the power to take over uncultivated land that was regarded as waste and vacant. Land appropriated in this manner was then often allocated to foreigners through introduced systems of freehold grants andleases. Open access to the forest and its products was frequently restricted bythe establishment of forest reserves under government control, with the commercial exploitation of timber subject to logging concessions, whichagain were generally given to outsiders. These land and forest policies initiated during colonial administration were frequently continued after self-government and independence, with only minor amendments to proceduresand legislation. For the new political and economic elites, the continued existence of customary rights remained a problem as it had been for theirpredecessors, and often the safeguards protecting indigenous tenure and traditional conservation were disregarded in the drive towards national economic growth and individual prosperity.

In many countries this alienation of customary land and of rights to communal resources has led to the marginalizing of indigenous cultures,

Land tenure and conservation 9

whose livelihoods and cultures are now increasingly threatened by globalmarket forces. However, the sustainability of the new institutions and formsof production has become increasingly doubtful, especially in Southeast Asiafollowing the economic and environmental crises of 1997 and 1998. There hasbeen a growing realization of the value of indigenous knowledge of naturalresources and the need to recognize traditional rights to these resources. Thereis also a need to ensure that when change does occur it is in a manner that minimizes harmful social and environmental impacts on the indigenous people, and ensures an equitable distribution of benefits from development.

Traditional conservation and indigenous knowledge

For customary landowners dependent on the natural resources of their territory, it is essential that they have an extensive knowledge of theseresources, their distribution and different uses. As in the case of land tenure,this knowledge is closely associated with the history of the group, is manifested in ceremonies and art, and is passed on from one generation toanother. This intimate knowledge of the immediate environment is alsoreflected in indigenous languages and the detailed classifications of relevantresources: the wealth of different names the Innuit have for snow, and thePacific Islanders distinction between types of waves (Lewis 1978).

Both collective and individual experience provide a guide to resource management: when and how the land should be cultivated, crops harvested,plants collected, animals caught and hunted. There is frequently concern thatthese resources should not be over-exploited or spoilt; for example customaryregulations may dictate that catches from hunting and fishing are limited tothe subsistence needs of the community.

For the agriculturalist, traditional conservation often means the main-tenance of soil fertility and the prevention of soil erosion. Different types ofshifting cultivation or swidden agriculture enable the cultivation of land thatwould otherwise be unsuitable for arable farming. Wild plants are preservedin these systems because they help to prevent erosion and trap soil nutrients.In other types of agriculture, traditional composting, mulching and the use of organic manure provide means of protecting the soil. Forms of tillageinvolving digging pits or constructing mounds and raised beds often proveeffective in improving drainage and plant disease management.

Water conservation in arid areas has often relied on traditional means of preventing evaporation, such as the tunnels, qanats, in Iran or the underground cisterns that collect runoff in the Negev Desert (Hillel 1994).Indigenous irrigation for rice often relied on intricate terrace patterns andcareful timing for the release of water into the fields, transplanting and harvesting; these phases may be accompanied by a sequence of rituals, asoccurs in the water temples of Bali (Lancing 1991).

Indigenous farmers often have a very specialized knowledge of soil typesand of the plants that act as indicators that help to determine the most

10 Introduction

appropriate land use. There is also a deep understanding of the seasons and weather conditions that indicate the most appropriate times for landpreparation, sowing and harvesting. Different forms of agro-forestry ensure a variety of products and soil conservation. In addition, by cultivating particular crop species and saving their seeds, indigenous farmers play animportant role as guardians of genetic diversity. The range of types ofpotatoes grown in South America and the different strains of rice cultivatedin Asia are not only adapted to local circumstances but also important inmaintaining options and plant breeding for future agricultural development.

Traditional belief systems also mean that communities often identify withparticular wildlife species that serve as a totem for their kinship group; oftenthese cannot be killed or eaten by its members. Other types of food are to beavoided, especially by women and children; pregnant women especially haveto be aware of the supposed effects on them or their offspring. Examples offood avoidance in Papua New Guinea are the ban on women and children inthe Collingwood Bay area eating cassowaries for fear it will cause sores ontheir legs, and the prohibition on pregnant women in parts of the highlandsfrom eating bats, for it is believed that this will result in their children havingdeformed minute noses (Eaton 1985b).

There are also places regarded as sacred or the homes of ghosts and spirits;access to these protected areas is limited, they are not to be disturbed, and nohunting or destruction of vegetation is allowed. The worship of trees, beliefin tree spirits and the presence of sacred groves has been an important characteristic of many cultures (Frazer 1922) and can still provide safeguardsagainst deforestation.

Traditional conservation may also take the form of restrictions on huntingand fishing at certain seasons or periods of the year. There may be pragmaticreasons for these bans, as when they are imposed during breeding times or,in the case of fishermen, when winds are unfavourable. Other moratoria on hunting, fishing and collecting may occur before traditional feasts and religious festivals to allow a sufficient stock of food to build up. In some cases,prohibitions on all food-gathering activities may follow a death in a village,especially that of an important leader.

Prohibitions of these types are often known as pantangs in the Malayworld, tambu in Melanesia and tapu in the Polynesian islands, the latter providing the origin of the word taboo. Their operation helps to protect certain wildlife species, discourages over-exploitation and helps to ensure thatyields remain at sustainable levels.

Enforcement of traditional conservation and compliance with its bansoften depends on supernatural sanctions and fear of punishment for offending the spirits. It is closely associated with the traditional authority ofchiefs and village leaders, and the need of members of a community to followlong-established rules, with the risk of ostracism or banishment from thegroup for those who do not conform. Increased contact with other cultures,changes in social structure and conversion to other religions may mean

Land tenure and conservation 11

a weakening of traditional rules, authority and beliefs, all diminishing the effectiveness of some forms of traditional conservation. At the same time,there is a growing appreciation of the value of certain forms of indigenousknowledge and practices and the need to integrate them into development and conservation programmes. The challenge has become to identify and preserve them.

Marine tenure and conservation

Marine tenure has been defined as a matrix of institutions defined andenforced on many levels: from the formal rights and licences issued by thestate and local authorities and enforced by the police, to more informal regulations sanctioned through gossip, social ostracism and other means(Kalland 1999: 125). Marine resources, especially fish, are often perceived as common property resources and in the past were generally regarded asinexhaustible (Scott Gordon 1954). The depleted nature of many fisheriestoday however provides one of the most depressing examples of the tragedyof the commons. Over-exploitation has meant that yields are no longer sustainable and given support to policies for more stringent managementaimed at regulating the number, species, age, and size of fish caught, the gearand methods used, deciding when fishing is allowed and imposing closed seasons, identifying where fishing should take place and protecting other no-go areas, and identifying who should be allowed access to the resource andbe allowed to fish. We find these concerns addressed both in modern fisherieslegislation and in customary rules for the management and conservation ofmarine resources. However, in each case there must be a territory over whichthe management regime can be exercised; this is generally contiguous to theterritory occupied on land. How far out to sea these rights can extend is partly dependent on the ability to control coastal waters and the methodsavailable to exploit the resources. For many years states claimed territorialseas extending thee miles from their coastline, approximately as far as a cannon could fire. Later as weapons increased their range and states wished to protect their fisheries from foreign competitors, the distance was often unilaterally extended, sometimes leading to disputes such as the cod warsbetween Iceland and the United Kingdom. The concept of freedom of theseas formulated by Grotius in Mare Liberum (1609) and supported by maritime powers such as the Dutch and British has gradually been limited bycustom and international law. Agreement on the territorial rights of nationstates was eventually formalized in the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention in 1982.

The Law of the Sea Convention uniformly increased the breadth ofterritorial seas from three to twelve nautical miles, giving coastal states complete control over these waters, although allowing foreign ships rights ofinnocent passage. National rights to manage, protect and develop marineresources were further extended to a maximum distance of 200 nautical miles

12 Introduction

in Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). Territorial seas and EEZs are measuredfrom baselines on the coast, which is normally the low water mark but in thecase of indented coastlines or offshore islands may be a straight line joiningoutstanding points. Areas within the baselines are known as inland waters,over which the state has complete sovereignty. In drawing up the Law of theSea treaty the fixing of baselines to determine inland waters and EEZs was aparticularly contentious issue for those states made up archipelagos, whichstood to gain extensive areas by the linking of baselines connecting distantislands (Sanger 1986). Eventually it was decided that in order to claim all thesea between the islands the countrys minimum ratio of land to water shouldbe 1:9. In Southeast Asia this gave both Indonesia and the Philippines controlover many of the regional seas, although foreign ships retained navigationrights including those through important strategic straits.

Another case for marine territorial claims, especially important for extracting mineral resources on or under the sea-bed, is where there is a continental shelf, an area of shallow seas stretching from the coast that may in some cases exceed the limits of the EEZ. Beyond the limits of the continental shelves and the EEZs are the high seas, part of the global commons where all states enjoy freedom to navigate and fish, although theexploitation of resources may be subject to international treaties such as fishing agreements dealing with migratory species, the International WhalingConvention (1946) and the Convention on the Conservation of AntarcticMarine Living Resources (1980). An International Sea-Bed Authority hasbeen established to manage the mining of minerals on the sea-bed, and a number of treaties regulate oil spillages and marine pollution.

The establishment of territorial seas and EEZs has enabled states to controlfishing in the seas under their jurisdiction by licensing both domestic and foreign fishing vessels and regulating their catches; quotas can be imposed andoutsiders excluded. Systems of zoning are often applied: inshore areas may bereserved for small-scale artisinal fishermen, while larger craft are restricted to the outer zones further offshore. In addition, exclusive fishing territoriesmay exist at local level, often relying on traditional and non-formal means ofregulation. These may be organized by fishermens co-operatives or otherorganizations. Acheson (1975; 1988) has described how harbour gangs established and defended marine territories in the lobster fisheries off thecoast of Maine in the United States. There is also considerable documentationon territoriality in fisheries in Japan (Ruddle and Akimichi 1984) describinghow village-based fishing territories have evolved from the Tokugawa Period,when fishing rights were allocated by feudal lords in return for the payment offees and dues.

Many indigenous societies that relied on marine resources developed systems of management based on customary regulation and practice. Thesehave sometimes disappeared with the changes brought on by new legislationand more open access to fisheries, but have often continued to co-exist with the introduced systems and in some cases are being revived as a means

Land tenure and conservation 13

of conserving depleted stocks (Johannes 1981; 1982). In many parts of thePacific customary systems are still maintained, especially in those islandswhere traditional authorities and controls are exercised by hereditary chiefs,as in the Polynesian and Micronesian groups (Chapman 1985).

In the customary system the boundaries and extent of the marine territories are often an extension of those on land. The ownership or use ofadjacent land is regarded as the basis of rights to the beach, reefs and sea. Thequestion of how far these rights extend out to sea is a more open one. This ishow marine boundaries have been described for Atiu in the Cook Islands:

Boundaries were determined by the boundary lines on dry land (whichran from inland to the coast and continued across the lagoon to the reef)and sea-passages on the reef. For some places special rocks on the cliffedges were used to mark the inner border-lines. Beyond the reef, just a fewfeet from where the waves break on the reef, is the end of the reef. This ismarked by the site where men fished for mackerel.

(Mokoroa 1984)

Frequently the boundary is fixed by the outer edge of the barrier or fringing coral reefs around the islands. In some cases this boundary is referredto as the point where the sea changes colour from light green to dark blue.Sometimes more ambitious claims are made to rights to fish as far as the horizon or the outer limit of local foraging birds (Johannes 1981), but theseare exceptions and more realistic outer limits may be imposed by fishing methods. In Vanuatu they might stretch as far out as one can dive for shells(Taurakato 1984), while in parts of the Marshall Islands the property rightsonly reach to shallow seas where people can stand waist-deep to fish (Eaton1985b). Special markers are also used to show boundaries on reefs or beaches;large stones, posts or sticks are used, the latter with coconut fronds attachedmay indicate an area is under taboo and no fishing is allowed.

The investment of labour and making improvements may also give particular rights. Examples of such rights are those from the making of fishtraps, fences or weirs, as occurs off the Tongan coast and in Micronesia (Sudo1984), or the construction of stone enclosures for clam gardens, as in Manusin Papua New Guinea. In the Cook Islands, the feeding of fish with coconutflesh and pieces of taro used to fatten and attract them confers particular harvesting rights (Mokoroa 1984). Particular rights may be associated withthe ownership and use of particular fishing gear and techniques; Carrier(1982) has described how different lineages inherit the use of canoes and special types of nets on Ponam Island off the coast of Manus.

The possession of marine territory and fishing rights gives groups powersto exclude outsiders, or require them to obtain permission from the group.This may be restricted to certain times of the years and be conditional on some form of payment, gift or proportion of the catch. The exercise of control over the fishing activities of members of the group varies. In

14 Introduction

the islands of Melanesia decisions may be made by the whole village or clan; elsewhere hereditary chiefs may still exercise more power and receive privileges, for example in parts of Micronesia they were the only members ofthe community allowed to eat sea turtles (Ruddle 1996). In some systems thereare leaders with special responsibilities for supervising fishing activities; in theLau Islands off Fiji these were known as ndau ni nggoli and they had powersto decide who should fish and to restrict the times and areas for fishing andturtle hunting (Thompson 1949).

Within the traditional systems, marine resources are managed and conserved in a number of different ways. There are restrictions on who canfish. Not only is access to outsiders controlled, but within the group custommay dictate those responsible for fishing activities. The most common is thegender division of labour, with only men allowed to carry out offshore fishingwith nets, lines and spears, while women are restricted to collecting from thebeaches and reefs. Among the men there may be a specialist class or caste offishermen, as in the Lau Islands where they are known as gonedau (ibid).There are other times when fishing is not allowed: this may be during theperiod when the fish are spawning, after a death in the community, or whenthere is a need to build up stocks before a feast. Fishing is also forbidden incertain places, either temporarily or permanently; again this may serve to protect areas used by fish for breeding or shelter. Particular fish species arealso protected and their killing prohibited; as on land this may be becausethey are totems of the group: sharks, octopus and eels are examples (Cummins 1977; Firth 1936), but other species are not eaten because of beliefsin their effects, especially on pregnant women and children. In Tuvalu,pregnant women may not eat rays or flatfish for it is believed they will producebabies that have similar flat deformed heads; Kiribati young boys are not supposed to eat the damsel fish (Pomacentrus spp.) that dart agitatedly aroundthe coral reefs for fear they will develop similar nervous characteristics asadults (Zann 1983).

Other customary rules and practices are aimed at preventing over-harvesting and indiscriminate fishing. This may mean restrictions on certaintypes of gear and the size of mesh in nets, and the prohibition of the use ofpoisons and explosives. Fishermen are encouraged to avoid waste and notcatch more fish than they need; if they have a surplus to their wants, customdictates how it should be divided among the community. A wide range ofsanctions exist for those who break the rules controlling fishing (Ruddle 1996:32830). These may take the form of social ostracism, public reprimands andshaming, banishment, corporal punishment, fines, compensation payments,or destruction or confiscation of boats and gear. Alternatively, conformity torules may be a result of fear of the supernatural and the sickness and deaththat may result from breaking taboos.

The effectiveness of these sanctions and other features of the customarymanagement system has obviously diminished with social and economicchange, but there remain examples of indigenous fisheries resource

Land tenure and conservation 15

management that have continued to be successful. In the Maluku Islands ofeastern Indonesia, fishing yields have often been maintained by the practice ofsasi, imposing a closed seasons and areas, and of pentuang, restricting entryto the fishery and stipulating the gear to be used (Nikijulow 1994). Elsewhere,the intrusion of commercial fishing and the consequent depletion of inshorefisheries has renewed interest in local management based on restricted accessand using traditional knowledge and practices (Johannes 1981). These systems have also been integrated into the planning of marine reserves andsanctuaries, such as those at Palolo Deep in Western Samoa and Fagatele Bayin American Samoa (Eaton 1985b). In later chapters of this book we shallexamine some of the initiatives taken in Southeast Asia to conserve localmarine resources.

16 Introduction

Protected area development

In this chapter we examine the different types of protected areas and how theyrelate to some of the issue of land tenure and conservation discussed in theprevious chapter. In particular, we are concerned with the role of protectedareas in achieving sustainable development and preserving biodiversity, bothissues of concern at all levels of policy making.

The concept of sustainable development arose from a growing internationalawareness that the shrinking natural resource base and environmental degradation were threatening the attainment of basic development objectives.It was a major theme of The World Conservation Strategy (IUCN 1980) andof the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED), which defined it as development that met the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987: 43). Since then, the argument for sustainable development has won general acceptance, if at times only in token fashion,in both the public and private sectors. It has the great virtue of providing akind of solution to the fruitless economic development versus environmentalprotection debate, and of linking livelihoods to resource conservation.

The value of biological diversity, the variety of forms of life, the geneticresources and ecosystems that exist on this planet, is being fully realized as it increasingly comes under threat. There are many reasons for the loss ofbiodiversity, including over-exploitation of species, pollution, climate change,and the introduction of exotics, but the most serious of all is the destructionof the natural habitat. In the words of Edward Wilson (1984:121): the oneprocess now going on that will take millions of years to correct is the loss ofgenetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is thefolly our descendants are least likely to forgive us. This is where protectedareas have particular significance as a means of conserving species and their habitat. The Convention on Biological Diversity identified them as amajor means of preserving biodiversity and for meeting the fundamentalrequirement . . . for the in-situ conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats (UNCED 1992).

2 Protected areas

The Convention on Biological Diversity defined a protected area as a geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives (ibid.). As such, protected areas may include national parks, reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, and other areas beneficial to nature and concerned with the preservation of life andlandscape.

The concept of the sanctuary, an undisturbed place where all forms of lifeare safe, is not a new one and historically has been found in many societies andcultures. In the previous chapter we have seen how it operates in customarytenure systems and how the protection of these areas is often reinforced bysocial sanctions, taboos and fear of spirits. Different religions hold certainplaces sacrosanct: the existence of sacred groves, the tradition of protectingall life around Buddhist temples, and the reverence of hill people for mountain summits are all manifestations of the concern to leave parts ofnature untouched.

In addition, areas have been protected so that particular resources can beconserved for exclusive use of the rich and powerful. Royal game forests wereestablished by Norman monarchs in Britain and were a feature not only ofEuropean feudal societies, but also of Indian, Chinese and Aztec empires.Although not concerned with the sanctity of life, these reserves often resultedin the preservation of fauna and its habitat, by denying general access to theresources and preventing conversion to other forms of land use.

More general support for the concept of preserving wilderness, landscapesand wildlife for their intrinsic value, scientific interest, aesthetic enjoymentand recreation gained impetus in Europe and North America during the nineteenth century. This was partly a result of the development of the scienceof natural history, through the work of men such as Linnaeus, White andDarwin. It also found literary expression in the romantic movement, in thewritings of Rousseau, the poems of Wordsworth, and the philosophy ofEmerson and Thoreau. This growing appreciation of nature and the need to conserve it was often a reaction to the industrial revolution and the environmental degradation it caused.

In North America the movement of settlers westwards not only led to the appropriation of indigenous land, it also threatened unique natural landscapes. The need to keep these areas in the public domain led to the establishment of the types of parks and reserves that were to be the prototypesof the protected areas of the twentieth century. In 1864 the United States government ceded the Yosemite Valley to the state of California on the condition that it be held for public use and recreation and that it be inalienable for all time (Allin 1990: 6); eight years later the Yellowstone areawas declared the first national park. The national park concept proved popular in the United States and had spread to Canada, Australia and NewZealand by the end of the nineteenth century. In Europe development wasoften slower and the areas protected smaller, reflecting the fact that largespaces of wilderness and public land were frequently no longer available.

18 Introduction

In the European overseas colonies reserves were often established to protectalready endangered wildlife; examples of early nature reserves were Cibodasand Ujung Kulon in Dutch Java and the Albert Park (now Virunga) in the Belgian Congo. Game reserves for sports hunting were also established in several African colonies. Areas of forest were also set aside as reserves to prevent the unauthorized logging and clearing of valuable timber resourcesneeded for construction, shipbuilding and fuel. Experience of the effects ofcolonization on oceanic islands such as St Helena and Mauritius, wheredeforestation resulted in wildlife extinctions, soil erosion and the silting ofrivers and harbours, provided a stimulus for forest replanting and protection(Grove 1995).

Although most parks and reserves were established and managed by governments, voluntary associations and non-government organizations(NGOs) also became involved in the acquisition of land for conservation. InBritain the National Trust was founded in 1895 with the aim of protectingareas of natural beauty from development and ensuring their continuedenjoyment by the general public; later it increased its scope to include archaeological sites and houses of historical and cultural importance. For thispurpose it was largely funded by public subscription and legacies; it alsoobtained property transferred in lieu of death duties (Jenkins and James1994). By 2002 the National Trust had over 2.8 million members and ownedover 248,000 hectares of land (National Trust 2002).

The National Trust has also served as a model for similar organizations in other counties; local national trusts have, for example, been effective inmanaging conservation areas in small island nations such as Fiji (Eaton1985b) and the Bahamas (Holowesko 1995). The largest landowner of all conservation NGOs has been the Nature Conservancy in the United States,which by 1992 owned and managed 1300 reserves comprising an area of526,000 hectares (Murray 1995: 197). It has also been very effective in promoting management agreements with private landowners and protectingland through conservation easements (Hoose 1981). More recently it has beenextending its activities to the Caribbean, Pacific and Latin America.

During the twentieth century, especially the second half, there was a rapidincrease in the number of all types of protected areas. This reflected growingpublic concern with environmental issues, especially those associated withbiodiversity loss, forest destruction and endangered species. In addition, inmany industrial societies there was a growing need to preserve pollution freeareas for recreation and outdoor activities. Other reasons for establishingparks and reserves have been the protection of water catchment areas,the preservation of historical and cultural features, and the provision offacilities for scientific research and environmental education. The growth of international tourism has been particularly significant in encouraging governments to develop and maintain parks and reserves; countries such as Kenya and Costa Rica have shown the value of conservation in attractingforeign visitors and providing foreign currency earnings.

Protected areas 19

In addition, protected areas have been designated under a number ofinternational environmental treaties and agreements. Areas of outstandinguniversal value for their natural or cultural features may be nominated and listed under the World Heritage Convention, which also provides forinternational assistance and cooperation in their protection. This Conventionwas adopted in 1972 and came into force three years later; by 2003 a total of172 states had ratified the convention and 754 sites had been designated(Unesco 2003). The Convention is administered and partly funded by Unesco.In addition to possibilities of financial help, world heritage status carries considerable international prestige and should prove of value in ensuring asites continued protection. In Australia the nomination of the South WestTasmanian Wilderness Area as a world heritage site enabled the federal government to prevent the building of the controversial Gordon belowFranklin River Dam.

Another international agreement which encouraged the establishment of protected areas was the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, generally known as the RamsarConvention after the Iranian city where it was adopted in 1971. This convention requires governments that join it to designate at least one wetlandas being of international importance, to take measures to protect these sites and maintain their ecological character. Initially the emphasis was on the value of the sites for waterfowl, but as more developing countries havejoined the treaty and as the ecological importance of wetlands is becomingincreasingly realized, more emphasis is now being placed other values ofwetlands and their wise use. By 2003 there were 138 contracting parties tothe convention and 1313 sites totalling 111 million hectares had been listed(Ramsar Secretariat 2003).

Another international category of protected area launched by Unesco in1970 as part of their Man and the Biosphere programme is biosphere reserves.Their main objectives have been to promote biodiversity conservation,sustainable land use, research and monitoring. The reserves are usually organized into three zones: a core protection area, a buffer zone or zones where activities are supposed to be compatible with conservation in the core zone, and finally what is known as a transition zone for settlements, agriculture and other economic activities. Land in these reserves may be under public, communal or private ownership. The aim of the programme is to have a systematic coverage of representative ecosystems to serve as a basis for research, monitoring and exchange ofinformation.

Protected areas have also been regarded as important to achieving the aimsof other international agreements such as the Conventions on BiologicalDiversity and the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (generally referred to as the Bonn Convention). They have also been promotedas part of regional treaties and programmes, such as the South PacificRegional Environment Programme (SPREP) and its 1986 Convention for the

20 Introduction

Protection of Natural Resources and Environment in the South PacificRegion.

The proliferation of legislation and conservation programmes, their varying objectives and the need to adapt to local circumstances and institutions have resulted in a great diversity in the types of protected area and their management. National differences in nomenclature have also caused some confusion in the comparison or analysis of areas; what is called a national park in one country may be very different to what is under-stood to be one in another. It was in an effort to provide some internationalstandardization that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature(IUCN), now renamed the World Conservation Union but still often knownby its old acronym, attempted a classification based mainly on managementobjectives. The six categories they finally suggested (IUCN 1994) are (I) strictnature or scientific reserves, (II) national parks, (III) natural monuments, (IV)managed nature reserves or wildlife sanctuaries, (V) protected landscapes,and (VI) managed resource protected areas. The amount of human impactand management intervention ranges from Category I, where the nationalenvironment is left in an undisturbed state to Category V, where landscapesreflect the interaction of man and land, as in the case of the English nationalparks.

Classification by management categories does not itself provide any indication of land tenure, who has rights to the resources and who is responsible for the protected area management. I have sought to include thesein analyses of protected areas (Eaton 2000) by two methods of classification,each of which can be conceptualized as a continuum. The first is shown in Figure 2.1: at one extreme are parks and reserves on state-owned landadministered by government agencies with no local participation; at the otherare areas managed by local groups on their own land. In between are variouscombinations and possibilities. These include land acquired and managed by NGOs, such as the National Trust properties and Royal Society for theProtection of Birds reserves in Britain. In developing countries debt-for-nature swaps have often led to funds becoming available for this type ofNGO involvement. There is also private land in protected areas administeredby government agencies relying on development land use controls and management agreements as occur in the IUCN Category V areas. Anotherpossibility is private land managed by NGOs on a temporary or permanent

Protected areas 21

Tenure State NGO Private Communal| | | |__________________________________________________| | | |

Management Government NGO Government LandowningNGO group

Landowner

Figure 2.1 Land tenure and management of protected areas.

basis, through trusts, covenants, easements or other legal agreements. In addition, there are many examples of voluntary stewardship, with land andwildlife being protected by private landowners, often for altruistic reasons butsometimes with economic motives, as in the case of reserves for hunting orcommercial tourism.

Degrees of access and resource use are shown in Figure 2.2. At one end ofthis continuum are the areas where no access is allowed. Visitors are excluded,boundaries may be marked by trespassers will be prosecuted signs, in otherplaces by traditional prohibitions and taboos. Elsewhere, access may beallowed and often encouraged by the construction of footpaths and otherinfrastructure but no type of resource extraction is allowed, the take nothingbut photographs, leave nothing but footprints regimes of many nationalparks. When resource extraction, such as hunting, fishing or collecting forestproducts is allowed, these activities may be restricted to those with traditionaluse rights in the area and subject to the conditions that they are for subsistence purposes and employ what are regarded as traditional and sustainable methods. When harvesting forest products, and hunting or fishingon a commercial basis or by outsiders are allowed, then different types ofmanagement and more formal regulations may prove necessary. Quarryingand mining are generally, but not always, excluded from protected areasbecause of their environmental impact and unsustainable nature.

During the second half of the twentieth century, great changes oftenoccurred in official attitudes towards the land rights and the access toresources of communities living in and around protected areas. There hasbeen increased interest in alternative forms of organization and management,with a shift from state-owned parks and areas with restricted access to those emphasizing local participation and greater access. Partnerships and increased linkages have been developed with different elements of civil society. The implications of these changes for indigenous people and developing countries are discussed in the next section.

Indigenous peoples and protected areas

Perceptions of the relationship between indigenous people and protectedareas have undergone considerable changes since the colonial governmentsestablished national parks and reserves that involved excluding local people

22 Introduction

Figure 2.2 Access and resource use in protected areas.

Traditional uses Commercial uses| | | |

No access Visitor access Sustainable Non-sustainable Sustainable Non-sustainable| | | | | |_________________________________________________________________________________

Low impact High impact

and their subsistence activities (Anderson and Grove 1987). Political changesand increasing population pressure on land have meant that the protectionistattitudes that denied rural communities access to resources and opportunitiesfor development are proving more unrealistic and less acceptable. Althoughprotected areas remain a major means of conservation, there is a growing realization that they cannot be managed in isolation from the people who live around them. Protected area planning is increasingly emphasizing local participation, buffer zone activities, and integrated conservation anddevelopment projects. In addition, where introduced technologies and economic institutions have failed to improve rural livelihoods and had adverseimpacts on the natural environment, there has been increased appreciation ofthe value of traditional indigenous knowledge and resource management.Customary tenure and associated conservation practices are no longer beingregarded as obstacles to environmental protection and development, butrather as in need of preservation, recording and reinforcement.

These changes in attitude are also reflected in the rhetoric of many important conservation policy documents. In 1975 the IUCN General Assembly meeting in Zaire recommended that governments devise means by which indigenous people may bring their lands into conservation areaswithout relinquishing ownership, use or tenure rights. Five years later theWorld Conservation Strategy stressed that a rural community and a protectedarea may be entirely compatible and the importance of local consultation and involvement (IUCN 1980). The Report of the World Commission onEnvironment and Development in 1987 emphasized the importance of localcommunities having a decisive role in resource use in their own areas and advised that the recognition of traditional rights must go hand in handwith measures to protect the local institutions that enforce responsibility in resource use (WCED 1987: 11416). The value of traditional tenure,indigenous knowledge and local participation were important themes in thediscussions at United Nations Conference on Environment and Developmentheld in Rio de Janeiro in 1992; they were also emphasized in some ofthe resulting documents, in particular Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In practice, the involvement of local people in the establishment and management of protected areas varies considerably between different countries and administrative cultures, but there is increasing evidence ofattempts at greater community participation. Partnerships have been developed with different sectors of civil society and linkages are being createdwith local and regional economies. Protected areas are often no longerplanned and managed in isolation but are regarded as parts of systems or networks, with increasing attention being paid to environmental managementbeyond their boundaries.

Indigenous communities are increasingly being legally granted access toresources in protected areas. This often involves the recognition of customaryhunting and fishing rights, especially when they are based on what are

Protected areas 23

regarded as traditional sustainable practices. Farming and grazing animals isallowed in certain cases; for example the Saami of Swedish Lapland areallowed to herd their reindeer in national parks and to fish and hunt all exceptthe larger carnivores such as bear and lynx, which may be also killed if theyare attacking the reindeer (IUCN 2000). Rights to collect grass for fodder andthatching are permitted in many parks and reserves in Africa and India.

The move towards decentralization and greater empowerment of localcommunities in many countries has also often led to local communities beinggiven more responsibility and control over their natural resources. Indigenousland titles have been restored and been given increased legal recognition.There are now many examples of customary landowners establishing andmanaging protected areas (Kempf 1993; Western and Wright 1994). One ofthese is the Kuna Yala reserve located in the Atlantic coastlands and islandsof Panama. The Kuna reacted to threats of encroachment from outsiders byestablishing their own biosphere reserve. The management plan for thisreserve provides for five distinct zones in which collecting medicinal plants,farming, fishing, and controlled ecotourism are allowed (Archibold andDavey 1993).

Elsewhere in Latin America protected areas have been developed whereindigenous groups have attempted to preserve their traditional rights and cultural identities. Poole (1993) describes how the Awa Indians living in aremote area of western Ecuador found their land threatened by a proposedroad that would bring loggers and settlers from the Pacific coast. With theassistance of an international NGO, Cultural Survival, and a national organization, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador(CONAIE), the Awa Federation was formed enabling the Indians to claim citizenship, demarcate their territory and establish the Awa Ethnic ForestReserve. They also strengthened their territorial claims by planting fruit andhardwood trees around the perimeter and in areas most likely to be affectedby the road, forestalling any claims by outsiders that this was idle or vacantland. The reserve itself covers an area of 120,000 hectares and contains thelargest area of Pacific rain forest surviving in Ecuador. It is also part ofan area that escaped glaciation during the Pleistocene and is consequentlyimportant as a genetic reserve.

In many other parts of South America where indigenous cultures and livelihoods are under threat, protected areas offer the best prospect for survival. The Yanomami reserves that have been established in contiguousparts of Brazil and Venezuela are an attempt to prevent outside intrusions,illegal mining and introduced diseases in a region that is home to what hasbeen described as the largest group of traditional people still living their traditional life-style in the Americas (Centeno and Elliot 1993: 95). Earlierefforts to protect Indians in Brazil include the Xingu National Park established in 1961 and the Aripuana Indian Park declared in 1969. Boththese parks have faced problems associated with the building of roads anddemarcation of boundaries (Poole 1989).

24 Introduction

Protection of the territories of indigenous communities does not necessarily mean that traditional conservation practices will be followed,and there may be conflicts with park authorities attempting to enforce environmental protection policies. Isolation cannot be enforced and contactwith outside groups increased demand for industrial goods, includingfirearms. Improved medical services may also lead to increases in population,which place greater pressure on wildlife resources and the clearing of land for agriculture. If indigenous lifestyles and biodiversity are to be preserved inprotected areas, a clearly defined and enforced zoning system may often provenecessary. This should provide for a core conservation area as well as areaswhere hunting and agricultural activities are allowed. Theoretically the typeof protected area most suited for this type of multiple land use is the biosphere reserve. South America has a number of biosphere reserves thatinclude strict conservation zones and indigenous territories. For example, theManu Biosphere Reserve in southeast Peru contains a reserved zone for theNajua and Kugapakori communities, as well as multiple-use and cultural andresearch zones. Ecotourism and applied scientific research is encouraged inthe latter, but access is restricted to the national park area where protection ofthe areas rich biodiversity is the prime management objective. The wholereserve covers an area of 1,881,200 hectares and extends from the cold altiplano to the Amazon lowlands, giving it a great range of bird, mammaland plant species (Unesco 2003).

Another model is that of joint management, which has been followed in thedevelopment of the Kakadu and UluruKata Tjuta parks in the NorthernTerritory of Australia. Under land rights legislation, the resident aboriginalgroups were given formal legal title to land they had formerly occupied,and areas within the parks were then leased back to the Australian NatureConservation Agency. Management plans were prepared for the parks by a Board of Management that had the majority of its members nominated by the aboriginal landowning groups. This form of joint management has ensured the protection of aboriginal interests, their resources and sacred places. It has also led to the use of traditional aboriginal forms ofenvironmental management into the parks, such as use of controlled burningto maintain biodiversity (De Lacy and Lawson1997).

Integrating conservation and development

Communities living in and around protected areas are often among the poorest in their respective countries. By their nature the areas are often inaccessible and undeveloped. Soils are unproductive; transport links arepoor; government education and health services are limited; electricity andpiped water supply are frequently lacking; and the communities are isolatedwith few opportunities to participate in the market economy. Development isnecessary in order to meet basic human needs; it is also essential if protectedareas are not to be perceived as denying people access to their traditional

Protected areas 25

subsistence resources. Conservation programmes are much more likely to besuccessful and be supported by local communities if they allow and promotethe sustainable use of these resources, create new economic opportunities thatwill provide income and employment, and facilitate social developmentthrough the increased provision of services.

Tourism is the economic activity most frequently associated with protectedareas, especially in national parks that are often the major attractions for overseas visitors. Governments benefit from tourism through increased revenues and foreign currency earnings. Tour companies, craft shops, hotels,and airlines all make profits from tourists, whose spending often has a multiplier effect through the economy. The only people who do not share inthis new source of wealth are often those living nearest the parks, who lack theeducation, financial acumen and organization to take advantage of the touristinflux. If tourism is to mean an improvement in their quality of life, there is a need to ensure that more of the benefits go to these local people. There are many ways that this can be done. The provision of guest houses or home-stays in villages, can provide additional local income and at the sametime give overseas tourists more genuine experience of indigenous lifestylesand culture than they would find in the uniformity of one of a chain ofinternational hotels. Greater indigenous involvement and employment in tourcompanies would bring similar advantages. There are opportunities foremployment within the parks as rangers, guides and labourers, work in whichlocal environmental knowledge may be especially valuable. Income can beobtained from the sale of artefacts, often providing a stimulus to local crafts.The supply of fresh foodstuffs from the area to hotels and restaurants, ratherthan relying on imported goods, should provide income for farmers. The provision of transport for visitors is often a profitable activity, especially incases where access is by boat.

The relationship between tourism and conservation should be a symbioticone with each gaining benefit from the other. It is important that adverseimpacts should be avoided. Too many visitors may lead to overcrowding;not only is there an ecological carrying capacity above which the natural environment may be damaged, there is also a host social capacity above whichtoo many visitors may adversely effect local attitudes, tolerance and cultures(Lindbergh 1991).

Two examples frequently cited as being successful in managing to integratetourism with rural development and environmental protection are the Annapurna Conservation Area in Nepal and the Communal ManagementPlan for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe. Both projectsoriginated from situations in which tourism was having an adverse environmental impact on a region and bringing few economic advantages toits inhabitants.

The Annapurna area contains some of the highest peaks in Nepal,spectacular scenery, and wildlife that includes endangered species such as thesnow leopard and red panda. The area is also rich in its cultural diversity;

26 Introduction

there are eleven distinct ethnic groups, each with their own language, andthere are Buddhist and Hindu temples and shrines (Stevens 1997). The regionhas attracted a large number of tourists, especially trekkers, and although this brought economic benefits to the area these tended to be limited to those operating the small inns and lodges and were not spread among thecommunity as a whole, especially as many of the workers and staff associatedwith tourism came from outside the region. There were also adverse environ-mental impacts, resulting in particular from waste disposal, water pollutionand increased cutting of trees for firewood. Initial proposals to establish anational park in the area met considerable local opposition, and agreement ona conservation area was only reached after Nepals largest environmentalNGO, the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, became involvedin the promotion and management of the conservation area. A managementplan was approved by government in 1986 and the implementation of pilotprojects was begun, although the Conservation Area was not officiallygazetted until 1992.

The planning and development of the project has involved consultationwith local leaders, village meetings and the establishment of local conser-vation and development committees. Assistance has been given to localschools and medical clinics, tree nurseries have been established, andimprovements made to electricity and water supplies. There has also been a strong training and conservation education function, with agriculturalextension activities and instruction in forest management, crafts and touristlodge operation. Lodges have been improved, with better sanitation and waste disposal methods being introduced. Traditional resource management institutions have been revived, and the collection of fees from visitors hashelped to provide revenues for development activities.

A system of zoning operates within the Conservation Area, based partly onthe biosphere approach and also on current land use (Stevens 1997: 249).There is a wilderness zone subject to strict nature protection; this comprisesthe high mountain areas. Below these, protected forest and seasonal grazingzones form a buffer area that includes much of the common property land.The intensive use zones include the villages and agricultural land, while theareas most affected by tourism are classified as special management zones.The use of firewood by lodges has been banned in some of these areas, andkerosene depots have been organized to ensure alternative fuel supplies.

The Annapurna Conservation Area project has been successful in involvinglocal people in its planning from the start, and has helped to minimize someof the adverse effects of tourism and brought development to the area. In thisrespect it is interesting to compare it with the early stages of the SagarmathaNational Park in the Mount Everest region of Nepal. Here the local Sherpaswere initially alienated by the topdown approach adopted towards its planning and their exclusion from forest areas by the military. In addition, thepiles of garbage left by walkers and climbers contrasted with the success ofclean-up programmes in the Annapurna area. However a more participatory

Protected areas 27

approach has also now been adopted in Sagarmatha; buffer zones have beenestablished and community based development projects have been promoted,the villagers now receive a larger share of the park revenues and climbing fees.Local institutions, including the Buddhist monasteries, have become moreinvolved in environmental and development programmes.

TheCommunalManagement Plan for IndigenousResources (CAMPFIRE)programme began in Zimbabwe in the mid-1980s following a Parks andWildlife Act that made landholders the appropriate authority for wildlifemanagement on their communal lands, areas that are often contiguous parksand nature reserves on state land. Rural district councils were given powers tolease concessions for trophy hunting, especially of the larger animals such aslion, elephant and buffalo, also for wildlife photography and other forms of nature tourism. Revenue from these concessions was used to stimulatedevelopment and provide wells, schools, health clinics, fencing, and roads. Inaddition, a conservation education element in the programme, sustainableharvesting of natural resources, is encouraged and villagers are recruited asgame scouts to prevent poaching. The programme has proved popular andhas resulted in an increase in household incomes where it has been adopted.It has also provided a motive for local people to conserve wildlife as a sourceof income, and presented them with opportunities for development.

CAMPFIRE has provided a model for new community conservation initiatives in other parts of Africa. These have often resulted in more positiverelationships between protected areas and neighbouring communities, andincentives that provide a direct linkage between livelihoods and conservation.Where tourism is involved this should mean a greater spread of the economicbenefits.

The need to combine development activities with conservation has becomeincreasingly recognized. Integrated Conservation and Development Projects(ICDPS) have received considerable funding from international NGOs,donors and aid agencies such as the World Bank, the European Union and theWorldwide Fund for Nature (WWF). However, although the arguments forICDPs remain strong, in practice they have had mixed success, and have notalways created the necessary linkages between conservation and communitylivelihoods. Brown (2002: 912) suggests that the ICDP approach has sufferedfrom over-simplified assumptions about four key issues: the community,participation, empowerment, and sustainability. She points out that com-munities are rarely homogeneous units but are often socially differentiatedand unequal in terms of political and economic power. This in turn affectsparticipation and empowerment, which are often dependent on the widersocio-political context. She concludes that the sustainability of ICDPapproaches is far from assured in either ecological or economic terms.

A major problem of integrating conservation and development is thatimplementation often depends on the support and cooperation of a numberof different government departments and other organizations, each with theirown agenda and hierarchical structures. An evaluation of ICDPs (Wells et al.

28 Introduction

1992) indicated that not all had been su