^The_Nation

Published on November 25, 2004
 

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS : ?Big 3? no longer spared criticism

WWF, Nature Conservancy, CI?s record on indigenous peoples draws fire

Thanks in equal measure to the unquestionable justice in their cause and to the well-publicised global reach of their activities, major environmental organisations have generally been lauded, or at least automatically afforded the benefit of the doubt. Yet their green camouflage no longer seems entirely impervious to public criticism. Especially not in their dealings with indigenous peoples.

Three of the world?s largest (and wealthiest) conservationist organisations ? the Nature Conservancy (TNC), Conservation International (CI) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ? have now been singled out for rebuke; their projects aimed at preserving natural habitats don?t seem to include the preservation of their indigenous human inhabitants, whose number reaches an estimated 300 million people around the globe.

Even though they could clearly afford it.

In an article in the current issue of World Watch magazine, US anthropologist Mac Chapin notes that more than half of the about US$1.5 billion available for conservation projects in 2002 enriched the coffers of the ?Big Three.?

At the World Conservation Congress, IUCN has facilitated a dialogue between these conservation groups, their donors and other stakeholders ? only indigenous people themselves weren?t invited to participate.

IUCN President Yolanda Kakabadse told The Nation that while certain conservation projects may have done more harm than good, participants in Bang-kok had decided not to air existing differences in favour of trying to look ahead by encouraging dialogue between warring parties. ?It?s all a human relations problem,? Kakabadse said. ?Yes, some criticisms are valid. But it?s not just about the Big Three. Many other conservation groups seem to produce similar problems.?

Outside the polite atmosphere of the meeting room, though, the Big Three were lambasted for alleged double talk: they?re vowing to endorse the rights of indigenous communities on paper and in board rooms, while in practice continuing to try to force many of these peoples from their lands. ?Their discourse might have changed, but not their practices. They [conservation groups] continue to exclude us from decision-making,? Julio Cusurichi, a representative of indigenous people living in the Peruvian region of the Amazon.

At IUCN?s World Park Congress last year, indigenous people made headway ? in what they called ?the new paradigm for conservation? ? in having their ownership rights recognised over ancestral lands now designated as protected areas. Yet no implementation of the agreement has since materialised in practice because at the deeper level it comes down to a clash in forest management strategies, if not ideologies.

While indigenous peoples insist that humans are also an essential part of the ecology, conservation groups generally operate on the assumption that forests are best protected by preventing human interference in the ecosystem. ?Any human use has an impact,? said Katrina Brandon, CI?s adviser for indigenous people programmes, adding that the idea that humans are part of the ecology is ?naive?.

?What we have to do,? she explained, ?is to consider what level of human impact is feasible. We then have to decide where?s the core area that is not to be touched.?

The disparity between the two polarised points of view may yet widen further given the growing partnerships between conservation groups and industries that are the main destroyers of forests and other natural resources. Chapin noted in his article that TNC alone has some 1,900 corporate sponsors, which donated a total of $225 million to the organisation in 2002, while CI received some $9 million last year from its 250 corporate partners.

?They?re saying we?re destroying forests, but when governments grant logging and mining concessions to big corporations, CI and WWF simply keep their mouths shut,? Cusurichi said.

?We cannot do everything,? CI?s Brandon hit back.

Nantiya Tangwisutijit

The Nation