Why are we discussing indigenous groups?

1
Why are we discussing indigenous groups?

• Many tropical areas are inhabited by indigenous
  groups, including many of the worlds
  rainforests.
• Indigenous groups presence in these areas brings
  up issues about conservation, land tenure, and
  indigenous rights.

2
Why are we discussing indigenous groups?

• Changes in rainforest regions have led to changes
  in indigenous cultures and land practices, which
  have consequences for biodiversity in rainforests.

3
Context

• Institutions like the Inter-American Development
  Bank (see next slide) have sometimes worked under
  the assumption that supporting indigenous groups
  will automatically result in the conservation of
  biodiversity. This will not always be the case
  because of changing indigenous cultures.

4
Inter-American Development Bank(info below from
their website)

• Supports efforts by Latin America and the
  Caribbean countries to reduce poverty and
  inequality--aiming to bring about development in
  a sustainable, climate-friendly way.
• Established in 1959--the largest source of
  development financing for Latin America and the
  Caribbean, with a strong commitment to achieve
  measurable results
• They are a regular bank with some unique
  features. Besides loans, the bank also provide
  grants, technical assistance and does research.
  Our shareholders are 48 member countries,
  including 26 Latin American and Caribbean
  borrowing members, who have a majority ownership
  of the IDB.

5

• This lecture will use information about
  indigenous groups that have traditionally lived
  in Amazonian rainforests in small, dispersed
  kinship groups. However, many of the concepts
  will be applicable to indigenous groups in other
  parts of the world.
• Groups are culturally and linguistically diverse

Source Trisierra
6
(No Transcript)
7
Amazon Basin Territorial distribution and
indigenous population (1973-1997)
Source Tresierra
8

• Indigenous groups represent about 4 of the human
  populations in the Amazon

9

• Indigenous numbers and diversity have declined in
  historical times.
• 90 indigenous groups from Brazil went extinct
  from the start of the 1900s to the end of that
  century.

10

• Many indigenous groups practice/practiced slash
  and burn agriculturewhere forest is cleared by
  burning, cultivated for a few years, than allowed
  to lie fallow and recover soil nutrients. Often
  the fallow land is used as a source of
  food/fibers/medicinal plants.

11
Review

• How does slash and burn increase fertility of
  soil?

12

• Slash and burn agriculture typically requires a
  great deal of land for relatively small groups of
  people.
• Why?

13
Cultural elements of land management for many
indigenous groups

• Kinship
• Collective ownership or common property management

14

• Common property management, for example, where
  all members of a group can gather forest
  resources from collectively owned property, is
  useful in environments where the resource
  availability might vary spatially and temporally.
• Why?

15

• Common property management is most likely to work
  when there are strong kinship ties, and a
  cultural history of this system.
• It is fragile in the face of disruptions from
  outside the system.

16

• Rainforest indigenous groups often focus on
  subsistence (meeting basic needs) and not
  accumulation of goods. Free access to resources
  is an important component of meeting basic needs.

17

• Land use and cultures of indigenous groups are
  changing and, in what follows, we will look at
  some of the reasons why.

18
External forces that limit land use options and
alter cultural components of indigenous groups

• 1. Road-building and loggingallow access to
  previously inaccessible areas. Lead to
  deforestation, social disruption, confrontations
  between indigenous and non-indigenous groups.

19
Fishbone pattern of deforestation near highway
Br-230 near Ruropolis Brazil
20

• Often non-indigenous settlers follow roads into
  areas and, because of inadequate land tenure
  systems (lack of titles to land) settlers squat
  on the land. Less than 50 of Amazonian farmers
  have title to their land.

(López and Valdés, 1997).
21

• Trans-Amazon highway opened in 1972 and opened
  the Amazon to settlement (road is still not fully
  paved)

22
Route of Trans- Amazon Highway
23

• 53 of Amazonian deforestation in Brazilian
  Amazon was likely due to illegal squatting and
  clearing of land, often facilitated by road
  development. (Forest clearing can be used as
  evidence that land is occupied and being used and
  therefore facilitate securing title to the land).

Mertins 1991
24

• Today, there is pressure to construct a road to
  complete the Pan-American highway through Panama.
  Conservationists worry this will be detrimental
  to the species-rich area of Darién, Panama.
• Pan-American highway is nearly 30,000 miles long,
  Darién gap is about 55 miles.

25
(No Transcript)
26
Keep in mind

• Roads are generally key to the development of an
  area in ways that support the livelihood of
  residents. Without decent roads, for example,
  farmers cannot get their agricultural goods to
  market before they go bad.

27
External forces that limit land use options and
alter cultural components of indigenous groups

• 2. Selling rights--Indigenous groups themselves
  sometimes contribute to deforestation because
  they use laws intended to protect their ownership
  of forests to sell logging rights to third
  parties, as happens sometime in the Darién.

28
External forces that limit land use options and
alter cultural components of indigenous groups

• 3. Fossil fuel exploration
• Example Texaco (now owned by Chevron) is
  accused by Ecuadorian indigenous groups and
  farmers of dumping 18 billions of gallons of
  waste from oil production into unlined pits in
  rainforest from 1964-1990.

29

• Unlined pits leak waste into adjacent areas,
  particularly when it rains (and the area is a
  rainforest).

30

• Groups want 27 billion for fouling of waters
  from which they fish, drink water, bathe, etc.
• Texaco admitted they dumped the waste. The issue
  is whether Chevron, who bought Texaco, is
  responsible for the clean-up, or Petroecuador,
  Texacos former partner

31
Sept. 20, 2011, BBC News

• Second US Court of Appeals in New York overturned
  a block on Ecuadoreans collecting damages of
  18.2 billion from Chevron because of the
  pollution in the Amazon.
• Issue is still on-going in Ecuadorean courts
• Full story http//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin
  -america-14983123

32
Sustainable alternatives to traditional ways of
fossil fuel exploration and extraction?

• Urucu River oil and gas fields in Brazilian
  Amazon began production in the 1980s.
• Petrobas, the Brazilian national oil company
  expected to supply all Brazilian fuel by 2007
  from domestic sources

London and Kelly 2007, The last forest the
Amazon in the age of globalization
33
(No Transcript)
34

• Urucu river fields have not made large
  footprint on land. No roads to area. Heavy
  equipment is brought in by boat. Waste water is
  treated, trash recycled or sent to Manaus.
  Workers stay on site for two-week shifts.

35
Internal forces that limit land use options and
alter cultural components of indigenous groups

• 1. High population growth of indigenous groups
  may make slash and burn agriculture not feasible.
  
• 2. Dependence on chemical fertilizers and
  herbicides, instead of using slash and burn,
  costs money, which may be in short supply.
• 3. Indigenous groups may leave homes to become
  laborersdisrupts family and cultural bonds

36
Internal forces that limit land use options and
alter cultural components of indigenous groups

• 4. Low education levelslimited education
  constrains options besides farming or being a
  low-paid laborer

37
Internal forces that limit land use options and
alter cultural components of indigenous groups

• 5. Organizational weakness
• a. lack of linkages between local groups and
  national groups and lack of linkages among local
  groups
• b. leaders of groups often have to leave native
  areas and go to cities to be effective, where
  they become less in touch with on-the-ground
  issues
• c. legitimacy of leaders sometime questioned
• d. few indigenous lawyers

38

• Kuna of Panama are one group that has been seen
  as a model of indigenous empowerment
• Semi-autonomous province in Panama
• Wield political power

39
(No Transcript)
40

• Kuna are currently preparing plans for moving
  much of their population inland and off islands
  in preparation for global warming.
• Individuals from island community of Carti Sugdub
  (2,000 pop.) have already begun clearing land on
  the mainland for move.

41

• Whether Kunas political power and control of
  their destiny results in greater protection of
  biodiversity in their lands than other lands of
  Panama has received limited attention from
  researchers.

42
The noble savage concept

• Origin of concept not clearprobably sometime in
  the 1700s or 1800s
• In the late 1900s, the concept became enmeshed
  with thinking about conservation

43
Assumptions

• Indigenous people were the first conservationists
• Indigenous people are stewards of nature
• Indigenous people live in harmony with nature

44

• Alvard, M. S. 1993. Testing the "Ecologically
  Noble Savage" Hypothesis Interspecific Prey
  Choice by Piro Hunters of Amazonian Peru Human
  Ecology 21355-387

45
Alvards definitions

• Do the hunting decisions of the Piro suggest they
  try to maximize their short-term harvesting rate
  (i.e. obtain resources in an efficient manner) or
  keep the harvest sustainable over the long term?
  If their choices suggest they try to keep the
  harvest sustainable, this suggests they are
  making conservation-oriented decisions.

46

• Alvard makes a distinction between conservation
  as resulting from conscious decisions on the part
  of hunters and conservation as a by-product of
  other factors. For example if hunters are
  wasteful yet there are very few of them, their
  resource extraction will be sustainable, but not
  because of their decisions. Alvard would not
  view this as conservation.

47

• Hypothesis 1Hunters base their decisions
  regarding what to hunt on the sustainability of
  the prey harvest over the long-term.
• Hypothesis 2Hunters base their decision
  regarding what to hunt to maximize short-term
  harvest.

48
Predictions from Hypothesis 1

• Collared peccary, agoutis, and capybara should be
  preferred prey from a sustainability/conservation
  viewpoint.
• Large primates (howler and spider monkeys),
  tapirs, and cracid birds should be non-preferred
  prey

49
Alvard 1993
(If r is greater than 0, population size will
increase)
50
Predictions from Hypothesis 2

• Species with a profitability greater than the
  hourly return (expected calories if they dont
  pursue this prey item and continue to search for
  something more profitable) should be pursued
  (species in Table 2).
• Squirrels, small birds (non-game birds) and small
  primates (tamarins, squirrel monkeys) should not
  be pursued.

51
From foraging theory, some definitions, given
different prey types

• hi handling time with an individual of type i
  after encounter
• ei average expected net energy gain after
  encounter with prey type i
• Profitability ei/hi or
• energy gained/handling time

52
(Hourly rank is returns if they dont pursue this
species and keep huntingspecies in table above
should always be pursued from profitability stand
point)
Alvard 1993
53

• Piro community lives in Diamante, Peru in
  rainforest in Manu National Park

54
(No Transcript)
55
Piro diet

• Farming71 of calories (manioc and plantains)
• Hunting, fishing14 of calories
• Forest products, domestic fruit, commercial
  food15 calories

56
Hunting weapons

• Bows used to capture 15 of the meat (by weight).
• Shotguns used to capture 85 of the meat.

57
Study methods

• Hunters followed and interviewed from August 1988
  through May 1989 and Oct. 1990 through May 1991.

58

• 30 hunts were observed in 1988-1989 for a total
  of 291.2 hunter-hours.
• 49 hunts were observed in 1990-1991 for 401.8
  hunter-hours.

59

• Data skewed (some hunters provided more data than
  othersi.e. data dont represent a random sample
  of hunters) because some hunters hunted more
  frequently and some were more amenable to having
  an anthropologist along on the hunts

60

• Also collected data on unobserved hunts by
  interviewing hunters.

61

• Alvard recorded travel, encounters with prey,
  pursuit, and kill.
• Alvard recorded species, sex, age, reproductive
  status, weight, and technology used for all
  animals killed and, when possible, all animals
  encountered.

62
Alvard 1993
63
(No Transcript)
64
Alvard 1993
Game birds more likely to be pursued on way back
to village
65
Results

• Most species with high profitability were
  consistently pursued by huntersand some of
  these, the large primates (howler and spider
  monkeys) were pursued despite their non-preferred
  prey status, based on sustainability
  considerations. This supports Hypothesis 2.
• Species with low profitability (squirrels, small
  primates) were ignoredthis, too, supports
  Hypothesis 2

66
Results

• Agoutis were not always pursued. This does not
  support predictions of Hypothesis 2 in that they
  have a high profitability.
• Game birds, although with relatively high
  profitability, were not always pursued. This
  provides some support for Hypothesis 1.

67
Results

• Those hunting with bows made different choices
  than those hunting with shot guns (see squirrels
  and titi monkeys in Tables 3 and 4).

68
Author Interpretations

• Author feels results are primarily consistent
  with Hypothesis 2. He explains that lack of
  pursuit of game birds may occur because hunters
  are attack-limitedonly a certain number of
  shotgun shellsso they hope for larger game than
  game birds at first, but then will go after them
  after the hunt has been going on a while.

69
Author Interpretations

• Agoutis not always pursued because some of the
  encounters with agoutis were when agoutis noticed
  hunters first. Very difficult to catch an agouti
  under these circumstances.

70
Author Interpretations

• Better hunting technology (shotguns vs. bows)
  resulted in more selective choice of which
  species to hunt.

71
Author Interpretations

• Piro are not conservationists, i.e. do not hunt
  to maximize sustainability of species.

72
Problems with study?
73
Other ideas

• This is not to say that indigenous groups do not
  have conservation ethics but finding sufficient
  resources to survive is likely their first
  priority (as it would be with any group)
• Low impact of indigenous groups historically may
  have been due to their low population densities
  and subsistence economies

74

• However, as indigenous groups shift from
  subsistence to market economies, land management
  strategies may change, with negative impacts on
  biodiversity.
• Alcorn and Toledo, 1995.

75
Considerations of Trisierra, author of report to
Inter-American Development Bank, which funds
projects concerning conservation and indigenous
groups.

• The components of market economies and native
  cultural elements should be considered
  simultaneously to involve indigenous groups in
  the process of change.
• It is difficult to design generalized solutions
  to the mechanisms of utilization of rainforest
  resources by native groups. Therefore governments
  and institutionsmust be creative and flexible.
  Legislation can be successfully implemented if it
  is developed in cooperation with the stakeholders
  involved.

Trisierra source
76
Take-home message

• Respecting indigenous group land rights (goal 1)
  may sometimes but not always result in
  conservation or preservation (goal 2), although
  both are important goals.
• Necessary to recognize value and potential
  conflicts between different goals

77

• Alcorn, J.B. and V. Toledo. 1995. In Barriers
  and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and
  Institutions. Gunderson et al. (Eds.) Columbia
  University Press. New York.
• Alvard, M. S. 1993. Testing the "Ecologically
  Noble Savage" Hypothesis Interspecific Prey
  Choice by Piro Huntersof Amazonian Peru Human
  Ecology 21355-387
• Ellingson, Ter. 2001. The myth of the noble
  savage. University of California Press,
  Berkeley, CA
• IDB. 1995. Sistemas de propiedad y administración
  forestal entre los pueblos indígenas de América
  Latina y el Caribe. Unpublished Project Terms of
  Reference. Washington D.C.
• London, M. and B. Kelly. 2007. The Last Forest.
  Random House, NY, NY.
• López, R. and A. Valdés. 1997. Fighting Rural
  Poverty in Latin America. In Rural Poverty in
  Latin America. eds. Ramón López and Alberto
  Valdés. The World Bank. Washington D.C.
• Mertins, G. 1996. Land Tenure Regulations and
  Land Tenure Forms in Latin America.
  Structure-Problems-Trends an Overview. GTZ.
  Eschborn, Germany. Mimeo.
• Tresierra, J.C. RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS GROUPS OVER
  NATURAL RESOURCES IN TROPICAL FORESTS.
  Environmental Division Working Paper. Canadian
  Trust Fund, Inter-American Development Bank