by maddog » Fri 30 Nov, 2012 3:35 pm
On the subject of whether or not we should consider indigenous peoples living a traditional lifestyle as part of an ecosystem, playing a role in 'wilderness' by filling an ecological niche, and otherwise living a lifestyle in balance with nature. Problems can arise if indigenous peoples are viewed as separate.
A good example of this is the case of tribespeople living in, or close to, wildlife reserves in Africa. Where indigenous peoples are viewed as part of an ecosystem their lifestyle is legitimate. When viewed as outside the natural system, their hunting is naturally viewed as poaching, illegitimate, and a threat to conservation. In 'Killing for Conservation - Wildlife Policy in Zimbabwe', Rosaleen Duffy illustrates the problem with the following example (pp 52-53):
The image of the poacher..was that of the poverty stricken, yet greedy, outsider robbing the host countries of their natural heritage. It drew on the Western belief that wildlife had to be protected from indigenous peoples to prevent it from being hunted to extinction...
NGOs that otherwise would not be seen to be supporting violence have turned a blind eye to the activities of a number of conservation agencies. In turn, NGOs have justified their position on the basis of preserving biodiversity...This was assisted by a simplistic definition of rangers as wildlife protectors and poachers as wildlife destroyers. One of the most controversial and politically-loaded donations...came from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) International, which donated a helicopter for the anti-poaching effort in 1997. The helicopter was used in the shoot-to-kill policy, and it was used to shoot a poacher in the Sapi safari area. However, the helicopter quickly turned into a public relations disaster as WWF-International became embroiled in a human rights vs animal rights row. The provision of the helicopter was severely criticised...for its role and obvious support for shoot-to-kill...
You wouldn't want to be a tribes person incompatible with the ideology of 'wilderness'. Equally, wilderness is diminished without indigenous inhabitants filling their ecological niche. Localised elephant overpopulation in Africa is a example of the latter (Duffy, op sit, 131):
Culling is a highly contentious issue for conservationists, because, at its heart, culling involves the question of whether nature is able to regulate itself or whether management policies should be devised. Conservationists have been divided over whether to interfere with elephant populations through culling. The choice is often presented by NGOs as between culling and allowing elephants to die off naturally as a result of localised overpopulation...If elephants become to numerous, they can destroy their own habitats, and this results in a slow death from malnutrition and starvation. In addition, it can also force other species, such as rhino and giraffe, to move elsewhere in search of food, or they will face the same fate as the elephants.
So, the indigenous inhabitants are moved on, because they are incompatible with conservation and 'wilderness' values. Elephant plagues follow, so they require culling. But if the tribes people are left to fill the niche, their hunting controls populations, and the system remains in balance.
Where the indigenous inhabitants are removed, and the niche becomes vacant. The landscape then requires management to remain balanced. This seems a familiar story.
Cheers
