Advertisement

Human Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 199–215 | Cite as

The Catch-22 of Conservation: Indigenous Peoples, Biologists, and Cultural Change

  • Flora Lu Holt
Article

Abstract

Resurgent protectionists advocate a return to strict nature protection characterized by excluding most people from ecologically fragile areas. Certain groups of indigenous residents, namely those with low population densities, simple technologies, and subsistence economies, are seen as conservation friendly, but groups who are experiencing demographic growth, using Western technologies, and producing for the market are perceived as incompatible with biodiversity conservation. Using insights from common property theory as well as ethnographic observations of the Huaorani Indians of Ecuador, I illustrate how such assumptions constitute a “conservation Catch-22” in which cultural conditions deemed compatible with biodiversity conservation are precisely those from which we would not predict conservationist practices to emerge. Romanticized conditions deemed harmonious with nature lack the incentives necessary for people to develop conservationist practices. Conservation is not a state of being, but a social process inextricably linked to social and political institutions influencing resource management.

Keywords

Huaorani Amazon indigenous peoples conservation Ecuador 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agrawal, A. (2002). Common resources and institutional sustainability. In Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S., and Weber, E. U. (eds.), The Drama of the Commons, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 41–86.Google Scholar
  2. Alcorn, J. B. (1993). Indigenous peoples and conservation. Conservation Biology 7: 424–426.Google Scholar
  3. Alvard, M. S. (1993). Testing the “ecologically noble savage” hypothesis: Interspecific prey choice by Piro hunters of Amazonian Peru. Human Ecology 21: 355–387.Google Scholar
  4. Alvard, M. (1995). Intraspecific prey choice by Amazonian hunters. Current Anthropology 36(5): 789–818.Google Scholar
  5. Berkes, F., Feeny, D. McCay, B. J., and Acheson, J. M. (1989). The benefits of the commons. Science 340: 91–93.Google Scholar
  6. Brandon, K., Redford, K. H., and Sanderson, S. E. (1998). Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and Protected Areas, Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Bromley, D. W., and Cernea, M. M. (1989). The management of common property natural resources: Some conceptual and operational fallacies. World Bank Discussion Papers No. 57, The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. Brosius, J. P. (1997). Endangered forest, endangered people: Environmentalist representations of indigenous knowledge. Human Ecology 25: 47–69.Google Scholar
  9. Colchester, M. (2000). Self-determination or environmental determinism for indigenous peoples in tropical forest conservation. Conservation Biology 14(5): 1365–1367.Google Scholar
  10. Ellingson, T. (2001). The Myth of the Noble Savage, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  11. Hames, R. (1987). Game conservation or efficient hunting? In McCay, B. J., and Acheson, J. M. (eds.), The Question of the Commons, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 92–107.Google Scholar
  12. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1, 243–248.Google Scholar
  13. Heller, J. (1961). Catch-22, Simon & Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Holt, F. L., Bilsborrow, R. E., and Oña, A. I. (2004). Demography, Household Economics, and Land and Resource Use of Five Indigenous Populations in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon: A Summary of Ethnographic Research. Occasional Paper, Carolina Population Center. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  15. Kane, J. (1996). Savages, Random House, London.Google Scholar
  16. Kimerling, J. (1993). Crudo Amazónico, Abya Yala, Quito.Google Scholar
  17. Kramer, R. A., and van Schaik, C. P. (1997). Preservation paradigms and tropical rain forests. In Kramer, R. A., van Schaik, C. P., and Johnson, J. (eds.), Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
  18. Kramer, R. A., van Schaik, C. P., and Johnson, J. (1997). Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Lu, F. E. (1999). Changes in Subsistence Patterns and Resource Use of the Huaorani Indians in the Ecuadorian Amazon, PhD Dissertation, Curriculum in Ecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Lu, F. E. (2001). The common property regime of the Huaorani Indians of Ecuador: Implications and challenges to conservation. Human Ecology 29: 425–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCay, B. J. (2002). Emergence of institutions for the commons: Contexts, situations, and events. In Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S., and Weber, E. U. (eds.) The Drama of the Commons, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 361–402.Google Scholar
  22. McCay, B. J., and Acheson, J. M. (1987). The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  23. McKean, M. A. (1996). Common property: What is it good for, and what makes it work? Forests, Trees and People Programme, Phase II Working Papers. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  24. Oates, J. F. (1999). Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies are Failing in West Africa, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  25. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S., and Weber, E. U. (2002). The Drama of the Commons, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. Pichón, F., and Bilsborrow, R. E. (1992). Land-use systems, deforestation and associated demographic factors in the humid tropics: Farm-level evidence from Ecuador. Paper prepared for the IUSSP Seminar on Population and Deforestation in the Humid Tropics, Campinas, Brazil, November 30–December 3, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. Redford, K. H. (1991). The ecologically noble savage. Cultural Survival Quarterly 15: 46–48.Google Scholar
  29. Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. (1976). Cosmology as ecological analysis: A view from the rain forest. Man (N.S.) 11: 307–318.Google Scholar
  30. Rival, L. M. (1992). Social Transformations and the Impact of Formal Schooling on the Huaorani of Amazonian Ecuador, PhD Dissertation, London School of Economics, University of London, London.Google Scholar
  31. Rival, L. M. (1998). The Social Life of Trees: Anthropological Perspectives on Tree Symbolism, Berg Publishers, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  32. Rival, L. M. (2002). Trekking through History: The Huaorani of Amazonian Ecuador, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Terborgh, J. (1999). Requiem for Nature, Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  34. Vickers, W. T. (1994). From opportunism to nascent conservation. Human Nature 5: 307–337.Google Scholar
  35. Walker, C. (1996). Film Trinkets and Beads. First Run Icarus Films. Brooklyn, NY, 52 minutes.Google Scholar
  36. Wilshusen, P. R., Brechin, S. R., Fortwangler, C. L., and West, P. C. (2002). Reinventing a square wheel: Critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodiversity conservation. Society and Natural Resources 15: 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yost, J. A. (1981). Twenty years of contact: The mechanisms of change in Wao (“Auca”) culture. In Whitten, N. E. (ed.), Cultural Transformation and Ethnicity in Modern Ecuador, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 677–704.Google Scholar
  38. Yost, J. A. (1991). People of the forest: The Waorani. In Acosta-Solis, M. (ed.), Ecuador in the Shadow of Volcanoes, Ediciones Libri Mundi, Quito, pp. 95–115.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations