Indigenous Peoples and Conservation Organizations

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Ju/’hoan in Namibia 121 near villages without consulting anyone. Feeling pressure from NGOs and donors to work with local communities, senior MET officials in Windhoek, the national capital, made promises to local residents, but seemingly without telling field staff. Despite assurances that the practice of raiding people’s homes would stop, for instance, arrests continued, and MET began to seem no different than the DNC. Trust was further undermined by the reluctance of local MET agents to expedite poaching cases reported by the Ju/’hoan. Even though the community was aware of exceptional individuals, the agency quickly earned a reputation for being dishonest and incompetent. Partnership did not seem to be on anyone’s mind. After this halting start, which was not confined to Nyae Nyae, MET recognized that both the government and local NGOs lacked the financial resources, skills, and staff to work effectively with local communities. So in 1993 the ministry established the Living in a Finite Environment Figure 7.3 Wildlife Management in Nyae Nyae: Institutional Map, 1997 NATIONAL POLICY 1996 Amendment to Nature Conservation Act of 1975. GOVERNMENT PRIVATE SECTOR Management Benefits MET Agency responsible for safeguarding national interest in wildlife. In 1997 delegated these rights to NNFC through the conservancy. NNFC Local community as stewards of the resources. Conservancy status approved in 1997. Gained rights to manage and benefit from wildlife in the conservancy. TOURISM Private sector operators negotiated directly with the government. In 1997, have to now negotiate with NNFC who hold the rights to consumptive use of wildlife in the conservancy. Technical Assistance NNDFN A Namibia-based NGO providing administrative and institutional assistance to the NNFC. LOCAL GOVERNMENT Only recently gaining importance. Balances local level interests between ethnic groups, land use options, etc. Needs more support. Facilitation Facilitation LIFE Program Co-managed by WWF-US. Supports technical and organizational capacity building of Namibian NGOS and CBOs. NGOS Diagram by B. Wyckoff-Baird,1997
122 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia (LIFE) Program. This program, comanaged by WWF–US, would provide grants, training, and administrative and technical assistance to local NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs). Its goals were to develop or strengthen representational decision-making bodies; expand skills in resource management and planning, as well as project development, implementation, and monitoring; increase economic benefits from resource use by promoting community-based tourism and other enterprises; and increase access to knowledge and information on which to base decisions. The LIFE Program would also act as a “buffer” between the local organizations and USAID, the primary donor, by absorbing some administrative, reporting, and financial management requirements. Both MET and WWF–US also pledged financial resources to the program. In January 1994 LIFE made its first grant in the Nyae Nyae area to the Nyae Nyae Development Foundation of Namibia (NNDFN), an NGO that was formed in the 1980s to aid Ju/’hoan efforts at self-reliance and to support the back-to-the-land movement. From early efforts to dig wells and supply them with pumps to build cattle herding in the n!oresi, the NNDFN expanded its support until by 1994 it included an integrated development program of education, preventive health care, agriculture, income generation, and natural resource management. The LIFE grant was provisional for six months, while an effort was undertaken to see what the community wanted to do. In July the Nyae Nyae Farmers Cooperative (NNFC) council met and asked the NGO to scale back its staff support and delegate more authority to the community. A new institution—community rangers—was established, and 10 young men were selected at district meetings to monitor game movements and keep people informed about what was happening in the development program. In August, the LIFE advisor and representatives of MET and the NNDFN came to Nyae Nyae to assess the situation. The LIFE Program decided to work directly with the NNFC. Realizing that community-based organizations face the dual task of identifying their priorities and developing the capacity to meet them, the LIFE Program is designed to provide CBOs with more proactive technical assistance than a professionally staffed development NGO would receive. In this case, several things were immediately apparent from discussions with community members. The NNFC, despite the lofty aims of its creators, was alienated from the people it was supposed to represent. 3 The Representative Council did not communicate effectively with its constituents and made only superficial decisions. Several community members would buttress this opinion in coming months by saying that their nominal representative to the council was not in fact chosen. Several n!oresi kxaosi reported that someone different attended almost every meeting. As one council member explained the selection process, “Whoever is in the n!ore when the truck arrives, jumps on and goes to the meeting.” The gap between the community and the Management Committee, the small group of five men selected by the council to run things day to day, was even wider. The committee made decisions on behalf of local residents but rarely communicated the results. It rarely consulted the community about how planning and implementation of the development program could be improved. Visits by committee members to the n!oresi had practically ceased. Most community members were unaware of what the committee was doing, and felt that the people on it should be replaced. Ironically the new “representational” system had increased stratification within the community. Many NNFC leaders were young men who had received an education. They felt comfortable around outsiders and were confident in expressing themselves as individuals. Lacking the attributes required by the new structure, older community members became marginalized. Women also lost much of their right to participate in decision making since they generally did not attend school, did not have needed language skills, and knew little about other cultures because they were shielded from extensive interactions with outsiders. While it was clear that the current structure was ineffective, it was unclear what should develop in its place. The Ju/’hoan wanted to engage in the national political process and eventually with the wider global society. They needed an organization that government would consider legitimate and representative in the new Namibian democ-
Page 1 and 2:
Indigenous Peoples and Conservation
Page 3 and 4:
Support for this publication was pr
Page 5 and 6:
iv Acknowledgments The editors woul
Page 8:
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
Page 11 and 12:
4 Conservation and Indigenous Peopl
Page 13 and 14:
6 Conservation and Indigenous Peopl
Page 15 and 16:
8 Conservation Partnerships populat
Page 17 and 18:
10 Conservation Partnerships hostil
Page 19 and 20:
12 Conservation Partnerships Partic
Page 21 and 22:
14 Conservation Partnerships indige
Page 23 and 24:
16 Conservation Partnerships compat
Page 25 and 26:
18 Conservation Partnerships Refere
Page 28 and 29:
CHAPTER 3 Indigenous Federations an
Page 30 and 31:
The Runa in Ecuador 23 Loreto Chont
Page 32 and 33:
The Runa in Ecuador 25 Lower elevat
Page 34 and 35:
The Runa in Ecuador 27 Figure 3.1 I
Page 36 and 37:
The Runa in Ecuador 29 game animals
Page 38 and 39:
The Runa in Ecuador 31 Table 3.2 Pr
Page 40 and 41:
The Runa in Ecuador 33 Pacto Sumaco
Page 42 and 43:
The Runa in Ecuador 35 DINAF and it
Page 44 and 45:
The Runa in Ecuador 37 agement cost
Page 46 and 47:
The Runa in Ecuador 39 Ultimately t
Page 48 and 49:
The Runa in Ecuador 41 small or lar
Page 50 and 51:
The Runa in Ecuador 43 However, it
Page 52 and 53:
The Runa in Ecuador 45 References B
Page 54 and 55:
CHAPTER 4 Lessons in Collaboration:
Page 56 and 57:
The Xavante in Central Brazil 49 a
Page 58 and 59:
The Xavante in Central Brazil 51 pe
Page 60 and 61:
The Xavante in Central Brazil 53 Be
Page 62 and 63:
The Xavante in Central Brazil 55 ac
Page 64 and 65:
The Xavante in Central Brazil 57 Wi
Page 66 and 67:
The Xavante in Central Brazil 59 af
Page 68 and 69:
The Xavante in Central Brazil 61 19
Page 70 and 71:
The Xavante in Central Brazil 63 mu
Page 72 and 73:
The Xavante in Central Brazil 65 Fi
Page 74 and 75:
The Xavante in Central Brazil 67 Th
Page 76 and 77:
The Xavante in Central Brazil 69 27
Page 78: The Xavante in Central Brazil 71 Ra
Page 81 and 82: 74 The Sirionó in Bolivia seemed t
Page 83 and 84: 76 The Sirionó in Bolivia more tha
Page 85 and 86: 78 The Sirionó in Bolivia With the
Page 87 and 88: 80 The Sirionó in Bolivia barterin
Page 89 and 90: 82 The Sirionó in Bolivia research
Page 91 and 92: 84 The Sirionó in Bolivia by IWGIA
Page 93 and 94: 86 The Sirionó in Bolivia these to
Page 95 and 96: 88 The Sirionó in Bolivia The main
Page 98 and 99: CHAPTER 6 WWF’s Partnership with
Page 100 and 101: The Foi in Papua New Guinea 93 Some
Page 102 and 103: The Foi in Papua New Guinea 95 was
Page 104 and 105: The Foi in Papua New Guinea 97 a pa
Page 106 and 107: The Foi in Papua New Guinea 99 hete
Page 108 and 109: The Foi in Papua New Guinea 101 hav
Page 110 and 111: The Foi in Papua New Guinea 103 A p
Page 112 and 113: The Foi in Papua New Guinea 105 vil
Page 114 and 115: The Foi in Papua New Guinea 107 Yet
Page 116 and 117: The Foi in Papua New Guinea 109 inv
Page 118: The Foi in Papua New Guinea 111 Lea
Page 121 and 122: 114 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia mal s
Page 123 and 124: 116 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia Map 7
Page 125 and 126: 118 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia Figur
Page 127: 120 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia local
Page 131 and 132: 124 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia the e
Page 133 and 134: 126 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia board
Page 135 and 136: 128 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia way,
Page 137 and 138: 130 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia 5.1 L
Page 139 and 140: 132 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia group
Page 141 and 142: 134 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia Endno
Page 144: PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS
Page 147 and 148: 140 Signposts for the Road Ahead we
Page 149 and 150: 142 Signposts for the Road Ahead ad
Page 151 and 152: 144 Signposts for the Road Ahead tu
Page 154 and 155: Contributors JOHN BUTLER holds a Ph
Page 156 and 157: Indigenous Peoples and Conservation
Page 158 and 159: Annex 151 Indigenous Peoples 1 and
Page 160 and 161: Annex 153 19. WWF seeks out partner
Page 162 and 163: Annex 155 31. WWF commits itself to
Page 164: World Wildlife Fund 1250 24th Stree
show all

Indigenous Peoples and Conservation Organizations

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?