|
PA2
Monday,
October 6, 2003
How Conservation is Destroying
Africa's Traditional People
South Africa is, however,
reversing the plight of traditional people. Under the apartheid
system, blacks were made landless and private game ownership was
concentrated among whites, who controlled tourism, writes DAVID
KAIZA
IT is getting to midday,
but the sun has not come out in South Africa's Kwazulu Natal
province. In the cold rain, bare-chested Zulu warriors are
re-enacting the 1850s succession battle between Shaka's great
grandsons, Mbuyazi and Chetswayo, for a group of tourists.
Their new war ironically
is against traditional conservation and tourism, and it is one
which, under the ANC government, they are winning. So they dance
in the rain to earn their own money with that the chief executive
officer of a South African tourist body, Sheryl Carouls, calls
"dignity" – the type "that only work can give."
From September 8 to 17,
in Durban, the World Parks Congress held its fifth conference
since 1952. This year's meeting was intended to find ways of
tackling the conflict between conservation and society. It is a
battle that traditional people living in park areas in East Africa
are losing, says Meitamei ole Dapash, who champions the rights of
the Maasai in Kenya.
The Karimojong and
Maasai are the prominent groups mentioned in the conflict tourism,
conservation and local communities. But there are also others like
the Batwa in western Uganda and the Ogiek in Kenya. Wild animals
pass on diseases to them or they are displayed as curiosities for
foreign visitors. At worst, they are forcibly relocated to create
room for animals.
South Africa is, however,
reversing the plight of traditional people. Under the apartheid
system, blacks were made landless and private game ownership was
concentrated among whites, who controlled tourism.
Like in most countries,
the interests of traditional culture were seen as opposed to the
interests of conservation. The ikhwani and ncema
reeds that the Zulu used to make mats, the animal skins they used
for shields and other regalia were declared "protected"
by the wildlife policy makers. Locked out too were the plants they
needed for muti (medicine).
In this way,
conservation amounted to an assault on culture. In post-apartheid
South Africa, though, the emphasis has shifted to placing people
first, leading to a drive to exploit tourism – not just as a
revenue generating activity, but as a means of providing
employment.
Unemployment among black
people in Kwazulu Natal is high. Around the Siyaya Park area
itself, it is said to be as high as 72 per cent. Illiteracy is
rampant as are crime and HIV/Aids.
Gina Thompson, programme
manager of the Nyoni Community Centre in the Kwazulu Natal area
where the battle dance is taking place, says there is a market for
Zulu culture. "We did research and found that there was
incredible interest in Zulu culture and that it was
under-exploited," she told this writer.
Now, controlled
exploitation of the ecosystem has enabled communities to go back
to craft production, and freed them to earn money doing what they
know best.
It is such a policy that
activists say is lacking in East Africa. The statistics are stark:
48 children orphaned by wildlife in Amboseli National Park are
seeking compensation; in Uganda, over 200 people last year died in
Karamoja from famine, because Kidepo National Park occupies the
fertile territories in Karamoja. Diseases spread by vectors around
wild animals are rampant.
Conversely, wildlife
bodies continue to make millions of dollars from national parks.
According to ole Dapash,
women in Amboseli have to walk 15 km to fetch water daily, when an
investment of Ksh400,000 ($5,000) might have fixed the water
problem. (See story on page III).
Being aware of these
issues, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) met in Durban recently
and recommended that tourism provide a springboard for the
development of traditional communities.
The so-called indigenous
people are regarded as the ultimate victims of global capital,
under pressure to give up the often resource rich lands they live
on. The clashes are spectacular. Royal Dutch/Shell, the world's
biggest oil giant stands accused of fuelling the execution of
Ogoni activist Ken Saro Wiwa. The tourism industry in Kenya is
said to be crushing the Maasai and in Uganda, the American power
company, AES, before it pulled out, found itself fending off
accusations that it was out to destroy the sacred areas of the
Basoga people.
At the Durban conference,
the stage was set for the clash with activists. Shell's director
of planning, Adrian Loader, started his speech with a description
of family life – scuba diving with his wife and children in
order to give them an education in ecology. Clearly, he was
anticipating hostility. And it took no time for an activist to
jump to the floor and fire back: "Ken Saro Wiwa and his
family are not scuba diving today."
IUCN director Achim
Steiner cut him short. For IUCN, getting the big polluting
companies on the conservation board itself was victory enough
without having to scupper it with what is described as "tree
hugging" or extreme environmentalism. The pragmatism of IUCN
did not go down well activists who continue to see conservation
and the extraction industry as enemies of traditional people.
The Ken Saro Wiwa
debacle threw big industry off balance. The number lining up to be
seen as "green" keeps growing. At Durban, it became
clear that tourism is probably moving into a "green"
phase which it will be judged by its treatment of local
communities.
Conservation Corporation
Africa (CCA) is one of the giants of tourism in Africa. According
to Les Carlisle, the environment manager of CCA, the company pays
up to $1.1 million in salaries to local people in Tanzania as
salary. It operates among the Maasai community (who remain
evictees of wildlife conservation) and runs health and educational
programmes for them. In the past year, CCA says it gave $98,000 to
the community.
"Conservation and
ecotourism can only succeed if they have the support of the people
most involved," said Faustine Kobero, CCA's Kleins Camp
manager, adding that they gave local schoolchildren the same tours
as tourists.
Sir Robert Wilson,
president of the International Council on Metals and Minerals,
also CEO of Rio Tinto, the world's most powerful mining company,
said his company was contemplating dropping its plans to extract
uranium from the Jabiluka mine in the Kakado National Park in
north Australia because of the impact it would have on the Mirar
people.
What was victory to IUCN
was a compromise to traditional people, who rejected the
recommendation that the extraction and tourism industries work to
the benefit of traditional people as condescending and duly voted
against it. They said they were not consulted in drawing up the
recommendation.
"I take this issue
of benefit beyond boundaries with a pinch of salt," ole
Dapash told The EastAfrican. "If the decisions that
have been taken in the past 10 years have not worked, why should
this one work? We are only committing to new slogans."
The idea that people
living near protected areas must benefit from the area itself has
been in vogue since the 1990s.
In Uganda, up to 20 per
cent of funds generated from tourism are given to the communities
surrounding tourist parks. In South Africa, 10 per cent of gate
collections go to a community fund that then builds classrooms or
health centres or whatever it is that the community feels is in
its interest.
Bigger issues remain.
The pressure placed on communities by investment continues
unabated. According to Joji Carino, who works for the Tebtebba
Foundation (Indigenous Centre for International Policy, Research,
and Education), mining occupies up to 40 per cent of the lands of
the indigenous peoples of the Philippines.
Mining, because of its
resources, gets easier access to lands with delicate eco-systems,
while traditional peoples can be easily evicted to create room for
tourism.
Link : http://www.nationaudio.com/News/EastAfrican/06102003/Features/PA2-2.html
|
