1. Applying Human-Environment Relations to Conservation Regimes
Laura Emmerson
ANTH 410- Position Paper- Spring 2013
Humans are constantly being pitted against the natural world. When talking about
natural resources, political language places conservation in the context of aone-sided
debate: you’re either for people and against nature or the other way around. Within the
field of anthropology, methodology and theory are changing rapidly to accommodate
what the world demands of it; activist anthropology is in the forefront for the needs of
society and the environment. When looking at the needs of the people, it is unsafe to
assume what is needed and how to go about satisfying those needs through empirical data
alone. Going beyond empirical observations, anthropologists must now make their
studies go toward benefiting the people that are involved in the area of study; more
valuable relationships with conservation will be established in the long term.
The new word around town for conservation is cohabitation. In order for anything
to get done, there needs recognition in conjunction with co-habitants: humans with the
remainder of the natural world being one example, conservation biologists and
anthropologists being another. An initial question asked is should anthropologists take
part in conserving species for biodiversity? I say yes! Working with those involved with
conservation provides a comprehensive vantage point for anthropologists. I am interested
in how people are shaped by nature and how humans directly influence the natural
worldwith their interactions and how it can be revealed to benefit conservation efforts
and plan on doing career related work related to this subject in the future, possibly in
ethnoprimatology or some other nature focus. Through a social justice standpoint, steps
1

2. need to be taken to keep the flow of economic, social, and environmental entities alive
and well. Anthropological studies can contribute to this by looking at humans’ direct and
indirect involvement in altering the earth. Looking prehistorically, humans have had
major effects on the earth, anywhere from megafaunal extinctions to “anthropogenic
changes in terms of hunting, burning, deforestation, and agriculturally associated changes
such as irrigation, terracing, and raised fields,” (Hames 2007).
With globalization being the inevitable direction that people on Earth are shifting
to, establishing strong links among groups (individuals, organizations, governments) will
ensure a strong backbone for conservation efforts. Larger organizations set the stage for
what conservation should look like, but even with good intentions, much can be lost with
the big ideals that mandate conservation efforts such as the World Wildlife Fund, Nature
Conservancy, and Conservation International. This paper explores the role
anthropologists play, offering bridges of communication and insight between different
entities involved in conservation (with a focus of in non-Western countries). A main
theme to be covered isensuring active involvement from the communities who are
directly affectedby the politics of conservation of natural resources and biodiversity. This
must go beyond simply hearing voices of those marginalized. Having locals lead these
initiatives to conserve life in their regionwill in turn be used to contribute to the overall
wellbeing of those communities. How people will be involved depends on the multiple
parties, be that governments, local people, wildlife and everything in between. Examples
of local involvement in conservation will be matched with the subfield of
ethnoprimatology to show how conservation should be done in an interactive,
multidisciplinary format, ensuring cohabitation of all parties.
2

3. Indigenous/Traditional Involvement
Anthropologists are taking more active roles as members of the conservation
community, which includesinvolving local people into policy and action. One case study
done for the Miskito, a native people based out of Nicaragua, demonstrated a society that
subsisted off of green sea turtles. During the twentieth century the international market
for these turtles was presented by the British in order to ship the turtle elsewhere.
Because other companies were catching the turtles, the Miskito had to shift their entire
subsistence regime to one based off of selling the turtles instead of eating them, forcing
them to participate in the international trade. With this shift they were also obligated to
use money to adapt and survive in the global economy. Once the turtles were
overexploited, the economy started to dwindle, leaving them with no turtles and no
financial means (Nietschmann 1987). This case study shares the story of what happens all
too often in regards to natural resources and local populations. Traditions that become
established over generations will suddenly become exploited when the interests of the
free market target a resource. The Miskito are a native people that had the effects of
globalization thrust upon them, whether they wanted the free market or not. This is a
common scenario that frequents communities, and it is cases like this that call for
native/indigenous people to manage their own resources, but it’s not always so clear for
who’s to blame for lack of conservation.
“Ecologically noble savage” argument
Arguments have been made that claim that Native peoples were the original
conservationists and should be used as a model for present day and future efforts. The
thought process is based off of the idea that humans, like other social species, evolved
3

4. with certain adaptations that impedes the degradation of resources (Hames 2007). One
example of these adaptations can be found within the Kurumbapeople of South India;
they hold cultural practices in which they abstain from harvesting honey in certain areas
of the surrounding hills in order to keep a spiritual balance (Anderson 2001). It may not
be for conservation’s sake, but it certainly gets the job done. Like many traditional
cultures, the Kurumba’s newer generations are facing the inevitable lure of modernity
and slowly abandoning their cultural practices, which have proven sustainable in
practiceandhad upheld a balance of resources. An “ecodevelopment non-governmental
organization” wanted to work with the natives in order to create sort of balance to
preserve the Kurumba culture. They figured that one way to incorporate the Kurumba
into a conservation plan for the land, would be to involve them in the market economical
society, which they had been pushed to transition into anyways. The ecodevelopment
wanted to turn their honey extraction methods into conservation and economic tools.
They would use their cultural ideals of honey preservation to maintain honey businesses
run by the Kurumba themselves. With this runs the risk of having their resources
exploited, similar to what the Miskito faced. The issue that goes along with the
“promotion of income generation is its tendency to exacerbate individualistic behavior,
which may lead to community fragmentation,” (Anderson 2001) allowing the potential
devaluing and abandoning of honey preservation that the conservation ideals were shaped
around in the first place. Cultural practices kept in mind, the ecodevelopment
promotedKurumba’s integration into the economy and tried to put emphases on cultural
empowerment and self-lead tactics.
Having the option of combining the goals of culture, economy, and conservation
4

5. is a step in the right direction, even though it’s not necessarily favorable to bet on
economic stability for the natives. Conversely there is the argument that the natives’
intentions are not to conserve, based off of theactive Western definition of conservation
methods.A critique is that conservation is constructed through Western ideology, making
it difficult to relate the concepts to those not sharing the same ideals. Because
local/indigenous people happen to live in protected areas set up through the big
organizations such as World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, and Conservation
International, plans are sometimes made to remove people from the land when their life-
styles don’t match up with the organizations/governments’ plans of sustainability and
preservation. When striving to maintain protected areas, indigenous/traditional peoples’
basic rights to land, resources, and cultural practice are undermined (Hames 2007).
Establishing ties between the land and recognizing their cultural and environmental
relevance will make for greater environmental practices. Because of the ecological
knowledge that indigenous people hold and the increasing “expansion of protected
ecosystems and landscapes into settled zones, conservationists have reconsidered resident
and neighboring human groups, leading many to view them as potential participants in
conservation rather than as poachers of wildlife or destroyers of habitat,” (Orlove and
Brush 1996). Whether or not locals/natives are sustainable or not does not necessarily
matter. The focus that conservationists need to make is within the interaction between the
people, the land, and their usage of resources. Structural organizations shouldlook at
traditionalsubsistence methods, be they sustainable or not, and build them into a
conservation plan, because native people, like all people, play a role in shaping the
environment.
5

6. Ethnoprimatology as a Model
Above are examples in which entities with clashing ideals and motives for
conservation (or lack there of) presented problems for all involved; fortunately there is
ethnoprimatology, an emerging subfield of anthropology that links ethnographic and
cultural studies with biological studies (and many more).With progressive articles
published within the last few years, ethnoprimatologists are establishing a hold in
academia, whose work can easily be applied, especially in regards to conservation. One
substantial advantage is that “ethnoprimatological approaches affirm the role of humans
as primates and of other primates as coparticipants in shaping social and ecological space,
recognizing mutual roles in both ecological and cultural interconnections,” (Fuentes 102).
Looking through the lens of the relationship between species allows for humans and
“alloprimates” to be recognized as equally influential upon one another.
One case study published followed the bush meat/trade of lorises in Southeast
Asia andhow taboos were assigned to certain lorises that lead to their deaths, while
otherspecies were sold as pets, etc. (Nekaris et al 2010). The authors emphasize the
importance in being involved in all aspects of the trade to aid the understandingof trade
from an emic perspective. Greater rapport between the communities and the
anthropologist lead tobetter collection of data and interpretation of results, which in turn
allowed for stronger steps to be taken for conservation. The authors present work through
case studies in three different countries in Southeast Asia. They were able to discover
different humanistic uses for non-human primates and why their populations were
dwindling, which may be tied in with conservation research today. The authors wanted to
a create a “satisfactory system for ethically quantifying the anthropological elements that
6

7. drive primate trade—e.g. social customs, economic factors, and traditional belief
systems"— [which] is essential for developing region-specific strategies to curtail this
practice” (Nekaris et al. 2010). They found that the most satisfying way to gain this
information was not to have translators, instead learning the language themselves. It was
also imperative for them to actively show interest in what the traders were doing, not just
asking how they acquired the primates illegally or expressing interest solely for
conservation purposes. It made a big difference when it came down to gaining the results.
With this type of research, the kind that documents not only the species that are being
traded (dead and alive), the cultural motives behind human involvement with
alloprimates are demonstrated. Eventually this can be relayed to those working politically
to enforce the laws against removal of non-human primates from the wild. Humans are
large “ecosystem engineers” which affects their own environment which is intimately
related to the lives of other primates.Humans are not separated with their environment as
much as it has been argued in the past; humans use primates for tourism, as pets, and as
food, among other things. Humans and alloprimates are continuously influencing/shaping
each other’s realities. This being one of the main theories of ethnoprimatology, it can be a
model for how anthropologists look at the interactions between different groups when
sampling conservation efforts, whether it is a political group, non-governmental
organization, or individual species. Each entity has an interactive role and influences one
another and should be looked to when creating and implementing conservation plans.
Wildlife Management in Borneo
Continuing the theme of resource use, it is important to grasp that humanistic
realityis made up of complicated interactions between multiple parties,including humans
7

8. and wildlife, creating a sort of integrated system when tied all together. The idea that
humans are separate from wildlife is perpetually considered outdated. A problem that
often shows itself when dealing with conservation is dealt in a dichotomous manner:
choosing sides between protecting the environment including wildlife or human
development. If there are decisions to be made about how the land will be treated, it
needs to be understood that meeting the needs of both entities (humanistic and wild) will
keep both afloat and are innately interrelated.
A case study in Borneodemonstrated theintrinsic value of a stable relationship
between humans and wildlife; the Kinabatangan Orangutan Conservation Project
(KOCP) is an organization dedicated to linking the goal of human development to the
needs of wildlife (with an emphasis on orangutans). In order to get a conservation plan
started, the non-profit ensured that“local research assistants organized in-depth
consultations with community members to identify major challenges as well as the
threats posed by local wildlife,” (Ancrenaz, Dabek, & O'Neil 2007). With research and
organization being conducted by locals, they were able to see the value in learning about
the environment and natural resources. Along similar lines as the multidisciplinary
benefits of ethnoprimatology, the KOCP was able to combine education, scientific
research, community engagement, policy formulation, and more. With strong links
between each, an “effective network” of partners of research institutions, NGOs,
government agencies and private stakeholders took root within the system (Ancrenaz,
Dabek, & O'Neil 2007). Fortunately the plans resulted in more sustainable practices held
locally in regards to natural resource use, showing how powerful community organizing
can be.
8

9. Conclusions
Conservation is a largely Westernized effort made by the contribution of multiple
entities. Collaboration among academia and other parties is essential if there is going to
be any progress for the cultural, environmental,and economic integrity of all ecosystems.
The case studies that I focused on were in Nicaragua and Southeast Asia (including
Borneo and South India), which are located in more tropical regions. Although focusing
on North America is important for understanding my own culture and history, looking at
these nations was beneficial because people in those parts of the world have lived off of
the land and sea for millennia. Deep-rooted customs and development that is constantly
changing creates an interesting challenge for cultural and conservation efforts, especially
in the current age of globalization.
Overall what was found to be effective for the research cited in this paper was the
use of participant observation and gaining rapport within communities for the collection
of outlooks contributing to the treatment of the resources provided by nature. There is
often a conflict in interest when large organizations have an agenda to preserve certain
spaces and species, when the people are in such dire need of those
resources.Anthropologists need to acknowledge the need for cohabitation of people and
their environments, which can be accomplished to a degree with the collaboration and
organization between facets of this worldthat are meant for conservation. The idea that
human life is separate from the surrounding world has lost its validity in anthropology,
biology, political science and all other complex systems.
Ending statement that sums up the position:
9

10. “Because anthropologists stress the importance of understanding the complexities
that appear when conservation initiatives encounter local communities and national
political cultures, they believe they should have a role beyond that of data providers.
For many anthropologists, developing an understanding of those engaged in saving
biodiversity is as critical a task as trying to understand the local communities that are
the focus of most conservation efforts,” (Brosius 2006).
Works Cited:
Ancrenaz, M., Dabek, L., & O'Neil, S. (2007). The costs of exclusion: recognizing a role for local
communities in biodiversity conservation. PLoS Biology, 5(11), e289.
Anderson, P. N. (2001). Community‐ based conservation and social change amongst South Indian
honey‐ hunters: an anthropological perspective. Oryx, 35(1), 81-83.
Brosius, J. P. (2006). Common ground between anthropology and conservation biology. Conservation
biology, 20(3), 683-685.
Fuentes, A. (2012). Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the Human-Primate Interface*. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 41, 101-117.
Hames, R. (2007). The ecologically noble savage debate. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 36, 177-190.
Nietschmann, B. (1987). Subsistence and Market: When the Turtle Collapses'. Conformity and Conflict:
Readings in Cultural Anthropology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 265-274.
Nekaris, K. A. I., Shepherd, C. R., Starr, C. R., & Nijman, V. (2010). Exploring cultural drivers for wildlife
trade via an ethnoprimatological approach: a case study of slender and slow lorises (Loris and Nycticebus)
in South and Southeast Asia. American Journal of Primatology, 72(10), 877-886.
Orlove, B. S., & Brush, S. B. (1996). Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 329-352.
10