Conservation and Society

: 2006  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 424--470

Eviction for Conservation: A Global Overview

Daniel Brockington1, James Igoe2,  
1 Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Harold Hankins Building, Precinct Centre, Booth Street West Manchester, M13 9QH, United Kingdom.
2 Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado at Denver, Campus Box 103, P.O. Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217-3364 USA.

Correspondence Address:
Daniel Brockington
Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Harold Hankins Building, Precinct Centre, Booth Street West Manchester, M13 9QH, United Kingdom.


Displacement resulting from the establishment and enforcement of protected areas has troubled relationships between conservationists and rural groups in many parts of the world. This paper examines one aspect of dis­placement: eviction from protected areas. We examine divergent opinions about the quality of information available in the literature. We then examine the literature itself, discussing the patterns visible in nearly 250 reports we compiled over the last two years. We argue that the quality of the literature is not great, but that there are signs that this problem is primarily concentrated in a few regions of the world. We show that there has been a remarkable surge of publications about relocation after 1990, yet most protected areas reported in these publications were established before 1980. This reflects two processes, first a move within research circles to recover and rediscover pro­tected areas«SQ» murky past, and second stronger enforcement of existing legisla­tion. We review the better analyses of the consequences of relocation from protected areas which are available and highlight areas of future research.

How to cite this article:
Brockington D, Igoe J. Eviction for Conservation: A Global Overview.Conservat Soc 2006;4:424-470

How to cite this URL:
Brockington D, Igoe J. Eviction for Conservation: A Global Overview. Conservat Soc [serial online] 2006 [cited 2020 Aug 13 ];4:424-470
Available from:

Full Text


PROTEST AGAINST THE EXPERIENCE of displacement and marginalisation by protected areas, has become one of the defining features of the politics of protected areas in the last two decades. The World Parks Congress in Dur­ban in 2003 was marked by strong and diverse protest against the disruptions of conservation to society and livelihoods (Brosius 2004). The voices were coolly received by a faction of 'conservation scientists', who felt the meeting was being hijacked by unwelcome influences. [1] Terborgh noted:

'Countless workshops, lectures, and discussions delved into topics such as poverty alleviation, social injustice, indigenous peoples' rights, community management of protected areas, and gender equity in conservation. All these issues have their place in a global agenda but for me they dominated and drowned out the discussion of themes more directly related to conserving nonhuman life on this planet' (2004: 619).

The unpopularity of protected areas has come as an unwelcome shock for many conservationists. For years conservation has enjoyed the moral high ground. It was saving the planet, rescuing species from extinction, and taking a stand against the rapacious consumption of resources by one virulent spe­cies. This image of 'global good guys' is not only an important part of con­servationists' own self-perceptions, it is also essential to the image of large conservation organizations in their fund-raising appeals. Now these same or­ganisations find themselves engaged in publicity battles, the negative conse­quences of which could be particularly damaging to their institutional well­being. This situation has provoked a great deal of anguish. 'Conservation sci­entists' are anguished over the perceived 'hijacking' of their agendas. Those who would hijack those agendas are anguished by conservation displace­ments. In order better to address both concerns, it will be necessary to arrive at a better understanding of these displacements and how best to address them.

Conservation displacement, like other forms of displacement, compromise two processes (Cernea 2005b) (i) the forced removal of people from their homes; and (ii) economic displacement, the exclusion of people from particu­lar areas in their pursuit of a livelihood (e.g. Horowitz 1998). People dwelling on the edge of a park but unable to gather firewood or wild foods, to hunt, or fish, or unable to walk to their farms on the other side of the park, would be unable to live as they were before. Exclusion of economic activity, which does not lead to moving home, still displaces that activity elsewhere.

Beyond material loss to livelihoods or dwellings, protesters fight their sym­bolic obliteration from the landscape - their removal from its history, memory and representation (Schama 1996). Other groups protest their loss of power and control over their environments, the interference of the conservation regu­lations into their lives in ways over which they had little control (Theodossopoulos 2002; Novellino 2003). Else they protest the interference of different value systems into local economies, the commodification of wildlife and nature into things which tourists can purchase, but which locals can then no longer afford (MacDonald 2004, 2005).

These negative consequences of protected areas are part of a whole variety of social, economic and political consequences many of which are more posi­tive. Protected areas provide employment and income nationally and locally, they safeguard ecosystem services sustaining agriculture, they provide the symbols to unite and forge nations. Indeed their effects are too diverse merely to be categorised as 'good' or 'bad' (West et al. 2006).

If conservation provoked no protest then it would be unlikely to be doing its job properly. Providing more space for nature often requires constraining the people's lives and activities. Few surrender willingly to such controls. Protest is likely to be loud when those affected are wealthy and powerful and are less able to become richer and more powerful as a result of the restrictions of conservation. More immediately, from the perspective of this paper, it is likely to be loud where people are highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods and risk facing impoverishment because of those regulations.

There is a growing sense that much protest is due to poor, clumsy or callous practice on the part of conservationists. Strident criticisms have been pub­lished in popular presses (Chapin 2004; Dowie 2005). There are strong calls for better forms of governance, which would facilitate people's participation in, and ownership of, conservation (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2002, 2004).

It is most important to take most seriously the anger and protest against the conservation movement and examine its material and political basis. What has happened to whom? Where has it happened, and as a result of whose actions? Who has borne the costs of conservation and who has realised its benefits in specific contexts? Of which groups and which parts of the world is the anger representative? Is the protest the result of deep seated objections, which have long simmered but which are only now becoming visible? Has resistance long been occurring but only recently become visible? Or has there been some sort of recent change in conservation practice or rural politics? To what extent is the dissatisfaction the result of conservation alone, and to what extent the con­junction of several forces?

Answering these types of questions will require quite specific assessments of the trends, and marshalling of the evidence, of the different patterns of marginalisation, impoverishment and displacement due to protected areas. This paper looks specifically at global trends in relocation and eviction. It is essential to underline that this is therefore not a paper about displacement more generally (by definition), nor about the diverse forms of marginalisation and disenfranchisement which conservation can cause. Furthermore our sur­vey is a work in progress. Our conclusions are therefore speculative, suggest­ing hypotheses to refute rather than delineating patterns. We list these hypotheses at the end of this paper [Table 9].

We proceed by first discussing our method. Then we examine the state of knowledge about relocation from protected areas. We move through a series of questions which consider how other authors have evaluated this literature, what the literature actually consists of, and what patterns are visible in it, both geographically and historically. Finally we consider what the better studies about relocation from protected area have actually reported. In the concluding section, we examine the case for further research.


We began our survey of conservation-induced relocation in 2004. In so doing we sought to collect every case that we could in the published and grey litera­ture and from student theses. We began by searching the bibliographies of ex­isting compendiums. We started with Fortwangler's list in Contested Nature (2003) and also worked with the publications by Colchester (2003), Stevens (1997), West and Brechin (1991) and Ghimire and Pimbert (1997). To these we have added our readings, case material and bibliographic searches. The re­sulting list was subject to peer review as part of a publication, which resulted in suggestions of more cases. We also circulated it to colleagues, which re­sulted in none.

Currently we have just under 250 reports on relocations from over 180 pro­tected areas. We have naturally favoured the parts of the world (Southern and Eastern Africa) with which we are most familiar. This region provides over 60 reports. We have also worked exclusively with anglophone literature. We hope that, in publishing what is clearly an incomplete literature, a better sur­vey will result from the additions suggested.

We have evaluated the quality of this literature on its own term, evaluating its methods and findings. We have also compared the extent of its coverage of the existing protected area network by comparing it to the 2005 edition of the World Database of Protected Areas (hereafter WDPA: http://sea.unep­; accessed September 23rd 2005).

 The State of the Literature

What Opinions Exist about the State of Knowledge Concerning Eviction from Protected Areas?

While we have been conducting the survey, two quite divergent opinions of the quality of knowledge about relocation have been published. [2] Borgerhoff­Mulder and Coppolillo recently published an important work, called simply Conservation (2005), which provided a strong overview of changing conser­vation practice and a detailed analysis of different means of strengthening the work of protected areas (for a review see Brockington 2005a). The book was devoted to making conservation practice more just and effective. It was frank about conservation's problems, stating that the literature on evictions from protected areas offers 'a massive cataloguing of past, recent and ongoing abuses' (2005: 36).

Wilkie and his colleagues offer quite a different assessment. They have re­cently begun an investigation into the consequences of new protected areas in Gabon, which will include quantitative surveys of the livelihoods and eco­nomic activity before and after their establishment. They asserted, contra Borgerhoff-Mulder and Coppolillo, that 'to date little empirical evidence ex­ists to substantiate the contention that parks are bad for local people' (Wilkie et al. 2006: 247). This is a bold, indeed, remarkable claim, covering all forms of displacement, not merely the aspects of relocation we cover here.

Which of these contrasting assessments is correct? We believe that neither is. Wilkie and colleagues are ignoring, or worse, dismissing numerous cases, which indicate considerable cause for concern. There is substantial evidence of the harm done by eviction and much more about the more general problems of displacement. [3] On the other hand, Borgerhoff Mulder and Coppolillo are exaggerating the quality, extent and order of knowledge. Our grasp of the sub­ject is simply not as good as they claim.

What is Written about Relocation from Protected Areas?

The findings of our literature survey are shown in [Tables 1] and [Table 2]. [Table 1] summarises the distribution of reports and [Table 2] lists the studies we con­sulted by country. We have divided [Table 1] in three ways. First we separated studies on indigenous peoples from those not specifically with indigenous groups. Of 246 cases, 102 specifically concerned indigenous people, 144 any group. Second, we sorted the literature according to its focus: 26 reports pro­vide general overviews globally or of particular regions, 220 are specific stud­ies of particular protected areas. The latter we sorted according to their quality. Many reports mention merely the fact of removal (105), others are de tailed and careful assessments (55), the rest (60) fall in between, mentioning (often not much) more than the fact of removal, but falling short of a detailed assessment.

The tables provide the three reasons why we disagree with Borgerhoff­Mulder and Coppolilo's assessment of the literature to be a 'massive catalogu­ing'. In the first place, it is not massive. This is not a large body of scholar­ship. Compared to the number and size of protected areas in existence, the scope of this literature is actually derisory. The reports we collected cover only 184 protected areas out of the more than 100,000 in existence. Of these, 5,000 are strictly protected areas (IUCN categories 1-4) larger than 100 km 2 in size which are likely to have had a significant impact on natural resource use by rural peoples.

There could be two possible reasons for the paucity of cases. Either few cases have been reported because few have happened, or eviction has been ig­nored. The appropriate answer may well vary according to country and region. We will argue below that in some regions there is good evidence that eviction from protected areas has been substantially overlooked.

Second, in many cases the quality of the information is poor. A significant proportion of reports and case material (nearly half) merely stated that people had been moved. There was no further discussion of these moves, let alone good investigation of their consequences. This sort of report might be found in conservation literature in which the movement of people was mentioned in connection with the establishment of a new protected area. But it also charac­terised a significant proportion of the literature about indigenous peoples. Much of this was protest literature, whose purpose was to alert the world to the losses of indigenous groups. The significance of such events for liveli hoods and cultures is often not explored (and for good reason, the main im­pacts will be obvious) nor are methods made clear (again for good reason, these are not academic publications).

Third, and most importantly, this literature is not (yet) a catalogue. These works are diffused and often hard to locate. It has taken many months of bur­rowing through libraries, reading through back issues of journals and trawling through bibliographic databases to produce this list. Just as the literature is not well ordered, the activities of researchers examining relocation from protected areas have also not been systematic. Only recently, Schmidt-Soltau's work (2005a), has there been an attempt to build up a retrospective assessment of the patterns of eviction, and this is only for one region, and, as we shall see, from an unusually complete coverage of protected areas in existence.

Fortunately there are now increasingly prominent attempts, of which this special journal section is part, to produce the catalogue Borgerhoff-Mulder and Coppollilo claimed to exist (Brockington and Schmidt-Soltau 2004; Brockington et al. 2006;). Research in India takes the lead here, as Rangarajan and Shahabuddin report in this issue. While this research has yet to cover the proportion of the protected area estate that Schmidt-Soltau has achieved in Central Africa (see below), it has a depth and a vigour unmatched elsewhere in the world (Shahabuddin and Shah 2003).

It is worth noting at this stage that the apparent inadequacies in our knowl­edge of eviction are mirrored by surprising silences in our understanding of human use and residence of protected areas. The WDPA does not provide such information. Many protected areas, of all types, still contain people. Work in India in the late 1980s found that 56% of national parks and 72% of sanctuaries had resident peoples (Kothari et al. 1989). [4] A survey of 70% of national parks in South America in 1991 found that 85% had people living in­side them (Amend and Amend 1995). [5] More recent studies also suggest that protected areas are characterised by high rates of occupancy. A study of 91 protected areas in well populated tropical areas found that 70% were occupied by people (Bruner et al. 2001). Individual studies in Mongolia, East Kaliman­tan, Myanmar and the Central African Sub-region indicate use rates of 70- 100% (Jepson et al. 2002; Rao et al. 2002; Bedunah and Schmidt 2004; Cer­nea and Schmidt-Soltau 2006). Note that all this occupancy of protected areas does not indicate that evictions have not occurred, for there are many cases of evictions being reversed, either legally, or by rural people reinvading the lands they lost.

Analyses of satellite data of agricultural activity provide little extra guid­ance. The only global survey concluded that it is practiced in 29% of the known area of protected areas (McNeely and Scherr 2003; Molnar et al. 2004). Unfortunately this research used an old version of the World Database of Protected Areas in which only 44,000 protected areas with adequate Geo­graphical Information Systems (GIS) data were available (Sebastian, pers. comm. 2005). Polygons or centre points are now available for more than 75,000 sites (Chape et al. 2005). However, there are also problems with the quality of the data. In the first instance, it is unable to detect agroforestry, such as shade-grown coffee. It could also not distinguish between fallowed land growing trees, and unused land. Moreover since agricultural activity was defined as areas with at least 30% of land under crops it thus omits less inten­sive cultivation. It gives no indication of pastoral use of rangelands (present in 100% of Mongolia's protected areas). Finally the global 29% is a bald statis­tic. We do not have a break down of the extent of agricultural activity by geo­graphic region, category of protected area or ecological potential. It is difficult to say, therefore, how many protected areas are not cultivated be­cause they are cold and inhospitable, or how much of the cultivation is an in­tegral part of the conserved landscape (as in many British protected areas).

Where have Evictions Taken Place, and from What Sort of Protected Areas?

Accepting that this knowledge base is thin, what patterns are visible in the re­location literature? Here we examine historical and geographical trends on cases and reporting of evictions. We will also examine the findings of some of the better studies. Of the 184 protected areas mentioned in the literature, 162 are found in the WDPA. Most data about size and establishment dates are available for these.

[Table 3] shows the global distribution of protected areas from which evic­tions have been reported and their IUCN category. It should be clear that most evictions occur in categories 1-4 (and the vast majority of that in category 2) but a significant minority are found in protected areas which have not yet re­ceived an IUCN categorisation (labelled 'U' in the table). Accepting our re­gional biases, it appears that most have been concentrated in Africa, South and South East Asia and North America. Relatively few evictions are reported in this literature from South and Central America, Australia, Europe, the for­mer Soviet Union and most of the Caribbean and Pacific are conspicuous by their absence.

What proportion of protected areas have had evictions reported? In general it is small, in almost all countries less than half. Some of the higher propor­tions found in the table are less a result of research effort, and more a product of the paucity of protected areas in these countries. One or two reports cover a large part of the protected area network in Swaziland, Gabon, Rwanda and Benin. Only in Cameroon, and to a lesser extent Botswana, are we approach­ing good coverage.

But in terms of proportion of protected area estate covered by eviction re­ports the picture is a better one. Indeed, for strictly protected areas it is sur­prisingly high. In many parts of Africa, the majority, by area, of strictly protected areas have evictions reported. Many other countries have evictions reported for a sizeable proportion of the protected area estate. Only in South America are the proportions generally negligible. If all protected areas, including categories 5 and 6 and the uncategorised protected areas are in­cluded these proportions are generally reduced. Few, however, become negli­gible and we still have reports from the major part of the protected area estate for some West and Central African countries.

[Table 3] suggests that although we generally know of eviction cases for rela­tively few protected areas, and hardly any in for certain parts of the world, we do know that significant proportions of the protected area estate in some parts of the world have incurred evictions. Regrettably the reports about these evic­tions have only rarely (and here Schmidt-Soltau's work is again the excep­tion) reported the number of people removed. Figures which are available vary from five families (Wallace and Naughton-Treves 1998), to tens of thou­sands of people (Schmidt-Soltau 2005a). We are therefore unable to tell, or predict, how many people might have been moved in total from the regions for which we have reasonable data. Geisler's estimates for African displace­ments range from 900,000 to 14.4 million, demonstrate precisely the difficul­ties of such predictions (Geisler and de Sousa 2001; Geisler 2003a).

When have these Evictions Occurred?

There are three important patterns to note here. The first, shown in [Table 4], is that most protected areas from which evictions have been reported were set up before 1980. We must also note that this is not a global trend, but the conse­quence of the strong patterns in North America and Sub-Saharan Africa which are well represented in the cases we have studied. In some regions (Central America, South and South East Asia) a different trend is apparent, with more protected areas for which evictions are reported established after 1970. Re­gardless of the trends in establishment, we cannot infer the timing of evictions from the date of establishment. In many cases laws providing for the removal of people from a protected area were not enforced until long after it was set up.

The second point is that while most protected areas in these reports were established before 1980, most of the reports themselves were written after 1990. This is clearly visible in [Table 5]. Remarkably we have only one report from before 1970, and that in itself confirms the general absence of published work. For that piece is an unusual bound volume of protest sent to His Maj­esty King George VI by former soldiers of the Uganda Rifles after they were informed that they were to be moved from the Nairobi Commons to make way for the new Nairobi National Park. They appealed to their former Com­mander-in-Chief (to no avail). [6] Otherwise by far the bulk of published reports and research have been produced after 1990.

This does not mean that evictions were ignored before this time. We know that the establishment of protected areas in British Colonies in Africa occa­sioned considerable debate within the administration as to the likely socio­economic impacts of eviction and displacement. This was an issue that was investigated, if not in ways which left reports we can include in this investiga­tion. We should also be aware of the bias inherent in our methods. Many bib­liographic databases are strongest on more recent publications, and access to many electronic journals does not go back more than about 15 years. Finally we should note that there is a general trend to write and publish more, that there are more research students and consultants than ever before. Especially since West and Brechin's landmark text there has been a flourishing of inter­est in the problem of displacement (West and Brechin 1991).

At the same time the absence of material before 1970 is striking. There is no reason to suppose that the bias of the preceding paragraph should affect the fifties or sixties any more than it would the seventies. One would still have expected a dribble of cases appearing. This suggests the hypothesis that relo­cation from protected areas was not an issue that pre-occupied academics or activists before 1970.

But we know that relocations were occurring. The majority of the studies in our survey are historical investigations of movements and displacements in the long duration of conservation [Table 6]. This has characterised a number of investigations of protected areas in Southern African (Carruthers 1995; Koch 1997; Ranger 1999; Palmer et al. 2002; Bolaane 2004a, 2004b, 2005; Brooks 2005) and Eastern Africa (Neumann 1998; Brockington 2002). It has been a particularly strong feature of scholarship emerging from North Amer­ica (Catton 1997; Keller and Turek 1998; Spence 1999; Burnham 2000; Jacoby 2001; Igoe 2004; Nabakov and Lawrence 2004). Altogether, of the flourishing of writings, which took place after 1990, almost a quarter referred to removals prior to 1990. If anything this trend is stronger in the current dec­ade than in the last.

There is thus an element of uncovering past sins in the current literature. The reports of evictions from the oldest 12 protected areas in this collection, all established before 1920, were not published before 1990. Indeed the awk­ward past of protected areas, and the dislocation and disruption they cause is still something which is not widely appreciated. The author of a major recent tome on the subject in North America could still give his work the sub-title of a 'hidden history' (Jacoby 2001), while two other authors had a difficult time having the US National Park Service accept the title of their ethnographic his­tory of Native Americans in Restoring a Presence: American Indians and Yel­lowstone National Park (Nabokov and Lawrence 2004).

The fact that a significant body of this literature is the work of historians, combined with the clear disjuncture between the establishment date of many protected areas and the publication dates of many of the reports, suggests that there has been much more evictions from protected areas than the few reports compiled here indicate. In some countries, such as South Africa and Namibia the forced removal of people, was particularly thorough. Protected areas were cleared in both Apartheid and Nature's cause before independence (Koch 1994, 1997). And the absence of cases from the former Soviet Union cannot reflect past practice within such a brutal regime. Although some experts on Russian conservation can report very few reported cases (Anderson pers. comm.), others insist that 'throughout the Soviet era, Russians and indigenous people were removed to create protected areas' (Poirier and Ostergren 2002: 351).

But in some regions the relative lack of historical re-examination, and the general paucity of eviction cases, suggest that relocations have been relatively rare. South America is a case in point. The relative paucity of cases in the lit­erature here might well be a reflection of practice on the ground. It is instruc­tive to compare two similar volumes both produced by the International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs in the late 1990s. They concerned rela­tionships between indigenous peoples and biodiversity conservation in South and South East Asia and Latin America respectively. In the former several cases of eviction were reported, and in the latter, none. There was much dis­satisfaction in both regions with other forms of displacement, marginalisation and disempowerment. But the relative lack of eviction in Latin America may reflect either relatively tolerant legislation, or weakly enforced legislation (Colchester, pers. comm. 2006.).

But if part of this eviction literature is a flourishing of enquiry into conser­vation's past, a proportion also reflects contemporary practice. This is the third point. The greatest period of protected area growth occurred between 1985 and 1995 [Figure 1]. The discontent with which we began this paper may reflect widespread increased interference in peoples' lives, if not always full eviction. One quarter of protected areas for which evictions were reported in [Table 6] were cleared after 1990.

While it is clear that many of the more recent protected areas are weakly protected, it is also clear that this global proliferation of protected areas has been accompanied by a greater enforcement of existing legislation. A signifi­cant minority of recent clearances were from protected areas established be­fore 1990. This suggests that although some protected areas have been long established evictions from them are a relatively recent practice. Kothari, for example, suggests that some 4 million people face eviction in India as the re­sult of the tightening of conservation legislation (Kothari 2004).

But what is driving these processes? A popular theme in recent writings is that contemporary eviction reports may be associated with the flourishing of conservation NGOs - and especially the larger ones (Chapin 2004; Dowie 2005). Chapin (2004) associates the largest three conservation NGOs with evictions and other forms of displacement: The Nature Conservancy, the World Wide Fund for Nature and Conservation International. These three or­ganisations have, in the last 15 years, successfully come to dominate many of the funds available for conservation work (Chapin 2004). To this list, Dowie (2006) adds the African Wildlife Foundation and the Wildlife Conservation Society. While not as big, these organisations still control millions of dollars and therefore wield a great deal of influence in specific local contexts. All these organisations are significant in that they proselytise Western ideals of wilderness, people-less landscapes. They are in a strong position to impose their vision of what nature should look like in different parts of the world, as Guha (1997, 2003) has memorably observed.

Critics of this perspective, including representatives of these organisations and conservation officials in developing countries, are quick to point out that NGOs lack the authority to evict people from protected areas. Evictions from protected areas are, by definition, the work of the governments concerned. It is part of the exercise of eminent domain which is exclusively a state preroga­tive. States may delegate those powers to NGOs and/or private enterprise or may chose to carry out this sort of work using their own police and security forces. But since forced removals are violent and contentious, it is rare for states to undertake these activities without support from national elites, as well as from some faction from the communities in question. In any case, the justification for evictions is rarely framed as emerging from the agendas of in­ternational NGOs. Rather they are framed as the decision of a 'developmental state,' undertaken for the greater good of the nation and the natural resources on which its future depends.

Our survey, as well as our own observations, finds elements of truth in both these arguments, but we also find each insufficient effectively to explain evic­tions from protected areas. We suggest that a more nuanced conceptual framework is required in order to understand the relations at work.

There is clear evidence of locally driven, national prerogatives and priori­ties at work in protected area evictions. During Tanzania's socialist period, the removal of people from protected areas was frequently used to resettle them into collective villages. Many of the more recent protected area evic­tions from older protected areas reflect modernist states' intolerance of in­digenous lifestyles (in Botswana), or conflicts between lowland nationalist farmers seeking to protect their rainfall from the perceived threats of indige­nous highland forest dwellers (Thailand). Evictions from newly created pro­tected areas often reflect government drives to expand the tourist trade (Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania).

On the other hand, there is evidence that large conservation NGOs have played an active role in the creation of protected areas that exclude local peo­ple (a direct role of large conservation NGOs in evictions and other forms of displacement would be much more difficult to prove). For instance, the Na­ture Conservancy ran a specific campaign (Parks in Peril) to strengthen pro­tected areas several of which had evicted resident peoples (Cuello et al. 1998; Guerrero and Rose 1998; Lehnhoff and Nunez 1998; Wallace and Naughton­Treves 1998). The Wildlife Conservation Society has facilitated the estab­lishment of a large number of new national parks in Gabon, and are support­ing their further development. Conservation International's Biodiversity Hotspots have strongly shaped the formation of new protected areas in Latin America and beyond. The African Wildlife Foundation provided the funding for the establishment of Tarangire and Manyara National Parks in Tanzania, both of which have also evicted local people (Igoe 2004). Igoe has also re­cently documented African Wildlife Foundation involvement in the 'volun­tary' resettlement of people from community-based conservation areas in between these two parks.

Significantly, however, it is often small NGOs that are prominent in the case of evictions and other forms of displacement. The controversy surround­ing recent evictions in Ethiopia was fuelled by the role of the African Parks Foundation ( ). The effectiveness of ex­clusion of pastoralists from Mkomazi in Tanzania was facilitated by the rela­tively minor George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust and related groups (Brockington 2002). The objections to the downgrading of Kenya's Amboseli National Park to a game reserve were led by a host of minor NGOs [Table 7]. Finally, the Africa River and Rainforest Conservation. has been given ex traordinary powers over a large segment of the Central African Republic, where it has been delegated authority by the central government to arrest (and if necessary execute) poachers, and to delineate protected area boundaries (Clynes 2002; Shanahan 2005).

Conservation NGOs still have significant influence in representing pro­tected areas as people-less spaces, conserved free from the influence and de­spoiling activities of people. This is important because part of the disempowerment of dispossession and eviction is the obliteration of former residents from their landscapes, from their homes and past. Celebrating and proclaiming former homelands as wilderness denies people's place in these landscape. It thereby reduces the political space available to them as they at­tempt to reclaim lost lands. Thus the George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust and its supporters proclaimed the Mkomazi Game Reserve a restored wilderness after the inhabitants had been removed in the late 1980s (Mangubuli 1991; Watson 1991; Malcolm 1992). The Wildlife Conservation Society is promoting the new national parks as 'wilderness' in Gabon, al­though Schmidt-Soltau's work suggests they are home to thousands of people [Table 8].

Finally, even when large conservation organisations do not formally sup­port protected area evictions, influential actors within them often do. Because of the size of these organisations, and the distance - both geographic and in stitutional - between their central offices and their field offices, it is often possible for these actors to promote the kind of conservation that they personally endorse. For example in addition to the questionable data on Gabon, senior staff of the Wildlife Conservation Society have called for the removal of people from protected areas in India (Guha 2003), and downplayed the value of resident peoples' forest conservation in South America (Redford and Sanderson 2000). [7]

Many independent governments are also significantly dependent on exter­nal funding and AID money, of which considerable proportions can be con­trolled by, or influenced by conservation NGOs (Brockington 2006; Duffy 2006).

One of the distinguishing features of the way international organisations (conservation or otherwise) operate is as part of larger consortiums of actors, with state actors almost always at the forefront and apparently in charge. As such, discerning patterns in their influence will be difficult indeed. How are we to understand these types of relationships?

In his discussion of governance in contemporary Africa, Mbembe (2001: 67) presents the related concepts of 'private indirect government' and 'the privatisation of sovereignty'. Here he builds on the long-standing truism of Africanist political economy that African states are weak and highly depend­ent on external support. He further argues that sovereignty and control in such situations is fragmented and highly decentralised - employed in different ways, by different state actors, in different contexts, with very little central­ised control. Following political and economic liberalisation, it became possi­ble for state actors to enter into strategic alliances with private investors and international NGOs.

Both state actors and outsiders bring important resources to the table, with­out which these alliances could not operate effectively. Outsiders, in this case conservation NGOs, bring money and other external resources, on which offi­cials from impoverished states are highly dependent. State actors bring sover­eignty - the means of coercion that make it possible gain advantage in struggles over resources traditionally the exclusive purview of the state (ibid: 78). Outsiders wishing to directly control, or otherwise define the use of these resources, are highly dependent on state actors for this commodity.

This does not usually mean that state actors cede sovereignty to these out­siders - although this does sometimes happen. More often state actors are able to use sovereignty to leverage resources and other forms of support from their powerful, and usually foreign, allies. Although Mbembe applied this analysis specifically to African states, his title - On the Post-Colony - implies that it can be fruitfully applied to any post-colonial situation, in which weak states and aid dependence gives external actors extraordinary influence over the policies and actions of state actors. The relationships that emerge from these dynamics are usually ones of mutual dependence, characterised by a great deal of strategic negotiation. Such negotiations are usually difficult to discern, obscured as they are by discourses of official prerogatives.

This situation poses two challenges, the first to conservation NGOs, the second to researchers. For the former privatised sovereignty is immensely useful. It provides plausible deniability with respect to evictions and other forms of displacement. Consider, for example, the late Paul van Vlissingen, who as chair of the African Parks Foundation undertook to manage the Nechi­sar National Park, but he stated that 'We didn't want to be involved in the re­settlement, so I put a clause in the contract that said we wouldn't take over the park until the resettlement was completed' (Pearce 2005b: 48). But with the plausible deniability comes great responsibility. There are now numerous calls for a conservation code of practice which would encourage a greater sense of social responsibility among conservation practitioners (Brockington and Schmidt-Soltau 2004; Winer et al. 2006).

For researchers understanding how these types of networks operate in dif­ferent contexts will require careful institutional ethnographies of practices and culture at different levels of meaning and action. It will require paying careful attention to how conservation NGOs operate in different contexts, taking into account the types of variables outlined in this brief discussion. Most impor­tantly, it will be necessary to look beyond the stated reasons for specific con­servation activities, especially evictions, to understand the motives, actions, and influence of the various actors involved. This type of meticulous and nu­anced analysis will be time consuming. Such an approach is necessary for un­derstanding the reasons for any government's executive orders with regards to protected area evictions and how these are reported.

And What have the Studies Found?

Unsurprisingly where the consequences of eviction have been well studied they add to the weight of studies which have demonstrated that forced reloca­tion inflicts considerable material and psychological harm. But it is not just damaging for its material effects, rather for the reshaping of landscape and memory it imposes. Perhaps the best study of which we are aware was under­taken in Nepal for the well studied Royal Chitwan National Park by McLean and Straede (2003). These authors examined the impact of forced removal on the Tharu people. Between 1994 and 1999, 2000 people were moved from an enclave within the park. The authors worked with the Tharu before they were moved and examined the consequences immediately afterwards. They found that people were optimistic about what might happen and were expecting the move to bring improvements. However these hopes were dashed. The evictees were resettled on poor soils, three hours away from water and without access to forest resources.

The study is unusual for its mixture of qualitative and quantitative data and its collection of data before and after the removals. This sort of research is be­ing planned more frequently (Wilkie et al. 2006), but otherwise most re­searchers have to reconstruct the costs from historical or comparative evidence. Some of the better cases here both concern pastoral populations. Ganguly's (2004) work around the Gir National Park, last home of the Asiatic lion, provides a rich ethnographic account of the livelihoods and lives of women moved from it. She gives an account of the reconstruction package of­fered and reports in detail the difficulties and trials of re-establishing life in new host communities. Brockington takes a more quantitative approach to the impacts of removals from the Mkomazi Game Reserve (Brockington and Homewood 1999; Brockington 2001, 2002). He used the records of cattle markets over a twenty year period to chart changes in cattle sales following the removal of pastoral populations. The removal of tens of thousands of live­stock resulted in the collapse of one market with serious consequences for the local economy. More seriously a far higher proportion of female stock are now sold, which is a clear indication of stress in pastoral economies. In addi­tion data on household livelihoods showed that, comparatively pastoralists at Mkomazi had higher levels of calf mortality than elsewhere in East Africa. There were also complicated intra-household dynamics, with husbands trying to visit the consequences of livestock loss onto their wives and appropriate women's independent income for general households needs for which they would normally provide. Women resisted in diverse ways where possible.

There have been some scattered attempts to quantify the costs of existing or planned evictions. Tacconi and Bennet (1995) describe the differences be­tween commercial and subsistence valuations of land in Vanuatu and the dif­ficulties this poses for establishing adequate compensation packages. Shyamsundar and Kramer (1997) calculated the losses of access to forests in Madagascar by profit-maximising farmers. Their findings suggest that 18- 19% of agricultural income would be lost, although the assumption of profit maximising by these sorts of farmers is questionable. Emerton's work in East Africa also explicitly addresses the costs and benefits which protected area estab­lishment will have for local resource users (Emerton 1999a, 1999b, 2001).

But if detailed quantitative assessments of the consequences of displace­ment for conservation are few, the literature on the historical erasures and re­inventions of place, people and landscape is rich. Jane Carruthers and Terence Ranger (Carruthers 1995; Ranger 1999) have explored how parks were rein­vented for diverse political purposes, and how these purposes were manipu­lated and confronted by local reactions. Brockington's research at Mkomazi has shown how successfully evictees removed from the Reserve were erased by representations of its landscape as a wilderness restored (Brockington 2004). Brooks has examined a similar reinvention of place, and exclusion of African residents at the Hluhluwe Reserve in South Africa (Brooks 2005). Many authors have observed that the role of national parks in the USA in forging a nation and national consciousness were dependent on erasing mem­ory of the former inhabitant's use of the land (e.g. Jacoby 2001).

While the problematic consequences of displacement are manifold, some of the more sensitive studies of relocation for conservation have shown how these consequences are distributed differentially among local residents, and how many groups will try and turn the situation to their advantage. Maitseo Bolaane's work on the Moremi Game Reserve in Botswana (better known as the site of the Ockavango Delta) takes this argument a step further. She documents well the impact that the establishment of this reserve has had on local San groups (Bolaane 2004a). But more importantly she shows how ac­tive local Tswana leaders were in their lobbying for the establishment of the Reserve in the first place (Bolaane 2004b, 2005). Moremi was for them a way of keeping out unwelcome Afrikaans hunters.

In many cases eviction for conservation is closely connected to other evic­tions. Indeed we have previously argued that conceptually development­induced and conservation-induced displacement are indistinguishable, either from the perspective of the state (both are due to state management of re­sources as part of plans to increase prosperity and well-being), or from the point of view of people evicted (for whom the precise cause of eviction is of little importance). Often protected areas can be established where people have been previously moved for other government projects. In Ugalla, protected ar­eas were created in places vacated for sleeping sickness control (Fisher 2002). In Laos the establishment of protected areas is being undertaken as a form of environmental compensation to mitigate the massive dams being constructed on the Mekong (Goldman 2001). These may well result in the eviction of the hill peoples living within them. In Botswana the contentious removal of the San people from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve is closely connected to the desire of the state for its people to become modern citizens of the state (Hitchcock 2001; Ikeya 2001; Kuper 2003).

Yet despite the close similarity between development and conservation­induced relocation there has only been one attempt to apply frameworks for examining displacement produced in the development literature to the conser­vation literature. The best available is Michael Cernea's Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction (IRR) which examines affected peoples' livelihoods in eight major impoverishment risks:

Landlessness (expropriation of land assets and loss of access to land)Joblessness (even when the resettlement creates some temporary jobs)Homelessness (loss of physical houses, family homes and cultural space)Marginalisation (social, psychological and economic downward mobility)Food insecurity (malnourishment, etc.)Increased morbidity and mortalityLoss of access to common property (forests, water, wasteland, cultural sites)Social disarticulation (disempowerment, disruption to social institutions)

The model has been productively applied to removals from twelve protected areas and national parks in six Central African countries by Schmidt-Soltau (2003).

Finally we should note the importance of a section of the literature, which examines the return of lands from which people were moved for conservation purposes. This is a distinguishing feature of conservation efforts in Australia and South Africa. In the latter, people evicted from their lands under Apart­heid have been given the chance to reclaim them. Much of the protected area network was created as a result of this process and consequently much of it is under claim. But so far all lands returned by restitution from conservation have remained under conservation management. In all eight cases reported by Fabricius and De Wet communities winning access back their lands have elected to lease it back to the conservation authorities and share the resulting benefits (Fabricius and De Wet 2002). They are mirrored in the greater con­trols over protected areas won by Aboriginal groups in Australia (Griffin 2002). The co-management schemes are necessarily learning experiences and have not always been straightforward (Palmer et al. 2002). But these are pro­viding models for innovative conservation mechanisms globally.


As we stated at the start of this discussion, all the patterns drawn out above are based on a patchy and parlous literature. Some of the patterns above are likely to prove robust descriptions of the state of eviction and displacement from protected areas, but clearly they require further scrutiny. There is an im­portant research agenda here. Notwithstanding the number of peoples affected and the extent of the territories involved, these are questions which are fun­damentally important to the success and prosperity of both conservation and local communities. We have summarised the most important of these ques­tions in [Table 9].

Some hypotheses require elaboration. With the exception of some regions (hypothesis 1), we believe that there have been substantially more evictions in the past than have currently been recorded (hypotheses 2-6). Currently, al­though protected areas have expanded remarkably, there does not appear to be a corresponding rise in evictions (hypothesis 7). We believe this much of the protected area growth has occurred after social scientists became alert to the evictions protected areas can entail. Moreover a considerable proportion of the growth has continued to consist of more strictly protected areas (category 1-4, see [Figure 2]). Yet despite this there are relatively few reports of recent or contemporary evictions. At the same time there are numerous complaints from biologists about the problem of paper parks.

We recognise that there is a danger that hypothesis 7 will be quoted out of context. This would be unfortunate because we do not believe at all that the problem of protected area evictions has subsided. We would not have written this paper otherwise. Many people still reside illegally in protected areas. If conservation legislation is enforced in the future the problem will become prevalent again, indeed more serious than before (hypothesis 8). Poorer parts of the world have continued to create large strictly protected areas which could have significant impacts on large numbers of people (West et al. 2006). Furthermore a new wave of displacements and evictions is beginning to occur from community based conservation schemes (Dzingirai 2003). While each of these is small, they are numerous, insidious and difficult to document. Their aggregate impacts could be significant.

Finally we must reiterate that in dwelling on eviction in the paper we have only focussed on one aspect of displacement (hypothesis 9). Time and again in the literature it was clear that the act of eviction alone was but one part of a whole series of marginalisations, inconveniences and impoverish­ments that merely addressing relocation will miss. Indeed all these are possi­ble without physical eviction occurring at all. Important as understanding eviction trends is, it is more important to comprehend the bigger displacement picture.

In addition to the patterns we have documented, it is equally important to notice and attend to the silences of the conservation literature apparent in [Ta­ble 9]. For while the questions above indicate at least some attention to these issues, albeit scanty in places, there are clearly other important questions which have not been broached. The first is the growing importance of private­protected areas. There are some countries where conservation is dominated by these. Large parts of Scotland, the private hunting estates of wealthy land­lords, are effectively private conservation areas. In South Africa private game ranches occupy twice the area of state protected areas, a full 11% of the coun­try, and the area of land devoted to wildlife is growing rapidly. In Tanzania wealthy individuals such as Paul Tudor Jones, an American billionaire, are invigorating the protection and conservation status of vast tracts of land, and are trying to persuade more villagers to leave their lands in the interests of conservation. There are challenges of eviction and displacement from private protected areas as much as from state protected areas (Langholz 2003). We know that the vast areas of Scottish wildness were created through mass evic­tions of crofters in the notorious Highland clearances (Pringle 1988; In South Africa the expansion of public­protected areas is often being pursued by the purchase of private farmland - from which farm labourers, often resident there for generations, have first to be removed (Luck 2003; Groenewald and Macleod 2004; Connor 2006). Alienation from place, nature and home, which is, at bottom, the root objec­tion to the dislocation caused eminent domain, are just as easily inflicted by laws of property and the behaviour of the market.

The second is to emphasise the point made by Rangarajan and Shahabuddin in this issue about the general silence on the ecology of eviction. We have seen that few studies of the impacts of eviction offer good quality information on the social impacts of removal. Fewer still examine what has happened with their ecology. This is a vital point, for evictions are carried out in Nature's name, but often also in surprising ignorance of Nature's processes.

We need to qualify this point. There are well documented examinations of how natural wildernesses in the USA created by the removal of indigenous inhabitants were then carefully managed by the Parks Services to control fire and remove predators, often, it has later been realised, to the detriment of the ecosystem (Chase 1987; Leopold 1989 (1949)). We know that ring fencing Black and White Rhinoceros and eliminating illicit human contact is allowed their populations to recover. We know that forest cover within protected areas tends to be better, richer and more continuous than without, and that trends of forest decline tend to be slower, or reversed, within protected areas than with­out (Bruner et al. 2001; DeFries et al. 2005; Naughton-Treves et al. 2005) - although we know less about the impacts on the larger ecosystems of which protected areas are part. We know that human hunting pressure within forests will locally decrease the abundance of some species (Alvard et al. 1997).

But these apparent successes resulting from the removal of people from landscapes and ecosystem are not a sufficient endorsement of the policy. The extreme measures of rhino enclosures can be deemed a success only when the fences have come down. Indeed the fact that it is now possible to shoot Black and White Rhinoceros in the wild in Africa is oddly the best measure of the success of this policy. Borgerhoff-Mulder and Coppollilo (2005) have ob­served that the comparison made between protected and unprotected forests which Bruner and colleagues (2004) reported is not a good measure of the consequences of protection with resident peoples, because that research did not examine the effectiveness of such conservation. Only by examining the ecologies of co-existence, of residence and eviction, can we know how or when eviction needs to be used. Given that strictly protected areas will never be sufficiently extensive and that space for nature has to be found outside them, this is a vital task (Rosenweig 2003).

Forced removals are drastic. Eviction is the most violent act a law-abiding state can inflict on its law-abiding citizens. Ultimately it is inimical to conser­vation's cause. For if we love nature because of our early encounters with it, and cling to that love despite the diverse alienations and pressures modern life throws at it (Milton 2002) then the real successes are when the fences come down. As Bill Adams has observed:

'The challenge is not to preserve (or restore) 'the wild', but peoples' re­lationships with the wild . . [W]ithout contact with nature, people's capac­ity to understand it and engage with it withers. The future of conservation will turn on the extent to which a strong individual connection to nature and natural processes is maintained.' (Adams 2004: 235-236)[304]


1Abel, N. and P. Blaikie. 1986. Elephants, people, parks and development: The case of the Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Environmental Management 10:735-751.
2Adams, W.M. 2004. Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation. Earthscan, London.
3Adams, W.M. and M. Infield. 2001. Park Outreach and Gorilla Conservation. Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Uganda. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods (eds. D. Hulme and M. Murphree). Heinemann, Portsmouth.
4Adams, W.M. and M. Infield. 2003. Who is on the gorilla's payroll? Claims on tourist revenue from a Ugandan National Park. World Development 31:177-190.
5Aiken, S.R. 1994. Peninsular Malaysia's protected areas' coverage, 1903-1992: Creation, rescis­sion, excision, and intrusion. Environmental Conservation 21:49-56.
6Alvard, M.S., J.G. Robinson, K.H. Redford and H. Kaplan. 1997. The sustainability of subsis­tence hunting in the neotropics. Conservation Biology 11:977-982.
7Amend, S. and T. Amend. 1995. National Parks without People? The South American Experi­ence. IUCN, Gland.
8Archabald, K. and L. Naughton-Treves. 2001. Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks in Western Uganda: early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environmental Conservation 28:135-149.
9Arhem, K. 1986. Pastoralism under Pressure: The Ngorongoro Maasai. In: Tanzania Crisis and Struggle for Survival (eds. J. Boesen, K.J. Havnevik, J. Joponen and R. Odgaard). Scan­danavian Institute of African Studies, Uppasala.
10Armstrong, S. and O. Bennet. 2002. Representing the Resettled: The Ethical Issues Raised by Research and Representation of the San. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development (eds. D. Chatty and M. Col­chester). Berghan Books, New York.
11Atmosoedarjo, S., L. Daryadi, J. MacKinnon and P. Hillegers. 1984. National Parks and Rural Communities. In: National Parks, Conservation and Development. The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, 11-22 October 1982 (eds. J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller). Smithsonian Institu­tion Press, Washington DC.
12Awaleh, I., J. Abdullah, G. Hussein, M.A. Bubi, K. Farah, A. Sheel, D. Ali, J. Farah, M. Elmi, A. Wais, I.B. Suleman, F.B. Direye, D.B. Omar and M. Elmi. 1947. The Humble Petition of the Somalis of the Nairobi Commonage to His Majesty King George the Sixth. In: PRO: CO 533/551/2.
13 Barrow, E., H. Gichohi and M. Infield. 2001. The Evolution of Community Conservation Policy and Practice in East Africa. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods (eds. D. Hulme and M. Murphree). Heinemann, Portsmouth.
14Bauer, H. 2003. Local perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30:175-181.
15Baviskar, A. 2003. States, Communities and Conservation: The Practice of Ecodevelopment in the Great Himalayan National Park. In: Battles Over Nature. Science and the Politics of Conservation (eds. V. Saberwal and M. Rangarajan). Permanent Black, Delhi.
16Bedunah, D.J. and S.M. Schmidt. 2004. Pastoralism and Protected Area Management in Mongo­lia's Gobi Gurvansaikhan National Park. Development and Change 35:167-191.
17Bergin, P. 2001. Accomodating New Narratives in a Conservation Bureaucracy. TANAPA and Community Conservation. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods (eds. D. Hulme and M. Murphree). Heinemann, Portsmouth.
18Bhomia, R.K. and D. Brockington. Forthcoming. Conservation: Pride or prejudice? An analysis of the protected areas of India. Policy Matters.
19 Bolaane, M. 2005. Chiefs, hunters and adventurers: The foundation of the Okavango/Moremi National Park, Botswana. Journal of Historical Geography 31:241-259.
20Bolaane, M. 2004a. The impact of Game Reserve Policy on the River BaSarwa/Bushmen of Bot­swana. Social Policy and Administration 38:399-417.
21Bolaane, M. 2004b. Wildlife Conservation and Local Management: The Establishment of the Moremi Park, Okavango, Botswana in the 1950s-1960s. D.Phil thesis. Oxford University.
22Borgerhoff-Mulder, M. and P. Coppolillo. 2005. Conservation. Linking Ecology, Economics and Culture. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
23Borrini-Feyerabend, G., T. Banuri, T. Farvar, K. Miller and A. Phillips. 2002. Indigenous and local communities and protected areas: Rethinking the relationship. Parks 12:5-15.
24Borrini-Feyerabend, G., M. Pimbert, T. Farvar, A. Kothari and Y. Renard. 2004. Sharing Power: Learn­ing by Doing in Co-management of Natural Resources Throughout the World. IIED, London.
25Brockington, D. 1998. Land Loss and Livelihoods. The Effects of Eviction on Pastoralists Moved From the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania., University College, London.
26Brockington. D. 1999. Conservation, displacement and livelihoods. The consequences of the eviction for pastoralists moved from the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Nomadic Peoples 3:74-96.
27Brockington. D. 2001. Women's income and livelihood strategies of dispossessed pastoralists. The case of Mkomazi Game Reserve. Human Ecology 29:307-338.
28Brockington. D. 2002. Fortress Conservation. The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. James Currey, Oxford.
29Brockington. D. 2003. Injustice and conservation: is local support necessary for sustainable pro­tected areas? Policy Matters 12:22-30.
30Brockington. D. 2004. Community conservation, inequality and injustice. Myths of power in protected area management. Conservation and Society 2:411-432.
31Brockington. D. 2005a. Book review of conservation: Linking ecology, economics and culture. Journal of Ecological Anthropology 9:82-83.
32Brockington. D. 2005b. The Contingency of Community Conservation. In: Rural Resources and Local Livelihoods in Africa (ed. K. Homewood). James Currey, Oxford.
33Brockington. D. 2006. The politics and ethnography of environmentalisms in Tanzania. African Affairs 105(418):97-116.
34Brockington, D. and K.M. Homewood. 1999. Pastoralism around Mkomazi: The Interaction of Conservation and Development. In: Mkomazi: The Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation of a Tanzanian Savanna (eds. M. Coe, N. McWilliam, G. Stone and M. Packer). Royal Geo­graphical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers), London.
35Brockington, D. and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2004. The social and environmental impacts of wilder­ness and development. Oryx 38:140-142.
36Brockington, D., J. Igoe and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2006. Conservation, human rights, and poverty reduction. Conservation Biology 20:250-252.
37Brooks, S. 2005. Images of wild Africa': Nature tourism and the (re)creation of Hluhluwe Game Reserve, 1930-1945. Journal of Historical Geography 31:220-240.
38Brosius, J.P. 2004. Indigenous peoples and protected areas at the World Parks Congress. Con­servation Biology 18:609-612.
39Brown, A.J. 1992. Claim that park! A post-Mabo update on Aboriginal ownership of conserva­tion areas. Aboriginal Law Bulletin 57:2-3.
40Bruggemann, J. 1997. National Parks and Protected Area Management in Costa Rica and Ger­many: A Comparative Analysis. In: Social Change and Conservation (eds. K.B. Ghimire and M.P. Pimbert). Earthscan, London.
41Bruner, A.G., R.E. Gullison, R.E. Rice and G.A.B. da Fonseca. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291:125-128.
42Buergin, R. 2003. Shifting frames for local people and forests in a global heritage: The Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary in the context of Thailand's globalization and moderniza­tion. Geoforum 24:375-393.
43Buergin, R. and C. Kessler. 2000. Intrusions and exclusions: Democratization in Thailand in the context of environmental discourses and resource conflicts. Geojournal 52:71-80.
44Burnham, P. 2000. Indian Country God's Country: Native Americans and National Parks. Island Press, Washington DC.
45Butynski, T.M. and J. Kalina. 1993. Three new mountain national parks for Uganda. Oryx 27:214-224.
46Campbell, B. 2000. Animals Behaving Badly: Indigenous Perceptions of Wildlife Protection in Nepal. In: Natural Enemies. People-Wildlife Conflicts in Anthropological Perspective (ed. J. Knight). Routledge, London.
47Carrier, J.G. and D.V.L. Macleaod. 2005. Bursting the bubble: The socio-cultural context of eco­tourism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 11:315-334.
48Carruthers, J. 1989. Creating a national park, 1910-1926. Journal of Southern African Studies 15:188-216.
49Carruthers, J. 1995. The Kruger National Park. A Social and Political History. University of Na­tal Press, Pietermaritzburg.
50Catton, T. 1997. Inhabited Wilderness: Indians, Eskimos, and National Parks in Alaska. Univer­sity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
51Cernea, M.M and K. Schmidt-Sol. 2003. The end of forcible displacements? Making conserva­tion and impoverishment incompatible. Policy Matters 12:42-51.
52Cernea, M.M. 2005a. Concept and Method: Applying the IRR Model in Africa to Resettlement and Poverty. In: Displacement Risks in Africa. Refugees, Resettlers and their Host Popula­tion (eds. I. Ohta and Y.D. Gebre). Kyoto University Press, Kyoto.
53Cernea, M.M. 2005b. Restriction of access is displacement: A broader concept and policy. Forced Migration Review 23:48-49.
54Cernea, M.M. and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2006. Poverty risks and national parks: Policy issues in conservation and resettlement. World Development (in print).
55Chandrasena, U.A. 1993. The Struggle for Survival of an Aboriginal Group: The Veddas of Sri Lanka. In: Indigenous Land Rights in Commonwealth Countries: Dispossession, Negotiation and Community Action (eds. G. Cant, J. Overton and E. Pawson). Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, Christchurch and Ngai Tahu Maori Trust Board for the Common­wealth Geographical Bureau.
56Chape, S., J. Harrison, M. Spalding and I. Lysenko. 2005. Measuring the extent and effective­ ness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360:443-455.
57Chapin, M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch Magazine Nov/Dec:17-31.
58Chase, A. 1987. Playing God in Yellowstone. The Destruction of America's First National Park. Harcourt Brace, Orlando.
59Chatty, D. 2003. Environmentalism in the Syrian Badia: The Assumptions of Degradation, Pro­tection and Bedouin Misuse. In: Ethnographies of Conservation. Environmentalism and the Distribution of Privilege (eds. D.G. Anderson and E. Berglund), pp. 87-99. Bergahn Books, New York.
60Chatty, D. and M. Colchester. 2002. Introduction: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development (eds. D. Chatty and M. Colchester). Berghan Books, New York.
61Chennells, R. 2003. South Africa. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Africa (eds. J. Nelson and L. Hossack). Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh.
62Clynes, T. 2002. They shoot poachers, don't they? National Geographic Adventure Magazine October.
63Colchester, M. 1997. Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. In: Social Change and Conservation (eds. K.B. Ghimire and M.P. Pimbert). Earthscan, London.
64Colchester, M. 2003. Salvaging Nature. Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas and Biodivesity Conservation. World Rainforest Movement, Moreton-in-Marsh and Forest Peoples Pro­gramme.
65Colchester, M. 2004. Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Cultural Survival Quarterly 28.
66Connor, T. K. 2006. Opportunity and Constraint: Historicity, Hybridity and Notions of Cultural Identity in the Sundays River Valley (Eastern Cape) and Pafuri (Mozambique). PhD, Rhodes University.
67Cuello, C., K. Brandon and R. Margoluis. 1998. Costa Rica: Corcovado National Park. In: Parks in Peril. People, Politics and Protected Areas (eds. K. Brandon, K.H. Redford, and S.E. Sanderson). The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC.
68Dangwal, P. 1999. Whose Forests are They Anyway? A Case Study of the Proposed Rajaji Na­tional Park in Northwest India. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in South and Southeast Asia. From Principles to Practice (eds. M. Colchester and C. Erni). IWGIA, Co­penhagen.
69Dasmann, R.F. 1976. National parks, nature conservation and future primitive. The Ecologist 6:164-167.
70De Boer, W.F. and D.S. Baquete. 1998. Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Con­servation 25:208-218.
71Dearden, P., S. Chettamart and D. Emphandu. 1998. Protected areas and property rights in Thai­land. Environmental Conservation 25:195-197.
72DeFries, R., A. Hansen, A.C. Newton and M.C. Hansen. 2005. Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecological Applications 15:19-26.
73Deihl, C. 1985. Wildlife and the Maasai. Cultural Survival Quarterly 9:37-40.
74Derman, B. 1995. Environmental NGOs, dispossession and the state: The ideology and praxis of African nature and development. Human Ecology 23:199-215.
75Dey, C. 1997. Women, Forest Products and Protected Areas: A Case Study of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary,West Bengal, India. In: Social Change and Conservation (eds. K. B. Ghimire and M.P. Pimbert). Earthscan, London.
76Dixon, J.A. and P.B. Sherman. 1990. Economics of Protected Areas. A New Look at Benefits and Costs. Island Press, Washington DC.
77Dixon, J.A. and P.B. Sherman. 1991. Economics of protected areas. Ambio 20:68-74.
78Dowie, M. 2005. Conservation refugees. When protecting nature means kicking people out. Orion Nov/Dec.
79Dowie, M. 2006. Problems in paradise. How making new parks and wildlife preserves creates millions of conservation refugees around the world. San Francisco Chronicle June 11.
80Down to Earth. 2001. Moronene people forced out of national park. Down to Earth 48
81Drijver, C.A. 1992. People's Participation in Environmental Projects. In: Bush Base: Forest Farm. Culture, Environment and Development (eds. E. Croll and D. Parkin). Routledge, London.
82Duffy, R. 2006. Global environmental governance and the politics of ecotourism in Madagascar. Journal of Ecotourism 5(1&2):128-144.
83Dutton, S. and F. Archer. 2004. Transfrontier parks in South Africa. Cultural Survival Quarterly 28.
84Dzingirai, V. 2003. The new scramble for the African countryside. Development and Change 34:243-263.
85Emerton, L. 1999a. Balancing the opportunity costs of wildlife conservation for communities around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Evaluating Eden Series Discussion Papers 5.
86 Emerton, L. 1999b. Mount Kenya: The economics of community conservation. Evaluating Eden Series Discussion Papers 4.
87 Emerton, L. 2001. The Nature of Benefits and the Benefits of Nature. Why Wildlife Conserva­tion has not Economically Benefitted Communities in Africa. In: African Wildlife and Live­lihoods (eds. D. Hulme and M. Murphree). Heinemann, Portsmouth.
88Emerton, L. and I. Mfunda. 1999. Making wildlife economically viable for communities living around the Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Evaluating Eden Series Discussion Papers 1.
89 Enghoff, M. 1990. Wildlife conservation, ecological strategies and pastoral communities. A con­tribution to the understanding of parks and people in East Africa. Nomadic Peoples 25/27:93-107.
90Fabricius, C. and C. De Wet. 2002. The Influence of Forced Removals and Land Restitution on Conservation in South Africa. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Displace­ment, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development (eds. D. Chatty and M. Colchester). Berghan Books, New York.
91Fisher, E. 2002. Forced Resettlement, Rural Livelihoods and Wildlife Conservation Along the Ugalla River in Tanzania. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development (eds. D. Chatty and M. Colchester). Berghan Books, New York.
92Fortin, M.J. and C. Gagnon. 1999. An assessment of social impacts of national parks on commu­nities in Quebec, Canada. Environmental Conservation 26:200-211.
93Fortwangler, C. 2003. The Winding Road. Incorporating Social Justice and Human Rights into Protected Area Policies. In: Contested Nature. Promoting International Biodiversity Conser­vaton with Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century (eds. S.R. Brechin, P.R. Wilchusen, C.L. Fortwangler and P.C. West). State University of New York Press, New York.
94Fosbrooke, H. 1990. Pastoralism and Land Tenure. Paper presented at the workshop on Pastoral­ism and the Environment, April 1990, Arusha, Tanzania.
95Fratkin, E. and T.S.-M. Wu. 1997. Maasai and Barabaig herders struggle for land rights in Kenya and Tanzania. Cultural Survival Quarterly 21:55-61.
96Gadgil, M. 1992. Conserving biodiversity as if people matter: A case study from India. Ambio 21:266-70.
97Gadgil, M. and R. Guha. 1993. This Fissured Land. An Ecological History of India. OUP, Delhi. Ganguly, V. 2004. Conservation, Displacement and Deprivation. Maldhari of Gir Forest of Gu­jarat. Indian Social Institute, New Delhi.
98Geisler, C. 2003a. A new kind of trouble: Evictions in Eden. International Social Science Jour­nal 55:69-78.
99Geisler, C 2003b. Your Park, My Poverty. Using Impact Assessment to Counter Displacement Effects of Environmental Greenlining. In: Contested Nature. Promoting International Biodi­versity Conservaton with Social Justice in the Twenty-First Century (eds. S.R. Brechin, P.R. Wilchusen, C.L. Fortwangler and P.C. West). State University of New York Press, New York.
100Geisler, C. and R. de Sousa. 2001. From refuge to refugee: The African case. Public administra­tion and Development 21:159-170.
101Geisler, C., R. Warne and A. Barton. 1997. The wandering commons: a conservation conundrum in the Dominican Republic. Agriculture and Human Values 14:325-335.
102Ghimire, K.B. 1994. Parks and people: Livelihood issues in national parks management in Thai­land and Madagascar. Development and Change 25:195-229.
103Ghimire, K.B. 1997. Conservation and Social Development: An Assessment of Wolong and other Panda Reserves in China. In: Social Change and Conservation (eds. K.B. Ghimire and M.P. Pimbert). Earthscan, London.
104Ghimire, K.B. and M.P. Pimbert. 1997. Social Change and Conservation: An Overview of Issues and Concepts. In: Social Change and Conservation (eds. K.B. Ghimire and M.P. Pimbert). Earthscan, London.
105Ghimire, M. 1999. The Royal Chitwan National Park and its Impact on the Indigenous Peoples of Chitwan and Nawalparasi, Nepal. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in South and Southeast Asia. From Principles to Practice (eds. M. Colchester and C. Erni). IWGIA, Copenhagen.
106Groenewald, Y. and F. Macleod. 2004. Park plans bring grief. In: Weekly Mail and Guardian 25 June.
107Goldman, M. 2001. Constructing and environmental state: Eco-governmentality and other trans­national practices of a 'Green' World Bank. Social Problems 48:499-523.
108Goldman, M. 2003. Partitioned nature, priviledged knowledge: Community-based conservation in Tanzania. Development and Change 34:833-862.
109Gomm, R. 1974. The elephant men. The Ecologist 4:53-57.
110Griffin, G. 2002. Welcome to Aboriginal Land: Anangu Ownership and Management of Uluru­Kata Tjuta National Park. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development (eds. D. Chatty and M. Colchester), pp. 362-376. Berghahn Books, New York.
111Guerrero, K. and D.A. Rose. 1998. Dominican Republic: Del Este National Park. In: Parks in Peril. People, Politics and Protected Areas (eds. K. Brandon, K.H. Redford and S.E. San­derson). The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC.
112Guha, R. 1997. Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique. In: Varieties of Environmentalism. Essays North and South (eds. R. Guha and J. Martinez-Alier). Earthscan, London.
113Guha, R 2003. The Authoritarian Biologist and the Arrogance of Anti-Humanism: Wildlife Con­servation in the Third World. In: Battles over Nature. Science and the Politics of Conserva­tion (eds. V. Saberwal and M. Rangarajan). Permanent Black, Delhi.
114Gurung, B. 1992. Towards sustainable development. A case in the Eastern Himalaya. Futures 24:907-916.
115Harmon, D. 1987. Cultural diversity, human subsistence and the national park ideal. Environ­mental Ethics 9:147-158.
116Hasler, R.K. 1996. Agriculture, Foraging and Wildlife Resource Use in the Zambezi Valley. Ke­gan Paul International and Columbia University Press, London and New York.
117Hitchcock, R.K. 1985. Foragers on the move. Cultural Survival Quarterly 9.
118 Hitchcock, R.K. 1997. African Wildlife: Conservation and Conflict. In: Life and Death Matters: Human Rights and the Environment at the End of the Millenium (ed. B.R. Johnston). Al­taMira Press, London.
119Hitchcock, R.K. 2002. Removals, politics and human rights. Cultural Survival Quarterly 26:25- 26.
120Hitchcock, R.K. 1995. Centralisation, resource depletion and coercive conservation among the Tyua of the northeastern Kalahari. Human Ecology 23:168-198.
121Hitchcock, R.K 1996. Kalahari Communities: Bushmen and the Politics of the Environment in Southern Africa. International Working group for Indigenous Affairs, Copenhagen.
122Hitchcock, R.K 2001. Hunting is our Heritage: The Struggle for Hunting and Gathering Rights among the San of Southern Africa. In: Senri Ethnological Studies No. 59. Parks, Property and Power: Managing Hunting Practice and Identity within State Policy Regimes, Vol. 59 (eds. D.G. Anderson and K. Ikeya), pp. 139-156. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.
123Hitchcock, R.K. and J.D. Holm. 1993. Bureaucratic domination of hunter-gatherer societies: a study of the San in Botswana. Development and Change 24:305-338.
124Hodgson, D. 2001. Once Intrepid Warriors: Gender, Ethnicity, and the Cultural Politics of Maasai Development. University of Indiana Press, Bloomington.
125Homewood, K.M. and W.A. Rodgers. 1991. Maasailand Ecology. Pastoralist Development and Wildlife Conservation in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
126Homewood, K.M., W.A. Rodgers and K. Arhem. 1987. Ecology of pastoralism in the Ngorongoro conservation area, Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Science 108:47-72.
127Horowitz, L.S. 1998. Integrating indigenous resource management with wildlife conservation: A case study of Batang Ai National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia. Human Ecology 26:371-403.
128Hough, J. 1991a. The Grand Canyon National Park and the Havasupai People: Cooperation and Conflict. In: Resident People and National Parks. Social Dilemmas and Strategies in Inter­national Conservation (eds. P.C. West and S.R. Brechin). The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
129Hough, J. 1991b. Michiru Mountain Conservation Area: Integrating Conservation with Human Needs. In: Resident People and National Parks. Social Dilemmas and Strategies in Interna­tional Conservation (eds. P.C. West and S.R. Brechin). The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
130Hough, J. 1991c. Social Impact Assessment: Its Role in Protectged Area Planning and Manage­ment. In: Resident People and National Parks. Social Dilemmas and Strategies in Interna­tional Conservation (eds. P.C. West and S.R. Brechin). The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
131Houseal, B., C. MacFarland, G. Archibold and A. Chiari. 1985. Indigenous cultures and pro­tected areas in Central America. Cultural Survival Quarterly 9.
132 Hulme, D. and M. Infield. 2001. Community Conservation, Reciprocity and Park-People Rela­tionships. Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods (eds. D. Hulme and M. Murphree). Heinemann, Portsmouth.
133Igoe, J. 2002. National Parks and Human Ecosystems: The Challenge to Community Conserva­tion. A Case Study from Simanjiro, Tanzania. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peo­ples. Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development (eds. D. Chatty and M. Colchester). Berghan Books, New York.
134Igoe, J. 2004. Conservation and Globalisation: A Study of National Parks and Indigenous Com­munities from East Africa to South Dakota. Case Studies in Contemporary Social Issues. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA.
135Ikeya, K. 2001. Some changes among the San under the influence of relocation plan in Bot­swana. In: Senri Ethnological Studies No. 59. Parks, Property and Power: Managing Hunt­ing Practice and Identity within State Policy Regimes, Vol. 59 (eds. D.G. Anderson and K. Ikeya), pp. 183-198. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.
136Jacoby, K. 2001. Crimes against Nature. Squatters, Poachers, Thieves and the Hidden History of American Conservation. University of California Press, Berkeley.
137Jepson, P., F. Momberg and H. van Noord. 2002. A review of the efficacy of the protected area system of east Kalimantan province, Indonesia. Natural Areas Journal 22:28-42.
138Jones, B. and M. Murphree. 2001. The Evolution of Policy on Community Conservation in Na­mibia and Zimbabwe. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods (eds. D. Hulme and M. Murphree). Heinemann, Portsmouth.
139Keller, R. and M. Turek. 1998. American Indians and National Parks. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
140Kemf, E. (ed.). 1993. In Search of a Home: People Living In or Near Protected Areas. In: The Law of the Mother. Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Protected Areas. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
141Kemf, E. and V. Quy. 1999. Ethnic Minorities and Protected Areas in Vietnam: The Effect of Land Use on Biodiversity in the Buffer and Core Zones of Yok Don National Park. In: In­digenous Peoples and Protected Areas in South and Southeast Asia. From Principles to Practice (eds. M. Colchester and C. Erni). IWGIA, Copenhagen.
142Kent, S. 2002. Basarwa resettlement. Cultural Survival Quarterly 26:21-22.
143Kepe, T., B. Cousins and S. Turner. 2000. Resource Tenure and Power Relations in Community Wildlife Contexts: The Case of the Mkambati Area on the Wild Coast of South Africa. Evaluating Eden Series Discussion Paper 16.
144Kepe, T., B. Cousins and S. Turner. 2001. Resource tenure and power relations in community wildlife: The case of the Mkambati area on the wild coast of South Africa. Society and Natu­ral Resources 14:911-25.
145Khan, S.R. and A. Naqvi. 1999. Indigenous Rights and Biodiversity Conservation. A Case Study of Ayubia National Park, Pakistan. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in South and Southeast Asia. From Principles to Practice (eds. M. Colchester and C. Erni). IWGIA, Co­penhagen.
146Kiwasila, H. and K. Homewood. 1999. Natural Resource Use by Reserve-Adjacent Farming Communities. In: Mkomazi: The Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation of a Tanzanian Sa­vannam (eds. M. Coe, N. McWilliam, G. Stone and M. Packer). Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers), London.
147Kjekshus, H. 1996 (1977). Ecology Control and Economic Development in East African History. The Case of Tanganyika 1850-1950. James Currey, London.
148Knudsen, A. 1999. Conservation and controversy in Karakoram: Khunjerab National Park, Paki­stan. Journal of Political Ecology 6:1-30.
149Koch, E. 1994. Reality or Rhetoric? Ecotourism and Rural Reconstruction in South Africa. UNRISD, Johannesburg
150Koch, E. 1997. Ecotourism and Rural Reconstruction in South Africa: Reality or Rhetoric? In:
151 Social Change and Conservation (eds. K.B. Ghimire and M P. Pimbert). Earthscan, London. Kothari, A. 2004. Displacement fears. Frontline 21, viewed 15 th February 2005. :
152Kothari, A., P. Pande, S. Singh and D. Variava. 1989. Management of National Parks and Sanc­turies in India. A Status Report. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.
153Kuper, A. 2003. The return of the native. Current Anthropology 44:389-402.
154Kutay, K. 1991. Cahuita National Park, Costa Rica: A Case Study in Living Cultures and Na­tional Park Management. In: Resident People and National Parks. Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation (eds. P.C. West and S.R. Brechin). The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
155Langholz, J. 2003. Privatizing Conservation. In: Contested Nature. Promoting International Bio­diversity Conservaton with Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century (eds. S.R. Brechin, P.R. Wilchusen, C.L. Fortwangler and P.C. West), pp. 117-135. State University of New York Press, New York.
156Lasimbang, J. 2004. National parks: Indigenous resource management principles in protected ar­eas and indigenous peoples of Asia. Cultural Survival Quarterly 28.
157 Laungaramsri, P. 1999. The Ambiguity of 'Watershed': The Politics of People and Conservation in Northern Thailand. A Case Study of the Chom Thong Conflict. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in South and Southeast Asia. From Principles to Practice (eds. M. Col­chester and C. Erni). IWGIA, Copenhagen.
158Lehmkuhl, J.F., R.K. Upreti and U.R. Sharma. 1988. National parks and local development. Grasses and people in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 15:143-148.
159Lehnhoff, A. and O. Nunez. 1998. Guatemala: Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve. In: Parks in Peril. People, Politics and Protected Areas (eds. K. Brandon, K.H. Redford, and S.E. Sanderson). The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC.
160Leopold, A. 1989 (1949). A Sand County Alamanac. And Sketches Here and There. OUP, Ox­ ford.
161Lewis, J. 2000. The Batwa Pygimies of the Great Lakes Region. Minority Rights Group.
162Lewis, J. and J. Knight. 1995. The Twa of Rwanda. Assessment of the Situation of the Twa and Promotion of Twa Rights in Post-War Rwanda. World Rainforest Movement and Interna­tional Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Copenhagen.
163Lindsay, W. K. 1987. Integrating Parks and Pastoralists: Some Lessons From Amboseli. In: Con­servation in Africa. People, Policy and Practice (eds. D. Anderson and R. Grove). CUP, Cambridge.
164Lowry, A. and T.P. Donahue. 1994. Parks, Politics, and Pluralism: The Demise of National Parks in Togo. Society and Natural Resources 7:321-329.
165Luck, K. 2003. Contested Rights: The Impact of Game Farming on Farm Workers in the Bush­man's River Area. MA thesis. Rhodes University.
166MacDonald, K. 2004. Developing 'Nature': Global Ecology and the Politics of Conservation in Northern Pakistan. In: Confronting Environments: Local Environmental Understanding in a Globalising World (ed. J. Carrier). AltaMira Press, Lantham.
167MacDonald, K. 2005. Global hunting grounds: Power, scale and ecology in the negotiation of conservation. Cultural Geographies 12:259-291.
168MacKinnon, J., K. MacKinnon, G. Child and J. Thorsell. 1986. Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics. IUCN, Gland.
169Malcolm, J. 1992. A visit to Mkomazi in late March 1992.
170Mangubuli, M.J.J. 1991. Mkomazi Game Reserve-a recovered pearl. Kakakuona 4:11-13.
171Marks, S. 1984. The Imperial Lion. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in Central Af­rica. Bowker, Epping.
172Maruyama, J. 2002. The human impact. Cultural Survival Quarterly 26:27-28.
173Mascarenhas, A. 1983. Ngorongoro: A challenge to conservation and development. Ambio 12:146-152.
174Mbaiwa, J.E. 2005. Wildlife resource utilisation at Moremi Game Reserve and Khwai community
175area in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Environmental Management 77:144-156.
176Mbembe, A. 2001. On the Postcolony. University of California Press, Berkeley.
177McCabe, J.T. 2002. Giving Conservation a Human Face? Lessons from Forty Years of Combin­ing Conservation and Development in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sus­tainable Development (eds. D. Chatty and M. Colchester). Berghan Books, New York.
178McCabe, J.T., S. Perkin and C. Sholfield. 1992. Can conservation and development be coupled among pastoral people? An examination of the Maasai of the Ngorongoro conservation area, Tanzania. Human Organisation 51:353-366.
179McElwee, P. 2002. Lost Worlds and Local People: Protected Areas Development in Vietnam. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sus­tainable Development (eds. D. Chatty and M. Colchester), pp. 296-312. Berghahn Books, New York.
180McIvor, C. 1997. Management of Wildlife, Tourism and Local Communities in Zimbabwe. In: Social Change and Conservation (eds. K.B. Ghimire and M.P. Pimbert). Earthscan, London.
181McLean, J. and S. Straede. 2003. Conservation, relocation and the paradigms of park and people management-a case study of Padampur villages and the Royal Chitwan National Park, Ne­pal. Society and Natural Resources 16.
182McNamee, K. 1993. From Wild Places to Endangered Spaces. A History of Canada's National Parks. In: Parks and Protected Areas in Canada (eds. P. Dearden and R. Rollins). OUP, To­ronto.
183McNeely, J.A., and S.J. Scherr. 2003. Ecoagriculture. Strategies to Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.
184McShane, T.O. 1990. Wildlands and human needs: Resource use in an African protected area. Landscape Urban Planning 19:154-158.
185Mead, A.T.P. 2004. He paua, he korowai, me nga waahi tapu-A shellfish, a woven cloak, and sacred places: Maori and protected areas. Cultural Survival Quarterly 28.
186 Middleton, B. 2003. Ecology and Objective Based Management: A Study of the Keoladeo Na­tional Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. In: Battles Over Nature. Science and the Politics of Con­servation (eds. V. Saberwal and M. Rangarajan). Permanent Black, Delhi.
187Milton, K. 2002. Loving Nature. Towards an Ecology of Emotion. Routledge, London.
188Mishra, H. R. 1984. A Delicate Balance: Tigers, Rhinoceros, Tourists and Park Management vs the Needs of the Local People in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. In: National Parks, Conservation and Development. The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Proceed­ings of the World Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, 11-22 October 1982 (eds. J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
189Mitchell, A., Y.d. Fretes and M. Poffenberger. 1990. Community Participation for Conservation Area Management in the Cyclops Mountains, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. In: Keepers of the For­est. Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia (ed. M. Poffenberger). Kumarian Press, West Hartford.
190Molnar, A., S.J. Scherr and A. Khare. 2004. Who Conserves the World's Forests? A New As­sessment of Conservation and Investmen Trends. Forest Trends, Washington, DC, Ecoagri­culture Partners.
191Monbiot, G. 1995. No Man's Land. An Investigative Journey through Kenya and Tanzania. Macmillan, London.
192Morrison, J. 1997. Protected Areas, Conservationists and Aboriginal Interests in Canada. In: So­ cial Change and Conservation (eds. K.B. Ghimire and M.P. Pimbert). Earthscan, London.
193Mukherjee, A. and C.K. Borad. 2004. Integrated approach towards conservation of Gir National Park: The last refuge of Asiatic lions, India. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:2165-2182.
194Mustaffa, K. 1997. Eviction of pastoralists from the Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania: An historical review. Pastoral Land Tenure Series, (IIED) 8.
195 Mutimanwa, K.D. 2003. Democratic Republic of Congo. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Africa (ed. J. Nelson and L. Hossack). Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh.
196Myers, E.J. and D.S. Uribelarrea. 1995. Los Alerces National Park: Protection and Use of Natu­ral Resources. In: National Parks without People? The South American Experience (eds. S. Amend and T. Amend). IUCN, Gland.
197Myers, N. 1972. National parks in savannah Africa. Science 178:1255-1263.
198Nabokov, P. and L. Lawrence. 2004. Restoring a Presence: A Documentary Overview of Native Americans and Yellowstone National Park. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.
199Naughton-Treves, L., M. Buck Holland and K. Brandon. 2005. The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:219-252.
200Ndameu, B. 2003. Cameroon-Boumba Bek. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Af­rica (eds. J. Nelson and L. Hossack). Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh.
201Nelson, J. and L. Hossack. 2003. Introduction and Project Overview. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Africa (eds. J. Nelson and L. Hossack). Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh.
202Nelson, J. and B. Tchoumba. 2004. Pipelines, parks and people: Bagyeli document land use near Campo Ma'an National Park. Cultural Survival Quarterly 28.
203 Nepal, S.K. and K.E. Weber. 1995a. Managing resources and resolving conflicts: National parks and local people. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 2:11-25.
204Nepal, S.K. and K.E. Weber. 1995b. Prospects for coexistence: Wildlife and local people. Ambio 24:238-245.
205Neumann, R.P. 1992. Political ecology of wildlife conservation in the Mt Meru area of northeast Tanzania. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation 3:85-98.
206Neumann, R.P. 1995. Local challenges to global agendas: conservation, economic liberalization and the pastoralists' rights movement in Tanzania. Antipode 27:363-382.
207Neumann, R.P. 1997. Primitive ideas: Protected area buffer zones and the politics of land in Af­rica. Development and Change 28:559-582.
208Neumann, R.P. 1998. Imposing Wilderness. Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. University of California Press, Berkely.
209Nguiffo, S. 2003. Cameroon-Dja. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Africa (eds. J. Nelson and L. Hossack). Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh.
210Njiforti, H.L. and N.M. Tchamba. 1993. Conflict in Cameroon: Parks for or against People. In: The Law of the Mother. Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Protected Areas (ed. E. Kemf). Si­erra Club Books, San Francisco.
211Novellino, D. 2003. Contrasting Landscapes, Conflicting Ontologies: Assessing Environmental Conservation on Palawan Island. In: Ethnographies of Conservation. Environmentalism and the Distribution of Privilege (eds. D.G. Anderson and E. Berglund), pp. 171-188. Bergahn Books, New York.
212Ntshalintshali, C. and C. McGurk. 1991. Resident Peoples and Swaziland's Malolotja National Park: A Success Story. In: Resident People and National Parks. Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation (eds. P.C. West and S R. Brechin). The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
213Olenasha, W., W. Ole Seki and M. Kaisoe. 2003. Tanzania. In: Indigenous Peoples and Pro­tected Areas in Africa (eds. J. Nelson and L. Hossack). Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton­in-Marsh.
214Oliveira, J.A. P.D. 2002. Implementing environmental policies in developing countries through decentralization: The case of protected areas in Bahia, Brazil. World Development 30:1713- 1736.
215Olwig, K.F. 1980. National parks, tourism, and local development: A West Indian case. Human Organisation 39:22-31.
216Olwig, K.F. and K. Olwig. 1979. Underdevelopment and the development of 'natural' park ideol­ogy. Antipode 11:16-25.
217Overton, J. 1979. A critical examination of the establishment of national parks and tourism in underdeveloped areas: Gros Morne National Park in Newefoundland. Antipode 11:34-47.
218Owono, J. C. 2003. Cameroon-Campo Ma'an. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Africa (eds. J. Nelson and L. Hossack). Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh.
219Palmer, R., H. Timmermans and D. Fay. 2002. From Conflict to Negotiation. Nature-Based De­velopment of the South African Wild Coast. Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria.
220Pane, R. 2004. Protected areas in Suriname: A voice from Suriname's Galbi Nature Reserve. Cultural Survival Quarterly 28.
221 Pearce, F. 2005a. Big game losers. New Scientist 16th April 2005:21.
222Pearce, F. 2005b. Laird of Africa. New Scientist 13th August 2005:48-50.
223Peluso, N.L. 1993. Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control. Global Envi­ronmental Change 32:199-217.
224Picard, C.H. 2003. Post-apartheid perceptions of the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park, South Af­rica. Environmental Conservation 30:182-91.
225Pimbert, M.P. and B. Gujja. 1997. Village voices challenging wetland management policies: ex­periences in participatory rural appraisal from India and Pakistan. Nature and Resources 33:34-42.
226Platzky, L. and C. Walker. 1985. The Surplus People. Forced Removals in South Africa. Ravan Press, Johannesburg.
227Poirier, R., and D. Ostergren. 2002. Evicting People from Nature: Indigenous Land Rights and National Parks in Australia, Russia and the United States. Natural Resources Journal 42:331­351.
228Price, T.L. 2003. The 'W' Park of Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger-regional integration, trans­boundary challenges and local participation. Policy Matters 12:290-293.
229Pringle, T.R. 1988. The Privation of History: Landseer, Vicoria and the Highland myth. In: The Iconography of Landscape. Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments (eds. D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
230Pullan, R.A. 1983. Do national parks have a future in Africa? Leisure Studies 2:19-30.
231Rahmani, A.R. 1989. The uncertain future of the Desert National Park in Rajasthan, India. Envi­ronmental Conservation 16:237-244.
232Rangarajan, M. 1996. Fencing the Forest. Conservation and Ecological Change in India's Cen­tral Provinces 1860-1914. OUP, New Delhi.
233Rangarajan, M. 2001. India's Wildlife History. Permanent Black, Delhi.
234Rangarajan, M. 2003. The Politics of Ecology: The Debate on Wildlife and People in India, 1970-95. In: Battles over Nature. Science and the Politics of Conservation (eds. V. Saber­wal and M. Rangarajan). Permanent Black, Delhi.
235Ranger, T. 1989. Whose heritage? The case of the Matobo National Park. Journal of Southern African Studies 15:217-249.
236Ranger, T. 1999. Vocies From the Rocks. Nature, Culture and History in the Matapos Hills of Zimbabwe. James Currey, Oxford.
237Rao, M., A. Rabinowitz and S.T. Khaing. 2002. Status review of the protected-area system in Myanmar, with recommendations for conservation planning. Conservation Biology 16:360- 368.
238Rathore, B.M.S. 2003. Forging a Consensus in Rajaji National Park: An Interview. In: Battles over Nature. Science and the Politics of Conservation (eds. V. Saberwal and M. Rangara­jan). Permanent Black, Delhi.
239Raval, S. 1994. Wheel of life: Perceptions and concerns of the resident people for Gir National Park in India. Society and Natural Resources 7:303-320.
240Raval, S.R. 1991. The Gir National Park and the Maldharis: Beyond 'Setting Aside'. In: Resident People and National Parks. Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation (eds. P.C. West and S.R. Brechin). The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
241Redford, K.H., and S.E. Sanderson. 2000. Extracting humans from nature. Conservation Biology 14:1362-1364.
242Reid, H. and S. Turner. 2004. The Richtersveld and Makuleke Contractual Parks in South Africa: Win-Win for Communities and Conservation? In: Rights, Resources and Rural Develop­ment. Communty-Based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa (eds. C. Fabri­cius, E. Koch, H. Magome and S. Turner), pp. 93-111. Earthscan, London.
243Risby, L. 2002. Defining Landscapes Power and Participation: An Exmaination of an National Park Planning Process for Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. PhD thesis. Cambridge University.
244Rocha, S.B. 1995. Monte Pascoal National Park: Indigenous Inhabitants versus Conservation Unit. In: National Parks without People? The South American Experience (eds. S. Amend and T. Amend). IUCN, Gland.
245Rodgers, W.A., R.I. Ludanga and H.P. DeSuzo. 1977. Biharamulo, Burigi, and Rubondo island game reserves. Tanzania Notes and Records 81,82:99-124.
246Rosenweig, M.L. 2003. Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity. Oryx 37:194-205.
247Roy, S.D. and P. Jackson. 1993. Mayhem in Manas: The Threats to India's Wildlife Reserves. In: The Law of the Mother. Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Protected Areas (ed. E. Kemf). Si­erra Club Books, San Francisco.
248Rugendyke, B. and N.T. Son. 2005. Conservation costs: Nature-based tourism as development at Cuc Phuong National Park, Vietnam. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 46:185-200.
249Saberwal, V. 2003. Conservation by State Fiat. In: Battles Over Nature. Science and the Politics of Conservation (eds. by V. Saberwal and M. Rangarajan). Permanent Black, Delhi. Saberwal, V. and M. Rangarajan. 2003. Introduction. In: Battles Over Nature. Science and the Politics of Conservation (eds. V. Saberwal and M. Rangarajan). Permanent Black, Delhi.
250Saberwal, V., M. Rangarajan and A. Kothari. 2000. People, Parks and Wildlife. Towards Co­existence. Orient Longman Limited, Hyderabad.
251Sang, J.K. 2003. Kenya. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Africa (eds. J. Nelson and L. Hossack). Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh.
252Sato, J. 2000. People in between: Conversion and conservation of forest lands in Thailand. De­velopment and Change 31:155-77.
253Sato, J. 2002. Karen and the Land in between: Public and Private Enclosure of Forests in Thai­land. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development (eds. D. Chatty and M. Colchester), pp. 277-295. Berghahn Books, New York.
254Schama, S. 1996. Landscape and Memory. Fontana Press, London.
255Schelhas, J. 1991. A methodology for assessment of external issues facing national parks, with an application in Costa Rica. Environmental Conservation 18:323-30.
256Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2003. Conservation-related resettlement in central Africa: Environmental and social risks. Development and Change 34:525-551.
257Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2005a. The Environmental Risks of Conservation Related Displacements in Central Africa. In: Displacement Risks in Africa. Refugees, Resettlers and Their Host Popu­lation (eds. I. Ohta and Y.D. Gebre), pp. 282-311. Kyoto University Press, Kyoto.
258Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2005b. Programme Sectoriel Forets et Environnment (PFSE). Cadre de Politique de Reinstallation et Cadre procedural de reinstallation.
259Shahabuddin, G. and A. Shah. 2003. Relocation of people from wildlife areas: Socio-economic and ecological issues. Economic and Political Weekly 38:4945-4946.
260Shanahan, C.L. 2005. (No) mercy nary patrols: A controversial, last-ditch effort to salvage the
261Central African Republic's Chinko Basin. Thomas Jefferson Law Review 27:223-254. Sharma, U.R. 1990. An overview of park-people interactions in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Landscape Urban Planning 19:133-44.
262Shrivastava, R.J. 2002. Natural Resource Use and Park-People Relations at Kaziranga National Park and World Heritage Site, India. Masters thesis. Florida International University, Miami, Florida.
263Shyamsundar, P. and R. Kramer. 1997. Biodiversity conservation-at what cost? A study of households in the vicinity of Madagascar's Mantandia National Park. Ambio 26:180-4.
264Slavin, T. 1993. Survival in a Vertical Desert. In: The Law of the Mother. Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Protected Areas (ed. E. Kemf). Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
265Solecki, W.D. 1994. Putting the biosphere reserve concept into practice: Some evidence of im­pacts in rural communities in the United States. Environmental Conservation 21:242-247. Spence, M.D. 1999. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of National Parks. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
266Stegeborn, W. 1996. Sri Lanka's forests: Conservation of nature versus people. Cultural Survival Quarterly 20.
267 Stevens, S. 1997. The Legacy of Yellowstone. In: Conservation through Cultural Survival. In­digenous Peoples and Protected Areas (ed. S. Stevens). Island Press, Washington, DC.
268Sugawara, K. 2002. Voices of the dispossessed. Cultural Survival Quarterly 26:28-9.
269Sullivan, S. 2005. Maps and memory, rights and relationships: Articulations of global modernity and local dwelling in delineating land for a communal-area conservancy in north-west Na­mibia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
270 Suzman, J. 2002/3. Kalahari conundrums: Relocation, resistance, and international support in the central Kalahari, Botswana. Before Farming 4:1-10.
271Tacconi, L. and J. Bennett. 1995. Biodiversity conservation: The process of economic assess­ment of a protected area in Vanuatu. Development and Change 26:89-110.
272Taylor, M. 2002. Resource rights and conservation: The Ts'exa. Cultural Survival Quarterly 26:22-3.
273Terborgh, J. 2004. Reflections of a scientist on the world parks congress. Conservation Biology 18:619-620.
274Theodossopoulos, D. 2002. Environmental Conservation and Indigenous Culture in a Greek Is­land Community: The Dispute over the Sea Turtles. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development (eds. D. Chatty and M. Colchester), pp. 244-260. Berghahn Books, New York.
275Thongmak, S. and D.L. Hulse. 1993. The Winds of Change: Karen People in Harmony with World Heritage. In: The Law of the Mother. Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Protected Ar­eas (ed. E. Kemf). Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
276Thouless, C. 1991. Conservation in Saudi Arabia. Oryx 25:222-228.
277Toyne, P. and R. Johnston. 1991. Reconciliation or new dispossession? Aboriginal land rights and nature conservation. Habitat Australia 193:8-10.
278Tuboh, L., E. Sipail and Z. Gosungkit. 1999. A Case Study of the Kadazandusun Communities in the Crocker Range National Park, Sabah, Malaysia. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in South and Southeast Asia. From Principles to Practice (eds. M. Colchester and C. Erni). IWGIA, Copenhagen.
279Turnbull, C. 1973. The Mountain People. Jonathon Cape, London.
280Turton, D. 1987. The Mursi and National Park Development. In: Conservation in Africa. People, Policy and Practice (eds. D. Anderson and R. Grove). CUP, Cambridge.
281Turton, D. 2002. The Mursi and the Elephant Question. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples. Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development (eds. D. Chatty and M. Colchester). Berghan Books, New York.
282UNWGIP, A. o. T. A. S. t. 1993. Report of the Alliance of Taiwan Aborigenes to the United Na­tions Working Group on Indigenous Populations.
283Utting, P. 1994. Social and political dimensions of environmental protection in central America. Development and Change 25:231-259.
284Wallace, A. and L. Naughton-Treves. 1998. Belize: Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area. In: Parks in Peril. People, Politics and Protected Areas (eds. K. Brandon, K.H. Red­ford and S.E. Sanderson). The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC.
285Watson, R.M. 1991. Mkomazi-restoring Africa. Swara 14:14-6.
286West, P., J. Igoe and D. Brockington. 2006. Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:251-277.
287West, P.C. and S.R. Brechin. 1991. Resident Peoples and National Parks. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
288Western, D. 1984. Amboseli National Park: Human Values and the Conservation of a Savannah Ecosystem. In: National Parks, Conservation and Development. The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indone­sia, 11-22 October 1982 (eds. J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
289Western, D. 1994. Ecosystem Conservation and Rural Development: The Case of Amboseli. In: Natural Connections. Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation (eds. D. Western and R. M. Wright). Island Press, Washington DC.
290White, H. 1993. The homecoming of the Kagga Kamma Bushmen. Cultural Survival Quarterly 17.
291Whittington, D. and L. G. Paru. 1999. Considerations of the Rights, Interests and Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples in the Development of Kayan Mentarang National Park, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in South and Southeast Asia. From Principles to Practicem (eds. M. Colchester and C. Erni). IWGIA, Copenhagen.
292Widlok, T. 1999. Living on Mangetti. 'Bushman' Autonomy and Namibian Independence. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
293Wilkie, D.S., G.A. Morelli, J. Demmer, M. Starkey, P. Telfer and M. Steil. 2006. Parks and peo­ple: Assessing the human welfare effects of establishing protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 20:247-249.
294Winer, N., D. Turton and D. Brockington. 2006. Conservation principles and humanitarian prac­tice. (unpublished manuscript).
295World Rainforest Movement. 2000a. India: Indigenous peoples victims of 'conservation' at Rajiv Gandhi National Park. WRM Bulletin 38.
296 World Rainforest Movement. 2000b. Community rights and forest conservation, Togo. WRM Bulletin 36
297World Rainforest Movement. 2002a. Ghana: Protected areas at the expense of people do not guarantee conservation. WRM Bulletin 57.
298 World Rainforest Movement. 2002b. Panama: Protected areas vs. indigenous peoples. WRM Bul­letin 57.
299 World Rainforest Movement. 2003. Protected areas and local communities. World Rainforest Movement Bulletin 73.
300 Yeager, R. and N.N. Miller. 1986. Wildlife, Wild Death. Land Use and Survival in Eastern Af­rica. State University of New York Press, Albany.
301Yerena, E. and L. Escalona. 1995. Guatopo National Park. Relocation of Settlers in the Interest of a Public Utility. In: National Parks without people? The South American Experience (eds. S. Amend and T. Amend). IUCN, Gland.
302Zamarenda, A. 1998. Cuyabeno Wildlife Production Reserve. In: From Principles to Practice: Indigenous People and Bio-Diversity Conservation in Latin America (eds. A. Grey, H. New­ing and A. Parellada). IWGIA, Copenhagen.
303Zaninka, P. 2003. Uganda. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Africa (eds. J. Nelson and L. Hossack). Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh.
304Zephyrin. 2003. Rwanda. In: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Africa (eds. J. Nelson and L. Hossack). Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh.