Indigenous and Traditional Resource Management

232

Since the 1800s, scientists and social scientists have studied traditional and indigenous understanding about resource management. In modern times, they have researched ways in which traditional understanding of local ecologies can contribute to developing ideas about sustainability worldwide. Eff orts to combine Western and indigenous concepts have been complicated by cul-tural misunderstandings, and debate and discussion continues.

T he anthropologist Darrell Posey recalled that he was staying with his host family in the Xingu River

region in Brazil’s Amazon basin when he disposed of a large quantity of tapir meat after discovering that it was infested with maggots, much to the apparent delight of passing neighbors (Posey and Plenderleith 2004, 54). He also recounted the anger and surprise exhibited by his hosts when they learned what he had done: Posey was unaware that the maggots’ saliva contained an enzyme that helped to cure the meat, preserving it for later consumption. Th is is an example of traditional eco-logical knowledge—specialized understanding of spe-cifi c habitats and their native species possessed by those who have had sustained residence there for several gen-erations. Social and natural scientists have long investi-gated such bodies of wisdom, which in recent decades have been promoted by activists for political aims. For example, Posey championed indigenous peoples and their alternative knowledge in resource management decisions, but his research program also obscured important nuances, leading the anthropologist Eugene Parker to call Posey’s work “a remarkable house of cards” (Parker 1993). Posey’s claims, Parker contends, were based not just on a misunderstanding of the indigenous

experience but also on his intentional disregard for repeated entreaties by the peoples themselves that Posey’s explanatory categories did not refl ect the way they perceived and interacted with their habitats. In short, Posey was imposing his own ideas about sus-tainable cultural behaviors on the Kayapo experience. Posey’s life and work exemplify in a microcosm the complex and contested ways in which indigenous and traditional ecological knowledge has been dissemi-nated, popularized, and used and abused, especially in Western academic circles.

Debates regarding the effi cacy and sustainability of traditional resource management have been a common feature of the dialogue around indigenous and other local populations. Many scholars have off ered overly romantic portraits of indigenous knowledge and resource use, while others have attempted to overturn such simplistic treatments. Th is confl ict makes even more diffi cult and delicate the work of those who have begun to try to integrate traditional ecological knowledge with Western scientifi c management regimes. Th e future of such inte-grative endeavors is unclear, but what is apparent is that traditional bodies of knowledge are neither completely amenable to Western scientifi c modes of understanding nor hopelessly foreign.

Scholarly Attention to Traditional Resource Management

Humans have always “managed” their habitats to some extent; recent studies show that traditional peoples have always actively managed ecosystems. Intellectual and scholarly attention to the ways in which particular

Indigenous and Traditional Resource Management

IndigenousandTraditionalResourceManagement_Johnston.indd Page 232 11/10/11 9:00 AM user-f494IndigenousandTraditionalResourceManagement_Johnston.indd Page 232 11/10/11 9:00 AM user-f494 /201/BER00001/Enc82129_disk1of1/1933782129/Enc82129_pagefiles/201/BER00001/Enc82129_disk1of1/1933782129/Enc82129_pagefiles

INDIGENOUS AND TRADITIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT • 233

groups interact with their habitats did not emerge until the late 1800s, when systematic classifi cation systems of fl ora and fauna were well developed, and Europeans’ encounters with tribal peoples through the engines of colonialism led to the fi rst organized collection and cataloging of exotic plants and their traditional uses. Th e displays of these foreign species for public enjoy-ment in botanical gardens and zoos were perhaps the fi rst inklings of what can be called ethnoscience. Th e accumulation of knowledge about new fl ora and fauna brought about by colonial expansion also helped infl uence European scientifi c societies, including the Royal Society of Science. By the end of the 1800s ethnobot-any had been named as an area of academic interest, and anthropologists such as Franz Boas and his student Frank Speck had begun the work of characterizing indigenous classif ication systems and resource use. By the middle of the twentieth century the fi rst dissertation had been written on ethno-ecology (by Harold Conklin), Richard Schultes had begun his monumental work cata-loguing the plant knowl-edge of indigenous cultures in the Americas, and within decade s spec ia l i z ed degrees in related areas had emerged.

In many cases these investigations were focused on relatively charismatic or important species, such as plants used as medicines or animals that were ritu-ally or symbolically important, or on elucidating specifi c folk taxonomies. For instance, the anthropologist Marvin Harris (1966) noted that cattle management on the Indian subcontinent was related to specifi c aspects of the Indian worldview, which had been shaped primarily by the experience of living in a resource-scarce environment. Roy Rappaport’s study (1967) of the ritual pig slaughter of the Tsembago peoples in Papua New Guinea and Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff ’s work with the Tukano peoples of Amazonia (1976) also helped to illustrate the complexities of indigenous resource management. Such studies, along with others, helped to make the argument that some Western terms related to resource management

were not applicable in such cultures as traditional resource management was both holistic and sustainable. As sustainability has increasingly become a popular buzzword and a political goal, indigenous cultures are often hailed as important reminders that humans can and indeed have lived within the carrying capacities of their habitats.

Not all scholars have maintained that indigenous or traditional resource management is more sustainable. Th e paleontologist Paul Martin argued, in what has become widely known as the overkill hypothesis , that human hunters caused the disappearance of megafauna across the Americas (Martin 2007). Jared Diamond’s popular book Collapse also provided evidence that overexplo-itation of the natural resource base, coupled with a

society’s inability to respond by rapidly shifting its behavior, was at the root of many cultural

failures, including the disappearance of indigenous peoples of the Americas

such the Maya and the proto-Puebloans at modern day

Chaco Canyon in New Mexico (Diamond 2006). Similarly, in a study focused on Native North American populations, the anthropologist Shepard Krech (1999) asserted that

these populations were not in any meaningful sense

“conservationists” in the current sense of the term and, like other populations, had occasionally

overexploited their resource base. Th e anthropologist and specialist

of Native North Americans Sam Gill (1987) has also proposed that the popular

Earth-friendly concept of “Mother Earth” attributed to indigenous peoples was a

Western motif adopted by Native North Americans in the 1900s.

Such portraits of indigenous peoples have been con-tested. Th e Lakota scholar of religion Vine Deloria, for instance, has targeted the overkill hypothesis, and spe-cifi cally Krech’s treatment of the ecological Indian, as misleading (Deloria 1997 and 2000). Other scholars have demonstrated that certain concepts often related to traditional peoples and sustainability have evolved over time. Th e anthropologist Robin Wright (1998 and 2009), for example, has illustrated the ways in which the shape and purpose of divine beings changed with shifting social, political, and economic circumstances, and has

IndigenousandTraditionalResourceManagement_Johnston.indd Page 233 11/22/11 7:28 PM user-f494IndigenousandTraditionalResourceManagement_Johnston.indd Page 233 11/22/11 7:28 PM user-f494/201/BER00001/Enc82129_disk1of1/1933782129/Enc82129_pagefiles/201/BER00001/Enc82129_disk1of1/1933782129/Enc82129_pagefiles

234 • THE BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SUSTAINABILITY: NATURAL RESOURCES AND SUSTAINABILITY

drivers of social behavior (see Wilson 1975 and 1971; MacArthur and Wilson 1967), diversity of species was envisioned as particularly important for an ecosystem’s resilience (its ability to recover after disturbance). Th e term biodiversity was subsequently used as a political tool in battles over the conservation of nature (Takacs 1996). Cultural anthropologists began to make similar arguments related to cultural diversity, insisting that in an era of continuing population growth and shrinking

resources, cultural diversity could help to ensure greater resil-ience as disturbances became more frequent. Restoring tra-ditional land tenure and man-

agement power has long been a crucial aim of ecological resis-

tance movements (Guha 1990) and since the 1990s has been a

frequent refrain among sus-tainable development advo-cates (Blaser, Feit, and McRae 2004; Palmer and Finlay 2003; Pigem 2007). The link between biologi-cal and cultural diversity, often referred to now as bio cultural diversity, is becoming more widely acknowledged. There is also increasing evidence

that suggests that cultural and linguistic diversity is

found in areas of high biodiver-sity, and vice versa: areas of high

biodiversity tend to be found in areas of cultural and linguistic diversity (Maffi and Woodley 2010).

International Political Attention to Traditional and Indigenous Peoples

In the emerging economies of the global South, activ-ists placed growing emphasis on the social aspects of development. Interestingly, the World Council of Churches (WCC) was one of the first bodies to call attention to the dimension missing from international negotiations on development—traditional and indig-enous peoples. In 1971 the WCC convened a meeting in Barbados as part of its long-term Programme to Combat Racism. The group of social scientists at this event criticized the invisibility of traditional and indigenous peoples in development efforts. These

extended his analysis to the complexities of sustainable development sponsored and controlled by external sources of aid.

Th e picture, then, is complex. Indigenous and tradi-tional resource management is no guarantor of sustain-ability. Moreover, in much of the world, sustainable, local management activities are not explicitly related to Western understandings of conservation or sustainabil-ity, but rather are typically related to pragmatic concerns and to the good of a community. It is clear, though, that locally adapted management practices can in some cases off er valuable contri-butions to long-term and large-scale planning for sustainability. In part, this is because they off er a variety of responses to changing socio-ecological circumstances. For many scholars and advocates the preservation of indige-nous cultures and their traditional patterns of land tenure and management are themselves seen to be worthy of protection as much as any endangered species.

Popularization of Ethnoscience

From the late twentieth century, ecological, politi-cal, and social movements began to utilize the work of social scientists studying tradi-tional resource management as part of their advocacy campaigns. Academics themselves were also turning to activism and disseminating their theories to the broader public.

Biological and Cultural Diversity

Motivated by concerns about the biological and cul-tural homogenizing eff ects of development (and later sustainable development), by the mid-twentieth century a movement toward “engaged” or activist anthropology had emerged that often highlighted folk classifi cation schemes and traditional resource man-agement themselves as endangered and important resources (Wright 1988). Beginning with Edward O. Wilson’s and others’ important early work on island biogeography as well as the biological and genetic



Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, often referred to as the Earth Summit.

Th e Earth Summit drew together over one hundred heads of state and thousands of other delegates from all over the world (Baker 2006, 55). In preparation for the conference, a World Conference of Indigenous Peoples on Territory, Environment, and Development was held the week prior at Kari Oca, a site on the outskirts of Rio. Indigenous leaders came together to highlight a set of issues that was distinct from those that the heads of state and dignitaries would discuss in Rio, including food production and alternative economic and environmental positions (Hart 2005, 1764). Th is alternative summit drew some twenty thousand additional people to Rio. Th us, the idea of sustainability and its major benchmarks have been promoted by both institutional and elite sec-tors of society as well as subcultures of resistance. Th e values and practices that these constituencies imagine as central to achieving sustainability, however, diff er greatly (Johnston 2009).

Criticisms of Western Engagement with Indigenous Peoples

Given the West’s colonial past and how it has system-atically damaged indigenous ways of life and tradi-tional resource regimes, it is not surprising that some indigenous leaders are wary of Western scientists who off er solutions and advice (at times unsolicited) based on Western thinking. Some activists and scholars from the global South charge Western scientists and espe-cially Western-based transnational corporations with biopiracy (Shiva 2000). Th ese critics maintain that Western natural and social scientists are a “front” for those who are funding their research, so that Western scientists are using traditional medicines and genetic diversity fostered by traditional ecological knowledge to facilitate the development of corporate patents on traditional indigenous resources. Such processes, it is claimed, are an ongoing neocolonial transfer of wealth and knowledge from indigenous peoples to the global North.

Other critics charge that the concern for biodiversity preservation in the global North is a nontransferable scientifi c concept that actually can hinder indigenous management of traditional resources (Guha 1989). Studies further suggest that indigenous peoples in the global South who advocate for their traditional rights of access are romanticized by elites in both the global South and the global North. Evidence for this process can be seen in “outsider” narratives written about the indigenous Chipko movement in India. In Western

scientists claimed that even when the presence of indigenous peoples was noted, their voices were not heard in planning processes; they further argued that the goal of development—and later, sustainable development—was concerned not with traditional resource management strategies, but with reshaping indigenous peoples’ socioeconomic systems for par-ticipation in the global market (Wright 1988, 373). These social scientists were calling attention to the “Fourth World” peoples in already so-called underde-veloped nations who were disenfranchised not only by the prevailing international economic and political powers, but also by the governments of their own nations. In the early 1970s, several nations in the developing world proposed a Declaration on the Establishment of the New International Economic Order (NIEO). According to members of a team of United Nations (UN) analysts, this was a historically significant proposal, but almost nothing was done to put the proposals into practice ( Jolly et al. 2004, 23 and 121). A second Barbados conference was held in 1977, its goal to combine the concerns of the f irst Barbados conference, or Barbados I, with the increas-ing advocacy around indigenous causes. While the participants in Barbados I were mostly social scien-tists, many of the participants in this second confer-ence were indigenous activists, marking the extension of their inf luence into international policy regimes. Like Barbados I, however, little or no action was taken on the declarations that derived from this con-ference. The Barbados declarations were ultimately disappointing for both indigenous peoples and the social scientists who supported their cause.

Traditional and indigenous populations were rarely the concern of international political bodies such as the UN and affi liated programs until the late 1980s and early 1990s. Th is was perhaps to be expected, given that the UN and similar organizations were formed by and for nation states—their primary concern was thus with the peoples for whom these nation states acted as a mouth-piece. Left out of such organizations and their high-level discussions were those who did not have a political voice in their own countries. Although often denied political traction in their own countries, however, the indigenous peoples of the world have been cultivating horizontal networks of relationships since the late 1990s, and these partnerships reach across geographical and political boundaries to support a genuinely international concern for indigenous rights. Perhaps the fi rst and most visible manifestation of these networks, and an event that was important in their formation and spread, was the 1992 World Conference on Environment and Development in



indigenous or traditional activities might resonate with the groups that promote and fund sustain-able development projects, these funding agencies and sometimes the scholars who support them tend to “view indigenous aims through Western lenses and

rely on a few bicultural individu-als as leaders” (Conklin and

Graham 1995, 704; quoted in Wright 2009, 204). In such cases, anthropolo-gists may inadvertently work toward manufac-turing, rather than cul-tivating, a sustainable society. Th is idea has led to recent scholarship that

accepts that native peo-ples have their own ways

of thinking about local resource use. Many times

this understanding is grounded in oral traditions that have

developed in place and that are codif ied in ritual taboos and

seasonal patterns of resource use (Ntiamoa-Baidu 2009). In most cases ritual

prohibitions and systematic resource management rooted in cultural practices are not designed specifi cally for conserving the resources, at least in the Western sense of the term (Berkes, Colding, and Folke 2000). Th ey are, rather, intentional and pragmatic behavioral adaptations to the constantly changing availability of resources. While Western natural science privileges rational (and sometimes abstract) knowledge, tradi-tional resource management is informed by place-based practice and highly aff ective or spiritual beliefs in addi-tion to theoretical or rational knowledge (Berkes 2008 [1999]). Th ese practices lead some scholars to argue that some traditional social-ecological systems are instructive not because the people possessed some inherently sustainable ethic or worldview, but rather because their social structures were more sensitive to perturbations in the ecological system (Berkes, Folke, and Colding 1998). Scholars who advocate for engage-ment with indigenous science argue that social and religious knowledge can positively adapt over time (a cultural learning curve) to eff ectively keep a society within the carrying capacity of the habitat. Th is can be a valuable lesson, these scholars believe, for rethinking

discourse the Chipko movement is repre-sented as a women’s movement to save trees, when the reality is much more complex and was equally a move-ment of men to f ight the enclosure of traditional resources (Haripriya 2000). Another problematic two-fold process may occur in indig-enous communities that form networks with outsider non-governmental organiza-tions (NGOs) that are concerned with helping preserve local resources. In the fi rst part of the process, indigenous peo-ples may stop trusting their own folk concepts, vocabularies, and traditional ways of managing resources. Th e second occurs as outsiders are used as foils upon which indigenous communities act out their own internal power strug-gles (Baviskar 2005). To help off -set these damaging developments, it is important that external NGOs attempt to create egalitarian relationships with indige-nous peoples when working to protect and manage resources. One NGO that attempts to work across cultural, gender, and socioeconomic boundaries by forging occasional partnerships with indigenous peoples in the global South is the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).

Positive Uses of Ethnoscience and the Possibility of Integration

While the study of traditional resource management has been open to criticism, there are movements that show its potential to reveal practices and theoretical frameworks that can be usefully applied to sustainabil-ity issues.

Indigenous and Western Frameworks

In some cases Western scholars have recognized their own biases when approaching indigenous communi-ties. While the use of the term sustainable to describe



in the traditional rice fi elds of Balinese Java. Here the anthropologist Stephen Lansing (1991) discovered that social relationships mediated by water temples helped regulate the regional rice terrace ecosystem. Th e anthro-pologists Scott Atran and Norbert Ross with the psy-chologist Douglas Medin (2005) further point out that how folk ecology is conceived and thus how local ecosys-tems are managed and interacted with is in large part shaped by social networks. Th eir research suggests that cultural expertise about resources is incorporated into theoretical frameworks that become shared by resource experts, so that these experts develop shared patterns of resource use that are constrained by cultural concepts, usually of the sacred. In this way sharing of resources can develop. At the same time, not all humans in an area conceive of local resources in the same way so that resource confl ict can arise.

Th e applied ecologist Fikret Berkes has suggested that traditional ecological knowledge is the embodiment of a lifestyle that is the product of extended residence in par-ticular places, and this knowledge can be combined with Western science to achieve “sustainability” (Berkes 1999, 154–155). Such literature recommends a methodological pluralism and a democratization of political contact points such that dialogues and shared understandings between the various parties involved may have a starting place, specifi cally including legitimation of indigenous views and land tenure throughout the political process. In many cases, however, the use and abuse of indigenous wisdom in international politics has contributed to what some anthropologists consider to be a persistent paternalism toward indigenous or otherwise marginal cultures (Wright 2009). One specifi c eff ort to publicize such prob-lematic paternalism and to move toward acknowledging indigenous perspectives is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNGA 2007). Th is document, like most international declarations, is a nonbinding document. Nonetheless, its value lies in its pointed critique of the historical complicity of Western colonialist cultures in the destruction of indigenous cul-tures; its protection of intellectual and natural resources; and its defense of traditional practices, identity markers, and land tenure. Th ese are, as the document notes, “ the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world” (Article 43).

Future Challenges

P ressing issues facing indigenous and traditional resource management in the coming decades include loss of control over local resources by indigenous peoples; migration; loss

how to structure sociopolitical systems in the industri-alized world.

Decision-Making Models, Ecology,and Confl ict

Some research has begun to integrate such holistic tradi-tional understandings of human-land relations with Western-oriented management regimes (Berkes 2008; Hukkinen 2008). In practice most of these eff orts are delicate exercises in localized multi-stakeholder negotia-tion, trying to bring together multiple understandings of the same set of ecosystem resources. Increasingly, how-ever, coalitions of diverse stakeholders are considered to be valuable tools for managing biocultural diversity (World Bank 2006).

Th e greatest diffi culty, it seems, is that it is not an easy task to uncritically “combine” or otherwise force together culturally specifi c understandings of and interactions with the nonhuman world. Combining Western scien-tifi c management regimes with traditional ecological knowledge may not only be diffi cult, it may prove unnec-essary and ultimately counterproductive. Th e goal of development is not to maximize one particular vision of “development” or “progress,” whether these are defi ned in economic (e.g., capitalism), social (e.g., democracy), or ideological terms (e.g., as human dignity or freedom). Greater attentiveness to culturally specifi c knowledge and ways of thinking is needed if, as many analysts have noted, confl icts over increasingly scarce resources are bound to increase in the coming decades.

In short, developing greater clarity regarding diff er-ences in folk-biological and folk-mechanical systems can possibly help to resolve seemingly intractable intercul-tural misunderstandings by defi ning the values of diff er-ent stakeholders. Such clarity can contribute to better management regimes for traditional resources, ones that can move beyond the mistrust and colonialism that have dominated such partnerships in the past. Indeed, various ways to understand diff erent thinking regarding resource use have developed as humans have increased their understanding of how the brain works. Leading scholars now have a more robust understanding of how humans, as individuals and groups, create decision-making mod-els in regards to local resources. In many cases these deci-sions are either precipitated by or are made in response to a resource base that is shared with neighboring peoples. At times, such proximity to other peoples can lead to confl ict over scarce resources. In other instances, such proximity can lead to an evolved biocultural environment where social structures are built around developing and sharing local resources. One example of the latter is seen



Gill, Sam. (1987). Mother Earth: An American story . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Guha, Ramachandra. (1989). Wilderness preservation: A third world critique. Environmental Ethics , 11 (1), 71–83.

Guha, Ramachandra. (1990). Th e unquiet woods: Ecological changes and peasant resistance in the Himalaya . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Haripriya, Rangan. (2000). Of myths and movements: Rewriting Chipko into Himalayan history . New York: Verso.

Harris, Marvin. (1966). Th e Cultural Ecology of India’s Sacred Cattle. Current Anthropology 7 (1): 51–54; 55–56.

Hart, John. (2005). World conference on indigenous people . In Bron Taylor (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion and nature (pp. 1763–1765). London: Continuum.

Hukkinen, Janne. (2008). Sustainability networks: Cognitive tools for expert collaboration in social-ecological systems . London: Routledge.

Johnston, Lucas F. (2009). International commissions and dec-larations. In Willis Jenkins & Whitney Bauman (Eds.), Th e Encyclopedia of Sustainability: Vol. 1. Th e Spirit of Sustainability (pp. 238–242). Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group.

Jolly, Richard; Emmerij, Louis; Ghai, Dharam; & Lapeyre, Frédéric. (Eds.). (2004). UN contributions to development thinking and practice (United Nations Intellectual History Project). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Krech, Shepard, III. (1999). Th e ecological Indian: History and myth . New York: W.W. Norton.

Lansing, Stephen. (1991). Priests and programmers: Technologies of power in the engineered landscape of Bali . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

MacArthur, Robert, & Wilson, Edward O. (1967). Th e theory of island biogeography . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Maffi , Luisa, & Woodley, Ellen. (Eds.). (2010). Biocultural diversity conservation: A global sourcebook . London: Earthscan.

Martin, Paul. (2007). Twilight of the mammoths: Ice-age extinctions and the rewilding of America . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Medin, Douglas; Atran, Scott; & Ross, Norbert. (2005). Th e cultural mind: Environmental decision making and cultural modeling within and across populations. Psychological Review , 112 (4), 744–776.

Ntiamoa-Baidu, Yaa. (2008). Indigenous beliefs and biodiversity con-servation: Th e eff ectiveness of sacred groves, taboos and totems in Ghana for habitat and species conservation. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture , 2 (3), 309–326.

Palmer, Martin, & Finlay, Victoria. (2003). Faith in conservation: New approaches to religions and the environment . Washington, DC: World Bank.

Parajuli, Pramod. (2001). No nature apart: Adivasi Cosmovision and ecological discourses in Jharkhand, India. In Philip P. Arnold & Ann Grodzins Gold (Eds.). Sacred landscapes and cultural politics: Planting a tree? (pp. 83–113). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Parker, Eugene. (1993). Fact and fi ction in Amazonia: Th e case of the Apêtê. American Anthropologist , New Series , 95 (3), 715–723.

Pigem, Jordi. (Ed.). (2007, March 22–24). Faith-based organizations and education for sustainability: Report of the international experts’ workshop. Barcelona, Spain: Centre UNESCO de Catalunya.

Posey, Darrell Addison, & Balick, Michael J. (2006). Human impacts on Amazonia : Th e role of traditional ecological knowledge in conservation and development . New York: Columbia University Press.

Posey, Darrell Addison, & Plenderleith, Kristina. (Eds.). (2004). Indigenous knowledge and ethics: A Darrell Posey reader . New York: Routledge.

of biodiversity due to encroachment by outsiders; loss of indigenous languages; pollution and toxins entering local management regimes; and conf lict over shrinking resource bases between indigenous people and settlers. How these issues are addressed will become of paramount concern for indigenous peoples and the role that they take in actively managing their resources for cultural and bio-logical sustainability. Concepts of distributive justice and postcolonial political rights coupled with continued inter-national networking by indigenous peoples will likely shape how such debates and concerns are framed and mediated by scholars in the future.

Lucas F. JOHNSTON Wake Forest University

Todd LeVASSEUR College of Charleston

See also Bushmeat; Confl ict Minerals; Conservation Value; Food in History; Food Security; Forest Products—Non-Timber; Natural Resource Economics; Poaching

FURTHER READING Atran, Scott; Medin, Douglas L.; & Ross, Norbert O. (2005). Th e

cultural mind: Environmental decision making and cultural mod-eling within and across populations. Psychological Review , 112 (4), 744–776.

Baker, Susan. (2006). Sustainable development . London: Routledge. Baviskar, Amita. (2005). In the belly of the river: Tribal confl icts over

development in the Narmada Valley. New York: Oxford University Press.

Berkes, Fikret. (1999). Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management . Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Berkes, Fikret. (2008). Sacred ecology (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl; & Colding, Johan. (2000). Rediscovery of

Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications, 10 (5), 1251–1262.

Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl; & Colding, Johan (Eds.). (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mecha-nisms for building resilience . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Blaser, Mario; Feit, Harvey; & McRae, Glenn. (Eds.). (2004). In the way of development: Indigenous peoples, life projects and globalization . London: Zed Books.

Conklin, Beth A., & Graham, Laura R. (1995). Th e shifting middle-ground: Amazonian Indians and eco-politics. American Anthropologist , 97 (4), 695–710.

Deloria, Vine, Jr. (1997). Red earth, white lies: Native Americans and the myth of scientifi c fact . Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

Deloria, Vine, Jr. (2000) . Th e speculations of Krech: Book review. Worldviews: Environment Culture Religion , 4 (3), 283–293.

Diamond, Jared. (2006). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed . New York: Penguin.



Rappaport, Roy. (1967). Pigs for the ancestors: Ritual ecology of a New Guinea people . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Reichel-Dolmatoff , Gerardo. (1976). Cosmology as ecological analy-sis: A view from the rainforest. Man , 2 (3), 307–318.

Rist, Gilbert. (1997). Th e history of development: From western origins to global faith . London: Zed Books.

Schultes, Richard. (1979). Plants of the gods: Origins of hallucinogenic use . New York: McGraw Hill.

Schultes, Richard Evans, & Von Reis, Siri. (2008). [1995]. Ethnobotany: Th e evolution of a discipline. Hong Kong: Dioscorides Press.

Shiva, Vandana. (2000). Stolen harvest: Th e hijacking of the global food supply . Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Takacs, David. (1996). Th e idea of biodiversity . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. General Assembly Resolution 61/295 . Retrieved June 30, 2011, from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfi i/en/drip.html

Wilson, Edward O. (1971). Th e insect societies . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, Edward O. (1975). Sociobiology . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, Edward O. (2000). Sociobiology: Th e new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

World Bank. (2006). Faiths and the environment . Washington, DC: World Bank.

Wright, Robin. (1988). Anthropological presuppositions of indigenous advocacy. Annual Review of Anthropology , 17 , 365–390.

Wright, Robin. (1998). Cosmos, self and history in Baniwa Religion: For those unborn . Austin: University of Texas Press.

Wright, Robin. (2007). Indigenous moral philosophies and ontologies and their implications for sustainable development. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture , 1 (1), 92–108.

Wright, Robin. (2009). Th e art of being crente : Th e Baniwa Protestant ethic and the spirit of sustainable development. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power , 16 , 202–226.


Indigenous and Traditional Resource Management

Documents