In english, "indigenous : (of plants or animals or inhabitants) native" and "native : (of a person) belonging to a particular place by birth ; grown or produced or originating in a specific place" (Oxford Dictionary). Recently some have suggested using the term 'first people' (BURGER, 1990) to stress the importance of the relationship these people have with the land they live on and how old this relationship s.
The Human Rights Commission at the United Nations in Geneva includes a sub-commission for the prevention of discrimination and the protection of minorities, and one of the work-groups specializes in indigenous populations.
Until 1988, this United Nations Sub-commission used the term 'indigenous populations' (poblaciones indígenas in Spanish) which it then replaced by 'indigenous peoples' (pueblos indígenas in Spanish), 'peoples' implying a right to self-determination.
The European Parliament speaks of 'indigenous populations' without defining the concept.
See for example Resolution B3-334/92.
The World Bank used 'tribal peoples' until 1991, and since then speaks of 'indigenous peoples' (see below).
There are several semi-official definitions that can be used as the basis for the analysis of the situation of indigenous populations :
- 'Indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries' according to the International Labour Organization :
"(a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations ; (b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions." (Convention 169, June 7, 1989, Geneva) ; (in Spanish : pueblos indígenas y tribales) ;
- 'tribal peoples' and then 'indigenous peoples', according to the World Bank :
"A social group comprising families, clans, or generations, having its own customs, occupying a specific geographic territory, and being independent of, or having little contact with, the dominant national society of the country in which they live." (GOODLAND, 1982, Tribal peoples and economic development ; human ecologic considerations, World Bank).
In 1991 the term 'indigenous peoples' replaces the former though the definition is similar : "The terms 'indigenous peoples', 'indigenous ethnic minorities', 'tribal groups', and 'scheduled tribes' describe social groups with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society that makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process. " (Operational directive 4.20 : Indigenous Peoples, The World Bank Operational Manual, September 17, 1991).
- 'Minority' according to the definition of the United Nations Human Rights Commission :
"A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a state, in a non-dominant position, whose members -being nationals of the state- possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language." (quoted by CAPOTORTI, in World directory of minorities, p.XIV).
It is not for us to decide which would be the better definition or to provide yet another.
However, it is worth mentioning that when they are able to speak up freely, the people themselves demand that a status of 'indigenous peoples' be recognized.
The concept of 'indigenous population' is a legal category in some countries. But most of the time there is no such concept in legal terms, hence a number of problems and conflicts which we will have to mention. From a political point of view, several countries do recognize 'minorities' (in more or less legal terms). There is a difference between :
a) Countries in which the forested areas were invaded historically by populations coming from the outside, taking over the land to the detriment of pre-existing populations that were either pushed out, absorbed or destroyed :
In the Amazon Basin, the big waterways were peopled by Europeans and later by mestizos (Caboclos, Ribereños) and the peripheral areas by migrants. In Malaysia, Indonesia and Borneo, the plains and coasts are occupied by Malays, Indonesians and Chinese who have thus pushed the natives further inland into the mountains. This is also the case in the Philippines, though not to such an extent : natives converted to Christianity and hispanized have been pushing into the mountains those who have not been converted. In all these cases, we see a pre-existing population maintaining its own specific economic system, social structure, language and religion, confronted with other populations, exogenous, non-indigenous or converted to a different economy, a different social structure, to one of the major international religions ; these populations are usually more expansive and politically dominant and they push other groups into areas of refuge, mountains (Asia) or areas to which it is impossible to have access (Amazon Basin).
b) Areas where there are no non-indigenous populations
Equatorial Africa provides a very different case because there is no evidence of this type of historical opposition between different populations : all the Congo Basin's inhabitants are literally 'indigenous populations'. Admittedly, some countries draw a line between nomad hunter-gatherer populations and the rest of the population, in Cameroon for example, by referring to the former as 'populations marginal to the national community'. However, nowhere is the idea of a 'minority' a functional legal category, and one cannot justify using it as such considering how divided local ethnic groups can be. The same applies to Papua New Guinea, a continent in itself, an island that has remained isolated from the rest of the world for thousands of years, inland areas at least. Here there are hardly any non-indigenous populations.
On the one hand, the historical circumstances surrounding the settlement of populations in the different areas of equatorial forests is what distinguishes these regions from one another. On the other hand, all these areas (except Papua New Guinea) now have to face the problem of the intrusion of new immigrants, farmers from bordering overpopulated areas, who come looking for 'virgin land' (or land considered as such) that they might exploit and develop.
This report is based on ecological and economic criteria (not political or legal) because what interests us is precisely the relationship between the human populations and the forest ecosystem.
The forests are at present inhabited by :
- nomads who have been exploiting the natural resources for generations ;
- cultivators who have also been living there for generations (and who also engage in hunting and fishing) ;
- farmers who have only settled recently (no more than a few generations), attracted to these areas by the prospect of new land ;
- independent and mobile labourers who come from other areas to exploit local natural resources (wood, game, rubber, ores...) ;
- company employees (forestry, plantations, mines, etc) who live together in settlements of considerable size.
- We should also mention groups of individuals who come in from other areas and only reside temporarily in the forest : itinerant merchants, transhumant pastoralists, e.g. in Equatorial Africa.
In the context of our modern world, there is a prevailing world-wide system of social, political and economic relationships, a system dominated by industrialized societies, but in which thousands of non-industrialized small-scale traditional populations participate. Market economy and national authorities put strong pressure on all local populations, even those living in the most remote areas, and this makes it all the more difficult to define the boundaries within which our subject matter lies.
More precisely, our aim is to give an account of groups living with a subsistence economy, hardly or not at all involved in a monetary economy, who have been living off the forest ecosystem for generations and who have elaborated techniques enabling them to preserve the forest canopy.
This implies low population densities, and that these populations live in remote areas which are especially difficult to get to. We will also include within our analysis populations that are less isolated, that are more implicated in the global economic system, but whose survival is nonetheless fundamentally dependent on forest resources.