Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ORLOVE
CONSERVATION& BRUSH 1996. 25:329–52
OF BIODIVERSITY
Copyright © 1996 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
Stephen B. Brush
Department of Human & Community Development, University of California, Davis,
California 95616
KEY WORDS: biodiversity, conservation, genetic resources, indigenous people, protected areas
ABSTRACT
Conservation programs for protected areas and plant genetic resources have
evolved in similar ways, beginning with a focus on single species and expanding
to ecosystem strategies that involve the participation of local people. Anthro-
pologists have described the increasing importance of the participation of local
people in conservation programs, both of local populations in protected area
management and of farmers in plant genetic resources. Both protected areas and
plant genetic resources link local populations, national agencies, and interna-
tional organizations. Anthropological research (a) documents local knowledge
and practices that influence the selection and maintenance of crop varieties and
the conservation of rare and endangered species in protected areas, and (b) clari-
fies the different concerns and definitions of biodiversity held by local popula-
tions and international conservationists. In addition, anthropologists operate in
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and international agencies, participat-
ing in policy debates and acting as advocates and allies of local populations of
farmers and indigenous peoples.
INTRODUCTION
The loss of biological diversity has become an important scientific and politi-
cal issue since 1970 and is increasingly addressed by anthropologists. Biologi-
cal diversity is defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity as “the vari-
0084-6570/96/1015-0329$08.00 329
330 ORLOVE & BRUSH
ability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terres-
trial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexities of
which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species
and of ecosystems” (130). While most biological diversity is comprised of un-
domesticated plants and animals, an important subset involves the diversity
among domesticated organisms. The loss of biological diversity appears to be
accelerating because of habitat alteration, rapid population growth, and tech-
nological change (48). The cultural value of biodiversity and the importance
of genetic resources in agriculture and medicine have added urgency to con-
serving diversity.
This review focuses on the relation between anthropology and conserva-
tion in protected areas and in genetic resources of crops. Anthropologists have
also contributed to conservation elsewhere, including in forest and marine
ecosystems and in pastoralism and range management. Anthropologists are
involved in both protected area and agricultural resource conservation as re-
searchers on indigenous knowledge and management, as practitioners in man-
aging conservation programs, and as advocates for indigenous peoples’ rights.
Strategies for managing protected areas and conserving crop diversity have
evolved in similar ways, from an initial emphasis on preserving single species,
to habitat protection, to ecosystem conservation involving the participation of
local people. Parallel sets of national and international institutions address
linkages among local people, biological resources, and policy for conservation
in protected areas and for agricultural resources.
PROTECTED AREAS
Although states and other political entities have protected wildlife and forests
through the establishment of reserves for many centuries, large-scale expan-
sion of protected areas has occurred in the past 25 years, often in settings with
long-established human populations. These areas were set up to conserve bio-
diversity through the protection of the habitat in which undomesticated plant
and animal species live. Similarly, while the anthropological literature on this
topic draws on well-established themes in the field, it has burgeoned recently
as well. The first writings appeared in the mid-1980s, and they have expanded
greatly since 1990.
PUBLICATIONS With some recent exceptions (4, 34, 87, 112), this work has
tended to appear in applied journals such as Human Organization and Society
and Natural Resources, advocacy journals such as Cultural Survival Quarterly,
broad-circulation environmental policy journals such as Ambio and The Ecolo-
gist, and conservation journals such as Conservation Biology. Much of the work
is published in edited volumes, often by environmentally oriented publishing
firms such as Sierra Club Books (78) and Island Press (75, 132, 155), or in ap-
plied science monograph series by university presses (125, 154). Research re-
sults also often appear in the “gray literature” of commissioned reports for
international and national agencies and NGOs. These edited volumes and re-
ports often contain a number of position papers and programmatic statements. In
this rapidly changing and highly politicized field, researchers often take
strongly opposed positions on specific programs (45, 102).
their lands (145). Moreover, indigenous peoples themselves take a variety of po-
sitions on these claims (16, 37).
RECENT PRAGMATISM Though some individuals still take polar positions in fa-
vor of (122) or against (116) this notion of the “ecologically noble savage,” more
recent writings take a less absolute and more pragmatic stance that stresses the
practicality and urgency of coordinating resident populations and conservation-
ists. This pragmatism is based on several grounds. The first can be termed “the
scale of threats.” Consider Alaska, for example: Native peoples would be likely
to rank protected-area managers as less severe threats to their well-being and
autonomy than recreational and commercial hunters and fishermen, who in turn
are less severe than the firms that extract petroleum. Likewise, one could rank
the threats to wildlife, in which native subsistence hunters and fishermen are less
severe than recreational and commercial hunters and fishermen, who in turn are
less severe than petroleum firms (29, 120, 136). Similar rankings could be estab-
lished for many other regions of the world. From this perspective, an association
between resident peoples and conservationists—what Conklin & Graham, dis-
cussing the Amazon, called “the Indian-environmentalist alliance” (34)— be-
comes what can be called a “second-best option” for both sides. That is, though
both resident populations and protected area managers might consider their best
option would be full autonomy to control their territories on their own, without
any need to take other groups, organizations, or institutions into account, they
would still nonetheless consider this alliance better than their other options, es-
pecially since these other options usually include considerable pressure from
other outside groups, organizations, or institutions, often committed to short-
term exploitation of these territories. The research on this alliance has focused
on the forms of coordination within such alliances, on the advantages to both
sides that these alliances represent, and on the obstacles to establishing and
maintaining these alliances.
the case of the Maasai displaced from a core zone, the Serengeti National Park
in Tanzania, into the buffer zone, the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (68, 95).
Summary
During the past 25 years, as the loss of animal and plant species has become
an issue of broad concern, the protected areas of the world have quadrupled in
size, and they have come to be a topic of research by anthropologists. Examin-
ing the interactions of human populations that reside in and near protected ar-
eas with their natural environments, anthropologists have shown that custom-
ary practices of resource extraction usually, but not inevitably, are compatible
with the goals of conservation of endangered species. Examining the interac-
tions of these populations with conservationists, NGOs, government agencies,
and large-scale commercial interests, anthropologists have shown that these
populations and conservationists can sometimes, but not always, establish alli-
ances to protect endangered species and limit the degradation of habitat. Both
of these findings suggest the importance of local populations as participants in
conservation programs, a theme anthropologists have supported through ap-
plied research and advocacy work as well as through academic study. As the
following section shows, anthropological research on plant genetic resources
parallels this work on protected areas.
structing crop evolution. These are enduring themes in botany (63), geography
(61), agronomy (60, 147), and anthropology (71). Since 1970, new themes
about agricultural biodiversity have emerged: the ethnobiology of this diver-
sity, its cultural ecology, participatory conservation, and the politics of genetic
resources.
ties of such an assessment are staggering and can only be solved by interdiscipli-
nary research at the case-study level.
The response to genetic erosion was to collect landraces for storage in gene
banks (ex situ conservation) (32). The advantages of these collections are their
relative stability, inclusion of most genes (alleles) from crop populations, and
accessibility to crop breeders for crop improvement. However, these collec-
tions are vulnerable and not the sole solution to the need to conserve plant ge-
netic resources. Gene banks do not preserve the ecosystem that generates crop
germplasm (22); they are subject to genetic drift (58, 135); they do not include
diversity that arises after collection; and gene banks do not conserve farmer
knowledge, which is part of the resource base of crops (24, 31, 41).
To broaden the base of conservation, biological and social scientists have
argued that conservation efforts should include farmers in centers of crop di-
versity, so that in situ can complement ex situ conservation (2, 19, 110). The
feasibility of in situ conservation is suggested by the persistence of landraces
in farming systems that have undergone technological change (22). Conserva-
tion may be encouraged through formal efforts directed to encourage on-farm
conservation by increasing the value of local crop resources. Methods to rein-
force in situ conservation include developing markets for local crops, in-
creased nonmarket valuation through education and information, and partici-
patory breeding efforts that rely on local crop resources, farmer selection, and
on-farm research (41, 103). The need for farmer participation, especially in
marginal zones and low-input agriculture, is well documented for agricultural
development (41, 103), but whether genetic conservation can be stimulated is
untested.
CONCLUSIONS
Conservation programs for protected areas and plant genetic resources have
evolved in similar ways, beginning with a focus on single species and expand-
ing to ecosystem strategies that involve the participation of local people. Eco-
346 ORLOVE & BRUSH
ORGANIZATION Both protected areas and plant genetic resources involve the
conservation of biodiversity at several spatial, social, and political scales. They
link local populations, national agencies, and international organizations. The
concern for biodiversity at a global scale, the planetary scale of threats to biodi-
versity (habitat modification, population increase, intensification of resource
use, growing international trade, climate change) (48), and the development of
international environmental NGOs and environmental organizations within the
CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY 347
Any Annual Review chapter, as well as any article cited in an Annual Review chapter,
may be purchased from the Annual Reviews Preprints and Reprints service.
1-800-347-8007; 415-259-5017; email: arpr@class.org
Literature Cited
1. Alcorn JB. 1993. Indigenous peoples and noble savage’ hypothesis: interspecific
conservation. Conserv. Biol. 7:424–26 prey choice by Piro hunters of Amazonian
2. Altieri MA, Merrick LC. 1987. In situ con- Peru. Hum. Ecol. 21(4):355–87
servation of crop genetic resources through 4. Alvard M. 1995. Intraspecific prey choice
maintenance of traditional farming sys- by amazonian hunters. Curr. Anthropol.
tems. Econ. Bot. 41:86–96 36(5):789–818
3. Alvard M. 1993. Testing the ‘ecologically 5. Anderson JR, Hazell PBR. 1989. Variabil-
348 ORLOVE & BRUSH
ity in Grain Yields: Implications for Agri- erty rights: the role of anthropology. Am.
cultural Research and Policy in Develop- Anthropol. 95:653–86
ing Countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 22. Brush SB. In situ conservation of landraces
Univ. Press in centers of crop diversity. Crop Sci. 35:
6. Balick MJ, Elisabetsky E, Laird SA. 1995. 346–54
Medicinal Resources of the Tropical For- 23. Brush SB, Kesseli R, Ortega R, Cisneros P,
est: Biodiversity and Its Importance to Hu- Zimmerer KS, Quiros C. 1995. Potato di-
man Health. New York: Columbia Univ. versity in the Andean Center of crop do-
Press mestication. Conserv. Biol. 9:1189–98
7. Bellon MR. 1991. The ethnoecology of 24. Brush SB, Stabinsky DF, eds. 1995. Valu-
maize variety management: a case study ing Local Knowledge: Indigenous People
from Mexico. Hum. Ecol. 19:389–418 and Intellectual Property Rights. Wash-
8. Bellon MR, Brush SB. 1994. Keepers of ington, DC: Island
maize in Chiapas, Mexico. Econ. Bot. 48: 25. Brush SB, Taylor JE, Bellon MR. 1992.
196–209 Biological diversity and technology adop-
9. Bellon MR, Taylor JE. 1993. Farmer soil tion in Andean potato agriculture. J. Dev.
taxonomy and technology adoption. Econ. Econ. 39:365–87
Dev. Cult. Change 41:764–86 26. Bulmer R. 1970. Which came first, the
10. Berlin B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classifi- chicken or the egg-head? In Echanges et
cation: Principles of Categorization of Communications, ed. J Pouillon, P Mi-
Plants and Animals in Traditional Socie- randa, pp. 1069–91. The Hague: Mouton
ties. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press 27. Burtt BL. 1970. Infraspecific categories in
11. Boster JS. 1983. A comparison of the di- flowering plants. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2:
versity of Jivaroan gardens with that of the 233–38
tropical forest. Hum. Ecol. 11:47–68 28. Carson R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston:
12. Boster JS. 1984. Inferring decision making Houghton Mifflin
from preferences and behavior: an analysis 29. Childers RA. 1994. Cultural protection: a
of Aguaruna Jívaro manioc selection. link to tradition. Forum Appl. Res. Public
Hum. Ecol. 12:343–58 Policy 9(4):79–83
13. Boster JS. 1985. ‘Requiem for the omnis- 30. Clay JW. 1988. Indigenous Peoples and
cient informant’: there’s life in the old girl Tropical Forests: Models of Land Use and
yet. In Directions in Cognitive Anthropol- Management from Latin America. Cam-
ogy, ed. J Dougherty, pp. 177–97. Urbana: bridge, MA: Cult. Surv.
Univ. Ill. Press 31. Cleveland DA, Soleri D, Smith SE. 1994.
14. Boster JS. 1985. Selection for perceptual Do folk crop varieties have a role in sus-
distinctiveness: evidence from Aguaruna tainable agriculture? BioScience 44:
cultivars. Econ. Bot. 39:310–25 740–51
15. Brandon KE, Wells MP. 1992. Planning 32. Cohen JI, Williams JT, Plucknett DL,
for people and parks: design dilemmas. Shands H. 1991. Ex situ conservation of
World Dev. 20(4):557–70 plant genetic resources: global develop-
16. Breslin P, Chapin M. 1988. Conservation ment and environmental concerns. Science
Kuna-style. In Direct to the Poor: Grass- 253:866–72
roots Development in Latin America, ed. S 33. Colchester M. 1994. Salvaging Nature: In-
Annis, P Hakim, pp. 73–82. Boulder, CO: digenous Peoples, Protected Areas and
Rienner Biodiversity Conservation. Geneva: U. N.
17. Brokensha DW, Warren DM, Werner O, Res. Inst. Soc. Dev.
eds. 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systems 34. Conklin BA, Graham LR. 1995. The shift-
and Development. Washington, DC: Univ. ing middle ground: Amazonian indians and
Press Am. eco-politics. Am. Anthropol. 97(4):1–17
18. Brownrigg LA. 1985. Native cultures and 35. Conklin HC. 1957. Hanunoo Agriculture.
protected areas: management options. In FAO For. Dev. Pap. No. 12. Rome: Food
Culture and Conservation: The Human Di- Agric. Organ.
mension in Environmental Planning, ed. 36. Cooper D, Vallvé R, Hobbelink H, eds.
DC Pitt, JA McNeely, pp. 33–44. London: 1992. Growing Diversity: Genetic Re-
Croom Helm sources and Local Food Security. London:
19. Brush SB. 1991. A farmer-based approach Intermed. Technol.
to conserving crop germplasm. Econ. Bot. 37. Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indí
45:153–65 genas de la Cuenca Amazónica. 1989. Two
20. Brush SB. 1992. Ethnoecology, biodiver- agendas on Amazon development. Cult.
sity, and modernization in Andean potato Surv. Q. 13(4):75–87
agriculture. J. Ethnobiol. 12:161–85 38. Darwin C. 1875. The Variation of Plants
21. Brush SB. 1993. Indigenous knowledge of and Animals Under Domestication, 2 Vols.
biological resources and intellectual prop- London: Murray. 2nd ed.
CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY 349
39. Dasmann RF. 1984. The relationship be- the wilderness myth. BioScience 42(4):
tween protected areas and indigenous peo- 271–79
ple. See Ref. 98, pp. 667–71 56. Goodman D. 1975. The theory of diversity-
40. Davis S. 1988. Indigenous peoples, envi- stability relationships in ecology. Q. Rev.
ronmental protection and sustainable de- Biol. 50:237–66
velopment. World Bank Off. Environ. Sci. 57. Greaves T. 1994. A Sourcebook on Intel-
Affairs Occas. Pap. Washington, DC: lectual Property and Indigenous Knowl-
World Bank edge. Washington, DC: Soc. Appl. Anthro-
41. de Boef W, Amanor K, Wellard K, Beb- pol.
bington A, eds. 1993. Cultivating Knowl- 58. Hamilton MB. 1994. Ex situ conservation
edge: Genetic Diversity, Farmer Experi- of wild plant species: time to reassess the
mentation and Crop Research. London: In- genetic assumptions and implications of
termed. Technol. seed banks. Conserv. Biol. 8:39–49
42. De Candolle A. 1882. Origine des Plantes 59. Harlan JR. 1975. Our vanishing genetic re-
Cultivées. Paris: Germer Bailliere sources. Science 188:618–21
43. Dejoux C, Iltis A, eds. 1992. Lake Titicaca: 60. Harlan JR. 1992. Crops and Man. Madi-
A Synthesis of Limnological Knowledge. son, WI: Am. Soc. Agron. Crop Sci. Soc.
Boston: Kluwer Am. 2nd ed.
44. Dennis JV. 1987. Farmer management of 61. Harris DR, Hillman GC, eds. 1989. Forag-
rice variety diversity in northern Thailand. ing and Farming: The Exploration of Plant
PhD thesis. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY Exploitation. London: Unwin Hyman
45. Derman B. 1995. Environmental NGOs, 62. Harris M. 1968. The Rise of Anthropologi-
dispossession, and the state: the ideology cal Theory: A History of Theories of Cul-
and praxis of African nature and develop- ture. New York: Crowell
ment. Hum. Ecol. 23(2):199–215 63. Hawkes JG. 1983. The Diversity of Crop
46. Dove MR. 1986. Practical reason of weeds Plants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
in Indonesia: peasant vs state views of Im- Press
perata and Chromolaena. Hum. Ecol. 64. Heinen JT, Kattel B. 1992. Parks, people,
14(2):163–90 and conservation: a review of management
47. Dove MR. 1993. A revisionist view of issues in Nepal’s protected areas. Popul.
tropical deforestation and development. Environ. 14(1):49–84
Environ. Conserv. 20(1):17–25 65. Heinen JT, Yonzon PB. 1994. A review of
48. Durham WH. 1995. Political ecology and conservation issues and programs in Ne-
environmental destruction in Latin Amer- pal: from a single species focus toward bio-
ica. In The Social Causes of Environmental diversity protection. Mount. Res. Dev.
Destruction in Latin America, ed. M 14(1): 61–76
Painter, WH Durham, pp. 249–64. Ann Ar- 66. Hernandez XE. 1985. Maize and man in
bor: Univ. Mich. Press the greater Southwest. Econ. Bot. 39:
49. Escobar A. 1996. Cultural politics and bio- 416–30
logical diversity: state, capital, and social 67. Hill MA, Press AJ. 1994. Kakadu National
movements in the Pacific Coast of Colom- Park: an Australian experience in coman-
bia. In Cultures of Protest: Dissent and Di- agement. See Ref. 155, pp. 135–57
rect Action in the Late Twentieth Century, 68. Homewood KM, Rodgers WA. 1991.
ed. R Fox, O Starn. New Brunswick, NJ: Maasailand Ecology: Pastoralist Devel-
Rutgers Univ. Press opment and Wildlife Conservation in
50. Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D. 1985. Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Cambridge: Cam-
Adoption of agricultural innovations in de- bridge Univ. Press
veloping countries: a survey. Econ. Dev. 69. Infield M. 1989. Hunters claim a stake in
Cult. Change 33:255–98 the forest. New Sci. 124(4):52–54
51. Forbes AA. 1993. Heirs to the land: map- 70. Jackson MT, Ford-Lloyd BV, Parry ML.
ping the future of the Makalu-Barun. Ap- 1990. Climatic Change and Plant Genetic
palachia 26(1):78–91 Resources. London: Belhaven
52. Fowler C, Mooney PR. 1990. Shattering: 71. Johannessen S, Hastorf CA, eds. 1994.
Food, Politics and the Loss of Genetic Di- Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New
versity. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press World. Boulder CO: Westview
53. Gann B. 1995. Heartburn of darkness. Si- 72. Johns T, Keen SL. 1986. Ongoing evolu-
erra 80(6):56–57 tion of the potato on the altiplano of west-
54. Gibson CC, Marks SA. 1995. Transform- ern Bolivia. Econ. Bot. 40:409–24
ing rural hunters into conservationists: an 73. Johnson A. 1974. Ethnoecology and plant-
assessment of community-based wildlife ing practices in a swidden agricultural sys-
management programs in Africa. World tem. Am. Ethnol. 1:87–101
Dev. 23(6):941–57 74. Johnsson M. 1986. Food and Culture
55. Gómez-Pompa A, Kaus A. 1992. Taming Among the Bolivian Aymara: Symbolic Ex-
350 ORLOVE & BRUSH
pressions of Social Relations. Upps. Stud. tion in situ des Ressources Génétiques de
Cult. Anthropol. 7. Stockholm: Almqvist Plantes Cultivées. PhD thesis. Éc. Natl.
& Wiksell Supér. Agron., Montpellier
75. Johnston BR, ed. 1994. Who Pays the 92. Marks SA. 1976. Large Mammals and a
Price?: The Sociocultural Context of Brave People: Subsistence Hunters in
Environmental Crisis. Washington, DC: Zambia. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press
Island 93. Marks SA. 1984. The Imperial Lion: Hu-
76. Johnston BR. 1995. Human rights and the man Dimensions of Wildlife Management
environment. Hum. Ecol. 23(2):111–23 in Central Africa. Boulder, CO: Westview
77. Kaus A. 1993. Environmental perceptions 94. Mayer E. 1992. La Chacra de Papa:
and social relations in the Mapimí Bio- Economía y Ecología. Lima: Cent. Peru.
sphere Reserve. Conserv. Biol. 7(2): Estud. Soc.
398–406 95. McCabe JT, Perkins S, Schofield C. 1992.
78. Kemf E, ed. 1993. The Law of the Mother: Can conservation and development be cou-
Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Pro- pled among pastoral people: an examina-
tected Areas. San Francisco: Sierra Club tion of the Maasai of the Ngorongoro Con-
Books servation Area, Tanzania. Hum. Organ.
79. Kloppenburg JR, ed. 1988. Seeds and Sov- 51(4):353–36
ereignty: The Use and Control of Plant Ge- 96. McCay BJ, Acheson JM, eds. 1987. The
netic Resources. Durham NC: Duke Univ. Question of the Commons: The Culture
Press and Ecology of Communal Resources.
80. Kloppenburg JR, Kleinman DL. 1987. The Tucson, AZ: Univ. Ariz. Press
plant germplasm controversy. BioScience 97. McNeely JA, Harrison J, Dingwall PR,
37:190–98 eds. 1994. Protecting Nature: Regional
81. Krattiger AF, McNeely JA, Lesser WH, Reviews of Protected Areas. Gland, Switz.:
Miller KR, Hill YS, Senanayake R, eds. Int. Union Conserv. Nat.
1994. Widening Perspectives on Biodiver- 98. McNeely JA, Miller KR, eds. 1984. Na-
sity. Gland, Switz.: Int. Union Conserv. tional Parks, Conservation, and Develop-
Nat. ment: The Role of Protected Areas in Sus-
82. LaBarre W. 1947. Potato taxonomy among taining Society. Proc. World Congr. Natl.
the Aymara Indians of Bolivia. Acta Am. Parks. Bali, Indonesia. Washington, DC:
5:83–103 Smithson. Inst.
83. Lambert DH. 1985. Swamp Rice Farming: 99. Meilleur BA. 1994. In search of “keystone
An Indigenous Pahang Malay Agricultural societies.” In Eating on the Wild Side: The
System. Boulder, CO: Westview Pharmacologic, Ecologic, and Social Im-
84. Laughlin R. 1975. The Great Tzotzil Dic- plications of Using Noncultigens, ed. NL
tionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantán. Wash- Etkin, pp. 259–79. Tucson, AZ: Univ.
ington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Ariz. Press
85. Lebot V, Meilleur BA, Manshardt RM. 100. Merlan F. 1991. The limits of cultural con-
1994. Genetic diversity in eastern Polyne- structionism: the case of Coronation Hill.
sian Eumusa bananas. Pac. Sci. 48:16–31 Oceania 61:341–52
86. Lesser WH, Krattiger AF. 1994. The com- 101. Messer E. 1991. Systematic and medicinal
plexities of negotiating terms for germ- reasoning in Mitla folk botany. J. Ethno-
plasm collection. Diversity 10:6–10 pharmacol. 33:107–28
87. Levieil DP, Orlove BS. 1990. Local con- 102. Metcalfe S. 1994. The Zimbabwe Commu-
trol of aquatic resources: community and nal Areas Management Programme for In-
ecology in Lake Titicaca, Peru. Am. An- digenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). See
thropol. 92(2):18–38 Ref. 155, pp. 161–92
88. Levieil DP, Orlove BS. 1992. Socioeco- 103. Moock JL, Rhoades RE, eds. 1992. Diver-
nomic importance of macrophytes. See sity, Farmer Knowledge, and Sustainabil-
Ref. 43, pp. 505–10 ity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
89. Lewis HT. 1989. Ecologial and technologi- 104. Mooney PR. 1980. Seeds of the Earth: A
cal knowledge of fire: aborigines versus Private or Public Resource? London: Int.
park rangers in Northern Australia. Am. Coalit. Dev. Action
Anthropol. 91(4):940–61 105. Nabhan GP. 1985. Gathering the Desert.
90. Lipton M, Longhurst R. 1985. Modern Va- Tucson, AZ: Univ. Ariz. Press
rieties, International Agricultural Re- 106. Nabhan GP. 1985. Native crop diversity in
search, and the Poor. Consult. Group Int. aridoamerica: conservation of regional
Agric. Res. Stud. Pap. 2. Washington, DC: gene pools. Econ. Bot. 39:387–99
World Bank 107. Nabhan GP. 1989. Enduring Seeds: Native
91. Louette D. 1994. Gestion Traditionnelle de American Agriculture and Wild Plant Con-
Variétés de Maïs dans la Reserve de la Bio- servation. San Francisco: North Point
sphere Sierra de Manantlán et Conserva- 108. Nabhan GP, Rea AM, Reichhardt KL,
CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY 351
and value: moiety structure and symbolic 151. Weismantel MJ. 1988. Food, Gender and
polarity in central Brazil and elsewhere. In Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Phila-
Différences, Valeurs, Hiérarchie: Textes delphia: Univ. Pa. Press
Offerts à Louis Dumont, ed. JC Galey, pp. 152. Wells MP. 1994. A profile and interim as-
335–70. Paris: Ed. Éc. Ht. Étud. Sci. Soc. sessment of the Annpurna Conservation
143. Turner T. 1986. Production, exploitation Area Project, Nepal. See Ref. 155, pp.
and social consciousness in the “peripheral 261–81
situation.” Soc. Anal. (19):91–115 153. Wells MP, Brandon K, Hannah LJ, eds.
144. Turner T. 1991. Representing, resisting, re- 1992. People and Parks: Linking Pro-
thinking: historical transformations of tected Area Management with Local Com-
Kayapó culture and anthropological conse- munities. Washington, DC: World
quences. In Colonial Situations: Essays on Bank/World Wildl. Fund/US Agency Int.
the Contextualization of Ethnographic Dev.
Knowledge, ed. GW Stocking, pp. 154. West PC, Brechin SR, eds. 1991. Resident
285–313. Madison, WI: Univ. Wis. Press Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilem-
145. Turner T. 1993. The role of indigenous mas and Strategies in International Con-
peoples in the environmental crisis: the ex- servation. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
ample of the Kayapó of the Brazilian Ama- 155. Western D, Wright RM, Strum SC, eds.
zon. Perspect. Biol. Med. 36(3):526–47 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives
146. Turner T. 1995. An indigenous people’s in Community-Based Conservation.
struggle for socially equitable and ecologi- Washington, DC: Island
cally sustainable production: the Kayapó 156. Wilkes HG. 1985. Teosinte: the closest
revolt against extractivisim. J. Lat. Am. An- relative of maize revisited. Maydica 30:
thropol. 1(1):98–121 209–23
147. Vavilov N. 1926. Studies on the Origin of 157. Wilson EO, ed. 1988. Biodiversity. Wash-
Cultivated Plants. Leningrad: Inst. Appl. ington, DC: Natl. Acad. Sci.
Bot. Plant Improv. 158. World Commission on Environment and
148. Vincent J. 1990. Anthropology and Poli- Development. 1987. Our Common Future.
tics: Visions, Traditions, and Trends. Tuc- Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
son, AZ: Univ. Ariz. Press 159. Zimmerer KS. 1991. Managing diversity in
149. Vogel JH. 1994. Genes for Sale: Privatiza- potato and maize fields of the Peruvian An-
tion as a Conservation Policy. New York: des. J. Ethnobiol. 11:23–49
Oxford Univ. Press 160. Zimmerer KS. 1991. The regional biogeo
150. Weaver S. 1991. The role of Aboriginals in graphy of native potato cultivars in high-
the management of Australia’s Cobourg land Peru. J. Biogeogr. 18:165–78
(Gurig) and Kakadu National Parks. See
Ref. 154, pp. 311–32