Control Models of Tourism Development and Conservation Management with Respect to Indigenous Culture - Restorative Redevelopment of Devastated Ecocultural Landscapes - page 38

livelihoods in the park, to have control of park management, and to share the benefits
from the park. But under the co-management promise, the indigenous community
still needs to compromise with some of the conservation objectives from the national
park, and bear the accompanied tourism. Even though their homeland is still viewed
as the tourism attraction (Cordell 1993), the role of indigenous people in the park-
people relationship is changed in this stage. They can strive for their rights and home
land instead of being observed and consulted.
When the co-management system consults or negotiates with the indigenous
people, it is important who represents the local people. Many local groups and
leaders emerge after an indigenous movement begins, and after many governmen-
tal and nongovernmental organizations help these local groups via funding and
ideas. These organizations also bring mainstream conservation and management
concepts to these local leaders. On top of the co-management model, there exists
a type of relationship in which indigenous people have the control power, but the
management or conservation model is from the mainstream culture. It is ambigu-
ous whether this is co-management or indigenous sovereignty. Even though there
is no violence put up by the indigenous community against the mainstream con-
servation model, the influence is tremendous and the conservation principle is not
from below entirely.
INDIGENOUS SOVEREIGNTY MODEL
The indigenous sovereign is the final stage of community-based conservation, and
it is the ultimate hope of indigenous groups to achieve this. Nietschmann called
this type of park “conservation through self-determination” (Nietschmann 1992).
Although this name still reflects viewing the park from a conservation purpose,
it is a powerful tool for indigenous people to get the control power back. When
indigenous people bring the issue of conservation to the common ground with
mainstream culture, they get more recognition. Once recognized and treated as
an autonomous entity, the premise that indigenous people can entirely manage
natural resources on their territory and have the legal authority to exclude outsid-
ers by treaties with their associated nations is established. The “human rights” and
“indigenous conservation knowledge” concepts are effective weapons to seek the
support from outside. It is debatable, however, whether getting help from outside to
manage their land with the mainstream experience is truly indigenous sovereignty.
The cultural influence should not be overlooked even though the physical sover-
eignty is returned. There exists a gray area between the top of the co-management
model and the indigenous sovereignty model discussed above. For indigenous peo-
ple, having sovereignty over their parks does not simply mean that they hold the
power over their land. Meanings of cultural identity and freedom from the main-
stream culture are important. There are only a few indigenous communities that
can still keep their ways of life with a passive relationship with the outside world
and that are not interested in the mainstream power (Igoe 2004). There are cri-
tiques about the survival of this form of island culture, because they cannot prac-
tice their own life in the traditional ways and cannot benefit from the surrounding
culture either. However, this is the model which indigenous people are truly living