September 17, 2024 • 36 mins
What if conservation efforts meant to protect our planet were actually causing significant harm to the very people who have safeguarded these lands for generations?
On this episode of Breaking Green, we speak with founder and executive director of the Oakland Institute, Anuradha Mittal. Anuradha is an internationally renowned expert on issues of human rights, agriculture, development and conservation policies. Under Anuradha’s leadership, the Oakland Institute has unveiled land investment deals in the developing world to expose a disturbing pattern of lack of transparency, fairness and accountability. Anuradha has authored and edited numerous books and reports. Her articles and opinion pieces have been published in widely circulated newspapers and she is frequently interviewed on CNN, BBC World, CBC, ABC, Al Jazeera and National Public Radio.
Join us as we discuss the Oakland Institute’s new report, “From Abuse to Power,” which exposes the severe human rights abuses reportedly inflicted upon Indigenous communities by “EcoGuards” — funded by prominent NGOs like the World Wildlife Fund.
We explore the deeply rooted colonial and racist undertones of the conservation industry, particularly in Africa. Discover how powerful international institutions and donor countries perpetuate a model that expels Indigenous Peoples from their ancestral lands. The conversation contrasts Western views that see humanity as a threat to nature with Indigenous perspectives that emphasize harmony with the environment.
Find Oakland Institute’s report “From Abuse to Power” here.
This podcast is produced by Global Justice Ecology Project.
Breaking Green is made possible by tax deductible donations from people like you. Please help us lift up the voices of those working to protect forests, defend human rights and expose false solutions.
Donate securely online here
Or simply text GIVE to 716-257-4187
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Steve Taylor (00:00):
Welcome to Breaking Green, a podcast by
Global Justice Ecology Project.
On Breaking Green, we will talkwith activists and experts to
examine the intertwined issuesof social, ecological and
economic injustice.
We will also explore some ofthe more outrageous proposals to
address climate andenvironmental crises that are
(00:22):
falsely being sold as green.
I am your host, steve Taylor.
There are famous and well-knowninternational conservation NGOs
, such as the World WildlifeFund, that claim to preserve
wilderness and protected areasaround the world, but in 2019,
the world of conservation wasrocked by reports of scandalous
(00:45):
human rights abuses carried outagainst indigenous communities.
Now, a report by the OaklandInstitute describes shocking
abuses in the DemocraticRepublic of Congo.
On this episode of BreakingGreen, we will talk with founder
and executive director of theOakland Institute, Anyarada
Mitall.
Anyarada is an internationallyrenowned expert on issues of
(01:08):
human rights, agriculture,development and conservation
policies.
Under Anyarada's leadership,the Oakland Institute has
unveiled land investment dealsin the developing world to
expose a disturbing pattern oflack of transparency, fairness
and accountability.
Anyarada has authored andedited numerous books and
(01:28):
reports.
Her articles and opinion pieceshave been published in widely
circulated newspapers and she isfrequently interviewed on CNN,
bbc World, cbc, abc, al Jazeeraand National Public Radio.
Anyarada Mittal, thank you forjoining us on Breaking Green.
Anuradha Mittal (01:48):
Well, thank you for having me.
Steve Taylor (01:50):
So, Anuradha, you are the executive director of
the Oakland Institute.
It is based in Oakland,California, but before we get
into some specific campaigns bythe Oakland Institute, as
executive director could youtell us a bit about your
organization?
Anuradha Mittal (02:04):
Institute.
As executive director, couldyou tell us a bit about your
organization?
Sure, the Oakland Institute, asyou said, is based in Oakland,
california.
We are an independent policythink tank that works on issues
related to development, humanrights, agriculture, land grabs,
indigenous and human rights.
Steve Taylor (02:23):
Reports by your institution are highly regarded.
Your most recent report istitled From Abuse to Power.
The report's executive summarystarts by saying that in 2019,
the world of internationalconservation was rocked by human
rights abuses carried outagainst local communities by
security forces in protectedareas managed by the World
(02:47):
Wildlife Fund in Asia and Africa.
It then goes on to detailclaims of human rights abuses in
the Democratic Republic ofCongo.
Could you tell us a little bitabout what's going on in the
Democratic Republic of Congo?
Anuradha Mittal (03:02):
in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Well, a new report From Abuse toPower is about ending fortress
conservation in the DemocraticRepublic of Congo.
This report basically exposeshow conservation is deeply tied
to the extractive industryextraction of natural resources,
which has basically led to theabuse of indigenous peoples in
(03:24):
the eastern part of the country.
And this is something which isnot new, because throughout
decades of environmentalconservation in DRC government
and NGOs, they have failed totackle the issue of land
grabbing, violence, human rightsabuses of the indigenous
communities.
The scandal that you're talkingabout that rocked the world of
(03:46):
conservation, was a couple ofyears ago to three years ago,
when the reports came out thatshowed that security forces,
eco-guards, were involved inso-called environmental
protection and conservation, andNGOs that were running these
parks, such as the WorldWildlife Fund Wildlife
Conservation Society, wereresponsible for absolutely
(04:08):
horrendous violence andatrocities against the
indigenous communities.
And at the same time, theseeco-guards, security forces,
enjoyed impunity for thesecrimes.
They were receiving fundingthat was being provided by the
German and the US government fortheir training, for their
material support.
Steve Taylor (04:28):
That is shocking.
So EcoGuards, can we put a nameto that?
Anuradha Mittal (04:33):
Well, World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife
Conservation Society.
They provide funding for peoplethat you would think when you
hear of EcoGuards.
These are people who areprotecting the environment,
protecting the ecologicalsystems, but these are guards
which have been trained and, inthe name of protection and
(04:55):
conservation, they're attackingindigenous communities.
The crimes against humanitythat have been committed, which
are reported in, From Abuse toPower, our report these crimes
have been committed in the nameof conservation, while the
funding agencies look the otherway.
Steve Taylor (05:14):
So, just to be clear, the report details human
rights abuses that would includetorture, murder, gang rape,
shelling of villages, even somereports of decapitation.
It would be, I think, shockingor it is shocking to hear first
(05:36):
that the WWF is reportedlyinvolved in that, and then also,
you mentioned US taxpayers andGerman taxpayers, and are there
some US federal agenciesinvolved as well?
I mean, that's very surprisingto hear.
Anuradha Mittal (05:53):
Well, definitely USAID and you know
and agencies were involved.
Because again, we have a verytop-down, neocolonial approach
to conservation, where we canfeel good about dedicating the
taxpayers' dollars to go tocountries like the DRC or Kenya
or Tanzania to promoteconservation.
(06:14):
But what we do not realize isthat, just as we did here in the
United States creating placeslike the Yellowstone Park by
evicting the indigenous, or theYosemite Park, the same idea of
a national park protected areais being created by expelling,
by forcibly displacing theindigenous who have lived in
(06:36):
these areas, who have protectedthese areas.
So, in the case of DRC, thecommunities that we're talking
about and these horrificatrocities that you just
described, that range fromkillings, from gang rapes, you
know, burning down of the wholecommunity, these are indigenous
communities who were living inthese areas, who have protected
(06:57):
the biodiversity.
But once a protected area hasbeen created, which really
started during the colonialtimes, these people have to be
expelled.
The people who have protectedthe indigenous, who have
stewarded the land, suddenlybecome poachers and they have to
be thrown out by any meansnecessary.
So this is really the challengethat we have with fortress
(07:18):
conservation, which continues tobe this colonial, top-down,
very racist in its approach, wayof conservation, which is based
on abuses of human rights forthe indigenous.
Steve Taylor (07:31):
So let's put a face on that.
And so in the DRC, who are theindigenous peoples being
displaced?
Anuradha Mittal (07:43):
Well, there's several indigenous communities,
but let's put a face, as yousaid.
Let's talk about the Batwacommunity Now.
They were expelled from theCahuci-Biega National Park.
The atrocities that they had tolive through we're talking
about almost the threat of theextinction.
You know the homes burned down,expelled from the forest, and
(08:08):
this is not just their homes,this is their whole life system.
You know their medicines, theirspiritual place, that's where
they know how to be, and theywere expelled in the most
violent ways that almost veryfew are left.
They took their case to theAfrican Commission on Human and
People's Rights, allegingviolence, rape, murder, arson,
(08:31):
burning down of their villages.
That has victimized the people,and that these are really
crimes against humanity.
Now the good news is that thisJuly July 24, the African
Commission recognizes the rightsof the Batwa to their land and
it ordered the DRC government toreturn the land to its rightful
owners, which is the Batwa,instead of creating this
(08:51):
protected area to compensatethem and ensure their full
protection.
So it is a huge win on one hand, however, as our report makes
it clear, that this decision ishistoric, but the actual
implementation would require avery drastic change, a complete,
radical change in approach toconservation, which will require
(09:13):
not just the government of DRCbut the whole conservation
industry, the Western donors,the Western conservation groups,
to change how they approachbiodiversity and people and
think about protectingcommunities.
Steve Taylor (09:28):
So you mentioned an industry.
I think you use that termindustry but what's the
rationale by these governmentsand international organizations
for removing people?
But what is their motive?
I mean, they have the rationale, they say it's conservation,
(09:50):
but are there other motivesinvolved?
Anuradha Mittal (09:54):
That's a great question.
Now let's first talk about theconservation industry.
What we mean by that is thatyou have powerful international
institutions, powerful donorcountries.
It could be the World Bank, orit could be countries such as
Germany or the United States ofAmerica.
Given the concern as theyexpress for conservation, they
(10:16):
provide grants and funding tolarge Western and international
conservation groups.
These might include WorldWildlife Fund, this might be the
IUCN, or it could be evengovernments, for instance the
government of DRC, and theeuphemism that is used
throughout this funding is thatthis is for conservation, this
(10:39):
is for protection of theenvironment, and then these
agencies will launch programs inthese countries which are run
by, you know, internationalactors could be the Nature
Conservancy, could be WorldWildlife Fund.
And you know they're doingtrainings, they're hiring locals
.
On paper, it all soundswonderful.
(11:00):
They're being trained to fightthe poachers.
You know we see images of thesebeautiful animals, such as
elephants with tusks and others,being killed.
So we really appreciate thatthese poachers are being tackled
.
We have real appreciation forthese eco-guards.
But what we don't understand isthat this whole industry is
(11:23):
based on promoting that same oldmodel of conservation that we
have seen before the colonialpowers all over Africa were
creating these protected areasor national parks, just as they
had done in places like theUnited States.
So you have Serengeti inTanzania or you have the Virunga
(11:45):
Park in the DRC.
The idea of these parks was tocreate protected areas, and
because the human, the locals,the natives were seen as being
dangerous, were seen as notcompatible with these protected
areas, they were expelled.
Now this is this racistrationale that those who had
(12:06):
protected these areas have to beexpelled, and so this whole
cycle just continues, despitethese countries in Africa now
being free and independent,whether it's Kenya, whether it's
Tanzania or whether it is theDRC.
Steve Taylor (12:20):
That's a very interesting point.
We had someone from SurvivalInternational talking about this
myth of people-less wilderness.
We had this idea that there'sthese people coming in and
raiding these areas and beingpoachers, ignoring the fact that
people have lived there forthousands of years.
So could you give us a littlebit of perspective about that
(12:43):
process, about how theindigenous are being removed and
they had been caretakers of theland and the problem really is
not them but they're beingremoved, often opening up those
same areas to extractiveindustries sometimes.
Anuradha Mittal (13:04):
Well, I think that's a great question.
First of all, I think we needto address the whole issue of
the clash of two cultures.
So there is one, the Westernculture, the viewpoint that
humanity is dangerous to natureand to the environment.
And if you look at the climatecrisis, you and I would agree to
that, the kind of harm humanityhas caused, the kind of
(13:27):
consumption in the West, thedependence on fossil fuel, the
wars mongering that we do.
Of course, we've beendisastrous for the nature
(13:48):
worldview where humanity haslived in harmony, respecting not
just its rights but also itsresponsibility to the rights of
the nature.
And that is the indigenousworldview, and that's why some
of the richest areas inbiodiversity are areas which
have been stewarded by the localcommunities, by the indigenous.
But when these two visionsclash, what you have is this
whole colonial mindset, step inwhich necessitates that the
(14:11):
locals, the indigenous, have tobe expelled because they cannot
manage.
You know, this Western idea ofscience that these areas have to
be managed scientifically andcontrolled and therefore better
taken care of, has come in.
The other thing, what we don'trealize, is that this is riding
on power.
It's not that the Westernsystem of conservation, which is
(14:34):
based on privatized,militarized protection of areas,
killings, rapes.
It is operational just becauseit has power.
It has been funded by the richdonor countries, it has been
promoted by powerfulinternational institutions such
as the World Bank, and sothere's a real inequity when it
(14:56):
comes to power.
But also, the important part ofthe question that you asked is
what happens when the people aredisplaced?
What happens that those whohave stewarded the lands, what
really happens to that In thecase of DRC, when the locals,
when the indigenous have beenviolently displaced and killed,
(15:18):
those areas are now have becomeplaygrounds for the militias for
the neighboring countriesUganda and Rwanda.
And it's a struggle forextracting, extracting minerals
that have been used by theWestern corporations, whether
it's electric cars, whether it'scell phones, the blood minerals
(15:39):
that are fueling that they arebeing extracted in these
protected areas.
And this is what our reportexposes from abuse to power.
So, on one hand, you havefortress conservation, which is
evicting, killing the indigenous, but it's not really protecting
the areas.
What it's really doing iscreating a funnel for the
(16:01):
extraction of these minerals tohappen, which, by the way, has
led to such bloody wars ineastern DRC that over a million
people are displaced.
Steve Taylor (16:11):
And the military situation in the DRC is just for
a person like me.
Situation in the DRC is justfor a person like me.
It's just so hard to unravelwith the bordering countries and
even organizations like M23.
But what is clear from thereport is that the indigenous
people are getting the worstdeal and they are being removed
(16:33):
from their lands.
The lands really are not beingprotected and they're rich in
gold and cobalt.
So there's a lot going on thereand it doesn't seem that the
priority is really theindigenous people and preserving
what they have learned to livewith and preserve learn to live
(17:02):
with and preserve.
It's really a shocking reportand we will put information up
on the Breaking Green showdescription.
Anuradha Mittal (17:07):
Yeah, I mean, I think, steve, you summed it
really well.
It's basically a lose-lose forthe government of DRC, for the
country and for its people.
So, on one hand, the indigenousfacing the worst atrocities
that one could possibly imagine,but at the other hand, it is
extraction and exploitation ofthe resources and fueling war
(17:28):
and militias and you mentionedM23.
And it's a pity that, inviolation of its own laws,
united States continues toprovide support to countries
like Uganda and Rwanda who arecausing this warfare.
And it's a struggle.
It is a struggle to controlthese rich minerals, as you
mentioned, cobalt and others,but the devastation that has
(17:52):
been caused in the Eastern DRC,the number of millions of people
displaced.
It is the rape capital of theworld in terms of the violence
that the women are facing.
And so this whole myth ofconservation, together with
extraction, there is noprotection of the environment,
there is no protection ofhumanity, there is no protection
(18:13):
of the indigenous in this wholecolonial model of conservation
in the DRC.
Steve Taylor (18:20):
So let's turn to a brighter point.
The Oakland Institute recentlyhad a major victory.
Could you tell us about that?
Anuradha Mittal (18:30):
Definitely so.
Tanzania, like other countriesin sub-Saharan Africa, have been
told that one way to boosttheir economy is to boost
tourism.
Tanzania is a country which isvisited heavily by Western
(18:52):
tourists.
The largest number of touriststo the country are actually from
the United States of America.
We all have heard and seen, youknow this incredible footage
from Serengeti, the Gorongorocrater, the Gorongoro
conservation area, kilimanjaro.
Books have been written aboutit.
So the Tanzanian government hasbeen encouraged, whether it is
(19:16):
the UNESCO which declaresGorongoro Conservation Area as
the World Heritage Site, or IUCN, or the World Bank or USAID,
that you should really focus onpromoting tourism, and right now
it is very focused on thenorthern part of the country,
and so you should do the same inthe southern part of the
(19:37):
country.
And so you should do the samein the southern part of the
country.
In December 22, we wereapproached by the communities
and I should mention, steve,that almost all of our work
starts at the request ofcommunities.
Communities were directlyimpacted, being forcibly
displaced, who wake up to find,you know, their homes, their
fields being destroyed.
(19:57):
So we were approached by thecommunities, villagers in the
southern part of the country,basically saying that the
expansion of Ruaha National Parkfrom one million hectares to
two million hectares was leadingto the forcible displacement.
And as we started doingresearch into that, we
discovered that Ruaha'sexpansion was happening through
(20:20):
a project called Regrow, whichwas being financed by the World
Bank.
So in April 2023, we shared ourfindings with the World Bank
that their funding of thisproject was leading to very
serious violence, very seriousviolence.
There were allegations of rapes, of killings, restrictions of
(20:44):
livelihoods that were puttingpoor pastoralists and farmers in
very dire straits, misery and alot of violence from the Tanapa
rangers, which are the parkrangers.
Unfortunately, the World Bankchose to ignore our findings and
did nothing about it, and atthat point, we filed a request
(21:05):
for inspection with theinspection panel of the World
Bank.
Now this is supposed to be anindependent mechanism of the
World Bank to ensure no harm isdone by the financing of the
World Bank.
It's been a long struggle.
As I said, this started inApril of last year.
Since then, the inspectionpanel has been to Tanzania a few
(21:27):
times.
The first time it went was inJuly, august, and that's the
first and the only time when itmet with members of the impacted
communities, spoke to them andtheir report, which called for.
A full-on investigation wasapproved, after many delays, in
November of last year.
In the meanwhile, we havecontinued with the advocacy, we
(21:47):
continued with reaching out tothe offices of the executive
directors of the bank to exposeabsolutely horrific abuses that
the bank has been financing andwhich is against its own
safeguards.
So, for instance, world Bank'sfinancing of a project requires
that, if there will bedisplacement, that there is a
(22:09):
resettlement policy, that thegovernment has shared these
plans with the World Bank andthey approved.
None of this had happened.
Well, the communities have beenforced to move because their
cattle is being seized, theyhave to pay fines, people have
been killed, people have beenbeaten, there have been rapes.
(22:29):
So to get to it this projectfinally, we had to escalate and
I have to mention the resilienceand the courage of the
communities because for them tospeak out, given the fear of
retribution, given the fear ofbeing arrested, given the fear
of your cattle, everything takenaway by the forest rangers,
(22:51):
they have continued to demandtheir rights to land and, as a
result of this work, the bankwas forced to suspend its
financing of the project inApril of this year, so one year
after we went to the World Bankto expose how its financing had
not just caused harm.
It had caused harm in terms ofkillings and rapes and
(23:14):
destruction of lives andlivelihoods.
They suspended the financing.
I should mention to thelisteners that the inspection
panel has finally completed itsinspection, which the request
was put in in April of last year, and next week they will be
submitting the report to theboard of the bank.
(23:34):
The communities are asking fora copy of the report at the same
time and we will see if it'sreally a transparent process, if
it's really an independentprocess which can share with the
community what its findings are.
And we will continue toadvocate for the bank to not
just suspend but end the project, cancel the rest of the monies
(23:58):
that are left to give to theTanzanian government and hold it
accountable and at the sametime, the bank should be held
accountable for and payreparations to the communities
who have suffered so much.
Steve Taylor (24:10):
Well, a lot has been done in a year and there
has been a tremendous amount ofmedia coverage about Oakland
Institute's advocacy, what'sgoing on with those indigenous
communities and what can only beseen as a very, very real
victory.
Anuradha Mittal (24:34):
Yeah, I mean, I don't think it could be really—
Thank you.
Well, as I said, these are hardstruggles.
These are very hard struggles,and what we saw happening in the
southern part of Tanzania is nodifferent than what the Maasai
communities are facing in thenorthern part of the country and
, unfortunately, fortressconservation is destroying lives
(24:54):
of communities all over theworld and especially in Africa.
It's humbling for us at theOakland Institute to get to work
with these communities.
We are humbled when they reachout and ask for our support so
we can do research, we cansupport their cases in national
courts, at the East AfricanCourt of Justice or at the World
(25:16):
Bank.
These are long marathon races,but it is humbling and a matter
of pride for us to work with themost amazing, courageous
communities who refuse to giveup.
Steve Taylor (25:29):
Well, thank you for that.
Now you mentioned a long race.
It's a slog.
It keeps going.
You mentioned fortressconservation and the
conservation industry and theharm that's being done to
indigenous peoples.
What are your thoughts on the30-30 proposal?
Anuradha Mittal (25:52):
Well, 30 by 30, .
You know, on paper sounds andlooks very good.
You know, the idea is that toprotect planet and to put 30% of
the area as protected areas by2030.
Now, again on paper, it soundsvery good that finally the
(26:15):
international community isconsidering and to protect at
least 30% of the planet throughthe UN's Convention on
Biological Diversity.
Now, the problem with that is,as we have seen, that most of
the areas which are protectedright now are protected
basically because of theindigenous communities, are
protected basically because ofthe indigenous communities.
(26:37):
And if this continues, thiswhole notion of protected areas
mean minus the people, this veryWestern neocolonial approach,
it would result in the largestland grab ever.
It would result in theindigenous communities being
expelled.
Of course, when you look at theterms of the convention itself,
you know it does not say thatthe indigenous have to be
(26:58):
expelled.
In fact, it does say that theindigenous communities can live
together in harmony with nature.
Because you know, you don'tneed to be a rocket scientist,
it is obvious, there's enoughscientific research that shows
that the indigenous havestewarded the lands, the
traditional practices haveprotected the areas.
(27:18):
It is really the Westernextractive industry which is
causing this destruction.
But when you look in Tanzania,when areas such as the Gorongoro
conservation area have beencreated as a multiple purpose
use area, unfortunately thisconservation, the way the West
defines it, the way the colonialpowers have defined it, that
(27:40):
trumps the rights of theindigenous.
So we are horrified at the ideaof moving forward.
It has been driven by Westerninstitutions Again.
The old fashioned NGO sector,conservation industry, you know,
is being promoted and it isvery scary what it means for the
(28:02):
rights of the indigenous, whatit means for the rights of those
who have actually protectedthis planet.
Steve Taylor (28:09):
Yes, it's often very counterintuitive for people
who are interested in theenvironment but maybe not
following news closely that a UNproposal to set aside land to
be so-called protected isactually opening it up in a way
and doing harm.
(28:30):
So it's so important fororganizations like yours, and
actually GJEP and SurvivalInternational and others, to
help spread that message.
But, as you said, it's theindigenous people who are
showing great courage andstanding up against this and I
think they had some success inbeing heard a bit in the last
(28:56):
global climate conference per se, but not as much as they really
deserved.
Anuradha Mittal (29:04):
Well, steve, I think this is not an issue of
that people don't know, they'reunaware, they're ignorant.
If only they understood, thenthings would be different.
We have to understand thatthere is a vested interest.
There's a lot of money involvedhere.
There's a lot of money involvedto continue to prop up those in
(29:25):
power, to maintain their power,and that happens by
disempowering the other.
So the struggle that we areseeing around the protection of
the environment, we would havealready learned.
Again, when I, you know, I livein California I go to the big
trees.
When you enter this park, thefirst thing you see is this
(29:47):
giant redwood tree, which iscalled the father of the forest,
which had been there while theindigenous lived in those areas,
had been there while theindigenous lived in those areas,
but when it was so-calleddiscovered by the white man, the
first thing they did was to cutdown the tree.
And here we are talking abouthow we are going to preserve and
(30:09):
protect the planet, the partsof planet which are preserved
and protected because theindigenous, the local
communities, have protected themthe environment, causing
(30:32):
climate crisis to now take onthe privilege to now protect the
environment, and doing so bydisplacing the indigenous, if
there's such a concern forprotecting the environment, the
first thing Western countrieswould do is to really set
targets and goals and get rid oftheir fossil fuel use and the
rest.
Here we are talking aboutUnited States of America, which
does not even include emissionsof carbon, emissions from the
(30:57):
Department of Defense, which isthe largest emitter of
greenhouse gases.
So instead of cleaning up ourown backyard, what we are very
keen on doing is to go intoplaces like African countries
and dictate how conservationwill happen.
We could not even imagine theMaasai or the Batwa coming into,
(31:19):
you know, london or New Yorkand deciding how these areas
should be protected.
So it is this colonial, racistmindset which allows us to think
that we can still dictate howconservation happens.
We can still dictate how wewill protect the environment.
And because we do not respectthe traditional knowledge, the
indigenous knowledge, we don'teven respect the indigenous,
(31:42):
that we look the other way.
As our report shows happened inDRC that the you know this
industry conservation NGOslooked the other way while the
Batwa and other indigenouscommunities.
Their homes were burned, theirwomen were raped, the kind of
torture they went through.
Steve Taylor (31:59):
Yes, and what was?
And thank you for that pointwell taken.
What was very surprising toread was that the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service wassomehow involved in this.
I mean that that is.
How did that happen?
Anuradha Mittal (32:16):
Well, that's the funding.
People within US agencies, likethe agency you mentioned, feel
they're doing good by providingfunding, but no due diligence is
done because their wholeoperational method is the same
how to protect.
You know, we still havenational parks all over the
United States where people cango and pay their fees and walk
(32:37):
down.
You don't see anyone there.
You know, I come from India,where I think forests.
You know there are forestcommunities that live in the
forest.
So this whole idea of createdplaces where nobody lives,
they're protected, they'resacred, while we go and destroy
the rest of the world ishonestly quite upside down and
backwards.
Steve Taylor (32:59):
Yeah, there's this mythology that's being, or has
been, created and used of thepeople-less wilderness, when
there have been thousands andthousands of years of indigenous
people having had lived in thatenvironment and helped create
it to what it was right when itwas so-called discovered.
(33:21):
Very, very interesting.
Yes, go ahead.
Anuradha Mittal (33:24):
Yeah and Steve.
One more point I wanted to makewhich I think is very important
for listeners to understandthat this is really not about
conservation.
As you see in this report, thisis about opening up areas in
national parks for extraction,so these areas are being mined.
Nothing is being protected.
(33:45):
If you look at the case ofTanzania, it is the same the
amount of hunting that ishappening.
This is not about protectingwildlife or that there are too
many Maasai and other indigenousthat there is a problem of.
You know, as the myth that hasbeen spread, that the Maasai
have grown in population.
It's a threat to wilderness.
(34:06):
It's a threat to their lives.
If you look at hunting, thatindustry is growing.
This has nothing to do with theprotection of wildlife.
Really, this is about thetourist who goes there, who
wants to feel like the strongman holding the gun with their
foot on the lion's head.
Imagine if the Maasai wereroaming their lands, instead of
(34:29):
wearing a camouflage, with thebright red, purple, shuka, with
the cattle who are in the midstof zebras and giraffe.
You know this harmony.
You would look stupid wearing acamouflage, you know attire
with a gun and trying to looklike very big and strong for
killing an animal, because youknow they all live in harmony
(34:50):
and the cows graze with them.
So this is really aboutpromoting an industry and the
destruction of the environmentinstead of conservation and
protection.
Steve Taylor (34:59):
Anuradha Mittal.
Is there anything else you'dlike to discuss?
Anuradha Mittal (35:06):
I would say to the listeners we all care about
conservation and protection ofthe environment In the northern
part of the world.
We also are the ones who travelon safari.
Think about, when we travel toother countries, how we really
connect with the communities.
Who is the tour operator?
Think about the land rights.
(35:28):
More important, pictureyourself going to Yosemite,
yellowstone or one of thenational parks in the United
States, and how do you envisionthe same say on the African
continent?
United States, as I said, sendsthe largest number of tourists
to Tanzania.
I would urge the listeners tolearn more, and there's a lot
(35:49):
you can learn on our website atoaklandinstituteorg.
Steve Taylor (35:53):
Thank you so much for joining us today.
Anyarada Mittal.
Anuradha Mittal (35:57):
It's been wonderful to be here.
Thank you so much for having me, Steve.
Steve Taylor (36:01):
You have been listening to Breaking Green, a
Global Justice Ecology Projectpodcast.
To learn more about GlobalJustice Ecology Project, visit
globaljusticeecologyorg.
Breaking Green is made possibleby tax-deductible donations by
people like you.
Please help us lift up thevoices of those working to
(36:21):
protect forests, defend humanrights and expose false
solutions.
Simply text GIVE G-I-V-E to17162574187.
That's 17162574187.
Welcome to Breaking Green, a podcast by
Global Justice Ecology Project.
On Breaking Green, we will talkwith activists and experts to
examine the intertwined issuesof social, ecological and
economic injustice.
We will also explore some ofthe more outrageous proposals to
address climate andenvironmental crises that are
(00:22):
falsely being sold as green.
I am your host, steve Taylor.
There are famous and well-knowninternational conservation NGOs
, such as the World WildlifeFund, that claim to preserve
wilderness and protected areasaround the world, but in 2019,
the world of conservation wasrocked by reports of scandalous
(00:45):
human rights abuses carried outagainst indigenous communities.
Now, a report by the OaklandInstitute describes shocking
abuses in the DemocraticRepublic of Congo.
On this episode of BreakingGreen, we will talk with founder
and executive director of theOakland Institute, Anyarada
Mitall.
Anyarada is an internationallyrenowned expert on issues of
(01:08):
human rights, agriculture,development and conservation
policies.
Under Anyarada's leadership,the Oakland Institute has
unveiled land investment dealsin the developing world to
expose a disturbing pattern oflack of transparency, fairness
and accountability.
Anyarada has authored andedited numerous books and
(01:28):
reports.
Her articles and opinion pieceshave been published in widely
circulated newspapers and she isfrequently interviewed on CNN,
bbc World, cbc, abc, al Jazeeraand National Public Radio.
Anyarada Mittal, thank you forjoining us on Breaking Green.
Anuradha Mittal (01:48):
Well, thank you for having me.
Steve Taylor (01:50):
So, Anuradha, you are the executive director of
the Oakland Institute.
It is based in Oakland,California, but before we get
into some specific campaigns bythe Oakland Institute, as
executive director could youtell us a bit about your
organization?
Anuradha Mittal (02:04):
Institute.
As executive director, couldyou tell us a bit about your
organization?
Sure, the Oakland Institute, asyou said, is based in Oakland,
california.
We are an independent policythink tank that works on issues
related to development, humanrights, agriculture, land grabs,
indigenous and human rights.
Steve Taylor (02:23):
Reports by your institution are highly regarded.
Your most recent report istitled From Abuse to Power.
The report's executive summarystarts by saying that in 2019,
the world of internationalconservation was rocked by human
rights abuses carried outagainst local communities by
security forces in protectedareas managed by the World
(02:47):
Wildlife Fund in Asia and Africa.
It then goes on to detailclaims of human rights abuses in
the Democratic Republic ofCongo.
Could you tell us a little bitabout what's going on in the
Democratic Republic of Congo?
Anuradha Mittal (03:02):
in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Well, a new report From Abuse toPower is about ending fortress
conservation in the DemocraticRepublic of Congo.
This report basically exposeshow conservation is deeply tied
to the extractive industryextraction of natural resources,
which has basically led to theabuse of indigenous peoples in
(03:24):
the eastern part of the country.
And this is something which isnot new, because throughout
decades of environmentalconservation in DRC government
and NGOs, they have failed totackle the issue of land
grabbing, violence, human rightsabuses of the indigenous
communities.
The scandal that you're talkingabout that rocked the world of
(03:46):
conservation, was a couple ofyears ago to three years ago,
when the reports came out thatshowed that security forces,
eco-guards, were involved inso-called environmental
protection and conservation, andNGOs that were running these
parks, such as the WorldWildlife Fund Wildlife
Conservation Society, wereresponsible for absolutely
(04:08):
horrendous violence andatrocities against the
indigenous communities.
And at the same time, theseeco-guards, security forces,
enjoyed impunity for thesecrimes.
They were receiving fundingthat was being provided by the
German and the US government fortheir training, for their
material support.
Steve Taylor (04:28):
That is shocking.
So EcoGuards, can we put a nameto that?
Anuradha Mittal (04:33):
Well, World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife
Conservation Society.
They provide funding for peoplethat you would think when you
hear of EcoGuards.
These are people who areprotecting the environment,
protecting the ecologicalsystems, but these are guards
which have been trained and, inthe name of protection and
(04:55):
conservation, they're attackingindigenous communities.
The crimes against humanitythat have been committed, which
are reported in, From Abuse toPower, our report these crimes
have been committed in the nameof conservation, while the
funding agencies look the otherway.
Steve Taylor (05:14):
So, just to be clear, the report details human
rights abuses that would includetorture, murder, gang rape,
shelling of villages, even somereports of decapitation.
It would be, I think, shockingor it is shocking to hear first
(05:36):
that the WWF is reportedlyinvolved in that, and then also,
you mentioned US taxpayers andGerman taxpayers, and are there
some US federal agenciesinvolved as well?
I mean, that's very surprisingto hear.
Anuradha Mittal (05:53):
Well, definitely USAID and you know
and agencies were involved.
Because again, we have a verytop-down, neocolonial approach
to conservation, where we canfeel good about dedicating the
taxpayers' dollars to go tocountries like the DRC or Kenya
or Tanzania to promoteconservation.
(06:14):
But what we do not realize isthat, just as we did here in the
United States creating placeslike the Yellowstone Park by
evicting the indigenous, or theYosemite Park, the same idea of
a national park protected areais being created by expelling,
by forcibly displacing theindigenous who have lived in
(06:36):
these areas, who have protectedthese areas.
So, in the case of DRC, thecommunities that we're talking
about and these horrificatrocities that you just
described, that range fromkillings, from gang rapes, you
know, burning down of the wholecommunity, these are indigenous
communities who were living inthese areas, who have protected
(06:57):
the biodiversity.
But once a protected area hasbeen created, which really
started during the colonialtimes, these people have to be
expelled.
The people who have protectedthe indigenous, who have
stewarded the land, suddenlybecome poachers and they have to
be thrown out by any meansnecessary.
So this is really the challengethat we have with fortress
(07:18):
conservation, which continues tobe this colonial, top-down,
very racist in its approach, wayof conservation, which is based
on abuses of human rights forthe indigenous.
Steve Taylor (07:31):
So let's put a face on that.
And so in the DRC, who are theindigenous peoples being
displaced?
Anuradha Mittal (07:43):
Well, there's several indigenous communities,
but let's put a face, as yousaid.
Let's talk about the Batwacommunity Now.
They were expelled from theCahuci-Biega National Park.
The atrocities that they had tolive through we're talking
about almost the threat of theextinction.
You know the homes burned down,expelled from the forest, and
(08:08):
this is not just their homes,this is their whole life system.
You know their medicines, theirspiritual place, that's where
they know how to be, and theywere expelled in the most
violent ways that almost veryfew are left.
They took their case to theAfrican Commission on Human and
People's Rights, allegingviolence, rape, murder, arson,
(08:31):
burning down of their villages.
That has victimized the people,and that these are really
crimes against humanity.
Now the good news is that thisJuly July 24, the African
Commission recognizes the rightsof the Batwa to their land and
it ordered the DRC government toreturn the land to its rightful
owners, which is the Batwa,instead of creating this
(08:51):
protected area to compensatethem and ensure their full
protection.
So it is a huge win on one hand, however, as our report makes
it clear, that this decision ishistoric, but the actual
implementation would require avery drastic change, a complete,
radical change in approach toconservation, which will require
(09:13):
not just the government of DRCbut the whole conservation
industry, the Western donors,the Western conservation groups,
to change how they approachbiodiversity and people and
think about protectingcommunities.
Steve Taylor (09:28):
So you mentioned an industry.
I think you use that termindustry but what's the
rationale by these governmentsand international organizations
for removing people?
But what is their motive?
I mean, they have the rationale, they say it's conservation,
(09:50):
but are there other motivesinvolved?
Anuradha Mittal (09:54):
That's a great question.
Now let's first talk about theconservation industry.
What we mean by that is thatyou have powerful international
institutions, powerful donorcountries.
It could be the World Bank, orit could be countries such as
Germany or the United States ofAmerica.
Given the concern as theyexpress for conservation, they
(10:16):
provide grants and funding tolarge Western and international
conservation groups.
These might include WorldWildlife Fund, this might be the
IUCN, or it could be evengovernments, for instance the
government of DRC, and theeuphemism that is used
throughout this funding is thatthis is for conservation, this
(10:39):
is for protection of theenvironment, and then these
agencies will launch programs inthese countries which are run
by, you know, internationalactors could be the Nature
Conservancy, could be WorldWildlife Fund.
And you know they're doingtrainings, they're hiring locals
.
On paper, it all soundswonderful.
(11:00):
They're being trained to fightthe poachers.
You know we see images of thesebeautiful animals, such as
elephants with tusks and others,being killed.
So we really appreciate thatthese poachers are being tackled
.
We have real appreciation forthese eco-guards.
But what we don't understand isthat this whole industry is
(11:23):
based on promoting that same oldmodel of conservation that we
have seen before the colonialpowers all over Africa were
creating these protected areasor national parks, just as they
had done in places like theUnited States.
So you have Serengeti inTanzania or you have the Virunga
(11:45):
Park in the DRC.
The idea of these parks was tocreate protected areas, and
because the human, the locals,the natives were seen as being
dangerous, were seen as notcompatible with these protected
areas, they were expelled.
Now this is this racistrationale that those who had
(12:06):
protected these areas have to beexpelled, and so this whole
cycle just continues, despitethese countries in Africa now
being free and independent,whether it's Kenya, whether it's
Tanzania or whether it is theDRC.
Steve Taylor (12:20):
That's a very interesting point.
We had someone from SurvivalInternational talking about this
myth of people-less wilderness.
We had this idea that there'sthese people coming in and
raiding these areas and beingpoachers, ignoring the fact that
people have lived there forthousands of years.
So could you give us a littlebit of perspective about that
(12:43):
process, about how theindigenous are being removed and
they had been caretakers of theland and the problem really is
not them but they're beingremoved, often opening up those
same areas to extractiveindustries sometimes.
Anuradha Mittal (13:04):
Well, I think that's a great question.
First of all, I think we needto address the whole issue of
the clash of two cultures.
So there is one, the Westernculture, the viewpoint that
humanity is dangerous to natureand to the environment.
And if you look at the climatecrisis, you and I would agree to
that, the kind of harm humanityhas caused, the kind of
(13:27):
consumption in the West, thedependence on fossil fuel, the
wars mongering that we do.
Of course, we've beendisastrous for the nature
(13:48):
worldview where humanity haslived in harmony, respecting not
just its rights but also itsresponsibility to the rights of
the nature.
And that is the indigenousworldview, and that's why some
of the richest areas inbiodiversity are areas which
have been stewarded by the localcommunities, by the indigenous.
But when these two visionsclash, what you have is this
whole colonial mindset, step inwhich necessitates that the
(14:11):
locals, the indigenous, have tobe expelled because they cannot
manage.
You know, this Western idea ofscience that these areas have to
be managed scientifically andcontrolled and therefore better
taken care of, has come in.
The other thing, what we don'trealize, is that this is riding
on power.
It's not that the Westernsystem of conservation, which is
(14:34):
based on privatized,militarized protection of areas,
killings, rapes.
It is operational just becauseit has power.
It has been funded by the richdonor countries, it has been
promoted by powerfulinternational institutions such
as the World Bank, and sothere's a real inequity when it
(14:56):
comes to power.
But also, the important part ofthe question that you asked is
what happens when the people aredisplaced?
What happens that those whohave stewarded the lands, what
really happens to that In thecase of DRC, when the locals,
when the indigenous have beenviolently displaced and killed,
(15:18):
those areas are now have becomeplaygrounds for the militias for
the neighboring countriesUganda and Rwanda.
And it's a struggle forextracting, extracting minerals
that have been used by theWestern corporations, whether
it's electric cars, whether it'scell phones, the blood minerals
(15:39):
that are fueling that they arebeing extracted in these
protected areas.
And this is what our reportexposes from abuse to power.
So, on one hand, you havefortress conservation, which is
evicting, killing the indigenous, but it's not really protecting
the areas.
What it's really doing iscreating a funnel for the
(16:01):
extraction of these minerals tohappen, which, by the way, has
led to such bloody wars ineastern DRC that over a million
people are displaced.
Steve Taylor (16:11):
And the military situation in the DRC is just for
a person like me.
Situation in the DRC is justfor a person like me.
It's just so hard to unravelwith the bordering countries and
even organizations like M23.
But what is clear from thereport is that the indigenous
people are getting the worstdeal and they are being removed
(16:33):
from their lands.
The lands really are not beingprotected and they're rich in
gold and cobalt.
So there's a lot going on thereand it doesn't seem that the
priority is really theindigenous people and preserving
what they have learned to livewith and preserve learn to live
(17:02):
with and preserve.
It's really a shocking reportand we will put information up
on the Breaking Green showdescription.
Anuradha Mittal (17:07):
Yeah, I mean, I think, steve, you summed it
really well.
It's basically a lose-lose forthe government of DRC, for the
country and for its people.
So, on one hand, the indigenousfacing the worst atrocities
that one could possibly imagine,but at the other hand, it is
extraction and exploitation ofthe resources and fueling war
(17:28):
and militias and you mentionedM23.
And it's a pity that, inviolation of its own laws,
united States continues toprovide support to countries
like Uganda and Rwanda who arecausing this warfare.
And it's a struggle.
It is a struggle to controlthese rich minerals, as you
mentioned, cobalt and others,but the devastation that has
(17:52):
been caused in the Eastern DRC,the number of millions of people
displaced.
It is the rape capital of theworld in terms of the violence
that the women are facing.
And so this whole myth ofconservation, together with
extraction, there is noprotection of the environment,
there is no protection ofhumanity, there is no protection
(18:13):
of the indigenous in this wholecolonial model of conservation
in the DRC.
Steve Taylor (18:20):
So let's turn to a brighter point.
The Oakland Institute recentlyhad a major victory.
Could you tell us about that?
Anuradha Mittal (18:30):
Definitely so.
Tanzania, like other countriesin sub-Saharan Africa, have been
told that one way to boosttheir economy is to boost
tourism.
Tanzania is a country which isvisited heavily by Western
(18:52):
tourists.
The largest number of touriststo the country are actually from
the United States of America.
We all have heard and seen, youknow this incredible footage
from Serengeti, the Gorongorocrater, the Gorongoro
conservation area, kilimanjaro.
Books have been written aboutit.
So the Tanzanian government hasbeen encouraged, whether it is
(19:16):
the UNESCO which declaresGorongoro Conservation Area as
the World Heritage Site, or IUCN, or the World Bank or USAID,
that you should really focus onpromoting tourism, and right now
it is very focused on thenorthern part of the country,
and so you should do the same inthe southern part of the
(19:37):
country.
And so you should do the samein the southern part of the
country.
In December 22, we wereapproached by the communities
and I should mention, steve,that almost all of our work
starts at the request ofcommunities.
Communities were directlyimpacted, being forcibly
displaced, who wake up to find,you know, their homes, their
fields being destroyed.
(19:57):
So we were approached by thecommunities, villagers in the
southern part of the country,basically saying that the
expansion of Ruaha National Parkfrom one million hectares to
two million hectares was leadingto the forcible displacement.
And as we started doingresearch into that, we
discovered that Ruaha'sexpansion was happening through
(20:20):
a project called Regrow, whichwas being financed by the World
Bank.
So in April 2023, we shared ourfindings with the World Bank
that their funding of thisproject was leading to very
serious violence, very seriousviolence.
There were allegations of rapes, of killings, restrictions of
(20:44):
livelihoods that were puttingpoor pastoralists and farmers in
very dire straits, misery and alot of violence from the Tanapa
rangers, which are the parkrangers.
Unfortunately, the World Bankchose to ignore our findings and
did nothing about it, and atthat point, we filed a request
(21:05):
for inspection with theinspection panel of the World
Bank.
Now this is supposed to be anindependent mechanism of the
World Bank to ensure no harm isdone by the financing of the
World Bank.
It's been a long struggle.
As I said, this started inApril of last year.
Since then, the inspectionpanel has been to Tanzania a few
(21:27):
times.
The first time it went was inJuly, august, and that's the
first and the only time when itmet with members of the impacted
communities, spoke to them andtheir report, which called for.
A full-on investigation wasapproved, after many delays, in
November of last year.
In the meanwhile, we havecontinued with the advocacy, we
(21:47):
continued with reaching out tothe offices of the executive
directors of the bank to exposeabsolutely horrific abuses that
the bank has been financing andwhich is against its own
safeguards.
So, for instance, world Bank'sfinancing of a project requires
that, if there will bedisplacement, that there is a
(22:09):
resettlement policy, that thegovernment has shared these
plans with the World Bank andthey approved.
None of this had happened.
Well, the communities have beenforced to move because their
cattle is being seized, theyhave to pay fines, people have
been killed, people have beenbeaten, there have been rapes.
(22:29):
So to get to it this projectfinally, we had to escalate and
I have to mention the resilienceand the courage of the
communities because for them tospeak out, given the fear of
retribution, given the fear ofbeing arrested, given the fear
of your cattle, everything takenaway by the forest rangers,
(22:51):
they have continued to demandtheir rights to land and, as a
result of this work, the bankwas forced to suspend its
financing of the project inApril of this year, so one year
after we went to the World Bankto expose how its financing had
not just caused harm.
It had caused harm in terms ofkillings and rapes and
(23:14):
destruction of lives andlivelihoods.
They suspended the financing.
I should mention to thelisteners that the inspection
panel has finally completed itsinspection, which the request
was put in in April of last year, and next week they will be
submitting the report to theboard of the bank.
(23:34):
The communities are asking fora copy of the report at the same
time and we will see if it'sreally a transparent process, if
it's really an independentprocess which can share with the
community what its findings are.
And we will continue toadvocate for the bank to not
just suspend but end the project, cancel the rest of the monies
(23:58):
that are left to give to theTanzanian government and hold it
accountable and at the sametime, the bank should be held
accountable for and payreparations to the communities
who have suffered so much.
Steve Taylor (24:10):
Well, a lot has been done in a year and there
has been a tremendous amount ofmedia coverage about Oakland
Institute's advocacy, what'sgoing on with those indigenous
communities and what can only beseen as a very, very real
victory.
Anuradha Mittal (24:34):
Yeah, I mean, I don't think it could be really—
Thank you.
Well, as I said, these are hardstruggles.
These are very hard struggles,and what we saw happening in the
southern part of Tanzania is nodifferent than what the Maasai
communities are facing in thenorthern part of the country and
, unfortunately, fortressconservation is destroying lives
(24:54):
of communities all over theworld and especially in Africa.
It's humbling for us at theOakland Institute to get to work
with these communities.
We are humbled when they reachout and ask for our support so
we can do research, we cansupport their cases in national
courts, at the East AfricanCourt of Justice or at the World
(25:16):
Bank.
These are long marathon races,but it is humbling and a matter
of pride for us to work with themost amazing, courageous
communities who refuse to giveup.
Steve Taylor (25:29):
Well, thank you for that.
Now you mentioned a long race.
It's a slog.
It keeps going.
You mentioned fortressconservation and the
conservation industry and theharm that's being done to
indigenous peoples.
What are your thoughts on the30-30 proposal?
Anuradha Mittal (25:52):
Well, 30 by 30, .
You know, on paper sounds andlooks very good.
You know, the idea is that toprotect planet and to put 30% of
the area as protected areas by2030.
Now, again on paper, it soundsvery good that finally the
(26:15):
international community isconsidering and to protect at
least 30% of the planet throughthe UN's Convention on
Biological Diversity.
Now, the problem with that is,as we have seen, that most of
the areas which are protectedright now are protected
basically because of theindigenous communities, are
protected basically because ofthe indigenous communities.
(26:37):
And if this continues, thiswhole notion of protected areas
mean minus the people, this veryWestern neocolonial approach,
it would result in the largestland grab ever.
It would result in theindigenous communities being
expelled.
Of course, when you look at theterms of the convention itself,
you know it does not say thatthe indigenous have to be
(26:58):
expelled.
In fact, it does say that theindigenous communities can live
together in harmony with nature.
Because you know, you don'tneed to be a rocket scientist,
it is obvious, there's enoughscientific research that shows
that the indigenous havestewarded the lands, the
traditional practices haveprotected the areas.
(27:18):
It is really the Westernextractive industry which is
causing this destruction.
But when you look in Tanzania,when areas such as the Gorongoro
conservation area have beencreated as a multiple purpose
use area, unfortunately thisconservation, the way the West
defines it, the way the colonialpowers have defined it, that
(27:40):
trumps the rights of theindigenous.
So we are horrified at the ideaof moving forward.
It has been driven by Westerninstitutions Again.
The old fashioned NGO sector,conservation industry, you know,
is being promoted and it isvery scary what it means for the
(28:02):
rights of the indigenous, whatit means for the rights of those
who have actually protectedthis planet.
Steve Taylor (28:09):
Yes, it's often very counterintuitive for people
who are interested in theenvironment but maybe not
following news closely that a UNproposal to set aside land to
be so-called protected isactually opening it up in a way
and doing harm.
(28:30):
So it's so important fororganizations like yours, and
actually GJEP and SurvivalInternational and others, to
help spread that message.
But, as you said, it's theindigenous people who are
showing great courage andstanding up against this and I
think they had some success inbeing heard a bit in the last
(28:56):
global climate conference per se, but not as much as they really
deserved.
Anuradha Mittal (29:04):
Well, steve, I think this is not an issue of
that people don't know, they'reunaware, they're ignorant.
If only they understood, thenthings would be different.
We have to understand thatthere is a vested interest.
There's a lot of money involvedhere.
There's a lot of money involvedto continue to prop up those in
(29:25):
power, to maintain their power,and that happens by
disempowering the other.
So the struggle that we areseeing around the protection of
the environment, we would havealready learned.
Again, when I, you know, I livein California I go to the big
trees.
When you enter this park, thefirst thing you see is this
(29:47):
giant redwood tree, which iscalled the father of the forest,
which had been there while theindigenous lived in those areas,
had been there while theindigenous lived in those areas,
but when it was so-calleddiscovered by the white man, the
first thing they did was to cutdown the tree.
And here we are talking abouthow we are going to preserve and
(30:09):
protect the planet, the partsof planet which are preserved
and protected because theindigenous, the local
communities, have protected themthe environment, causing
(30:32):
climate crisis to now take onthe privilege to now protect the
environment, and doing so bydisplacing the indigenous, if
there's such a concern forprotecting the environment, the
first thing Western countrieswould do is to really set
targets and goals and get rid oftheir fossil fuel use and the
rest.
Here we are talking aboutUnited States of America, which
does not even include emissionsof carbon, emissions from the
(30:57):
Department of Defense, which isthe largest emitter of
greenhouse gases.
So instead of cleaning up ourown backyard, what we are very
keen on doing is to go intoplaces like African countries
and dictate how conservationwill happen.
We could not even imagine theMaasai or the Batwa coming into,
(31:19):
you know, london or New Yorkand deciding how these areas
should be protected.
So it is this colonial, racistmindset which allows us to think
that we can still dictate howconservation happens.
We can still dictate how wewill protect the environment.
And because we do not respectthe traditional knowledge, the
indigenous knowledge, we don'teven respect the indigenous,
(31:42):
that we look the other way.
As our report shows happened inDRC that the you know this
industry conservation NGOslooked the other way while the
Batwa and other indigenouscommunities.
Their homes were burned, theirwomen were raped, the kind of
torture they went through.
Steve Taylor (31:59):
Yes, and what was?
And thank you for that pointwell taken.
What was very surprising toread was that the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service wassomehow involved in this.
I mean that that is.
How did that happen?
Anuradha Mittal (32:16):
Well, that's the funding.
People within US agencies, likethe agency you mentioned, feel
they're doing good by providingfunding, but no due diligence is
done because their wholeoperational method is the same
how to protect.
You know, we still havenational parks all over the
United States where people cango and pay their fees and walk
(32:37):
down.
You don't see anyone there.
You know, I come from India,where I think forests.
You know there are forestcommunities that live in the
forest.
So this whole idea of createdplaces where nobody lives,
they're protected, they'resacred, while we go and destroy
the rest of the world ishonestly quite upside down and
backwards.
Steve Taylor (32:59):
Yeah, there's this mythology that's being, or has
been, created and used of thepeople-less wilderness, when
there have been thousands andthousands of years of indigenous
people having had lived in thatenvironment and helped create
it to what it was right when itwas so-called discovered.
(33:21):
Very, very interesting.
Yes, go ahead.
Anuradha Mittal (33:24):
Yeah and Steve.
One more point I wanted to makewhich I think is very important
for listeners to understandthat this is really not about
conservation.
As you see in this report, thisis about opening up areas in
national parks for extraction,so these areas are being mined.
Nothing is being protected.
(33:45):
If you look at the case ofTanzania, it is the same the
amount of hunting that ishappening.
This is not about protectingwildlife or that there are too
many Maasai and other indigenousthat there is a problem of.
You know, as the myth that hasbeen spread, that the Maasai
have grown in population.
It's a threat to wilderness.
(34:06):
It's a threat to their lives.
If you look at hunting, thatindustry is growing.
This has nothing to do with theprotection of wildlife.
Really, this is about thetourist who goes there, who
wants to feel like the strongman holding the gun with their
foot on the lion's head.
Imagine if the Maasai wereroaming their lands, instead of
(34:29):
wearing a camouflage, with thebright red, purple, shuka, with
the cattle who are in the midstof zebras and giraffe.
You know this harmony.
You would look stupid wearing acamouflage, you know attire
with a gun and trying to looklike very big and strong for
killing an animal, because youknow they all live in harmony
(34:50):
and the cows graze with them.
So this is really aboutpromoting an industry and the
destruction of the environmentinstead of conservation and
protection.
Steve Taylor (34:59):
Anuradha Mittal.
Is there anything else you'dlike to discuss?
Anuradha Mittal (35:06):
I would say to the listeners we all care about
conservation and protection ofthe environment In the northern
part of the world.
We also are the ones who travelon safari.
Think about, when we travel toother countries, how we really
connect with the communities.
Who is the tour operator?
Think about the land rights.
(35:28):
More important, pictureyourself going to Yosemite,
yellowstone or one of thenational parks in the United
States, and how do you envisionthe same say on the African
continent?
United States, as I said, sendsthe largest number of tourists
to Tanzania.
I would urge the listeners tolearn more, and there's a lot
(35:49):
you can learn on our website atoaklandinstituteorg.
Steve Taylor (35:53):
Thank you so much for joining us today.
Anyarada Mittal.
Anuradha Mittal (35:57):
It's been wonderful to be here.
Thank you so much for having me, Steve.
Steve Taylor (36:01):
You have been listening to Breaking Green, a
Global Justice Ecology Projectpodcast.
To learn more about GlobalJustice Ecology Project, visit
globaljusticeecologyorg.
Breaking Green is made possibleby tax-deductible donations by
people like you.
Please help us lift up thevoices of those working to
(36:21):
protect forests, defend humanrights and expose false
solutions.
Simply text GIVE G-I-V-E to17162574187.
That's 17162574187.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.