Land Rights and the Forest Peoples of Africa

Land rights and the forest peoples of Africa – Part I
So, although there may be a dominant rhetoric, such governments’ position is far from
uniform on whether there are indigenous peoples. The international agreements they sign up
to imply support for the other perspective on the question of indigenous peoples in Africa,
one held by the international human rights community, which is that the concept of
indigenous peoples should be applied only to certain sections of African society to reflect the
internal colonisation that has taken place.
Rather than choosing between these positions, we aim to integrate the most useful aspects of
them by proposing that while in relation to colonial or neo-colonial powers all Africans are
indigenous, in relation to most of their African neighbours, Central African forest people are
seen– by their neighbours and by themselves – as being distinctly indigenous, the first
peoples, who truly belong to the forest. As a result, while all Africans are clearly indigenous to
a continent that was colonised by European powers, we use the term ‘indigenous peoples’ to
refer to those people who see themselves, and are seen by their neighbours, as indigenous to
the forests of Central Africa. Where their neighbours’ origin myths speak of migration and
arrival from elsewhere, the origin myths of the hunter–gatherer or former hunter–gatherer
communities that inhabit the forest region of Central Africa speak of emergence from – and
belonging to – their forests. These peoples are known by their particular names – such as the
Baka, Batwa, Mbuti or Bagyéli – but share much in terms of their relationship with place,
with each other and with their more dominant farming neighbours. They have often been
collectively referred to by the term ‘Pygmy’ or by the term ‘forest peoples’.
In addition to the idea that the term ‘indigenous peoples’ reflects both their self-identification
and the way they are perceived by their neighbours, and in addition to the fact that the use of
the term reflects the historical internal colonisation that took place in Africa, the term is also
usefully employed in relation to more current issues. The African Commission for Human and
Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), for example, states that:
‘Indigenous Peoples’ has come to have connotations and meanings that are much wider
than the question of ‘who came first’. It is today a term and a global movement fighting
for rights and justice for those particular groups who have been left on the margins of
development and who are perceived negatively by dominating mainstream development
paradigms, whose cultures and ways of life are subject to discrimination and contempt
and whose very existence is under threat of extinction. 5
Given the current marginalised status that many indigenous peoples in Africa endure, some
have asked whether it might not be more useful for them to frame their claims for equal
treatment in terms of ‘human rights’ instead of ‘indigenous rights’, in terms of their being
‘marginalised minorities’ instead of ‘indigenous peoples’. It has been argued that sub-Saharan
African governments may well respond more favourably to these terms, since they may feel
that if they accept such peoples’ right to indigenous status then this might put them in the
uncomfortable position of being seen as colonisers in relation to these minorities. For such
governments, the difference between the two ways of framing these peoples’ rights could
signify a difference between divisiveness and something ‘more in tune with the rhetoric of
5 ACHPR and IWGIA (2005) Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous
Populations/Communities, ACHPR, Banjul, Gambia and IWGIA, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kidd & Kenrick 5
March 2009