A/71/229 Americans who lived in and depended on the natural resources in those areas. This approach was influenced both by the perception of parks as pristine “wildernesses,” devoid of human occupation and use, and by the interests of lobbies wanting to develop parks for tourism. Native peoples were seen as incompatible with those interests. 27 34. Such protected areas were based on the following assumptions: protected areas should be created and governed by States; the goal of protect ed areas should be strict nature preservation with emphasis on biodiversity conservation and protected area management required protected areas to be uninhabited and without human use of natural resources. In its worst forms, coercive force was considered legally and morally justified to remove resident peoples and protect biodiversity. 28 35. The exclusionary “fortress” approach to protected-area management spread across North America, to Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Russian Federation and to parts of Asia and Latin America. It remained the dominant model of protected-area management for more than a century and its State-centric legacy still has significant impact on today’s conservation efforts. Although a full accounting will never be possible, owing to lack of accurate records, there is abundant evidence that large numbers of indigenous persons were dispossessed. Estimates of the number that may have been displaced worldwide run into the millions. 29 36. From the perspective of indigenous peoples, the creation of protected areas was perceived as colonialist, as the consequences for indigenous peoples who experienced them spelled subjugation and the loss of lands, autonomy and self governance, livelihood resources as well as the rupture of cultural and spiritual links. Protected areas under State control imposed new laws and forms of control by Government institutions. In this sense, protected areas were seen as a vehicle for coercive assimilation by indigenous peoples. 30 Many of the egregious human rights violations against indigenous peoples which took place in the name of conservation occurred before the 1980s, such as forced displacement following the creation of African game parks. In many countries the ongoing legacy of these violations continues to affect their exercise of their rights. 37. New approaches to conservation have emerged during the past two decades. Indigenous peoples mobilized and started to pursue their customary land rights with the support of evolving international legal standards in favour of their rights in the 1970s and 1980s. States, in turn, began reforms to legally recognize some of these rights, notably in South America. In Colombia (1991) and in Brazil (1998) indigenous land rights became constitutionally entrenched. Protected -areas policies were gradually changed towards recognition of indigenous land rights in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. 31 Since the mid-1990s, the Australian Government has __________________ 27 28 29 30 31 14/25 Springer and Almeida, “Protected areas and land rights” (see footnote 2). Stevens, Indigenous Peoples (see footnote 4). Daniel Brockington and James Igoe, “Eviction for conservation: a global overview”, Conservation and Society, vol. 4, No. 3 (2006); Mark Dowie, Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples, (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2009). Stevens, Indigenous Peoples. Springer and Almeida, “Protected areas and land rights”. 16-13163