The Socialist Standard recently carried an article on one
aspect of where supposedly ethical-minded NGOs are part of the global land-grab.
This article also draws attention to the conservation
refugees and points out that although the 5th World Parks Congress in 2003
discussed issues such as human rights last year's World Parks Congress message was
clear: let there be no retreat; let every country play its part in the push to
achieve protected area targets; let the park rangers have more support in their
war against ‘poachers’ and the continuation of policies of forced resettlement
in order to create, extend and strengthen state-managed parks and game
reserves. Conservation areas are — under the premise the ends justify the
means— being pursued at any price and by any means possible. For indigenous and
rural communities who live on land targeted for conservation by the state or by
conservation NGOs, even when they have been stalwart stewards of the ecosystems
they inhabit, the result is devastating. A culture of conservation that treats
human beings as the enemy turns a blind eye to violations of human rights
In Tanzania whose protected areas cover no less than one-third
of the country's territory, many factors frustrate conservation efforts,
including climate change, a growing human population, poverty, unsustainable
resource use outside of protected areas, encroachment into park lands, and most
notably an overwhelming poaching crisis. The steady expansion of the protected
area network together with the need to combat the unprecedented level of
organized poaching of iconic wildlife species such as elephants and rhinos have
been accompanied by a relentless push for escalating security budgets. Tanzania's
pattern of forcibly displacing ancestral communities from their land and
significantly hindering mobile people's ability to seasonally access needed
resources, while the tourism industry and the government conservation agencies
continue to accumulate territory may be the most fundamental challenge to the
conservation of biodiversity in the country.
Disillusioned communities surrounding parks and game
reserves, once stewards of their own environments, have been divested of all
but tiny remnants of their ancestral lands or have been fully dispossessed,
leading to destroyed livelihoods, out-migration and social conflict. Peoples
integrally connected to their natural environment, such as the Maasai of Loliondo,
and communities who in the past proactively reached out to seek a partnership
with the government to implement conservation, such as Uvinje on Tanzania's
northern coast, have been stripped of their tenure rights and their ability to
properly care for themselves and the wildlife, and portrayed as enemies of
conservation.
CLICK READ MORE TO CONTINUE
There are three essential problems.
First, the pursuit of conservation through the creation of
boundaries and enclosures which divide communities and nature and place nature
under the strict control of powerful, unaccountable non-local institutions can
only work to the extent that protected areas can be buffered from social
discontent beyond their boundaries—an essentially impossible task. The
marginalization and dispossession of indigenous peoples and rural communities
in the name of conservation, the capturing of the tourism dollars and other
economic benefits of conservation by local and national elites and by
international investors, and the militarization of protected areas can only
lead to increasing social conflict and disillusionment with the very idea of
conservation and with the organizations promoting it. Cash payouts as a part of
"benefit sharing", even when they do actually materialize, even when
they do amount to something more than crumbs, cannot compensate for losing
one's livelihood, cultural bearings, land and home. In contrast to this trend
is the growing recognition from both researchers and practitioners that
biological diversity is intrinsically connected to cultural diversity, and that
indigenous peoples and local communities enrich the practice of conservation. Indeed,
where indigenous and local communities have been able to secure their rights to
govern their territories as well as implement their values and outlook on
protected areas and conservation, positive conservation outcomes have been
achieved, and productive partnerships and new forms of collaboration have
developed. Conversely, the failure to acknowledge this has prevented national
governments and the conservation establishment from benefiting from traditional
ecological knowledge, from grassroots social and institutional experience in
sustainably managing ecosystems, and from the home-grown, heartfelt
conservation ethic which people who live on and from the land so often possess.
We cannot expect to achieve conservation when the means of doing so violate the
welfare of those who have fostered biodiversity.
Second, the dominant approach seems to ignore the fact that
we live in an interconnected world, where local processes have global
consequences and vice versa. What happens beyond parks is as critical as what
happens within them, often more so. The international trade in engendered
species, climate change, and the destruction of habitat by conflicts and by
industrial resource extraction all affect indigenous and rural communities
whose traditional territories lie within and adjacent to parks, but are not
caused by them. This problem was identified at the recent World Parks Congress:
“The failure of the IUCN and the conservation sector to take
seriously the surge in mining, extractive industries and other forms of
development has put into question the integrity of protected and conserved
areas, the maintenance of livelihoods for Indigenous peoples and local
communities, and possible solutions to climate change and instability.”
Even when these communities are, in some places,
contributing to the loss of biodiversity, as through the expansion of
agriculture into ever more marginal lands and wildlife habitats, it must be
recognized that these activities are intricately connected to conditions of
poverty, failings of governance, and social injustice. Addressing environmental
challenges in a fragmented way that does not account for these deeper drivers
and that does not take into account the need to engage with a broader range of
custodians of territories who could help to counter these drivers will not
shield us from serious environmental consequences either within or outside of
protected areas. Often, it is communities members' practices we blame, as well
as communities' territories we turn our attention to, and in doing so, we fail
to see what happens in the more industrialized and geopoliticized landscapes.
The third problem is more fundamental. It relates to the
thinking underlying a culture and approach to conservation which divides people
and nature. This fragmented worldview produces solutions based on
fragmentation. It leads either to the belief that nature is a resource,
something to be dominated and used, or to the conviction that it must be
defended from human beings. Most state-led conservation approaches are based on
a dualistic separation between people and the environment, in many cases
leading to displacement, resettlement and to loss not only of rich biological,
but also of cultural, diversity. Indigenous worldviews, on the other hand, see
human beings as part of the world of nature and recognize an interconnectedness
which runs deeper than simply acknowledging that our material survival depends
on healthy ecosystems. In a worldview founded on interconnectedness, nature
shapes who we are as human beings. And it is shaped by us—not as engineers
fabricating a machine to chosen specifications, but as creatures that move
within and help to make up the world of nature. Small parts called
"protected areas" cannot be healthy apart from the whole.
The very phrase "protected area" reveals misguided
thinking. Protected from what? The answer—protected from us—reveals the
imbalance that calls out for correction. Countries that still have large areas
of natural forest and savannah should not be building walls to keep people away
from nature or slowly depriving areas of badly needed services and
infrastructure as a way to push people away. Instead, they should support
people to make decisions for the well-being of their children and
grandchildren, provide requested extension services, and encourage local economies
that protect biocultural diversity while also adding value to it. The primary
purpose of parks should not be to attract international tourists. Instead, more
should be done to attract and assist local people to (re)connect with their
territory. This is particularly true for rural people who live adjacent to
protected areas. There is a need to recognize and support indigenous people's
and local communities' ability to live well in their territories and to use
their resources according to their values and knowledge. Indeed, there is
growing evidence that indigenous peoples whose human rights are protected, e.g.
their rights to their lands, territories and resources and right to
self-determination, have ecosystems that are in much better shape than national
parks and reserves managed by the State or other external actors. The separation of communities from their ancestral territories undermines the
interconnectedness that we so badly need and depend upon. The need to re-enlist
local communities as allies in conservation is urgent. This need can be met,
not through "awareness-raising" programs, but through tangible steps
toward recognition of rights to territory, concrete redress of social justice
infringements and participation in decision-making processes, as well as
effective delivery of requested services and infrastructure in areas that are
often impoverished and marginalized. Meager benefit-sharing programs and
draconian restrictions on inhabitation, access and use of protected areas will
not suffice.
No comments:
Post a Comment