Faced with stark and mounting evidence of nature’s decline, leading natural and social science researchers, philosophers, anthropologists and conservationists have come together to ask why conservation is failing, and to call for an urgent re-think of how the natural world should be protected.
So what is conservation getting wrong? The political reasons for its failure were discussed last week in Vienna, at a meeting of 70 academics, professionals and researchers at the Luc Hoffmann Institute, a research body set up by the WWF.
Top of the list were capitalism and neo-liberal policies that encourage the over-consumption of resources; the financial starvation of nature protection by governments; global trade and subsidies for energy industries, and a licence for agriculture and mining to expand into even the remotest places.
Conservation must become more inclusive and accountable to people, said Dilys Roe, principal researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London. A failure to address the problems of people in developing countries – home to most of the world’s wildlife – undermines its credibility.
Money doesn’t get to the ground and local citizens must be able to hold governments and big international groups to account. We should learn to adapt to biodiversity loss. The regions of highest biodiversity loss coincide with the areas of the highest poverty,” she said.
A new generation of conservationists with a fresh agenda is needed, argued Jon Hutton, director of the Luc Hoffmann Institute and former head of the UN’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre. The world’s wealthy wildlife groups, which attract more than $10bn a year to protect nature are in danger of becoming disconnected from real-world politics and people.
He said, “We consistently overlook the highly political nature of issues such as land ownership and rights and access to natural resources. The result is our biodiversity maps and plans that sketch out sweeping agendas for land-use change may unwittingly contain the seeds of their own failure. We need to re-imagine everything – rethink and challenge everything we do, how we do it and who does it.” The danger, said Jon Hutton, is that welcome action on climate change dwarfs and imperils biodiversity protection. “There is a real danger that radical climate action might, in reality, involve a rush to solutions that are anything but biodiversity-friendly. A renewed drive for biofuels, perhaps, or for more indiscriminate hydropower, or an escalation in forest restoration based on fast-growing, non-native species? In anticipation, we need to develop science, policy and advocacy responses right now.”
These groups count success by numbers and the money they attract, not by consideration of conservation, said Dominique Bikaba, director of Strong Roots, a group in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. “They do not understand local people. They come with big degrees and an idea from London or Washington. They don’t want to learn from local and indigenous peoples.”
“Conservation still thinks in terms of separating people from nature and of saving pristine places,” said South African anthropologist Anselmo Matusse.
“If we continue with the present path of nature conservation then biodiversity will soon be like art that is of value to only some – kept locked away in highly guarded museums where only the rich can visit. Is the current path of protecting biodiversity not another form of colonialism? Are the state and the market the only options to change the route of human civilisation and Earth, which are heading towards collapse?” asked Matusse.
So what is conservation getting wrong? The political reasons for its failure were discussed last week in Vienna, at a meeting of 70 academics, professionals and researchers at the Luc Hoffmann Institute, a research body set up by the WWF.
Top of the list were capitalism and neo-liberal policies that encourage the over-consumption of resources; the financial starvation of nature protection by governments; global trade and subsidies for energy industries, and a licence for agriculture and mining to expand into even the remotest places.
Conservation must become more inclusive and accountable to people, said Dilys Roe, principal researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London. A failure to address the problems of people in developing countries – home to most of the world’s wildlife – undermines its credibility.
Money doesn’t get to the ground and local citizens must be able to hold governments and big international groups to account. We should learn to adapt to biodiversity loss. The regions of highest biodiversity loss coincide with the areas of the highest poverty,” she said.
A new generation of conservationists with a fresh agenda is needed, argued Jon Hutton, director of the Luc Hoffmann Institute and former head of the UN’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre. The world’s wealthy wildlife groups, which attract more than $10bn a year to protect nature are in danger of becoming disconnected from real-world politics and people.
He said, “We consistently overlook the highly political nature of issues such as land ownership and rights and access to natural resources. The result is our biodiversity maps and plans that sketch out sweeping agendas for land-use change may unwittingly contain the seeds of their own failure. We need to re-imagine everything – rethink and challenge everything we do, how we do it and who does it.” The danger, said Jon Hutton, is that welcome action on climate change dwarfs and imperils biodiversity protection. “There is a real danger that radical climate action might, in reality, involve a rush to solutions that are anything but biodiversity-friendly. A renewed drive for biofuels, perhaps, or for more indiscriminate hydropower, or an escalation in forest restoration based on fast-growing, non-native species? In anticipation, we need to develop science, policy and advocacy responses right now.”
These groups count success by numbers and the money they attract, not by consideration of conservation, said Dominique Bikaba, director of Strong Roots, a group in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. “They do not understand local people. They come with big degrees and an idea from London or Washington. They don’t want to learn from local and indigenous peoples.”
“Conservation still thinks in terms of separating people from nature and of saving pristine places,” said South African anthropologist Anselmo Matusse.
“If we continue with the present path of nature conservation then biodiversity will soon be like art that is of value to only some – kept locked away in highly guarded museums where only the rich can visit. Is the current path of protecting biodiversity not another form of colonialism? Are the state and the market the only options to change the route of human civilisation and Earth, which are heading towards collapse?” asked Matusse.
Western science must now listen and learn from the world’s 350 million indigenous people, who currently conserve 80% of the world’s remaining diversity but who have been barely acknowledged by conservationists, argued Eli Enns, Canadian political scientist and co-chair of the Canadian Indigenous Circle for Experts.
“Indigenous knowledge of how to live with nature has been routinely dismissed or downplayed,” he said. “Western scientists and indigenous peoples come with very different world views. In general western science is more utilitarian and sees the world in pieces, indigenous knowledge is more about understanding the interconnectedness of things,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment