conservation's critics Flashcards
1
Q
Rewilding Britain, ‘Summit to Sea’
A
- large scale £3.4m rewilding project in Monmouthshire/Ceredigion
- multiple project partners including rewilding Britain
- rewilding Britain seen as radical, large backlash of local farmers against project
- fear of restrictions on land management and sheep farmers
- Rewilding Britain ended up pulling out of project
2
Q
impacts on local communities
A
- almost all land is exploited by humans in some way (except Antarctica, only ecotourism)
- remote areas often seen as ideal for conservation efforts
- communities living in remote areas often most dependent on natural resources so least able to adjust if restricted/displaced by conservation activities
- poor rural people bear the costs of conservation while rich urban people reap the benefits
3
Q
return of the grey wolf to Europe
A
- most supported by people in cities for ecological benefit of wolves
- not supported by rural communities over livestock deaths and fear of risk to children
- tension between populations
- often conflict involving reintroduction of large carnivores
4
Q
fortress conservation
A
- agenda of conservation organisation is to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services
- can impact on other political agendas, often in favour of centralisation of management
- centralised management can mean more control over a larger area, an appropriate scale for the protection of ecosystem services, species conservation and the creation of habitat corridors
- agenda of indigenous communities is to secure legal rights to their land and gain autonomy from the state
- agendas often in opposition, loss of control and autonomy of local people in achieving conservation aims, especially when projects rely on international funding
- conservation organisations often only consider local people as ‘project partners’, their aims and views are often overlooked and ignored
5
Q
displacement
A
- local people displaced by conservation projects setting up protected areas
- their land use is determined as not compatible with conservation aims or fears of conflict if large carnivores introduced
- almost always a negative experience for local communities even if it is argued they are moving to an area with more resources and facilities
- increased illness and unemployment, decreased life expectancy, unable to carry out traditional activities and access resources, socially marginalised and dislocated
- conservation has a poorer track record in terms of displacement outcomes than projects such as dam and road building
6
Q
expansion of protected areas in Africa in 1990s
A
- conservation projects aims based on idealised vision of wild Africa, didn’t take into account rural communities who lived there
- portrayed biodiversity and ecosystem services as public goods, people who directly relied on these services marginalised and displaced
- used to legitimise removal of local populations
7
Q
ressettlement
A
- World Conservation Parks Congress 2003 argues affected communities should be fairly and fully compensated
- big conservation organisations often have no informal resettlement policies and fail to implement resettlement policies effectively
- no real pressure from governments etc to do so as communities in remote areas often overlooked (don’t contribute economically etc)
8
Q
envisioning nature
A
- big conservation organisations promote a colonial view of nature
- nature belongs to everybody including their ‘audience’ in rich countries
- narrative of wild majestic landscapes, heroic conservationists and film makers
- local people either absent or only present as assistants or enemies
- can be positive, creates global support for conservation, encourages eco-tourism (local people sometimes able to benefit from)
- does not address negative consequences of conservation for poor/traditional local people
9
Q
spending power
A
- big conservation organisations mostly US based, receive the most global conservation funding
- can be decentralised, supporting local conservation organisations and recruiting local people
- funding is tied to acceptance of western conservation movement
- indigenous movements are stifled
10
Q
indigenous cooperation or exploitation?
A
- indigenous peoples organisations attempted to cooperate with conservation organisations e.g. to protect Amazon rainforest (Declaration of Iquitos)
- allowed very limited influence over projects
- conservation organisations often claim indigenous involvement to improve image but fail to champion indigenous people’s issues such as land rights, human rights
11
Q
complications
A
- local communities may have settled in areas after they have been protected or may own land elsewhere
- traditional activities such as hunting and herding may not be compatible with nature conservation especially as human populations have grown and habitats have shrunk
- displacement may occur for political reasons using conservation as a justification
12
Q
criticism: empire building
A
- big conservation organisations design international landscape conservation programmes
- argue that only they can deliver them
- act as planning authorities over ‘wild’ land inhabited by indigenous people
13
Q
criticism: greenwashing
A
- big conservation organisations engage constructively with industry
- can lead to damaging compromises e.g. planned habitat destruction
- taking money from industry can lead to undue influence
- all habitat destruction cannot be
prevented as economic interests are too powerful - engaging with industry allows some habitat to be saved
14
Q
e.g. coastal eco-
engineering
A
- coastlines are vulnerable to erosion and
flooding from sea level rise and increased storminess - sea defences will be constructed to protect homes and infrastructure are located on the coast
- this will destroy natural habitat
- conservationists cannot prevent sea defences from being built
- an engage with industry and regulators to design sea defences in a way that provides new habitat for nature
