Approaches to Conservation in the Global South

As biodiversity loss increases and human settlements increase in size and amount of environmental degradation, it becomes increasingly difficult to decide who gets to lay claim over the land: humans or endangered species.  Do we move the people from the land they have cultivated for centuries, or do we move them so that we can maintain a disintegrating population of charismatic mega-fauna such as elephants, rhinos, or tigers?  Do we approach this from an anthropocentric or a biocentric point of view?  The division between these views is often between the global north and the global south.  There are different value systems in the north and the south; the more developed countries (MDCs) are wealthier and have the resources to focus on protecting endangered species around the world (and in the third world) for their intrinsic value.  Meanwhile, the less developed countries (LDCs) in the global south are still struggling to make sure their people survive and do not have the time nor the resources to devote to protecting endangered species.  This creates a disconnect between the north and the south when attempting to create reserves or protect the land of endangered species.  In LDCs, people often bring up the idea of “green colonialism”, where MDCs push their way into LDCs and forcibly remove native peoples and tribes from their land in an attempt to create national parks and protect biodiversity.  This process of removing natives from their land comes from the idea of “fortress conservation”, an entirely biocentric view that when the needs of starving people come into conflict with the protection of natural values, we ought to prioritize nature; that we should exclude human settlement and activity from the most fragile and valuable natural areas.

Recently, we have read quite a few case studies where a land conflict existed between removing all native people to protect endangered species or allowing native peoples to continue living in the same area because they had a “right” to the land and depended on that ecosystem for survival.  In many of these case studies, fortress conservation was upheld and the native peoples were relocated to other areas.  For example, in Kruger National Park in South Africa, the Makuleke tribe was forced off their land and out of the national park.  Removing and relocating native peoples causes a huge strain on the relationship between those in control of the park and the natives.  This will disincentivize the natives to protect the endangered animals because of their resentment towards the “green imperialists”; in fact, it creates the possibility of native peoples working together with poachers instead of with the park to kill the endangered animals either out of spite or for profit (or both).  It also takes these people away from their home, taking away their sense of place and cultural identity.  While some studies have shown that endangered animal populations have increased rapidly and ecosystems have recovered and flourished after removing all human influence, there are ways to increase these endangered populations and protect these ecosystems without ostracizing the native peoples who live around these species.

There are two viable solutions to create compromise between park management and the native peoples (or more broadly, between the global north and the global south).  One is ecotourism and the other is community-based conservation.  To me, these solutions go hand in hand.  Ecotourism will allow people from the MDCs and locals to come in and see that the endangered species are being conserved, thus prioritizing the existence and aesthetic values that are so important to MDCs while still making money for the LDC and local natives by charging people to come into the park to see the protected species.  This is where community-based conservation comes in.  The park can allow the native peoples to continue living in the park, but may have to restrict their land use more than normal.  However, instead of ostracizing the native peoples and making them enemies of conservation, the park can work with the people who live off the land to learn more about the behavior of the endangered species, since the native peoples will often know about migration patterns and daily habits of the animals better than the park staff.  The native peoples can also be hired to act as stewards of the land, tour guides, hosts, etc. to help the park protect the endangered species while still living in their homes on park land and making money off of ecotourism.  While I am sure that resentment issues between the native peoples and the “green imperialists” will continue to cause conflict in reserves and national parks in the global south, inclusion of these native peoples in the stewardship process provides a good path to eventual compromise and cooperation.