|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Subscribe to Nature Conservancy Magazine |
Nature Conservancy: Does that mean conservation always yields to people? Is it ever the other way around? People yielding to conservation?
Kakabadse N.: That is not a valid equation in Latin America. There are no areas without people. None of our national parks or protected areas of any category are without people. It’s a dilemma that we have already taken a decision on — that is, that local people were there before the protected area, and they are part of it, and they are key actors in continuing to make sure the place continues to be healthy and whole.
Kareiva: I would personally stay away from a project where people had to yield to conservation. Otherwise, it will be conservation versus people, and people will always win.
Redford: I think that’s manifestly not true. We have countless [protected] places that were created despite people’s objections. The trick is that some people wanted them there. There is no one such “people.”
Kareiva: That history lesson does not make me feel good about the future of protected areas without people on our side. Population growth amid the incredible growth of cities around the world already means that one-quarter of the world’s protected areas are within a half a day’s walk of a city. Do you think those new and poor urban populations will respect park boundaries unless we pay attention to their needs?
Nature Conservancy: Isn’t this question of yielding one of the issues surrounding the concept of “do no harm”?
Dickson: “Do no harm” is sort of a headline; this is what conservation organizations should be aiming for. But there are some complicated issues involved when you try to think about applying that in practice. One way of putting it is, What sort of trade-offs do you allow? Is it permissible to do some harm in the short term to people if they receive benefits in the long term — say, by restricting access to resources but justifying that by saying in the end the people are going to benefit? Think about marine protected areas and fisheries. Are they allowed by the “do no harm” principle? Or does the principle allow you to do some harm to a group of people if you’re doing better for a larger group of people somewhere else? If we think this idea of not harming poor people is taken seriously, then we need to think collectively about how to put that into practice. It’s not obvious.
Nature Conservancy: Where do you see the debate going? The Poverty and Conservation Learning Group, in which most of your organizations participate, speaks of “the growing divide between conservation and development practitioners and policymakers on how — and whether — to link biodiversity conservation with poverty reduction.”
I was surprised by that. Is the divide growing? Do you see any consensus?
Leisher: I don’t think it’s becoming more divisive. I think we’re definitely getting to a more commonly held view.
Dickson: I’m not sure. I certainly think it is true that there are large parts of the development movement that are not that interested in biodiversity conservation. They do not see that as the way to deliver on poverty reduction. One of the interesting things about this whole debate — from one extreme to the other — is that it has taken place mostly among conservationists.
Nature picture credits: Photo © Pete Oxford/Minden Pictures
