Comment
“New Conservation” as a Moral Imperative KATHRYN R. KIRBY Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Harbord Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3G5, Canada, email [email protected]
A recent critique of “new conservation” (Soule 2013) confounds distinct arguments that support a shift away from conventional approaches to conservation. In doing so, it risks misrepresenting what many conservation professionals believe is a moral imperative. Contrary to Soule’s assertions, many new conservationists do not assume that economic growth is the key to conservation or that protected areas have no place in conservation. Rather, we recognize the hypocrisy inherent in many conventional conservation initiatives. Top–down conservation frequently places severe limits on the livelihoods of local people—who are often poor and reliant on local resources—while leaving those with the power to propose conservation actions free to pursue ecologically unsustainable lifestyles. Despite much discussion of ecological footprints and global teleconnections (e.g., DeFries et al. 2010; Ewing et al. 2010; Meyfroidt et al. 2010), more often than not we overlook our own carbon emissions and indirect contributions to far-off ecosystem degradation. In doing so, we escape the trade-offs that can make conservation a burden at local scales (e.g., Sunderland et al. 2008; McShane et al. 2011). Until we place proportional limits on our own ways of living, many conservationists feel the only morally defensible approach to biodiversity conservation is one that recognizes the right of local people to self-determination and that works within this context to conserve biodiversity (Sarkar & Montoya 2011). Many of the world’s most biodiverse areas are “community lands” (Hajjar & Van Alstine 2013) that have been managed for centuries by resident peoples (often indigenous, though not always; Sarkar & Montoya 2011). Historically, these people have often been ignored or included only symbolically in conservation planning, resulting in community–conservation conflicts and human rights violations in the name of conservation (Brockington & Igoe 2006; Adams & Hutton 2007; Dowie 2009).
Recent initiatives, designed to ensure that such violations are not repeated, represent a step in the right direction. For example, at least 8 major international conservation organizations have committed to the Conservation Initiative for Human Rights, which aims to increase accountability for human rights in conservation (Springer et al. 2010). Indeed, when the rights of local people are explicitly recognized, some of the approaches of which Soule is most critical become important. For example, local support for protected areas may hinge on opportunities for alternative livelihoods, which Soule labels “humanitarianism.” In other cases, local people may not be willing to give up control of their food sources or agricultural income; thus, the integration of biodiversity protection and agricultural production may be the only locally acceptable conservation action (Soule’s “garden world”). It is worth noting that alternative conservation models such as these do not inevitably spell defeat for conservation. For example, compatibility between high yields and high biodiversity has been demonstrated in a number of agricultural systems (Gordon et al. 2007; Clough et al. 2011). In sum, the new conservation with which I identify has not abandoned biodiversity or ecological knowledge as Soule (2013) and other critics, such as Doak et al. (2013), suggest. However, when looking to apply ecological knowledge to protect biodiversity, this new conservation explicitly considers global interconnections, power differentials, and ultimate versus proximate drivers of biodiversity loss.
Acknowledgments I thank the editor, M. Hunter, B. Gilbert, and an anonymous reviewer for comments on earlier drafts of this Comment.
Paper submitted November 22, 2013; revised manuscript accepted January 12, 2014.
1 Conservation Biology, Volume 00, No. 0, 1–2 C 2014 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12294
2
Literature Cited Adams, W. M., and J. Hutton. 2007. People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society 5:147–183. Brockington, D., and J. Igoe. 2006. Eviction for conservation: a global overview. Conservation and Society 4:424–470. Clough, Y., et al. 2011. Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:8311–8316. DeFries, R., T. K. Rudel, M. Uriarte, and M. Hansen. 2010. Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience 3:178–181. Doak, D. F., V. J. Bakker, B. E. Goldstein, and B. Hale. 2013. What is the future of conservation? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.10.013. Dowie, M. 2009. Conservation refugees: the hundred-year conflict between global conservation and native peoples. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Ewing B., D. Moore, S. Goldfinger, A. Oursler, A. Reed, and M. Wackernagel. 2010. The ecological footprint atlas 2010. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, California. Gordon, C., R. Manson, J. Sundberg, and A. Cruz-Ang´ on. 2007. Biodiversity, profitability, and vegetation structure in a Mexican coffee agroecosystem. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118:256– 266.
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
New Conservation as a Moral Imperative
Hajjar, R., and J. Van Alstine. 2013. A summary report of the international conference on scaling-up strategies to secure community land and resource rights. Community Lands and Resource Rights Bulletin of the International Institute for Sustainable Development 213:1–6. Available from http://www.iisd.ca/ download/pdf/sd/crsvol213num1e.pdf (accessed March 20, 2014). McShane, T. O., et al. 2011. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation 144:966–972. Meyfroidt, P., T. K. Rudel, and E. F. Lambin. 2010. Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:20917– 20922. Sarkar, S., and M. Montoya. 2011. Beyond parks and reserves: the ethics and politics of conservation with a case study from Per´ u. Biological Conservation 144:979–988. Soule, M. 2013. The “new conservation”. Conservation Biology 27:895– 897. Springer, J., J. Gastelumendi, G. Oviedo, K. W. Painemilla, M. Painter, K. Seesink, H. Schneider, and D. Thomas. 2010. The conservation initiative on human rights: promoting increased integration of human rights in conservation. Policy Matters 17:81–83. Sunderland, T. C. H., C. Ehringhaus, and B. M. Campbell. 2008. Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: A time to face the trade-offs? Environmental Conservation 34: 276–279.
“New Conservation” as a Moral Imperative KATHRYN R. KIRBY Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Harbord Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3G5, Canada, email [email protected]
A recent critique of “new conservation” (Soule 2013) confounds distinct arguments that support a shift away from conventional approaches to conservation. In doing so, it risks misrepresenting what many conservation professionals believe is a moral imperative. Contrary to Soule’s assertions, many new conservationists do not assume that economic growth is the key to conservation or that protected areas have no place in conservation. Rather, we recognize the hypocrisy inherent in many conventional conservation initiatives. Top–down conservation frequently places severe limits on the livelihoods of local people—who are often poor and reliant on local resources—while leaving those with the power to propose conservation actions free to pursue ecologically unsustainable lifestyles. Despite much discussion of ecological footprints and global teleconnections (e.g., DeFries et al. 2010; Ewing et al. 2010; Meyfroidt et al. 2010), more often than not we overlook our own carbon emissions and indirect contributions to far-off ecosystem degradation. In doing so, we escape the trade-offs that can make conservation a burden at local scales (e.g., Sunderland et al. 2008; McShane et al. 2011). Until we place proportional limits on our own ways of living, many conservationists feel the only morally defensible approach to biodiversity conservation is one that recognizes the right of local people to self-determination and that works within this context to conserve biodiversity (Sarkar & Montoya 2011). Many of the world’s most biodiverse areas are “community lands” (Hajjar & Van Alstine 2013) that have been managed for centuries by resident peoples (often indigenous, though not always; Sarkar & Montoya 2011). Historically, these people have often been ignored or included only symbolically in conservation planning, resulting in community–conservation conflicts and human rights violations in the name of conservation (Brockington & Igoe 2006; Adams & Hutton 2007; Dowie 2009).
Recent initiatives, designed to ensure that such violations are not repeated, represent a step in the right direction. For example, at least 8 major international conservation organizations have committed to the Conservation Initiative for Human Rights, which aims to increase accountability for human rights in conservation (Springer et al. 2010). Indeed, when the rights of local people are explicitly recognized, some of the approaches of which Soule is most critical become important. For example, local support for protected areas may hinge on opportunities for alternative livelihoods, which Soule labels “humanitarianism.” In other cases, local people may not be willing to give up control of their food sources or agricultural income; thus, the integration of biodiversity protection and agricultural production may be the only locally acceptable conservation action (Soule’s “garden world”). It is worth noting that alternative conservation models such as these do not inevitably spell defeat for conservation. For example, compatibility between high yields and high biodiversity has been demonstrated in a number of agricultural systems (Gordon et al. 2007; Clough et al. 2011). In sum, the new conservation with which I identify has not abandoned biodiversity or ecological knowledge as Soule (2013) and other critics, such as Doak et al. (2013), suggest. However, when looking to apply ecological knowledge to protect biodiversity, this new conservation explicitly considers global interconnections, power differentials, and ultimate versus proximate drivers of biodiversity loss.
Acknowledgments I thank the editor, M. Hunter, B. Gilbert, and an anonymous reviewer for comments on earlier drafts of this Comment.
Paper submitted November 22, 2013; revised manuscript accepted January 12, 2014.
1 Conservation Biology, Volume 00, No. 0, 1–2 C 2014 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12294
2
Literature Cited Adams, W. M., and J. Hutton. 2007. People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society 5:147–183. Brockington, D., and J. Igoe. 2006. Eviction for conservation: a global overview. Conservation and Society 4:424–470. Clough, Y., et al. 2011. Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:8311–8316. DeFries, R., T. K. Rudel, M. Uriarte, and M. Hansen. 2010. Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience 3:178–181. Doak, D. F., V. J. Bakker, B. E. Goldstein, and B. Hale. 2013. What is the future of conservation? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.10.013. Dowie, M. 2009. Conservation refugees: the hundred-year conflict between global conservation and native peoples. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Ewing B., D. Moore, S. Goldfinger, A. Oursler, A. Reed, and M. Wackernagel. 2010. The ecological footprint atlas 2010. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, California. Gordon, C., R. Manson, J. Sundberg, and A. Cruz-Ang´ on. 2007. Biodiversity, profitability, and vegetation structure in a Mexican coffee agroecosystem. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118:256– 266.
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
New Conservation as a Moral Imperative
Hajjar, R., and J. Van Alstine. 2013. A summary report of the international conference on scaling-up strategies to secure community land and resource rights. Community Lands and Resource Rights Bulletin of the International Institute for Sustainable Development 213:1–6. Available from http://www.iisd.ca/ download/pdf/sd/crsvol213num1e.pdf (accessed March 20, 2014). McShane, T. O., et al. 2011. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation 144:966–972. Meyfroidt, P., T. K. Rudel, and E. F. Lambin. 2010. Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:20917– 20922. Sarkar, S., and M. Montoya. 2011. Beyond parks and reserves: the ethics and politics of conservation with a case study from Per´ u. Biological Conservation 144:979–988. Soule, M. 2013. The “new conservation”. Conservation Biology 27:895– 897. Springer, J., J. Gastelumendi, G. Oviedo, K. W. Painemilla, M. Painter, K. Seesink, H. Schneider, and D. Thomas. 2010. The conservation initiative on human rights: promoting increased integration of human rights in conservation. Policy Matters 17:81–83. Sunderland, T. C. H., C. Ehringhaus, and B. M. Campbell. 2008. Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: A time to face the trade-offs? Environmental Conservation 34: 276–279.
