A new research paper questions whether local communities should be excluded from managing conservation areas.

By Manuel Boissière

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/nc/our-research/research-highlights/research-detail-view/article/372/access-for-local-people-can-help-protect-forests-1/browse/6.html

“For the 100 or so residents of the Vietnamese village of Khe Tran, the forest was central to their livelihoods…This changed in 1992 when nearly all traditional activities sustaining livelihoods were banned by the central government. The community was then re-located a few kilometres away, on the fringe of the forest…Purely protectionist policies are never fully workable, says Boissière. They can have serious impacts on centuries-old cultures and traditions, and lead to otherwise law obedient people breaking the law and undermining the government’s conservation aims.”

This article caught my eye for a few reasons. One, the study was conducted in collaboration with the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) for whom one of my advisors, Dr. Christine Padoch, recently became a director. Secondly, the title stated the author questioned a conservation strategy which always intrigues me. Finally, displacing people from land they have cultivated for many generations hits me in a tender spot.

In southern Bahia, Brazil where I have conducted research, the state has displaced many farmers to form new protected areas. On one hand, a forest with one of the highest levels of biodiversity in the world has all but disappeared. There are literally hundreds maybe thousands of unidentified, yet-to-be discovered species from all kingdoms of life in the remaining fragments of forest. Forming new protected areas is the quickest way for the state to increase forest cover, and as a botanist/ecologist I find it hard to argue against it….However….removing people from forests will not stop them from using the forest resources and in particular, hunting animals and harvesting native timber. Common practices for meeting basic needs are now criminal activities. This has created an incredibly antagonistic attitude towards conservation which ultimately compromises the intentions of conservationists. My gut says it is unjust to take away people’s rights to their land or resources and after talking to so many farmers from the region it is simply heart-wrenching.  Resource over-exploitation, however is an old, old story and we have learned repeatedly that people will exploit a resource to its demise.

Can the state cultivate the forest better than the people? Should people who gave up their rights to land and resources be compensated by the state?