Cruel Conservation?

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.




The 5th conference of the World Parks Congress convened last Monday, with the goal of increasing the number and percentage of protected natural areas worldwide. The meeting was marked by controversy regarding the overlap of land protection and native peoples’ rights. Former South African President Nelson Mandela welcomed the delegates to the conference in Durban, South Africa. Mandela and other speakers lauded the Congress for its plans to address poverty and impoverished peoples’ search for food as a contributing factor in environmental degradation. Scientists believe that the over-harvesting of foods in protected areas threatens ecosytems and biodiversity. But the Indigenous Peoples Caucus, representing about 150 groups worldwide, urged conference attendees to break from traditional western perceptions of land use and permit native tribes to stay on their land.

Past conservation efforts have driven tribes from their land, a practice which the Indigenous People’s Caucus argues is unjust and does not respect native peoples’ ability to live sustainably off their land. The Associated France-Presse reports:

“The Indigenous Peoples Caucus issued a declaration at the start of the event requesting special attention to their ‘expulsion and exclusion’ from protected areas.

‘According to international laws, we have a right not to be forcibly removed from our land,’ [spokewoman Joji] Carino said.”

The groups demanded that the 2,500 conference delegates provide them with open access to and management of their ancestral lands. Some tribes in the caucus were removed from their ancestors’ lands, while others have no say in their management. Reuters reports that the conference’s is “Benefits Beyond Boundaries” and aims to encourage conservation in areas beyond park borders as well as attempt to alleviate rural poverty by employing rural workers in ecotourism and other conservation efforts — but Indigenous tribes, apparently, aren’t seen as the priority that rural workers are.

The Caucus was further enraged by conservationist Richard Leakey’s comments that conservation was more important than the rights of indigenous people, the London Guardian reports. Indigenous groups believe their fight for justice can coincide with land preservation, and were angered by Leakey’s suggestion to provide “compensation” instead of allowing the tribes to manage their lands:

“‘Leakey’s taking us back to the colonial era ,'” said Edward Porokwa, of Tanzania’s Masai.

The World Conservation Union’s Congress will end on September 17th. In addition to its aims to fight poverty, the Congress has an agenda of protecting wetlands, improving marine protection, and working with mining and drilling companies to support conservation efforts. According to a World Conservation Union Report, 19 million square miles, or 11 percent, of the world’s lands are now protected — up from just 2 million square miles in 1962. But at least 700 highly threatened species still lack protection, the report says.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest