Conservation Industrial Complex: Difference between revisions
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) |
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<Blockquote>We went on a tour of the major international conservation organizations and funding agencies such as the US, Germany, and the European Commission to present the results from the study. Much of the initial reaction I liken to the different stages of grief. First of all, there was anger that we should be questioning policies. Second, there was denial-- there must be problems with our methodology, they said. Third, there was deflection: it wasn't ultimately their responsibility, they said, but rather that of the governments in these countries. I would say it wasn't until the Buzzfeed exposes... that this campaign really took off and we gained traction. All of a sudden, this issue couldn't be pushed under the carpet. It was a political issue now. And there followed an avalanche of reports, media exposes, and investigations by the various government agencies. ...<Ref>Decolonize Conservation: Global Voices for Indigenous Self-determination, Land, and a World in Common, Edited by Ashley Dawson, Fiore Longo, and Survival International; Page, 122-123.</Ref></Blockquote> | <Blockquote>We went on a tour of the major international conservation organizations and funding agencies such as the US, Germany, and the European Commission to present the results from the study. Much of the initial reaction I liken to the different stages of grief. First of all, there was anger that we should be questioning policies. Second, there was denial-- there must be problems with our methodology, they said. Third, there was deflection: it wasn't ultimately their responsibility, they said, but rather that of the governments in these countries. I would say it wasn't until the Buzzfeed exposes... that this campaign really took off and we gained traction. All of a sudden, this issue couldn't be pushed under the carpet. It was a political issue now. And there followed an avalanche of reports, media exposes, and investigations by the various government agencies. ...<Ref>Decolonize Conservation: Global Voices for Indigenous Self-determination, Land, and a World in Common, Edited by Ashley Dawson, Fiore Longo, and Survival International; Page, 122-123.</Ref></Blockquote> | ||
The author continues, explaining how little conservation spending goes to Indigenous communities: "Our sister organization Rainforest Foundation Norway recently published a study that found that only 0.1 percent of climate funding goes towards Indigenous and local community land rights. Let that sink in: 0.1 percent. And this is when Indigenous Peoples and other local communities are said to manage 80 percent of the world's biodiversity.<Ref>"Decolonize Conservation: Global Voices for Indigenous Self-determination, Land, and a World in Common, Edited by Ashley Dawson, Fiore Longo, and Survival International; Page, 124.</Ref> | |||
= Sources = | = Sources = | ||
Revision as of 22:10, 21 April 2023
Fortress Conservation
Fortress conservation is destroying the land and lives of Indigenous Peoples. But this model is embraced by Western conservation NGOs, and this is where most of the Western funding for nature protection is going. Why? Because the myths that sustain this model of conservation are reproduced in school texts, media, wildlife documentaries, NGO adverts, etc. The images we have seen since childhood about "nature," and the words we use to describe it, shape our way of thinking, our policies, and our actions. We tend to assume these words and images are the reality, as if they were neutral, objective, or "scientific." But they are not. Conservation is rooted in racism, colonialism, white supremacy, social injustice, land theft, extractivism, and violence. Contributors to this section show the role that the Global North plays in perpetuating these injustices by funding conservation that violates Indigenous Peoples rights. These projects lack transparency and accountability and don't tackle the real causes of the environmental crises.[1]
Salonga National Park
Is a park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and is known as an 'emblematic Protected Area. "It's a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It's the the biggest rain forest reserve in Africa and one of the biggest in the world. It also has funding from the United States, from Germany, and from the European Commission, among many other donors. What we found with our local partners was pretty shocking. In just eleven communities out of six hundred bordering the park, there were several cases of extrajudicial killings and multiple rapes by so-called eco-guards. And out of 250 people that were interviewed, sixty-three reported cases of physical abuse and torture of the local population.[2]
It's important to note that all of these funding organizations have preexisting human rights policies and due diligence processes. Go on their websites and you'll see plenty of documentation about how they integrate human rights principles into their programs. I think what our research showed is that too often this doesn't actually manifest on the ground. And by and large what it brings into focus are severe problems with the current Protected Area funding model that we see in central Africa. There's a huge lack of transparency and accountability: it turns out that many of these human rights abuses were known about, particularly by the WWF, who co-manages the park. When these human rights abuses surfaced there was very little understanding of who was responsible for what and who communities could go to for redress. It very much laid bare the inadequacy of international funding institutions' safeguards, procedures, and standards. And ultimately what it shows is that, as we've heard pretty much throughout the sessions today, it's based on a very fundamentally flawed "wilderness" model of conservation[3]
We went on a tour of the major international conservation organizations and funding agencies such as the US, Germany, and the European Commission to present the results from the study. Much of the initial reaction I liken to the different stages of grief. First of all, there was anger that we should be questioning policies. Second, there was denial-- there must be problems with our methodology, they said. Third, there was deflection: it wasn't ultimately their responsibility, they said, but rather that of the governments in these countries. I would say it wasn't until the Buzzfeed exposes... that this campaign really took off and we gained traction. All of a sudden, this issue couldn't be pushed under the carpet. It was a political issue now. And there followed an avalanche of reports, media exposes, and investigations by the various government agencies. ...[4]
The author continues, explaining how little conservation spending goes to Indigenous communities: "Our sister organization Rainforest Foundation Norway recently published a study that found that only 0.1 percent of climate funding goes towards Indigenous and local community land rights. Let that sink in: 0.1 percent. And this is when Indigenous Peoples and other local communities are said to manage 80 percent of the world's biodiversity.[5]
Sources
- ↑ Decolonize Conservation: Global Voices for Indigenous Self-determination, Land, and a World in Common, Edited by Ashley Dawson, Fiore Longo, and Survival International; Page, 119.
- ↑ Decolonize Conservation: Global Voices for Indigenous Self-determination, Land, and a World in Common, Edited by Ashley Dawson, Fiore Longo, and Survival International; Page, 122.
- ↑ Decolonize Conservation: Global Voices for Indigenous Self-determination, Land, and a World in Common, Edited by Ashley Dawson, Fiore Longo, and Survival International; Page, 122.
- ↑ Decolonize Conservation: Global Voices for Indigenous Self-determination, Land, and a World in Common, Edited by Ashley Dawson, Fiore Longo, and Survival International; Page, 122-123.
- ↑ "Decolonize Conservation: Global Voices for Indigenous Self-determination, Land, and a World in Common, Edited by Ashley Dawson, Fiore Longo, and Survival International; Page, 124.