Abstract

The livelihoods of indigenous peoples, custodians of the world’s forests since time immemorial, were eroded as colonial powers claimed de jure control over their ancestral lands. The continuation of European land regimes in Africa and Asia meant that the withdrawal of colonial powers did not bring about a return to customary land tenure. Further, the growth in environmentalism has been interpreted by some as entailing conservation ahead of people. While this may be justifiable in view of devastating anthropocentric breaching of planetary boundaries, continued support for “fortress” style conservation inflicts real harm on indigenous communities and overlooks sustainable solutions to deepening climate crises. In reflecting on this issue from the perspective of colonial land tenure systems, this article highlights how ideas—the importance of individualised land ownership, cultivation, and fortress conservation—are intellectually flawed. Prevailing conservation policies, made possible by global non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and statutory donors, continue to harm indigenous peoples and their traditional territories. Drawing from the authors’ experience representing the Batwa (DRC), the Ogiek and Endorois (Kenya) and Adivasis (India) in international litigation, this paper examines the human and environmental costs associated with modern conservation approaches through this colonial lens. This article concludes by reflecting on approaches that respect environmental and human rights.

Highlights

  • At its most fundamental level, colonialism is premised on exploitation of colonised peoples, their territories and resources [1,2]

  • Drawing from the authors’ experience representing the Batwa (DRC), the Ogiek and Endorois (Kenya) and Adivasis (India) in international litigation, this paper examines the human and environmental costs associated with modern conservation approaches through this colonial lens

  • [11] experts increasingly agree that indigenous custodianship offers the best protection protected areas can ever receive [11] at a fraction of the cost of alternatives [25,50] and, unlike fortress conservation, it complies with international human rights obligations [32]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

At its most fundamental level, colonialism is premised on exploitation of colonised peoples, their territories and resources [1,2]. Indigenous peoples and other local communities were treated as objects that needed to be subjugated, removed or eliminated in order to exploit their labour and guarantee unfettered access to their lands and the “productive” use of resources [5,6] This separation of indigenous peoples from their natural environments was a crucial component of colonisation [7], one that persists in contemporary conservation strategies [5,8,9,10], with devastating consequences for indigenous peoples and the environment [7,11,12,13,14]. Despite being well into the twenty-first century, colonial conservation remains alive and well [8]

Individualised Property Regimes
Primacy of Land Cultivation
Colonial Plunder and “Conservation”
Reflections from the Field
The Human and Environmental Costs of Fortress Conservation
Conservationist Opposition to Indigenous Land Reform
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call