Abstract
ABSTRACT The 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework aims to bring 30 per cent of the earth under protected areas (PAs) and ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ by 2030 to halt the biodiversity crisis. The steady expansion of PAs since 1960 has not hindered the crisis from intensifying, however, while it has been achieved against strong scholarly and indigenous critiques. Why, then, do (neo)protectionist ideas remain so powerful in global conservation policy? This paper argues that an ignored element in critiques is (neo)protectionism's rootedness in biological fieldwork and the emotional-institutional power this carries in conservation circles. This further fuels an enduring ‘great conservation tragedy’.
Published Version
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
