Why we must question the militarisation of conservation

Rosaleen Duffy,Francis Massé,Emile Smidt,Esther Marijnen,Bram Büscher,Judith Verweijen,Maano Ramutsindela,Trishant Simlai,Laure Joanny,Elizabeth Lunstrum

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.013

Abstract

Concerns about poaching and trafficking have led conservationists to seek urgent responses to tackle the impact on wildlife. One possible solution is the militarisation of conservation, which holds potentially far-reaching consequences. It is important to engage critically with the militarisation of conservation, including identifying and reflecting on the problems it produces for wildlife, for people living with wildlife and for those tasked with implementing militarised strategies. This Perspectives piece is a first step towards synthesising the main themes in emerging critiques of militarised conservation. We identify five major themes: first, the importance of understanding how poaching is defined; second, understanding the ways that local communities experience militarised conservation; third, the experiences of rangers; fourth, how the militarisation of conservation can contribute to violence where conservation operates in the context of armed conflict; and finally how it fits in with and reflects wider political economic dynamics. Ultimately, we suggest that failure to engage more critically with militarisation risks making things worse for the people involved and lead to poor conservation outcomes in the long run.

Highlights

The rapid rise in poaching of elephants, rhinos and many other species over the last decade has prompted conservationists to think about how to respond effectively
While recognizing that militarisation will be varied in its details from place to place, we argue that militarised conservation as a model, even when it might result in conserving some animals and enforcing some protected areas, is fundamentally unjust
Many aspects of ranger experiences remain understudied, including: How do rangers regard the use of tracking technology, which monitors their movements during the working day? What are the implications of such work place surveillance for labour relations? Are rangers paid adequately and on time? Do rangers feel they have the right equipment, and are there sufficient and appropriate pathways through the profession? What are their other options for employment? What kinds of pressures do their families face? Addressing these questions requires thorough and sustained research from the social sciences, and could benefit from developing an analysis which is more firmly anchored in debates about labour relations rather than conservation per se

Summary

Introduction

The rapid rise in poaching of elephants, rhinos and many other species over the last decade has prompted conservationists to think about how to respond effectively. Many of these studies are in-depth explorations of a single case, but there are few overviews (Duffy et al, 2015; Duffy et al, 2016; Büscher and Fletcher, 2018) or comparative studies (Lunstrum and Ybarra, 2018) Our aim in this Perspective Piece is to draw out the major themes, patterns and concerns about militarisation from the critical literature in order to inform more thorough dialogue in conservation; this synthesis of critical perspectives is intended to provide reflections in order to inform conservation policy making via the development of a clear counterpoint to the more commonly articulated position that militarisation is an appropriate, proportionate and necessary response to an urgent situation. To conclude we suggest that failure to engage more critically with militarisation risks making things worse for the people involved and leads to poor conservation outcomes in the long run

Why critical engagement is important

The experiences of rangers

Conservation and armed conflict

The political economy of the militarisation of conservation

Findings

Conclusion