In our article (Vermeulen & Sheil, 2007) we encouraged stronger partnerships between conservation interests and local people. Such partnerships are often more ethical, and potentially more effective, than alternative conservation models. We did not argue that such partnerships are simple, guarantee success or will address all other concerns, but effective partnerships can reduce conflicts, which are a constraint to progress in tropical conservation. Clapperton Mavhunga (2007) and John Robinson (2007) develop contrasting perspectives, often moving beyond the scope of our article. Here we address some points and encourage readers to judge the rest. Both commentators emphasize their disagreements but both offer arguments that bolster rather than weaken our own. Both commentators find problems in our abstract. Robinson dislikes our premise that global conservation is largely ‘. . .devised and controlled by a small group of powerful, external voices’. This he suggests ’. . .does not forward [our] analysis’. Nonetheless he avoids engaging with the charge and the implications of the democratic deficit it entails. Who does, could and should conservation serve? Coming from the opposite perspective, Mavhunga, ‘. . .in the trenches fighting. . .’, castigates our encouragement for conservationists to give local people ‘the opportunity’ for deeper involvement. His analysis, and creative use of italics, reveals our eagerness to exploit local people. He calls partnerships passe but fails to explain why. We wish Mavhunga well in mobilizing his ‘global coalitions against poverty’, his ‘new democracies of knowledge’ and his ‘answer to global warming’. But it may take a while. In the meantime stopgap measures, such as partnerships, can be helpful. Robinson accepts our conclusion regarding the value of partnerships but he finds other points of departure. He quotes from various large US-based NGOs to show that partnerships are nothing new. But we do not make any claim to novelty, our own examples span decades. Our point is that deeds often fail to match up to the rhetoric. We agree with Robinson that partnership is not easy and that there are significant challenges in linking the differing views and needs of local residents and international conservation agencies. His commentary provides a valuable addition to ours by providing further detail on institutional challenges and solutions, with several useful contemporary examples. Our commentary made many related points on tactics, rules, checks and balances, accountability, and negotiated trade-offs. This is not defining away differences. Indeed, in our section entitled Recognize costs and trade-offs we went further than Robinson by recognizing the differences within communities in perceptions and in incentives for engagement. For the interested practitioner there is now an abundance of literature to guide collaborative conservation (e.g. Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004, and references within). The issue perhaps for Robinson is why we use the normative term ‘partnership’ rather than a more ‘cleareyed’ neutral alternative such as relationship, association, arrangement, deal or transaction. We characterize partnership as resting on equitable sharing of decisions, rights, responsibilities and risks. Is such a model realistic? We don’t know many conservationists who need to have the differences between themselves and other stakeholders, or roles and motivation, spelt out for them. If we observed numerous conservationists naively assuming common ground with each and every local person they came across, or even if we felt it was a possibility, Robinson’s ‘clear-eyed’ caution would be warranted. But the more common problem is the reverse: many conservationists assume that finding common ground is impossible or a recipe for disappointment. We need to be clear here that we are not advocating a one size fits all approach. We would not even go as far as asserting a set of good practices. What is important is the spirit of the relationship. This is why we emphasize application of high standards: aspiring to equitable partnership even if this goal is lofty. Good practice may not be transferable but good principle is. Aspiration towards partnership can shape a mutually respectful relationship that is more likely to deliver the different benefits each side seeks. Sonja Vermeulen International Institute for Environment and Development, 3 Endsleigh Street, London, WC1H 0DD, UK.