Conservation Theory Meets Practice

I agree with Schwartzman et al. that rural peoples should not be identified as "enemies of nature." Rural peoples are and should be allies of biodiversity conservation not only because it is a basic human right but because they are the ones who have the most to lose if the resources they depend on are depleted. The process of establishing an alliance among conservationists, government officials, the private sector, and local peoples is long and full of difficulties, but it may empower local peoples, as forseen by the caboclo leader in the quote above. I have problems, however, with the broad generalizations implied in Schwartzman's essay. Strong alliances are built on the basis of each group recognizing the other group's particular interests. A transparent negotiation process results in the realization that local peoples' interests often do not include biodiversity conservation as a major goal. Local peoples' interests are driven mainly by economic and political concerns that need to be addressed to allow positive conservation and development outcomes. Just as parks cannot "carry the entire burden for biodiversity conservation" (Brandon et al. 1998:2), local peoples should not carry the sole responsibility for the political viability of protected areas. In many cases, after suffering the local extinction of large mammals, rural peoples are the first to admit that their resource-use practices may not be sustainable in the long run. For instance, a 1993 survey to reassess the conservation status of spider monkeys (Ateles paniscus chamek) in the Beni Biosphere Reserve (first assessment took place in 1988), showed that this species had become locally extinct in the areas occupied by the Tsimane Indians (Tarifa-Yensen 1997:63). The Tsimane hunt monkeys for food; because this resource is in low supply (or absent in some villages), they are taking steps to develop management plans to secure the long-term availability of these food sources. People-free parks are an essential element of a comprehensive conservation strategy. It is crucial that protected areas without people exist to guarantee the natural function of pristine ecosystems. This notion does not contradict the right of local peoples to participate in the design and management of such areas. I offer an example from Madre de Dios, Peru (Moore et al. 1995). In 1990 the Peruvian government created the Tambopata Candamo Reserved Zone of nearly 1.5 million ha of pristine rainforest ecosystems and the landholdings of many rural people. Initially, local people reacted negatively to the establishment of this protected area because they were not consulted and rightly feared that their access to natural resources would be cut or restricted. Conservation nongovernmental organizations began a dialogue with local people to repair the damage done. Local people were drawn into the planning process to zone the new protected area. This process took about 2 years of meetings, dialogue, and negotiations. The result was a concerted zoning proposal that contained a people-free core protected area (national park) in the center and two buffer areas, one in the northern part of the reserved zone (lower Tambopata river region) and the other in the southern part (upper Tambopata river region). The concept that a large portion of land should be set aside to maintain key ecological processes was debated and accepted among the local population, whose main sources of food originate in natural forests. Indigenous and colonist communities also began to apply this concept within their own landholdings. Regrettably, this conservation planning model was wrecked by the government's decision to open the Peruvian Amazon for oil and gas exploration. In March 1996, a consortium led by Mobil Oil signed a contract to explore Block 78, which included most of the proposed Paper submitted May 9, 2000; revised manuscript accepted May 10, 2000.