Woodhouse Emily, Bedelian Claire, Barnes Paul, Cruz-Garcia Gisella S, Dawson Neil, Gross-Camp Nicole, Homewood Katherine, Jones Julia P G, Martin Adrian, Morgera Elisa, Schreckenberg Kate
Department of Anthropology, University College London, London, UK.
International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.
UCL Open Environ. 2022 Nov 16;4:e050. doi: 10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000050. eCollection 2022.
Attempts to link human development and biodiversity conservation goals remain a constant feature of policy and practice related to protected areas (PAs). Underlying these approaches are narratives that simplify assumptions, shaping how interventions are designed and implemented. We examine evidence for five key narratives: 1) conservation is pro-poor; 2) poverty reduction benefits conservation; 3) compensation neutralises costs of conservation; 4) local participation is good for conservation; 5) secure tenure rights for local communities support effective conservation. Through a mixed-method synthesis combining a review of 100 peer-reviewed papers and 25 expert interviews, we examined if and how each narrative is supported or countered by the evidence. The first three narratives are particularly problematic. PAs can reduce material poverty, but exclusion brings substantial local costs to wellbeing, often felt by the poorest. Poverty reduction will not inevitably deliver on conservation goals and trade-offs are common. Compensation (for damage due to human wildlife conflict, or for opportunity costs), is rarely sufficient or commensurate with costs to wellbeing and experienced injustices. There is more support for narratives 4 and 5 on participation and secure tenure rights, highlighting the importance of redistributing power towards Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in successful conservation. In light of the proposed expansion of PAs under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, we outline implications of our review for the enhancement and implementation of global targets in order to proactively integrate social equity into conservation and the accountability of conservation actors.
将人类发展与生物多样性保护目标联系起来的努力，一直是与保护区（PA）相关的政策和实践的一个不变特征。这些方法的背后是一些简化假设的叙述，塑造了干预措施的设计和实施方式。我们研究了五个关键叙述的证据：1）保护有利于穷人；2）减贫有利于保护；3）补偿抵消了保护成本；4）当地参与有利于保护；5）保障当地社区的土地保有权有助于有效保护。通过综合运用混合方法，结合对100篇同行评议论文的综述和25次专家访谈，我们研究了每个叙述是否以及如何得到证据的支持或反驳。前三个叙述尤其成问题。保护区可以减少物质贫困，但排斥会给当地居民的福祉带来巨大成本，最贫困者往往感受最深。减贫不一定能实现保护目标，权衡取舍很常见。补偿（针对人类与野生动物冲突造成的损害或机会成本）很少足够，也与福祉成本不相称，而且存在明显的不公正现象。对于关于参与和土地保有权保障的叙述4和5，有更多的支持，这突出了在成功的保护工作中向原住民和当地社区重新分配权力的重要性。鉴于2020年后全球生物多样性框架提议扩大保护区，我们概述了我们的综述对加强和实施全球目标的影响，以便积极地将社会公平纳入保护工作以及保护行为体的问责制。
