When conflicts arise in conservation: Balancing the need to conserve species with the rights of local communities

In recent weeks, three UK sites were declared Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs). All mining, fishing, and development are banned in these HPMAs. Despite three proposals going ahead, two sites were rejected as potential HPMAs - one was near to home at Holy Island. This was after local residents brought up fears that banning fishing at Holy Island would wreck the local economy.

With only three pubs, one hotel, one post office, and less than 200 residents, Holy Island is incredibly remote. Driving in and out of the island is only possible at low tide. So it’s a surprise to no one that commuting from Holy Island isn’t the most practical of options. Here fishing is a key part of the residents’ livelihoods, and many felt that banning this would have ripped the community to shreds.

However, the Northumberland coast and its surrounding waters is also home to countless species, and at a time when our waters are more endangered than ever, how can we balance the rights of local communities with the need for wildlife conservation?

Community-based efforts are a hot topic in conservation. Historically, much of conservation has been exclusionary: if we don’t let people live where the animals live, surely we can make sure people cannot hurt the animals, after all. However, it’s not as simple as that. There’s no such thing as truly uninhabited, untouched nature - even the dense forests of the Amazon are home to generations of Indigenous people.

Such exclusionary practices raise the question: Who are policy makers and distant government officials to dictate what practices locals are allowed to carry out, especially when these practices have co-existed with nature for hundreds, if not thousands, of years?

Throughout history there are many cases of locals being locked out of their own lands, and in many of them, these are rooted in classism and racism. For example, the Sonaha people of Nepal were removed from their villages when the area was declared a national park. Their fishing and gold mining activities were banned, and when an attempt to grant the Sonaha fishing licenses was made in 2008, their licenses were revoked the very same year. In Indonesia, Mount Ciremai has a tumultuous history when it comes to conservation - government mismanagement led to Ciremai’s forests being severely damaged by logging from corporations. Their response of turning Ciremai into a national park eventually led to local villages losing all of their land ownership.

Too often, we view conservation and communities as being at odds. After all, how can people and nature live side-by-side when nature needs to be protected from people?

Here’s the answer: it doesn’t.

It’s not people that threaten nature. It’s unsustainable practice.

Conservation should be informed by empirical scientific evidence, but far too often, conservation ends up informed by biased preconceptions. “We have to protect the fish from the ignorant fisherman. We have to protect the tigers from the stupid villagers. We have to protect the butterflies from the careless farmers.”

In reality, the very people conservation often ends up butting heads with are those who know more about nature than the conservationists trying to protect it. In Mexico’s rainforests, Indigenous people have perfected a complex agricultural practice known as shifting agriculture. Decades ago, scientists decried shifting agriculture as being destructive and unproductive, and called for more modern agricultural practices. Now, scientists have come to realise that this cultivation system is highly resilient, and results in very little, if any, damage to the local ecosystem. This system can even incorporate newer cash crops like vanilla and sugar with success. Where would Mexico’s rainforests be today if we had learned to respect traditional practices earlier instead of forcefully enforcing “efficient” farming practices?

There’s also evidence for Indigenous spirituality influencing sustainable resource management. One study in Thailand found that spiritual taboos worked to protect nature - in the Nongchaiwan wetlands, certain actions such as fishing at the wrong time of the year or cutting down specific trees is considered to bring bad luck. It just so happens that these taboos help conserve delicate natural resources. Alongside spirituality, Indigenous and local knowledge is also incredibly valuable to conservation - the Saami people of northern Norway helped protect local fisheries from collapse when they picked up on the risks of fish farming well before scientists considered the possibility.

Time and time again, history has shown that trying to conserve wildlife without working with local communities will only work against everyone involved. It’s been found that the conservation programs with the most success are ones led by local people. It’s about time conservation beings to think about working with, instead of against local communities.