What is Lost in Conservation Efforts?

            From the time westernized children are young, we are indoctrinated to believe in saving the whales, the rhinos, and the rainforests. We are cultivated in a social environment which targets specific niches of environmentalism and latches on, professing the necessity of ecological activism and conservation. And while these convictions which developed states stem from a moral concern for the well-being of the planet earth and its inhabitants, the infiltration of conservationist efforts in developing states often leads to unforeseen repercussions. Loss of political sovereignty, cultural norms, and the possibility of state use of force against citizens are all lurking consequences to the involvement of conservation regimes in developing areas. While in no way do I propose that the exploitation of resources is a viable or sustainable option, it is undeniable that the externalities of conservationist efforts need to be planned and accounted for in order to prevent unnecessary environmental, social, and political harm.

            In her analysis of the repercussions of conservation efforts in the “Third World,” Nancy Lee Peluso introduces the idea that these precautionary measures often lead to, “external intervention in what were previously the sole affairs of the states.” (Peluso 1993). The common response to this insinuation is that developing states lack the knowledge and understanding of how to manage and protect the valuable resources within their boundaries, and that international conservation involvement is the only method through which the resource is safeguarded. Even with this in mind, I think it is worth considering the political implications of this involvement. Rather than leaving the resource management to the native persons of a given state, these international organizations come in with sanctions, laws, and regulatory policies which dictate the actions and use of the resource by the entire state. Such measures assume that the moral and environmental predispositions of the Western order – usually the backing force of these conservation efforts – are “right,” while the environmental tactics of those inhabiting the land are dowdy and ineffective. This loss of sovereignty in the jurisdiction of a state over a resource raises red flags in terms of social customs and governmental action.

            While conservationist coalitions such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), seek to protect the biodiversity of a given region, their actions often have unintended consequences. A pivotal example of this is found in the case study of the Maasai, an indigenous group to Kenya whose primary way of life had previously been to coexist with the wild game of Kenya. Their land access was effectively quartered off by the state government due to pressures from international environmentalist regimes, their lifestyle habits entirely altered, and primary form of economic gain (hunting) thwarted due to protectionist policies implemented by the government. Such instances in which the sociocultural norms of an indigenous group of people to a state are cast aside in an effort to maintain biodiversity have lasting effects; civil unrest in states and a general sense of discontent from the locals could result in conflict between the public and the government. While the importance of the conservation of a given resource for the sake of biodiversity protection certainly has merit, are international groups willing to prioritize this over the social well-being of the citizens of a state?  

            As social scientists and politicians continue to analyze the externalities of conservation policies and regime involvement in resource-dense developing countries of the world, it is becoming clear that this is a question which demands to be answered. As is the case in Kenya, there is a pattern of developing state leaders to use the conservation of resources as justification to use militarized force against civilians. Rangers in these states are legally permitted to kill poachers without any trial, questioning, or formal due process. This blatant violation of human rights in exchange for ecological protection is an issue which needs to be addressed, and which further questions the sanctity of conservation regime involvement in developing states.

            As someone who has been socialized to appreciate the biodiversity around the world, I would argue that preventative measures are necessary in order to ensure the continuance of species for future generations. This being said, the policies created by international conservation regimes must account for the sovereignty of states, the rights of the people who depend on the resource, and the protection of citizens from abuse of power in the name of conservation efforts. Rather than a collective group of individuals from western states constructing policies for these developing states, I would offer that it might be beneficial to involve citizens from communities within the states when drafting policies, to get a realistic understanding of how the regulations will influence the state itself. By accounting for externalities of conservation efforts before they are implemented, the successful protection of pivotal resources can be accomplished without threatening the rights of developing states and the citizens.