Are the conservationists up to the job?

In the UN Year of Biodiversity Conservation, are the conservationists up to the job?

There are a few examples of success, but surely the answer is no, they are not. One of the joys of teaching our students is that they persist in asking the difficult questions and reminding us that not all is well.

Despite the celebratory atmosphere in South Africa at the last World Parks Congress, when successive countries ceded ever more land to conservation, the reality is that the conservationists are not able to conserve the habitat and species that they control. They are often running paper parks. They will argue that they need yet more resources, I for one am not convinced. In the International Year of Biodiversity, it is not unreasonable to expect a little more critical reflection by the conservation industry on what has been achieved. 

One of our students from the sub-continent wrote to me recently arguing that change is required in the approach to conservation in India. He went on to argue that in India the forest dwellers are amongst the poorest, living at or near starvation levels and that there has been a “lack of will and desire to make their lives better.” Yes, and in most other places too.

The international efforts to save the Tiger have been spectacularly unsuccessful – I have been privileged to see the Tiger at Sariska, Ranthambhore and Khana, all Project Tiger reserves since the 1970’s. This is no longer possible at Sariska and I am told that it is now easier to see one of these magnificent cats outside of the conservation estate at Ranthambhore than it is on it: failure.

It would be interesting to see where the money has been spent. How much has been spent on the conservation scientists? How much on the practical conservation initiatives, net of funding for awareness raising amongst foreigners with no influence,  other than the ability to contribute to funding the conservation scientists? How much actually goes to the poor and marginalised forest dwellers – the people who bare the cost of crop damage, death and injury and loss of access to natural resources. They pay the price for our pleasure.

As our bright student pointed out “change is required in the way the conservation movement has taken place in India until now.” Indeed change is required. The current strategy is demonstrably not working. Improving the lives of the poor communities has to be a prime focus of the conservationists – although it may also be necessary to resettle these communities and ensure that they have better access to resources and a higher standard of living. Parks have suffered from inward migration and increase conflict between people and wildlife at protected areas like Hwange and Galapagos where the very success of tourism has increased the problems of human pressure, particularly as humans encircle the protected areas. Although where this happens, it is generally the incomers who benefit not the original locals, the people who have been dispossessed.

Tour Operators for Tigers (TOFT) asks that its members pay a small per park visitor levy to contribute to the conservation efforts locally. Most of them do not. Perhaps it is time to name and shame those who pay lip service to the conservation of the Tiger but do nothing. Unleash a consumer campaign. They and the tourists need to put something back – rarely does the tourist or the industry meet the cost of the visit.

They, and we, need to pay more for our wildlife experiences, they are not for free. Others, the poor, pay the cost. As our student reminded us in India, and I would add elsewhere, “conservation will always remain a high ideal of those whose bellies are full.”

The problem is not unique to India – one has now to ask for evidence that the current strategies are delivering. Are they? Is there evidence to the contrary?

These comments may annoy you – if you have examples of success stories in conservation please post details here.