| Summary: | <p class="first" id="d682905e238">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.
</p>
|
|---|