Equitable Policy Development for Biodiversity Conservation

Since humans and nature coexist in both natural and built environments, conservation objectives may from time to time conflict with local needs and wellbeing.

For instance, tensions could arise when:-

1) Animals of prey (which may be of conservation interest) seek to feed on animals deployed for agricultural purposes;

2) The habitats of conserved or threatened species are also the subject of desired development;

3) Indigenous activities are conducted or planned on lands within protected areas; and

4) food or energy production may result in ecological damage.

    (Vucetich et al 2018)

In assessing the equity of conservation governance, different dimensions of social justice are to be considered.

Social justice encompasses not only human interests but also the interests of the actors and components of nature, all of which deserve regard for their welfare (Vucetich et al 2018). Further, and therefore, social justice can only be achieved by transcending anthropocentrism and operationalizing the notion that “no human should infringe on the well-being of others any more than is necessary for a healthy, meaningful life” (Vucetich et al 2018:23). In short, if conservation goals and concerns are designed with only humans in mind, social justice would not be served in a holistic and equitable manner.

Consequently, our understanding of equity will also need to undergo an expansionary shift. It has been observed that where equity is defined primarily on the distribution of monetary costs and benefits, as determined systematically and empirically, the effectiveness of conservation efforts tends to be compromised (Dawson et al 2018). Quite apart from moral and ethical imperatives, according deep consideration to likely impacts on the daily lived experiences of local stakeholders may deliver effectiveness in terms of greater local acceptability and legitimacy, enhanced cooperation, and reduced management and compliance costs (Dawson et al 2018).

To make progress towards more equitable forms of conservation, the trifecta of distribution, procedure, and recognition, as conceptualized by Dawson et al (2018), could serve as a helpful framework. Apart from the sharing of costs and benefits (distribution), conservation planners could also take into account the modes and mechanisms behind decision-making within the protected area (procedure), as well as the locus standi (whether formal or in substance) of each sub-group within the affected communities (recognition) (Dawson et al 2018).

By centering local experiences and impacts, equity becomes not merely one of many factors but indeed an ultimate objective in the conservation program.

References:-

• Dawson, N., A. Martin and F. Danielsen. (2018). ‘Assessing equity in protected area governance: approaches to promote just and effective conservation’, Conservation Letters 11(2) 2018, p.e12388.

• Vucetich, J.A., D. Burnham, E.A. Macdonald, J.T. Bruskotter, S. Marchini, A. Zimmermann and D.W. Macdonald. (2018). ‘Just conservation: What is it and should we pursue it?’ Biological Conservation 221 2018, pp.23–33.