Fortress conservation is a centralized conservation model based on the belief that the ideal method of biodiversity protection is by creating protected areas with no human disturbances, where ecosystems can function in isolation. This form of conservation assumes that the use of ecosystem services by local communities can be destructive and directly accelerates biodiversity loss.
Thus, concerned authorities have the power to restrict community access to land and ecosystem services with the objective of effective conservation. Fortress conservation models have been extensively used for decades and institutions have been known to use brute force via militarization to ensure community displacement and restriction.
Controversial Ideologies
The main criticism of this type of conservation is that it directly deprives the basic rights of local and indigenous communities in the process of creating and maintaining protected areas. Communities are displaced from land where they have resided for centuries with traditional and cultural practices to live in harmony with nature.
Community members are labelled as poachers, illegal settlers, and criminals as opposed to vital conservation stakeholders. This often leads to them developing an overall antagonistic attitude towards fortress conservation initiatives and reject conservation goals. Such ideologies have led to fortress conservation being labelled as ‘Green Colonialism’.
Holding the Fort – A Hostile Defense
Despite the pushback, fortress conservation projects are still implemented by a number of governments and institutions around the globe (particularly in Africa).
The following features have been attributed to fortress conservation and its success –
1. This model emphasizes on providing a great portion of power to the state.
2. Projects generate high revenue via international sponsorships, and government fundings, particularly owing to ecotourism.
3. The funds obtained are then solely used for building and managing protected areas through fencing, appointing park rangers, and military investment. Investment is also made for research i.e species monitoring, observation studies etc.
4. Local communities do not contribute to a majority of these programs. In cases wherein social issues such as poverty affect community weflare, their power and capacity is perceived to be ‘too weak’ for conservation sustenance. As a result, there is greater financial and political investment towards conservation actions rather than the problematic social consequences it can result for the community.
5. Seizing of land, prohibition and restriction of ecosystem services are common practices for this conservation style. Unfortunately, local and indigenous communities often times do not hold the power to fight back. Thus, community opposition is often disregarded unless it majorly affects the success of conservation interventions.
Mkomazi Game Reserve
A hallmark example of successful fortress conservation is the Mkomazi Game Reserve. In 1951, the previous colonial government of Mkomazi established the land as a game reserve which eventually upgraded to a national park covering an area of 34,234 km2.
The government evicted several ethnic groups of pastoralist families from the region with the exception of the immigrant Maasai tribe. Eventually, other immigrant herders also started occupying the land, which resulted in an explosion in the area’s cattle population which reached upto 80,000 in the 1950s.
To combat the environmental concerns raised, the government seized permissions for grazing and evicted all herders. Although the evicted pastoralists contested the legality of these evictions on the basis of customary rights, they lost the case.
Years later, the reserve is now big on high-end ecotourism and is home to many endangered species including the African wild dog and black rhinoceros. The reserve is also claimed to be working with schools and supports local needs for the communities.
To many, the Mkomazi case study is one of successful conservation as it was able to preserve the environment from destruction by human disturbances. To others, it highlights the bleak reality of how colonization separated indigenous and local people from their own land. The ecological justification for evicting thousands of people with little or no compensation has been scrutinized by communities as alternative options were not carefully considered prior to eviction.
Should conservation be based on ethics or evidence?
The primary argument for fortress conservation is that its basis for conservation is based on evidence, rather than political justice or ethical practices. The argument states – At the end of the day, the protection biodiversity is done for all of humanity, and using this strategy is the “most effective” way of doing so. However, regardless of the ethicality of the situation, there is clear evidence to showcase the counter productiveness of radical practices used in fortress conservation.
A review on African conservation projects, for example, has exposed how post-eviction, certain areas started losing its wildlife due to a lack of traditional practices which aided in preserving them (such as the control of forest fires). Moreover, the same ‘Protected Areas’ where people were evicted for degrading biodiversity are now being exploited for oil mining, agro-industry, logging, and other destructive practices.
Community-Based Conservation
The emergence of community-based conservation (CBC) has presented as a more sustainable and ethical alternative to fortress conservation.
Several CBC projects have been launched around the world wherein communities gain partial or full autonomy of land and have since done excellent work in preserving their biodiversity with the aid of governments, NGOs and community leaders.
Some examples include –
- Community Conservation of Golden Langurs in Assam – Since the establishment of the Manas Biosphere community reserve, this community conservation project has focused on outreach, education and capacity building. Through these efforts, the endangered langur population has risen from 1,500 in the 1990s to 5,600 in recent times.
- Community Conservation in North-East India – A majority of forests in North-Eastern states including Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Meghalaya are community protected. Through CBC interventions, several of these communities now follow sustainable use of ecosystem services. Furthermore, the local people have been trained to regularly patrol their community reserves to prevent poachers, aid in monitoring surveys and impart conservation awareness. In turn, these projects have provided alternative forms of livelihood, greater education opportunities along with ownership and autonomy for the communities.
Success in Solidarity
The consequences of fortress conservation have clearly indicated the need for a more nuanced approach to conservation – One that does not create a zero-sum situation for conservation to achieve its objectives i.e the success of biodiversity protection does not need to equate the loss of community welfare.
Regardless of the limitations existing in inclusive practices of conservation, there is victory in eliminating the current outliers, rather than abandoning it altogether in the pursuit of colonial conservation. As we progress further in conservation research and practices, it is imperative for institutions to recognize and rethink their classical methods of conservation and vow to aim for success through solidarity.
Help us Help Them! Think Wildlife Foundation is a non profit organization with various conservation initiatives. Our most prominent campaign is our Caring for Pari initiative. Pari is a rehabilitated elephant at the Wildlife SoS Hospital. 25% of the profits from our store are donated to the elephant hospital for Pari. Other than buying our wonderful merchandise, you could donate directly to our Caring For Pari fundraiser.
Written by: Namita Nalamala