Beyond the 'Protected Area' Paradigm in Conservation: Exploring India's Forest Legislation as a New Conservation Model for Developing Countries.

IF 2.7 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Bidhan Kanti Das
{"title":"Beyond the 'Protected Area' Paradigm in Conservation: Exploring India's Forest Legislation as a New Conservation Model for Developing Countries.","authors":"Bidhan Kanti Das","doi":"10.1007/s00267-024-02056-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To achieve global biodiversity targets, expanding protected area (PA) networks has been regarded as a major strategy in international commitments. However, the PA strategy often fails to achieve its objective - preserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. In addition, the expansion of PA areas could replicate and amplify historical injustices such as forced evictions, state-led physical violence, assimilation of culture and loss of traditional ecological knowledge, affecting communities' livelihood, quality of life and rights. There is an increasing consensus that the post-2020 biodiversity conservation framework should be rights-based and sensitive to the role and contributions of local communities towards achieving the PAs' targets. India's Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 may be considered a useful framework for biodiversity conservation in the context of this new conservation vision. It puts local people at the centre stage, making them active participants in designing and managing conservation. PAs following 'fortress conservation' approach were based on the flawed idea that human interference endangers biodiversity and therefore habitats should be preserved by force if required. Such an idea contradicts the recent understanding that ecosystems once perceived as 'wilderness', have been transformed by people. PAs undermine the intricate and intertwined relationship of humans with their immediate ecosystem. The conservation model proposed by FRA 2006, on the other hand, recognises local communities as an integral part of ecosystem and thereby acknowledges people's rights and agency in conservation. It ensures locals' equitable benefits from economic activities, and provides equitable opportunities to participate in decision-making. Though various provisions under FRA empowered local people in conservation, it faces various challenges during the implementation on the ground. It is argued that a clear and appropriate institutional arrangement specifying various stakeholders' power, roles and responsibilities in the conservation and management of bioresources (including the protection of endangered species) should be developed for transformative change in biodiversity conservation.</p>","PeriodicalId":543,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02056-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To achieve global biodiversity targets, expanding protected area (PA) networks has been regarded as a major strategy in international commitments. However, the PA strategy often fails to achieve its objective - preserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. In addition, the expansion of PA areas could replicate and amplify historical injustices such as forced evictions, state-led physical violence, assimilation of culture and loss of traditional ecological knowledge, affecting communities' livelihood, quality of life and rights. There is an increasing consensus that the post-2020 biodiversity conservation framework should be rights-based and sensitive to the role and contributions of local communities towards achieving the PAs' targets. India's Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 may be considered a useful framework for biodiversity conservation in the context of this new conservation vision. It puts local people at the centre stage, making them active participants in designing and managing conservation. PAs following 'fortress conservation' approach were based on the flawed idea that human interference endangers biodiversity and therefore habitats should be preserved by force if required. Such an idea contradicts the recent understanding that ecosystems once perceived as 'wilderness', have been transformed by people. PAs undermine the intricate and intertwined relationship of humans with their immediate ecosystem. The conservation model proposed by FRA 2006, on the other hand, recognises local communities as an integral part of ecosystem and thereby acknowledges people's rights and agency in conservation. It ensures locals' equitable benefits from economic activities, and provides equitable opportunities to participate in decision-making. Though various provisions under FRA empowered local people in conservation, it faces various challenges during the implementation on the ground. It is argued that a clear and appropriate institutional arrangement specifying various stakeholders' power, roles and responsibilities in the conservation and management of bioresources (including the protection of endangered species) should be developed for transformative change in biodiversity conservation.

超越 "保护区 "保护范式:印度森林立法作为发展中国家新保护模式的探索。
为实现全球生物多样性目标,扩大保护区(PA)网络已被视为国际承诺中的一项重要战略。然而,保护区战略往往无法实现其目标--保护生物多样性和生态系统服务。此外,扩大保护区面积可能会复制和扩大历史上的不公正现象,如强行驱逐、国家主导的人身暴力、文化同化和传统生态知识的丧失,从而影响社区的生计、生活质量和权利。越来越多的人认为,2020 年后的生物多样性保护框架应以权利为基础,并对当地社区在实现保护区目标方面的作用和贡献保持敏感。印度 2006 年《森林权利法》(FRA)可被视为这一新保护愿景下生物多样性保护的有用框架。它将当地人置于中心位置,使他们成为设计和管理保护工作的积极参与者。采用 "堡垒式保护 "方法的保护区是基于一种错误的观点,即人类干扰会危及生物多样性,因此在必要时应使用武力保护栖息地。这种想法与最近的认识相矛盾,即曾经被视为 "荒野 "的生态系统已被人类改变。保护区破坏了人类与其周围生态系统错综复杂的关系。另一方面,《2006 年森林资源评估》提出的保护模式承认当地社区是生态系统不可分割的一部分,从而承认人们在保护中的权利和能动性。它确保当地人从经济活动中获得公平利益,并提供参与决策的公平机会。尽管《森林资源法》的各项规定赋予了当地人在保护中的权力,但在实际执行过程中却面临着各种挑战。有观点认为,应制定明确、适当的制度安排,明确规定各利益相关方在生物资源保护和管理(包括濒危物种保护)中的权力、作用和责任,以实现生物多样性保护的转型变革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Management
Environmental Management 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Management offers research and opinions on use and conservation of natural resources, protection of habitats and control of hazards, spanning the field of environmental management without regard to traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal aims to improve communication, making ideas and results from any field available to practitioners from other backgrounds. Contributions are drawn from biology, botany, chemistry, climatology, ecology, ecological economics, environmental engineering, fisheries, environmental law, forest sciences, geosciences, information science, public affairs, public health, toxicology, zoology and more. As the principal user of nature, humanity is responsible for ensuring that its environmental impacts are benign rather than catastrophic. Environmental Management presents the work of academic researchers and professionals outside universities, including those in business, government, research establishments, and public interest groups, presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信