Batwa/Mapuche: Victims of Eco-Colonialism?
Conservationists rush to buy land while the Batwa and Mapuche are just two examples of populations discovering the dark side of conservation movements.
Below is an article written by John Vidal and published by The Guardian:
Click! I have just bought 10 sq cm of rainforest for a few pennies on the net. Click click! That's 0.2 sq ft of
Saving the world's most beautiful and ecologically important places just got much cheaper and easier. Hundreds of websites run by charities, trusts, and individuals now invite people to buy up forest, field and mountain to save it from destruction and climate change at the click of a mouse. And why stop at pennies? The World Land Trust, whose patron is Sir David Attenborough, invites you to buy a whole acre of Indian elephant corridor for £50, or 2,000m2 of the Chaco Pantanal in
If you have really deep pockets, conservation gets even easier. John Eliasch, the Swedish-born businessman chosen by Gordon Brown to be his forest advisor, bought himself 400,000 acres of the Amazon rainforest for £8m in 2006 and now asks supporters to help him buy up tracts of
President Lula da Silva declared that "
Eliasch and the myriad conservation websites are part of a new worldwide trend. Private ownership is now the favoured way to save environments being ruined by developers, industry or neglect. It's happening everywhere.
"We are aiming to buy about 1,000 acres a year. We have all sorts of sources about what is coming up. It's a case of 'Wow, let's have that'," says a spokeswoman for the trust. "Buying woods resonates with people. Woods are touchable. There is a huge sense that government is not doing enough, indeed is going in the wrong direction as far as conservation is concerned."
Equally, in the
Conservationists with deep pockets are mostly welcomed in rich countries, such as
This is hardly surprising. Foreign conservationists have a dreadful record in developing countries. First colonialists took control of countries and communities in order to expropriate their resources, then the conservationists came and did exactly the same thing - this time, in the name of saving the environment. Tens of thousands of people have been evicted in order to establish wildlife parks and other protected areas throughout the developing world. Many people have been forbidden to hunt, cut trees, quarry stone, introduce new plants or in any way threaten the animals or the ecosystem. The land they have lived on for centuries is suddenly recast as an idyllic wildlife sanctuary, with no regard for the realities of the lives of those who live there.
"Conservation has immeasurably worsened the lives of indigenous peoples throughout
One of the worst incidents was in the 1990s, when the Bambuti Ba'twa tribe of Pygmies who used to live in the low equatorial forests on the border of
"Life was healthy and good, but we have become beggars, thieves and prowlers," said one chief. "This disaster has been imposed on us by the creation of the national park."
"It is estimated that some 1m sq km of forests, savannah, pasture and farmland in Africa have been redefined since 1970 as protected or conservation areas, yet in the great majority of these areas, the rights of indigenous peoples to own, control and manage these areas have been denied," says Colchester. "No one knows how many people have been displaced by these protected areas."
Now that there is an explosion of individuals, charities, trusts and conservation groups buying up farms, fields, hills and forests, many are worried that a new wave of eco-colonialism is being unleashed.
Down in Patagonia, which stretches across southern
The biggest buyers of Patagonia's pristine lakes, rivers and snow-capped peaks are billionaires such as the
"I realised that the seemingly perfect wild nature in which we had been climbing, skiing and hiking for years was actually in big trouble ... Private wildlands philanthropy, mixed with political will, can create wildlands preservation on a grand scale and swing the pendulum of extinction back on wavering species."
Their near neighbours, with only slightly less eco-ambition, are the founder of CNN, Ted Turner, the financier George Soros, the fashion tycoons Luciano and Carlo Benetton, and the actors Sharon Stone and Christopher Lambert. Together, they have created vast new private wetland, coastal and mountain parks, some of which they say they plan to give to the state. Indeed, last year  Turner became the largest landowner in
Tompkins acknowledges that local suspicion is a problem. "We were clearly a little naive about the amount of political and non-political opposition we would face," he told journalists last year . "We should have tried to know more, going in, about the political culture. We're getting better at that." But he remains unrepentant: "Those who can do a lot because of their position and potential should jump right in there," he went on. "They will find tremendous pleasure in doing this, and discover that it is worth every penny."
And those who can, are jumping right in. Giant international conservation groups, such as Conservation International, the WWF and the Nature Conservancy, have attracted billions of dollars of private money and World Bank environment cash to buy or lease national parks and tracts of land for poor governments. These charitable or non-profit groups are allowed to collect money, employ police, build hotels and, in many cases, dictate how land inside the parks should be used, and even whether communities can live or hunt there. It may be good for conservation, but it can lead to hostility.
Last year , deep in the forest near Isangi in
And conservation could now be about to get even bigger still, exerting more control over local communities than traditional colonialists ever did. Because forests lock up nearly one eighth of all the world's carbon, US hedge funds, financiers, governments, the world bank, private companies and many conservation charities see the chance to make potentially enormous amounts of money by stopping trees being felled.
The big new climate change idea, now snowballing around the world, is for rich countries to pay poor ones not to cut down trees in return for carbon credits. One plan is to give communities or countries cash; another is for a global system of carbon trading where poor countries sell the carbon locked up in their trees to allow rich countries to continue polluting as usual.
It sounds good for the climate and the communities, but the reality on the ground is it could be disastrous. "Once you get big carbon money going to the world's forests you get questions about who actually owns the trees," says Dr Tom Griffiths, who works with Forest Peoples Programme. "Is it the people who give the money to save them, or the communities?" The carbon rush, he says, could turn conservation back to the bad old days of fences and guns and guards, with increasing control by governments and big international conservation groups over vast areas of land.
He and others foresee over-zealous officials evicting people to protect lucrative forest carbon reservoirs, more corruption, speculation, land grabbing and conflicts. "All these new schemes being devised have important implications for how forests are managed and what may or may not be allowed to happen in them. Carbon companies are already approaching communities, offering to strike deals so they can obtain carbon credits. We are very concerned," he says.
Observers say a legal nightmare could ensue. A hypothetical case might be a conservation group signing up a community to protect a large swath of forest in return for cash. What happens if the chief agrees without people's knowledge? Is there any guarantee that the money will be paid? What happens if a logging company has the rights to fell the trees? Will it take the money leaving the community nothing? Who does the carbon stored in the trees actually belong to?
"It is understandable that people are fearful about private ownership and conservationists managing the land," says Vacariu. "It does not matter if it is in the