On Forect Conservation: Revisiting Canons and Dogmas in the Conservation-versus-Human Rights Debate

The conservation-versus-human rights debate typically positions ecologists and conservationists against social scientists and human rights activists (Rangarajan and Shahabuddin 2010).I argue that recent research in the natural and social sciences invites us to revisit entrenched mythologies, canons, and dogmas on both sides.The moral imperative of biodiversity conservation and protection of endangered species resonates with most people, as does the importance of protecting the rights of vulnerable people.To understand the spaces of agreement and dissent, it is important to disentangle the twin moral imperatives of conservation and social justice from the canons and dogmas informing conservation, actual conservation strategies, and the outcomes for humans and non-human species.The core premise of protected areas-based conservation is that human presence in 'pristine' or 'wilderness' areas is detrimental to biodiversity (Karanth 2018).This canon of human disturbance has underpinned the creation of 'inviolate' protected areas as the preferred strategy for biodiversity conservation worldwide, and also underlies optional strategies like participatory conservation, 'sustainable landscapes' (Karanth 2018), as well as the 'land-sparing' arguments of more recent vintage (Phalan et al. 2011).The rate of creation of protected areas has accelerated in the twentyfirst century as part of a global consensus under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD).

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

12 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.