Critique of fortress conservation

Variable relationship:

As a model for protected area-based conservation, fortress conservation (as described in the theory entitled Centralized Conservation) is defined in the Sage encyclopedia of Environment and Society (Robbins 2007; see also Brockington 2002) as the following:

"Fortress conservation is a conservation model based on the belief that biodiversity protection is best achieved by creating protected areas where ecosystems can function in isolation from human disturbance. Fortress, or protectionist, conservation assumes that local people use natural resources in irrational and destructive ways, and as a result cause biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. Protected areas following the fortress model can be characterized by three principles: local people dependent on the natural resource base are excluded; enforcement is implemented by park rangers patrolling the boundaries, using a “fines and fences” approach to ensure compliance; and only tourism, safari hunting, and scientific research are considered as appropriate uses within protected areas. Because local people are labeled as criminals, poachers, and squatters on lands they have occupied for decades or centuries, they tend to be antagonistic toward fortress-style conservation initiatives and less likely to support the conservation goals."

In the language of sesmad variables, fortress conservation occurs when you have a highly centralized (Centralization) protected area (Policy Instrument) that creates a protected area (Policy Instrument) that strictly prohibits user access (PA IUCN Strict Zones; User-commons Proximity), with monitoring and strong sanctions by the government (External Monitoring; External Sanctions).

Critics of this approach (Brockington 2002; Wilshusen et al. 2002) have emphasized that these processes are done without including local users in important decisions (Participation in PA Sitting, Participation in Rule Making). This can cause former local resource users to become “conservation refugees” with few livelihood alternatives (Livelihood Alternatives) and few incentives to comply with PA rules (Compliance), and who experience a drastic decline in welfare (User Group Well-being Change). States, meanwhile, rarely have the monitoring and enforcement capacity to control large swaths of land without local support (much less with local antagonism), hence leading to so-called “paper parks”, where conservation areas exist only in a legal document (Stolton and Dudley 1999; Ostrom and Nagendra 2006). Hence, if and when a government or NGO can effectively control the boundaries of a protected area, the outcome can be that degradation simply shifts to the outside of the protected area, in what is termed “spillover effects” or leakage (Leakage) (Forcada et al. 2009). The final result is that the condition of the commons is predicted to decline (Commons Condition Trend).

Project

SESMAD

Sector(s)

 

Scientific Field

Component Type(s)

 

Status

Public