







































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 1 (1): 83–86, April 2018 

 
CONVERSATIONS 2: Forest Conservation 

 

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

Asmita Kabra  
 
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 twenty-
first century as part of a global consensus under the United Nations 
Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD). 

 
 School of Human Ecology, Ambedkar University Delhi, Delhi 110006; asmita@aud.ac.in 

Copyright © Kabra 2018. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 
4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v1i1.20  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v1i1.20


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [84] 

Millions of the world’s poorest people depend on protected areas for vital 
ecosystem services, and are disproportionately impacted by the exclusionary 
nature of conservation, since it is inherently a ‘place’-based activity. 
Restrictions on poor peoples’ access to resources in protected areas 
underpin the conservation-versus-human rights debate. Agencies have 
shifted towards using conservation strategies that are more participatory, 
but allegations of loss of livelihoods and lifeworlds of peoples dependent 
on protected areas remain widespread and well documented (Adams et al. 
2004). 

The strongest critiques of the canon of human disturbance have emerged 
from within the ecological sciences, in which the multiple meanings of 
conservation are being debated today (Sandbrook 2015). Several ecologists 
argue that not all human use of natural landscapes can be counted as 
‘disturbance’; the nature and scale of human interventions matter. Small-scale 
use of resources by local communities for subsistence or commercial 
purposes must be distinguished from large-scale extraction for corporate 
profit (Malm 2015). 

Second, human use of protected areas is not equally detrimental to all 
species (Persha et al. 2011). Co-inhabiting a landscape with humans may be 
easier for leopards or lions than for tigers or elephants (Bhatnagar 2009; 
Odden et al. 2014), although it is important to differentiate coexistence 
from co-occurrence. 

Third, the impact of human use on particular species should be 
distinguished from its impacts on communities of species and on entire 
ecosystems. 

Lastly, human interventions like fire management and livestock grazing may 
be critical in maintaining the structure and functions of ecosystems like 
grasslands (Saberwal 1996), even though overuse may cause long-term 
damage. Evidence of incremental conservation gains from reduction or 
elimination of human use is scant, mainly because these gains have been 
assumed rather than demonstrated. Available evidence of biodiversity gains 
from fortress conservation usually does not consider the cascading impacts 
of exclusion on the landscape to which, for instance, people evicted from 
protected areas are moved. 

Another unknown is how localized conservation successes through the 
establishment of protected areas compare against the widespread losses of 
biodiversity due to untrammelled urbanization and economic growth. In 
today’s globalized world, resources flow continually between inviolate, less 
intensively used, and intensively used landscapes, but it is ignored in the 



[85] Asmita Kabra 

‘sustainable landscapes’ approach cited by Karanth (2018). These critiques 
are shared by ecologists as well as social scientists. 

Interdisciplinary research in human-dominated landscapes, including urban 
areas and ‘novel ecosystems’, calls for nuancing the conservation-versus-
human rights debate further. Protected areas-based conservation theory 
assumes that once human use is restricted or eliminated, ecosystems revert 
automatically to their original ‘pristine’ state, but restoration ecology 
research highlights that ecosystem recovery from human ‘disturbance’ 
happens neither automatically nor immediately. For ‘vacated’ landscapes to 
start supporting non-invasive flora and fauna, significant long-term human 
interventions are required (Babu et al. 2009). The choice, here, is not 
between inviolate versus managed protected areas but between different 
management regimes. 

Social science critiques of the canon of fortress conservation include work 
by environmental historians who show that protected areas are not ‘pristine’ 
landscapes but historically shaped by human agency. Political ecologists 
questioning the nature-culture binary argue that ‘wilderness’ areas are, in 
fact, socially constructed and continue to be shaped by deeply political 
processes (Peluso and Vandergeest 2001). Those in power often abuse the 
dogma of fortress conservation to extend control over territories and 
resources through ‘green-grabbing’ (Fairhead et al. 2012). 

Anthropological research on forest-dependent people has strongly 
questioned the canon of the ‘noble savage’. Indigenous and other 
individuals and communities that depend on natural resources are neither 
intrinsically conservationist nor necessarily isolated and remote remnants of 
a more equitable, harmonious, and sustainable past (Sinha et al. 1997). 
Abundant empirical evidence exists about dynamic social changes in these 
societies, diversity of resource use, increased mobility, and aspirations for 
modernity. 

I agree with Karanth (2018) about the need for robust, evidence-backed 
strategies as opposed to faith-based claims. Social scientists, ecologists, 
conservationists, and activists working for the rights of humans and 
nonhuman species must strive to free the conservation-development debate 
from false canons, dogmas, and mythologies. Value plurality and defensible 
science are essential for opening new dialogic spaces and finding workable 
strategies to save humans and non-human species from destruction. 

 

 

 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [86] 

REFERENCES 

Adams W.M., R. Aveling, D. Brockington, B. Dickson, J. Elliott, J. Hutton, D. Roe, 
B. Vira and W. Wolmer. 2004. “Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of 
poverty.” Science 306 (5699): 1146–1149. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097920 

Babu, S., A. Love, and C. R. Babu. 2009. “Ecological Restoration of Lantana-
Invaded Landscapes in Corbett Tiger Reserve, India.” Ecological Restoration 27 (4): 
467–477. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.27.4.467 

Bhatnagar, Y.V. 2008. “Relocation from Wildlife Reserves in the Greater and 
Trans-Himalayas: Is it Necessary?” Conservation and Society 6 (3): 263–270. 
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.49219 

Fairhead, J., M. Leach, and I. Scoones. 2012. “Green Grabbing: A new 
appropriation of nature?” Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (2): 37–41. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.671770 

Karanth, K. Ullas. 2018 (forthcoming). “Reconciling Rights of Individuals with 
Rights of Wild Species.” Ecology, Economy and Society 1(1) [this volume]. 

Malm, A. 2015. “The Anthropocene Myth.” Accessed January 2018. 
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/anthropocene-capitalism-climate-change/ 

Odden, M., V. Athreya, S. Rattan, and J.D.C. Linnell. 2014. “Adaptable neighbours: 
movement patterns of GPS-collared leopards in human dominated landscapes in 
India.” PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112044 

Peluso, N., and P. Vandergeest. 2001. “Genealogies of the political forest and 
customary rights in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.” Journal of Asian Studies 60 
(3): 761–812. https://doi.org/10.2307/2700109 

Persha, L., A. Agrawal, and A. Chhatre. 2011. “Social and Ecological Synergy: Local 
Rulemaking, Forest Livelihoods, and Biodiversity Conservation.” Science 331 (6024): 
1606–1608. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199343 

Phalan, B., M. Onial, A. Balmford, and R.E. Green. 2011. “Reconciling food 
production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and land sparing 
compared.” Science 333 (6047): 1289–1291. 
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1208742 

Rangarajan, M., and G. Shahabuddin. 2010. “Displacement and Relocation from 
Protected Areas: Towards a Biological and Historical Synthesis.” Conservation & 
Society 4 (3): 359–378. 

Saberwal, V. K. 1996. “Pastoral Politics: Gaddi Grazing, Degradation, and 
Biodiversity Conservation in Himachal Pradesh, India.” Conservation Biology 10 (3): 
741–749. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10030741.x 

Sandbrook, C. 2015. “What is conservation?” Oryx 49 (4): 565–566. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000952 

Sinha, S., S. Gururani, and B. Greenberg. 1997. “The “New Traditionalist” 
Discourse of Indian Environmentalism.” Journal of Peasant Studies 24 (3): 65–99. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066159708438643 

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097920
https://doi.org/10.3368/er.27.4.467
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.49219
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.671770
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112044
https://doi.org/10.2307/2700109
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199343
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1208742
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10030741.x
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315000952
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066159708438643

