Is forced displacement acceptable in conservation projects?

Over ten million people have been displaced from protected areas by conservation projects. Forced displacement in developing countries is a major obstacle to reducing poverty. It should no longer be considered a mainstream strategy for conservation and only applied in extreme cases following international standards.

Takamanda forest reserve in South West Cameroon. Women from Kekukessim 1 village (left) and the Takpe village chief (right). Villagers obtain around 90 percent of their livelihood from the forest. However, the forest reserve was established as a national park in 2003 without any consultation and which the villagers are no longer allowed to enter. Local people are building up resistance against the decision although their voices are not heard anywhere outside the forest. Photos by Kai Schmidt-Soltau 2000. Click on either picture to see a larger version.

Our understanding of forced or involuntary displacement has increased in recent years. In the 1970s and 1980s only physical displacement was considered; current understanding includes all situations in which a project reduces the decision making powers of people over land and resources.

Officially, protected areas in developing countries are established by national governments. In reality, they are often designed, demarcated and managed by international non-governmental organisations (NGOs). While all international donors have policies on involuntary resettlement - even for resettlement which occurred before the implementation of a project - none of the major international conservation NGOs, including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) or the Wildlife Conservation Society has one.

Recent research in 12 protected areas in 6 central African countries (Nigeria, Gabon, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Central African Republic) shows that:

• 120,000 people, around five percent of the overall rural population of these countries, have been displaced since 1990
• a further 170,000 people face a significant risk of displacement from planned conservation activities, such as the increase in size of protected areas in the sub region, adopted by national governments on the basis of a WWF proposal
• an additional 250,000 people will become 'hosts' for these people displaced against their will.

Forced displacement is being used widely and systematically to 'cleanse' protected areas, in other countries (such as India and Thailand) as well as central Africa. Further findings include:

• Conservation projects which use resettlement as a conservation tool impoverish people's livelihoods instead of improving them.
• Host populations are often negatively affected as much as displaced communities.

Despite our improved understanding of the process, the risk of increased poverty remains for both displaced and host communities. Furthermore, many displacement programmes have had negative effects on biodiversity which are more damaging to the environment than those generated by people in parks. For example, when pastoralists are displaced, new agricultural practices put greater pressure on the environment.

If conservation projects accept responsibility for restoring the livelihoods of displaced people, protected areas do not need to increase poverty. This is expensive: to compensate the people affected by the 13 new national parks in Gabon would require up to US $80 million. However, implementing social safeguards for involuntary resettlement is the only way to reduce poverty and conserve biodiversity. Considering this, projects should:

• negotiate mitigation strategies and compensation schedules with the affected people in free, informed consultations prior to resettlement
• guarantee that the living standards of the affected people after resettlement are at least the same as they were prior to the project implementation
• allow indigenous people to continue using their land even in national parks.

Kai Schmidt-Soltau
B.P 7814, Yaoundé
Cameroon
T +237 (0) 980 8825
F +237 (0) 2215048
SchmidtSol@aol.com

See also

Conservation, Human Rights and Poverty Reduction: A progress report of an ongoing debate, Conservation Biology, 19(4) by D. Brockington, J. Igoe, K. Schmidt-Soltau, 2005

The Environmental Risks of Conservation Related Displacements in Central Africa, by K. Schmidt-Soltau, pp.282-311 in 'Displacement Risks in Africa', Kyoto University Press, Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press, edited by I. Ohta and Y. D. Gebre, 2005

National Parks and Poverty Risks: Policy Issues in Conservation and Resettlement, by M. Cernea, and K. Schmidt-Soltau, World Development, 2005 (forthcoming)

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) any article may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided both source (id21, insights) and authors are properly acknowledged and informed. Copyright © 2004 id21. All rights reserved.