“In a culture that perceives nature as separate from people, the dominant conservation mindset is biased in theory and practice by science-based methodologies to conserve and protect nature,” a new op-ed argues.
Rebecca Adamson is an Indigenous economist and shares her perspective on how traditional ecological knowledge, diverse perspectives, and innovative finance can truly conserve nature.
This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily Mongabay.
Scientists agree that the biodiversity crisis we face today may be one of the most disruptive events in Earth’s history. The response so far has been for hundreds of billions in government and philanthropic donor funds – along with trillions in private sector investment capital – to be dedicated to conservation, primarily for nature conservation and climate change. But is more and more money the answer, especially for a culture whose exploitation of nature for money is the problem? At the core, our society needs to muster the collective humility to admit this mindset is problematic and seek solutions outside itself.
In a culture that perceives nature as separate from people, the dominant conservation mindset is biased in theory and practice by science-based methodologies to conserve and protect nature. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for example is the world’s largest environmental organization – serving 1,400 member organizations, NGOs and governments, and 16,000 experts – with the aid of 1,000 staff in 50 countries and an annual budget of almost $1.2 billion. Habitat loss and degradation due to human exploitation is addressed mainly by ‘no go’ enclaves of wilderness or protected areas (PAs) and in 2021, IUCN members launched a major initiative to support ’30 by 30,’ whose goal is to designate 30% of the world as protected areas by 2030.
Indigenous conservation (or stewardship) perceives people as part of nature, though, and has a bias towards practical protections of nature and society. It is place-based and driven by empirical environmental sciences and complex evidence-based methodologies of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Comparisons of Indigenous-managed lands with other similar land areas finds that biodiversity abundance is “highest on lands managed by Indigenous communities – higher even than on protected areas like parks and wildlife reserves, which were found to have the second highest levels of biodiversity.”
Indigenous cultures, perceived as part of nature, embody a ‘conservation state of mind’ that instills individual responsibility in their members to protect nature. The well-being of society requires a balance between protection and production of nature: you protect nature because it produces for you, and it produces for you because you protect it.
The donor mindset
Governments and philanthropists have been donating billions of dollars to conservation and climate solutions over the past 50 years. During this time, more than 68% of the mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish have disappeared, putting the planet’s survival and its inhabitants at risk. Donors have given little attention to collecting the kind of evidence-based data needed to analyze effectiveness and efficiency or provide for strategic deployment of their funds, yet such largely unaccountable and ever-increasing finance flows are no longer sustainable.
Neither is the mindset it engenders sustainable, when by default the main metric is money, versus metrics to measure reduction of pressure on ecosystems. A 2022 global survey of conservation priorities by Conservation Finance Alliance found 78% of the U.S. participants prioritized increased funding, while 69% of non-U.S. participants prioritized reducing pressure on ecosystems.
For scale, the PAs currently managed by conservation NGOS total 15% of the earth’s surface, or 20 million km2, while territories managed by Indigenous communities total at least 38 million km2 – almost twice the area of PAs – and span at least 30% of the earth’s surface, comprising 35% of formally protected natural environments and 35% of land area with limited human intervention.
In 2022, the World Bank reported that up to $140 billion is spent annually to manage the PAs. Since 40% of the land chosen to be part of that was taken from well managed Indigenous lands, the donors’ actual net for land conservation was only 9%, not 15%, and represents about $57 billion in costs. Additionally, World Bank Report estimates that “to fully fund PAs management it would cost at least $700 billion annually.”
Given the proven capacity of Indigenous community conservation, donors dedicate funding for ‘Indigenous efforts’ but not necessarily to Indigenous communities. In 2023 Grist reported that from 2011 to 2019, $2.7 billion was designated for Indigenous land tenure and forest management programs, but only 17% of that went directly to Indigenous organizations.
In 2021 at COP26, climate change funders announced a historic, 5-year $1.7 billion commitment. The Rainforest Foundation Norway reported in 2021 only 1% of these climate-related funds are reaching Indigenous organizations. Almost half, 43%, went to multi-laterals such as Development Banks and the UN Development Program, another 40% went to intermediaries like big NGOs such as Worldwide Fund for Nature, Wildlife Conservation Society, and Conservation International. And 75% of Indigenous communities impacted by these monies reported they were never informed, consulted, or compensated for any of the activities these monies funded.
The donors that cite barriers to funding Indigenous organizations directly are often the same that see no barriers to funding financial delivery systems that absorb between 83% to 91% of the funds. Such a mindset perpetuates large funding flows where the default metric is money over strategic, evidence-based results, and practical protections for nature.
Author: Rebecca Adamson
Komentarji