Podcasts about fortress conservation

On this episode, my guest is Lewis Winks, a researcher, writer and campaigner who specialises in nature connection, cultural and behavioural change, and has a background working in the environmental and outdoor education sector. He joins us on behalf of the Right to Roam campaign as well as the Stars Are For Everyone campaign, the latter which he helped spearhed to defend wild camping rights on Dartmoor.Since 2021, Right to Roam has been organising peaceful trespasses into some of the vast areas of countryside from which the public are currently excluded. They follow the tried and tested access code which governs Scotland's right of responsible access, respecting privacy, crops and nature – all while seeking to leave a positive trace and practising deep care for the natural world: a concept they call Wild Service. Their vision is of a future countryside in which people not only enjoy the physical, mental and spiritual benefits of nature but serve as its guardians too.Show Notes* Right to Roam's origins (Guy Shrubsole & Nick Hayes)* The Stars Are For Everyone (Dartmoor National Park)* The right to wild camp in England* The commons and the enclosures* Taking back trespass* The shadow places of fortress conservation* Wild service* Levellers and landlordism* Deifying dispossession* The community right to buy* International solidarityHomework* Right to Roam UK - Website - Instagram - Twitter - BlueSky* Wild Service (Book)* The Book of Trespass* Who Owns England?* Val Plumwood* Survival International* S3 #2 | Decolonizing Conservation in Africa & Beyond | Fiore Longo (Survival International)* S5 #5 | Fortress Conservation in the Congo w/ Martin Lena & Linda Poppe (Survival International)* International Land CoalitionTranscriptChris: [00:00:00] Welcome, Lewis, to the End of Tourism Podcast.Lewis: Good to be here. Hello, Chris.Chris: Yeah. I'd like to thank you for your willingness to join me today on behalf of your comrades and colleagues at Right to Roam, as well as those of The Stars Are For Everyone. And I'd like to begin by asking you where you're tuning in from today and what the world looks like there for you.Lewis: Well, I'm currently in South Devon, where I live in the southwest of England. And I live in a town called Totnes, which is just on the edge of Dartmoor National Park. But the town that I live in has grown up around a river - the River Dart. And so that's a short walk from where I live.And, yeah, obviously, the river's shaped this place, from its headwaters up on Dartmoor, all the way down to the kind of rugged coast. So, I feel very lucky that, not far from where I live, there's a whole range of [00:01:00] landscapes, but not without their challenges.Chris: Yeah, certainly. I remember, not just a few years ago, I was there in Totnes, visiting for the first time, and I had the great honour of getting to explore Dartmoor as well, in a place not too far from where some of my old ones are from, in Devon, in Exeter.Lewis: It's a great place. I mean, Dartmoor is, on global standards, a very tiny national park, really, but I think for people like myself that live near it, to have this kind of expansive space to be able to walk for days sometimes in this sort of landscape, seemingly without boundaries, without walls, without fences, is amazing, in what feels like quite a contained landscape, a kind of patchwork of fields and enclosures. And so, a lot of people are drawn to Dartmoor because of its openness. But that also is an issue, I think. A lot of us here that live in this area are very much working on ecological [00:02:00] issues and challenges, and lots of those are found up in the national park.Chris: Well, would we all be so lucky to have such spaces to walk and roam. On that point, I'd like to ask you if you'd be willing to offer our listeners a little bit about what your organisation, The Right to Roam (in the UK), does there and your role in the organisation.Lewis: Sure, yeah. Well, the Right to Roam campaign, I mean, we've been established only for a few years in our current format, really. We were born out of the pandemic. We were formed principally by two of the co-founders of the campaign, Guy Shrubsole and Nick Hayes, who had both written books at the time and sat together around a kitchen table in 2020.Nick had written a book called The Book of Trespass, which kind of brought into public conversation this kind [00:03:00] of idea that there are places we are not supposed to be and not allowed to go, and challenging the kind of “why,” asking that question of, “Why is this? What's the historical context for our exclusion from landscapes? And through a series of adventures and walks into landscapes, he challenged that in his book. And it's an amazing primer, really, I think, for something that a lot of us take as a given, which is that we live in the corridors, really, between these vast estates here in England and in Wales, and we're excluded from much of the land. And so, it was quite a game-changing book, really, to sort of start to question that kind of assumption, that if you step off those narrow corridors, you are trespassing.And then in the meantime, Guy had written a book called Who Owns England?, asking questions of, “ Who does the land belong to? Who owns the title deeds? And really, most of us don't know. I mean, the government doesn't even really know who owns lots of land. And so, Guy embarks on this project, which he's been working on now [00:04:00] for the last decade or so, to try to find out and try to get more transparency, and really to bring about more democracy in how land is managed and how decisions are made, and really who has a stake in the land in England.And so these were kind of natural collaborators, really. And they sat around this table, and they formed this campaign called Right to Roam, which was really just to ask a simple question, which is, “Why do we not have a right of access to land in England?” And to call for new legislation for greater rights of access so that people can feel they have a greater stake in the landscapes around us.So we're a small team. We're a very much a grassroots campaign. We're not backed by big funders. We don't have any office space. We're just distributed across England, Wales and Scotland. And then, there are just six of us in the kind of core team. But we also have a network of almost [00:05:00] 20 local groups of people who are doing just amazing active work on the ground within communities to push for access reform.And we're funded by about 650 of those supporters who just give a small amount every month. So we're really just beholden to the people that are pushing for these kinds of changes. And we think we're getting somewhere. The conversation is shifting, socially and politically. We've still got somewhere to go, but we're hoping to bring about that change in law before too long.Chris: Hmm. Thank you, Lewis. And what drew you personally to the organisation?Lewis: Well, I live, as I said, down in Devon, and one of the things that happened back in 2022, was that one of the larger landowners in Dartmore National Park decided that he was gonna challenge this historic right that we have here, which is very unusual in England - the right to sleep out under the [00:06:00] stars, the right to wild camp, out in this kind of amazing landscape of Dartmoor.So, this landowner, Alexander Darwall, took the national park to court, and I was one of a few people who got together in the early days of that court case and said, “Right, we need to campaign on this. We need to stand up for these historic customary rights that have existed here and that have given so many people, these beautiful life-shaping experiences over generations.” And he was trying to snub them out. And so we thought, “let's campaign on this.”We set up a campaign called “The Stars Are for Everyone,” to protect those rights, but also to kind of say, “ Well, isn't it just mad that these rights only exist in this tiny corner of England? Shouldn't they exist also elsewhere?”Our intention right from the beginning of that campaign was to transform a court case that was about defending a set of rights into something which was really about taking a giant leap forward and putting in place something much [00:07:00] better for people in the future. And over the course of three years, that campaign was really dynamic, creative, and brought together loads of people.We actually lost the right to wild camp in early 2023. The landowner was successful in overturning that right in the High Court. And just one week after that court decision, we got together with three and a half thousand people up on quite a remote part of Dartmoor, probably one of the biggest land rights protests that we've seen since the 1930s in England. And, the voices of those people were really just... I mean, the ripples went out far and wide. I mean, we were sort of met with international support and interest. And, politically, overnight, it changed the conversation on access in England.And, really to fast forward to the present day after two more court cases, including it being escalated to the Supreme [00:08:00] Court, unanimously in the Supreme Court, the judges agreed that the case should never have been brought. And actually, then, we were able to reassert those rights as they had already existed.And so, not only have we got those rights back, we are now in a much better position, we think, to call for those rights elsewhere. And so my campaigning with the Right to Roam campaign really was kind of came out of this campaign for wild camping, to sleep under the stars.Chris: Mm-hmm. Wow. Wow, I remember, I think that was probably the thing that really drew me, for the first time, to the organisation and the work that you and your team are doing there in England, was through the social media awareness that the storyteller Martin Shaw was bringing to that campaign. Really amazing. And so, I wish nothing but blessings upon your feet and your work. It's incredibly important, and perhaps, a kind of [00:09:00] pioneering way of bringing this kind of organising and this kind of awareness to other places in the world where such access is also needed.But before we dig deeply into that work, I'd like to perhaps offer a little bit of context for our listeners in terms of the history of access in the UK to what is often referred to as “the commons.” And so, I'm wondering if you would be willing to offer a bit of historical background about what we mean when we talk about “the commons” in the English language and the history of the enclosures of the commons, that, for English people, is a kind of history that is all too well known, but for the rest of the world might be obscure.Lewis: Hmm. Well, sure. I mean, the commons, I think it's fair to say that a lot of people in England, really, this is not part of our lexicon, and our understanding [00:10:00] of the land.And, I think that demonstrates really just how effective the loss of commons has been here, is that there's not a broad understanding of what they were or what they are. But the commons really are... I mean, we're talking about a form of governance, a form of collective stewardship and governance for a place that transcends ownership. Commons are about how we relate to a place, and the rights that go with that place. And so, if we look at kind of property rights today, often those property rights exclude anybody who doesn't have their name on the title deed of the property.But yet, that's not always been the case. And certainly, we can still see today in England, and elsewhere globally, systems that acknowledge rights of others, and not just humans, but also kind of more-than-human rights. So in England, if you've gone back to the 1500s, [00:11:00] half of England or thereabouts, (it's difficult to be precise with this) would've had some form of common property understanding, or a kind of tapestry of rights that went with it. And that might have been rights to take firewood and fuel from land to dig peat, to graze animals, to put your pigs out to pannage for acorns. And these rites would've been particular to the landscapes that they were in. So, commoning rights were not the same everywhere. They were responsive to the wider kind of contexts, and today that figure is more like 3% of England. So, a diminishment of the commons in England has been part of our history here, and also part of the history which has affected almost the entire globe as well through colonial activities. But in England, really, this kind of experiment in sort of uprooting and unearthing cultures [00:12:00] that are deeply tied to the land was almost entirely effective at removing people's stake in land and in shoring up the rights of property owners.So, our commons, as they did exist, were fundamental to communities, were fundamental to how people sought to make a living, but also there were other things within that because commoning was about being on land that you didn't own. So with that came other things, which perhaps were taken for granted, which today we might call “recreation,” “being idle under a tree, watching the sunset”, and having those kinds of experiences. Now, we've kind of partitioned them off and put them into national parks and kind of put them in our holiday time, and things we might do when we're on vacation as tourists. But actually, for commoners, presumably, people were spending their time with the pigs out to pannage, thinking about other things, in conversation, meeting their neighbours under trees, doing things which were convivial.And so, [00:13:00] the erasure of the commons in England, and the enclosure acts, which sort of set about to diminish the commons and put them more firmly into private ownership, was also about a loss of community and people's stake in landscapes and also their ability to kind of relate to one another.But I should say as well that this obviously was very intentional. This was about looking at landscape through a kind of lens, a particular form of extraction, to take money from the land. It was also about control. It was about taking people, who, through that particular lens of industrialisation, seemed to be kind of labourers, their worth was kind of in the factories, it was not out on the land. And through mechanisation, as well, obviously, this was accelerated.In the early days of the enclosures, there were anti-enclosure acts in England that sought to try to prevent some of the steamrolling over of what felt like a kind of a deep-rooted culture. But by the [00:14:00] 1600s, those anti-enclosure acts were pretty much repealed, and with them, any kind of opportunity to get back those commons was lost.Loads and loads of rebellions took place to try to prevent that. And it's really interesting to look back in English history at the richness of rebellion and how it was kind of linked to how people relate to land. Looking at this today, it's sort of fairly plain to see that there's a disconnection between people and place. And I think that that kind of keenness to reconnect is a really vital ingredient for how we can kind of push back against some of the more damaging systems that we see around us.But people were rioting against the loss of rights to be able to put pigs out amongst woods that were being enclosed for the private laws, hunting rights. And there were many, many rebellions which took place by poachers, by people that were kind of deemed to be [00:15:00] poachers, who were kind of subject to some of the most harsh laws against them. And actually, a lot of the way in which criminality is portrayed now in England comes directly from the fact that they were trying to clamp down on how property was being challenged by people that have been dispossessed from something that was seen as a common good.Chris: Wow. There's so much there in the way that traditional peoples in England previously would've stewarded the lands that they lived on, even though they didn't own them, per se, and how the enclosure of those lands also led to this degree of, I would say anyways, historically, tourism wherein, the longing to gather as a community or as a group of people, in a place in order to, as you said, even just sit idle under a tree, to learn about the place that one lives in, or other places. That tourism largely took up that mantle [00:16:00] as an industry, as a way of commodifying that human longing toward being together in a place, largely outside of strict work hours. But even during them as well. And of course, the history of tourism is such that, through the enclosures, there was a schism, as you said, that brought people into the towns and cities to work as workers, essentially, rather than stewards of land.And then their “leisure time” was also separated in order to find ways in which that longing could be fulfilled, but through the industrial means of bringing people in mass to the beach or to forests, to other lands.And we'll get to that in a moment, that notion of the kind of colonial and neo-colonial enclosures that today show up as national parks or reserves. But you did mention this rich [00:17:00] history of trespass in England. And on The Right to Roam website, it says that, “it's fair to say that none of the limited access rights established in recent generations has been won without the willingness of ordinary people to cross the lines of property.”And so, it seems to me that the work that Right to Roam is doing is picking up those anti-enclosure movements of previous centuries and bringing them into the contemporary milieu. And so, I'm curious how you imagine or how you think notions of trespass might be understood and utilised as forms of resistance to the enclosures or privatisation of common lands.Lewis: Well, trespass in England is part of civil law, so if you trespass, it's not criminal. It's not a criminal act. So the police can't be called, as long as you're not causing damage. So, in fact, it's just between you and the landowner.And I think one of the first things that we try [00:18:00] to do as a campaign when we're speaking to whether it's new groups, or people that are kind of joining us, is to say, well, actually in custom and in history, we have this right. We have this right to be on land, and that it's only really through a kind of spell that we've been put under this kind of narrative that we've been told that we don't have a right to land. That we don't go there. And so, one of the main forms of action that we take as a campaign is to trespass, is to cross those lines which feel like they're kind of physical lines when you look at a map or where you see a barbed wire fence. But actually, as soon as you cross them, they become quite arbitrary, but also political.And we try to politicise it as much as we can, because if we take it for a given that we're excluded, then we will just remain excluded. So, it's both empowering and also quite an undertaking really to trespass and to do that together is one of the most empowering things you can do as a group or as a community, to go to the places that we're told we don't [00:19:00] have a right to be, but yet when you go there, it suddenly doesn't really make sense that you are excluded.And actually, quite often, as a campaign, we're able to go to places and to learn more about them and to learn more about our landscapes just outside of the towns and cities that we live in, to feel more connected to them. And, in a lot of cases actually do work for the betterment of places as well.I mean, often we're kind of reporting illegal rubbish dumps or seeing where damaging, invasive ecological species have taken hold and or reporting pollution in rivers. And I think it is part of the work of our campaign to help people feel that they can be a part of these places.And as you've mentioned, this idea that tourism is this kind of leisure time activity that we do that feels quite extractive, actually. There's something that we can do, which is about giving back as well, and giving back to our communities. And, [00:20:00] so yeah, it's about crossing lines, and it's about kind of challenging the politics that play there, but it's also just simply about reclaiming something that has historically been a cement that's held communities together.And what we find, I think, is that across the political spectrum, in various sectors and quarters, people just see that as common sense. I mean, it's interesting being part of a campaign that is at once radical as well as being, actually, just people get it, and they want to support it. And that has really helped us, I think, make headway and make progress, because we think we make quite a good argument for why we need better access to land and why we need laws to support that. And we are receiving a good amount of support from many quarters.Chris: Thank you for illustrating that. I remember as a child in Toronto going into the valleys there and the [00:21:00] creeks, and there's, thankfully, a large system of public lands, but of course, there was some areas where you would see signs, and it says “no trespassing,” and you would see this quite a bit, more so as you left the city. And there was this kind of subtle, imposed, instilled sense in me as a child that, like, “okay, obviously I can't go here. But secondly, if I do, then I am not just a guest or a visitor, I'm a trespasser, I'm a criminal. Right?And so to return to this question of the way that governments in the last centuries have taken common lands from people and kind of converted them into what we imagined to be better, pristine environments by virtue of there being no humans.I'd like to broach this question with you because in our correspondence, you referred to, “the hidden damage done to landscapes, the displacement of damage [00:22:00] elsewhere in the name of conservation, creating pristine landscapes and how this plays out as a way to restrict land access as a rationale for exclusion, while we turn a blind eye to damage and exploitation.”You write, “we can see this on a smaller scale with regard to estate and large farms or intensive agriculture in the UK, as well as on a global scale through supply chains and trace both back to a colonial mindset.”And so, previously on the podcast, I've spoken with authors and activists in regard to conservation as a kind of neocolonization of land, both in Africa and in Asia, and we also see it in Scotland.And so, I'm curious how this shows up in the UK and in the Right to Roam's work. This notion that no humans means that somehow the ecologies of place are better off and that there seems to be hiding in these considerations, in these concepts, a kind of misanthropy, a kind of hatred [00:23:00] toward humans.Lewis: Yeah, I mean, conservation I think has been doing amazing work, has also been doing some quite troubling work, I think, over the years. There's no simple kind of response to this. Conservation by its very nature is about working in relationship with place, with people, and with the more-than-human world.And I think like any relationships, those can be difficult and also fulfilling and beneficial and sometimes both. I think conservation as a movement, if you take a historical lens on this and obviously know, looking at it through a cultural perspective, taking in place, people, and history, and thinking about it as well, not just as a kind of a single place-based concern, but also kind of more broadly on a global scale, how conservation has evolved.And it's both evolved out of a kind of a controlling mindset, but also out of a kind of almost a palliative desire to sort of ease [00:24:00] the suffering of the natural world. And I think that that, when we look at it like that, there's a kind of a deep trauma which conservation has been born from, which is that we've done such huge amounts of damage to other places, to other peoples, to our own homes, and our own landscapes here in England that our kind of desire to kind of remedy that is kind of caught up in a kind of traumatic relationship with place. And I think we've learned a lot and obviously come a long way from a kind of fortress conservation mindset, but I think that the kind of misanthropy, which has been present in conservation, still comes through sometimes.I mean, we work as a campaign with so many amazing people working on the forefront of conservation, who are working very hard to try to transform and challenge the sector that they are working within. [00:25:00] But it's kind of understandable that this history of exploitation and damage is kind of wrapped up with a desire to press the emergency button and say, “actually, we need to kind of take drastic measures here.” And for some people, that's led them down the path of wanting a very exclusionary take on how we manage these places and these landscapes.And I think that the other thing is that, what I was talking about in the correspondence that I sent to you, really, particularly inspired by the work of Val Plumwood, the amazing philosopher who took this kind of incredible view of conservation, linked it to what she called “shadow places.” The idea that actually, for every time that we create one of these kinds of islands of pristine habitat, whether it's through exclusion or whether it's through management, planning and whatever else, actually, there's a whole world of things that we displace, and we neglect to see.And we see that with our national [00:26:00] parks here in England. I think it's interesting that Dartmoor, my nearest national park, is actually, historically, it is a very managed and very industrial landscape, yet it's kind of like held up and revered as a place of ecological tranquillity.I mean, it's actually in quite a damaged state. But we see it more broadly, as well. We can see it through our supply chains in England and through food security, or what we might call food security, by basically exploiting other places, the minerals we use, the resources that we use.So many of them come from landscapes that don't have the same protections that we're sort of overlaying onto landscapes here in England. So I think that it is a complex question. I think the fact that we are dealing with the kind of fallout of empire and the colonialization of other places and our exploitation of them leads us back to this sort of issue of actually “ how do we repair our relationship with land, with people? [00:27:00] How do we come to this through a lens of collaboration between people and place that's not about, ‘this is for nature, this is for people'?”And I think, one of the most concerning things I've seen happening in recent years, is this sort of resurgence of a neocapitalist economy in the countryside that's sort of operating under the guise of wanting to protect, but actually is about excluding communities and excluding people. And some of the most amazing work that's happening in England and Wales on Rewilding is about including people and ensuring that there is a joined-up approach between people, place, and ecology.Chris: Thank you, Louis. Your professional background prior to working with Right to Roam was in outdoor and environmental education. And so I imagine that such work kind of flows fairly easily into raising awareness for public access to the commons. But it also seems to me that the [00:28:00] contemporary and commonplace relationships between people in the commons run through the government in the form of laws and regulations. And you write, “there are things you can do on public lands, and there are things you will get fined or arrested for.”And so, a system based on allowances and punishment, a system of rights. But rights do not necessarily breed responsibility. And it can be argued that rights can undermine responsibility both on personal and collective levels. A central question that arises in the debate as to whether to repeal these prohibitions on access is that a people growing up in a culture of enclosure and hypermobility, such as most urban people do these days, tend to have no personal or peripheral example of what worthy stewardship looks like.And so I'm curious, how does the Right to Roam team and perhaps other authors and activists you've come across contend with this notion? There's a mention [00:29:00] on your website of the ability of people to offer “wild service,” and I'm curious what this means in the context of rights and responsibilities.Lewis: Well, I don't think that rights necessarily undermine responsibilities. I think badly designed rights can, but I think that, in a meaningful way, rights can give people a stake. They can really say to people, actually, “ this is something which belongs to you, and that's worth defending.”If people are only experiencing the countryside through prohibition, then clearly that's gonna lead to a form of feelings of unwelcome. And I think that that kind of relationship with the countryside is damaging, and particularly, I think it damages the ideas of trust and our sense that we can actually learn to care for these places. And that's deep set [00:30:00] within the culture, I think, that we're part of. And one of the things, as you've highlighted, this challenge, which is also an opportunity, is for education. And not only do we have these very exclusionary laws, which prohibit us from accessing so much land. I mean, we're talking about we only have access to 8% of England, and about 3% of our rivers. These places also only exist in particular parts of England and Wales. So there are vast parts of the country where the countryside might as well just be wallpaper.And so, for so many people, access is a kind of an academic exercise. It's this idea that you might be able to access it, or if you have a car, you can drive to a place. So I think there's a lot of work to be done to give people the experiences that really build up that kind of culture of care, which I think... or “stewardship” is the word that you used.Getting those laws in place, getting the right to roam legislation that we're after, is the first step on the ladder. [00:31:00] And then the next step is maybe something like, “how do we put in place those systems of infrastructure and support, which we need to actually see more people in the countryside?” And some of those things might be about, “how do we get more school kids out?” I mean, even here near Dartmoor, the only place in England where you can sleep out under the stars, most of the kids in this area won't have had that experience and probably will never have that experience. So how do we remedy things like that? How do we support schools to do more of that? How do we get more of our education systems, both formal and informal education systems, to embrace a culture of access?In England, we can look north of the border to Scotland to see where such a system's been in place since 2003, where the Scottish Land Reform Act was put in place, which gave people a default right of access to land and water in the country, which [with] sensible exceptions for things like privacy, wildlife, land with crops growing on it [00:32:00] and public safety, backed up by a code of responsibility. But that in itself is only just over 20 years old, as an act. So, culturally it's still quite young, but it's been a real success.And then, we can look elsewhere. We can maybe look elsewhere in Europe, to Norway and to Sweden, for examples where, culturally, this is sort of something which is more deeply accepted. And there are many other examples, obviously from across Europe and globally, where there are different sets of rights that give people different sets of access and mobility within landscapes.So I think all we're trying to do really here in England is point to a way of being, which is about the structures of how we do that, but it's also about our kind of mindset and how we relate to places.And we can see that it's entirely possible and preferable to the system that we have here today. So I think [00:33:00] that yes, rights in themselves are not the answer, but they are the kind of the bedrock on which we could build a whole world of possibility.Chris: Hmm. Hmm. Yeah. Thank you, Lewis. I guess the question that I was trying to drive towards is this notion that's come up quite a bit in the podcast, which is that tourism doesn't necessarily begin once you get off a plane or a boat or a train. That tourism is a kind of lifestyle that seems to exist in the bedrock of the modern condition. And so how do we bring people into the possibility of something like “wild service” or stewardship when the vast kind of understanding of how we proceed towards quote “nature” or other communities is touristic in nature.And so I'm curious, in the organising that you've done, when people have the opportunity to dig deeper into the histories of their lands, and the access to lands, and the [00:34:00] enclosure that access and the enclosure of the common lands in the UK, and when they start to see perhaps what's possible by virtue of other people showing up, interested in the same research, in the possibility, the real possibility of things being otherwise, once people gathered together toward these possibilities, I'm curious what shows up for you among people who perhaps come from this more touristic sensibility.Lewis: Yeah. Well, a couple of years ago, the campaign wrote a book, a collection of essays called “Wild Service,” which is sort of acts as a bit of a compass towards this kind of new narrative of beyond extractive tourism, beyond recreation even, towards something which we sort of playfully called “re-creation” sometimes, this sort of sense that, actually, there's another way of doing this stuff. There's another way of [00:35:00] being in new places and of experiencing nature places near to and beyond our home. And Wild Service really is about... the kind of the subtitle of the book is “Why Nature Needs You.” So it's really kind of flipping this thing we were talking about earlier, which is that kind of a lot of conservation tends to focus in on, “ we desperately need nature, so we need to protect nature, and the way we do that is by excluding people.” And that's not all of conservation, but that is a kind of prevailing mindset which has existed and is entrenched now.So, wild service is trying to chart a different way, which is that we need to find this kind of peace, really. We are feeling that we can be active agents of benefit for the world around us. And there are some great examples. I mean, Paul Powlesland's an amazing barrister activist, who lives in northeast London and is [00:36:00] guardian of the River Roding up there who kind of lives on the river in his boat, and is out on the river every day, normally waist-deep in the river, acting in service to clean that river up.And it is in a mess. This river's been a historic dumping ground for industry, and neglected by government and local authority over the years, and just trashed. And Paul is with a team of volunteers, working so hard to shine a light on that, but also just basically to clean it up, and to demonstrate how illegal rubbish dumps and illegal sewers are overflowing into it. And it's become this flashpoint really for a wider conversation of concern.And there are many other examples where, you know, on the River Wye, for example, on the border between Wales and England, which is one of the first rivers really to have its kind of legal rights asserted in England through the action of communities.And we're talking about wild swimmers and anglers and [00:37:00] kayakers and people who are kind of out on the river. And I think it's no coincidence that the River Wye is also one of the only rivers in England where there is a legal right of access to swim and to connect with the river. And that people have seen it as a gift really, to then act on behalf of the river. And of course, then that's playing out now.The rights of nature are playing out globally. I mean Ecuador, being one of the kind of trailblazing, the constitution, embedding this. And I think acting as an inspiration for so many more communities to really take on board the rights of nature. And to see a kind of community activists stepping forward in wild service to do some of this work. And in cases like Paul, they often trespass whilst they're doing it.Chris: Yeah, I think there's definitely this question of animism that comes into play, perhaps peripherally as well in these conversations, which is that, so many of our ancestors, at least at some point, [00:38:00] understood the more-than-human beings and worlds within their places as just as alive and deserving of a good life and dignity as humans are.And that over the course of the last 500 years, at least, a degree of deanimation has occurred as a result of the enclosures. Certainly, you could get into the Cartesian philosophical questions, regarding who has a soul and who doesn't. But I think there's something deeply embedded there as well about the questions of, when we find ways to ensure that rivers, for example, or other aspects of the more-than-human world have rights, that we are trying to find a way back towards respecting the dignity that exists, and is [00:39:00] more or less, demanded, if not, seen or experienced a priori, within an animistic perspective.Lewis: Yeah, I mean, absolutely the same logic that tore people from the Commons was also at play, of course, in the kind of instrumentalising and essentializing nature, and creating this sort of division between people and the rest of nature. And it is certainly there in the history of the British Isles.You just don't have to look even back that far to see that people had a much kind of closer relationship. And I think this isn't about going back to anything. This is about finding a new path where, actually, this kind of experiment in driving a wedge between humans and the rest of nature has been wildly unsuccessful, and has caused great harm, and has precipitated, also, the harms done to people elsewhere.And, part of our kind of job now, I think, is to look to other [00:40:00] ways of doing things. And I see really in the kind of richness of the work being done by communities and individuals, and increasingly, with work being done within governance, that actually rights of nature is not a panacea, but it does give us this sort of direction towards something, which is perhaps more unifying, and can be part of that future.Chris: Hmm. Yeah. I'm reminded of a fairly famous quote, at least within the psychedelic culture, of a man named Terrence McKenna, who said that this work is not a return to the archaic. It's a return of the archaic.Lewis: Hmm.Chris: And so perhaps there's something in there that can give us pause to consider and reconsider how we are with more-than-human worlds.Well, I'd like to take a, just a slight detour if we can, because there's this question of [00:41:00] what the enclosures of the commons did, to people both in England and then abroad, later. And a lot of it has to do with the human relationship to nature, to more-than-human worlds. But I'm also curious about this relationship to home, and to housing even, and to what the enclosures kind of precipitated in the behaviour of human beings, what displacement and expulsion and enclosure do to human beings.And so, I have a little quote here from a great book, called The War Against the Commons. And in that book, the author writes,“The largest number of migrants left England entirely, mostly for North America or the Caribbean. [This is as a result of the enclosures.] Net emigration in the century before 1640 was close to [00:42:00] 600,000, and another 400,000 left by the end of that century, extraordinarily large numbers from a country whose mid-1600s population was barely 5 million people.What's more, those are net figures. More people left, but their numbers were partially offset by immigrants arriving in England from Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and continental Europe. Most of the emigrants were young men, and about half paid for the dangerous ocean crossing by agreeing to be indentured servants for four or more years there, in the ‘New World.' That was a high price, but hundreds of thousands of landless peasants were willing to pay it.For some, it was not a choice. English courts frequently sentenced vagrants and other criminals to indentured servitude in the New World.”And so, I don't think it's such a huge [00:43:00] stretch of the imagination to say that the chain reaction that began with the enclosures in England and later spread to most parts of the world had direct consequences for how the Americas, among other places, were colonised. I think it's quite curious and telling that the sometimes brutal dispossession and dislocation that was unleashed on commoners in the UK was then later unleashed by those same commoners turned migrants or their descendants on the other side of the Atlantic. And so, given that one of the major issues of our time revolves around migration and borders, I'm curious if this history or this unauthorised history has come up at all in the conversations around migration in your part of the world.Lewis: Yeah. Well, I think the harm that has been done to the landscapes here, clearly, the mindset and the exploitative mindset have been at play [00:44:00] elsewhere as we've discussed. You talked about how vagrants were treated. People are told they have no place on land that they don't own. And then when they find themselves, suddenly without work and dispossessed and subject to new laws that were criminalising that kind of vagrancy, I think that's such a strong kind of signal within a society that there's this kind of way of being successful or a way of undertaking a life, and of doing business, whatever you wanna call it. And so as soon as people are given an opportunity to go off and set off for new shores... we were effectively training a whole population on how to other, and how to exploit. I mean, this was the kind of place in which that mindset was cultivated.Chris: Mm-hmm.Lewis: And people, I think what I always come [00:45:00] back to in, whenever I'm reading about the enclosures and the commons, is that people were resisting, as well. And I think, the Levellers, the amazing campaigning done by the Levellers who took up arms and really knew resisted the kind of modern enclosures and the idea of landlordism, that only land landowners should have a broad set of rights, including the right to vote. The people were resisting this at every step of the way.And I think that we see that obviously internationally, as well. Colonisation by Britain and by other colonising powers has always been resisted, and there are movements globally that are working to protect the rights of people and land against these kinds of damaging and exploitative practises.But I think it comes back really, as somebody who lives here in England, that it might feel small to be a part of a campaign, which is about “I want [00:46:00] rights to be able to walk outta my door and walk into the nearby countryside, whilst there are these sort of incredibly awful, colonial practises going on in the name of progress, globally, in my name.”This is also about how we cultivate that kind of awareness and resistance. Because what I see and what I've learned through being part of this campaign is that, something which is kind of meaningful for us here today, by learning our histories and how this has kind of evolved, really, and grown out of the land where I live, part of that journey is also about educating ourselves and taking action on things which are an injustice for us in our lives, and joining those injustices to others, which are taking place in the name of the same systems that exploited the world, the more direct world around us.So, these are joined up. And, I think the other thing I wanna say is that like so many times in our campaigning we've come across the role of power and privilege and money in the countryside, [00:47:00] and how the larger states and the names that go with them that persist in the countryside today...I mean, about a third of England is still in aristocratic hands. We're unsure of the exact figure because so much of the land in England is not registered, but around about a third of England is still in the hands of... many of those people can trace their lineage right back to the Norman Conquest, to 1066, when William the Conqueror came over and handed out the land of his newly acquired domain to all of his mates. We're still living with that legacy today.And so, we see those power structures in the countryside. We see the money that's behind them. And all of the new money, the corporate money as well, that's being poured into the countryside around us. And there's a direct link there to democracy, as well, to what we're told about who belongs and who gets a say and who actually should feel welcome here. And when we look at the rise of the far-right here [00:48:00] in England, and I think, elsewhere, globally, the perpetuation of the narratives that go behind the rise of the far-right comes from that kind of land-owning, embedded power structure, the same power which has actually disconnected and dispossessed the majority of the population, the 99% of us, who don't own half of England.And that's really shocking. And I think, when we see figures like Nigel Farage here in England, pointing to migrants as the problem, it doesn't take much delving back into our history to see that this is a defence strategy, a way of deflecting blame from those who have acquired through exploitation, through murder and destruction, massive amounts of wealth and privilege and power.And so, this is the latest iteration of blaming people. We blamed the vagabonds and the [00:49:00] poor for causing problems in the countryside by criminalising activities, and exporting them off. And today we're blaming migrants, and I think, to be able to know our history and to look at how the enclosure acts and the loss of a sense of common belonging is connected to how we are having our dispossession thrown back at us through a sense of blame for others who have absolutely no stake in the uprooting of our connection.Chris: Hmm. Brilliant. Yeah. Thank you so much, Louis, for bringing this up. I mean, I've had my friend and mentor Steven Jenkinson on the pod a few times. And one of the things that he's written that describes the dynamics in a lot of the modern condition. But I think in this question, particularly around migration and colonial history,[00:50:00] he writes that, “ they deify what dispossessed their ancestors.” They turn into a God, the trauma that dispossessed their ancestors. And then, of course, in this particular context, they project it onto the people who are now being dispossessed.Lewis: Hmm.I mean, we see this logic also play out in other, smaller ways, I think, in the countryside in England. Like, for example, massive running battles and riots to protect Fenland, the fenlands of the east of England, from being drained and improved. Massive protests to prevent woodlands from being enclosed. But today, we'll see the everyday public who don't have any ownership of those lands, protecting this kind of sense of industrial improvement. And I think that there's a lot of unpicking to be done, to look back [00:51:00] and to say, actually, this is something that was done to us. And with that, we lost our rights, and also now, one of the biggest kinds of parlour tricks really of that whole system has been for us to blame each other.Chris: Yeah. I mean, I see it on a smaller scale as well in terms of landlordism and rent. I mean, we, I had an interview a few months ago, and we brought up the question of rent, which surely existed before the enclosure of the commons, but has become a staple, a normalised aspect of modern life. And it's become that rent has become so normalised that no one questions the kind of wage and rent slavery that we're born into in this late capitalist context. And therefore there's no need to imagine our relationships with home or [00:52:00] house or housing or land being any different.And as you mentioned, how the enclosures created this kind of notion perhaps among people in England in the previous hundred years, and then of course exported elsewhere, that the roots of enclosures and the different forms that they take or can take in the world, are the recipe for a ‘better life', right?And so I see that as well as a kind of historical extension of the enclosures, this notion that, like, “well, it's just the way it is and you just have to pay your rent, and there's no questioning the dynamics of private property. And if you don't like it, just submit or become a landlord yourself.Lewis: Hmm. Well, one of the interesting things I think that happened again in Scotland was that in 2003, the Land Reform Act, which came in and which [00:53:00] I've mentioned as being the acts which brought about the Scottish right to roam as we know it today, actually, that was almost a kind of footnote to the wider act. And one of the main things that it brought about was for people to have a right to buy, for communities to have a right to buy. And one of the big transformations in Scotland in recent years has been communities being able to buy up parts of whole estates and even sometimes whole islands.And so, the Isle of Eigg was one of the first examples, but now there are many, many more across Scotland where communities are starting to take literal ownership of places, and with that obviously comes things like rent controls and responsibility and accountability, between each other, within communities.And so, looking at it through that lens, where people have a greater stake in landscapes that they literally own or have a stake in, there are many, many outcomes in terms of nature conservation and public [00:54:00] access, and a wider sense of responsibility, which can kind of spill over. And it is not without problems. I mean, of course, there are still issues in Scotland with estates, and large, faceless landlords extracting massive amounts of extortionate rent from people. That's, of course, still happening.One of the things that we see in England, and I think is maybe a bit of a kind of telling contrast to that, is that in the last year we've seen two large estates, and there's probably been many more, but two that have come up on our radar, really, that have held-in properties.So one of them down in Dorset, a kind of neighbouring county to where I live, had 32 houses, ostensibly, affordable dwellings for people to live in the countryside, which is hard to come by, actually. In some parts of rural England, it's really hard to live affordably in the countryside. So, people who have been there for generations saw an estate that had been held by the same family for seven generations, suddenly bought by a [00:55:00] faceless corporation on behalf of an anonymous absentee landowner.And suddenly, overnight, the community was hit with kind of massive amounts of uncertainty. People worried about evictions or rents going up. And the same things happened just down the road from us, with an estate owned by the royal family suddenly put up for sale, and suddenly, tenant farmers, people who had had this kind of certainty that actually this has been owned by the royal family since the 1300s, are now being put up for sale.And from that point of view, the person selling it just looks at it like a set of assets that could be sold off. And I think what I would love is for, in England, for us to have a community right to buy. So when things like that happen, then actually communities get this kind of first refusal.So, landlordism and ownership patterns that are linked to the extortions going on are deeply connected to rights of access, because the golden thread that links all of those is a right to belong. And without that kind of certainty that you can call a place home [00:56:00] without being evicted, or without being told that you can get to your kind of favourite river swimming spot, for me, those two things are deeply related, and they point to the need for something much more robust for people who so desperately need it, who don't have the means to buy land themselves.Chris: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Thank you, Lewis. I'm grateful for this work that you do with the right to roam, and hopefully, as the movement grows, there'll be an opportunity for, perhaps, seemingly disparate movements or campaigns to join in this way and to recognise their mutual goals.And so I'm curious, I'd love to ask you about how this shows up on a broader spectrum, in a global spectrum, in terms of the Right To Roam, in terms of access to land and the campaigns and movements that are happening, not just in England, but elsewhere, beyond the Isles and perhaps beyond [00:57:00] Europe.And so I'm curious what kind of similar movements or campaigns might be happening in other countries or continents, for which there might be solidarity between the fight for the commons in the UK and the fight for the commons elsewhere?Lewis: Hmm. Well, land. It literally underpins everything, really.I mean, we see so many campaigns and injustices, which obviously are linked to land and the right to belong and the right to be. And land justice, globally, there's so much international solidarity. Our work today is very much about drawing those threads and remaining kind of focused on what we need to do, but we can see sort of the parallels elsewhere.And, people that we campaign with are also involved in international campaigning with Survival International, for example, doing amazing work to support the rights of indigenous peoples and rights to land globally. And the International Land Coalition, the work that they're [00:58:00] doing, a lot of which is in South America.We talked already about the rights of nature movement, and seeing lots of that kind of showing up and the rights of nature in the constitution of Ecuador, has, as I've already said, been a massive inspiration for that movement now in the UK.And, obviously, in the majority of Latin American countries, this is a real present challenge, and it's highly contested. I was speaking with a group from Dalhousie University in Canada as well recently about the kind of the rights to the coastline up there, and how, even in North American countries, there are like these challenges because of the development of coastlines, and not just coastlines, but also, the private property rights which excludes people to perhaps a more extreme extent than we have here in England.I was always struck by how, in the United States, the [00:59:00] right to roam campaign is sort of... I think people are just bewildered by it. Like, “What is this kind of campaign?” Because the rights of property are so sacrosanct, and the rights of property and the right to exclude, with the exception of the national park.So, we see these interesting challenges coming up, and international solidarity with people, in all sorts of different contexts.I was really interested in the conversation that you were having with Devon Taylor on this podcast about the rights to the coast, for example, in Jamaica, as well, and how that is absolutely linked to the exploitation of Jamaica and of people, and that land is still subject to the same kind of sets of exclusions there. And I was really interested to hear about the campaigning that's being done to just give people a simple right to get to the beach, which just seems so [01:00:00] basic and simple, but actually is fundamental. And so, I'm really gladdened and also shocked by what's happening there. And particularly if you contrast it with a place like Barbados, where there's a right to the coast, to see just what's possible with campaigning. And with political will, actually, you can see that these things are winnable and that they're winnable because of people like Devon doing that kind of work.So yeah, our work's very much focused on England, and what we can achieve within this parliament. We basically want to finish what we're doing, and then carry on with the wider work that we're all also interested in doing, and getting this law changed is our kind of like tiny puzzle piece in the wider tapestry of land justice, globally.Chris: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. May it be that the people who listen to this and who find their way towards the Right to Roam's work, join up and remember the [01:01:00] histories that have led us to this point and to people like yourself who are working to reconcile, as you said, what's been done historically in your name, or in your names.And, it's been a blessing to have you on the pod Lewis, to be able to both historically and contemporaneously, bring together a lot of the threads that a lot of other podcast guests in the past have spoken to, threads that bring us to a degree of source or historical origin in terms of how these enclosures came to be and of course, how people like yourself in the place that they began are working for their proper subversion.And so, on behalf of our listeners, Lewis, I'd like to thank you for joining me today for being willing to speak to these issues, these very complex issues. And I'm of course grateful that you're digging into the complexities in the way that you do.It's a great honour. And finally, [01:02:00] I'd like to ask you, how might our listeners find out more about the Right to Roam and its campaigns? How might they get involved and support, or begin this good work, in the places that they live?Lewis: Thanks, Chris. It is great to be on here and speaking with you, as well.And yeah, I mean, we're a small campaign. We do what we can with the small amount of resources that we have available. But I think, if people want to support our work, you can head over to our website. We've got our website at righttorome.org.uk. So check that out. We've got a mailing list, as well, and we try to send out fairly infrequent, but we hope, worthwhile emails, which give you a bit of insight.They tend to be focused on the work we are doing here for England and Wales. But I think for international listeners, this is potentially of interest as well, because, obviously, this speaks to the wider context. We've got social media as well, so you can see us on Instagram and on Blue Sky. And we're just in the process of setting [01:03:00] up a blog, as well. So, stay tuned for that. But get in touch and listen out for any updates.Chris: Thank you, Lewis. I'll make sure that those links are on the End of Tourism website in the homework section. And, for those who are outside of England who are wondering about this, perhaps the Right to Roam and their work is something not only of an inspiration, but a foundation for the ways in which you and your people might come to gather together and organise for access to land in your places.Thank you so much, Louis.Lewis: Thanks, Chris. Get full access to Chris Christou at chrischristou.substack.com/subscribe

We are joined by Marketta Vuola from University of Helsinki's Global Development Studies. In this conversation Marketta gives us insight into the work that she is doing in her doctoral research. She started her academic career interested in conservation and national parks, but during her field work she kept running into gold mining and its role in the rural areas of Madagascar. Marketta gives insight into what artisanal means on the ground in Madagascar, which is not a simple thing to define as there is wide range of practices that fall under this designation. The scale she investigates is quite small scale and overturns the masculine stereotype of mining because it is often an activity that involves whole families. There are approximately 700000 artisanal miners, and it is the second most popular source of income after subsistence agriculture. Marketta opens some of the dynamics that surround the complicated relationship between mining, conservation, and violence in Madagascar.  Interested in the book Marketta mentioned? Made in Madagascar: Sapphires, Ecotourism, and the Global Bazaar by Andrew Walsh https://utorontopress.com/9781442603745/made-in-madagascar/  Want to learn more about Marketta's academic work? https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/persons/marketta-paula-sofia-vuola  Interested to listen to the EXALT episode with Aili Pyhälä that was mentioned during the episode? https://podcasts.apple.com/fi/podcast/aili-pyh%C3%A4l%C3%A4-activism-alternatives-and-academia/id1499621252?i=1000466051482  --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/exalt-initiative/message

On this episode, my guests are Martin Lena and Linda Poppe of Survival International. They join me to discuss “fortress conservation” in the Congo, the issues facing Kahuzi-Biega National Park, and the recent victories of Survival International there. Linda is a political scientist and director of the Berlin office of Survival International, the global movement for Indigenous peoples' rights. She is also part of Survival's campaign to Decolonize Conservation, which supports Indigenous peoples, who continue to suffer land theft and human rights abuses in the name of conservation.Martin is an advocacy officer for Survival International. He primarily works on Survival's campaign to Decolonize Conservation and has collected testimonies directly from communities facing violations of their rights in the name of conservation. Show Notes:What Conservation Looks like in the Democratic Republic of the CongoThe Evictions of the BatwaSafari Tourism in DRC ConflictThe Militarization of Conservation in Kahuzi-Biega National ParkLand Guards vs Land GuardiansOrganizing Victory! Scrapping French Involvement in Kahuze-BiegaThe German Government Continues to Fund the ParkSolidarity: How to Respond / Act in ConcertHomework:Survival International: French government scraps funding plan for Kahuzi-Biega National Park, citing human rights concernsSurvival International Decolonize Conservation CampaignBalancing Act: The Imperative of Social and Ecological Justice in Kahuzi-BiegaTranscript:Chris: [00:00:00] Welcome to the End of Tourism Podcast, Martin and Linda. I'd love it if I could start by asking you two to explain to our listeners where you two find yourselves today and what the world looks like there for you. Linda: Well, hi everyone. My name is Linda. I work for Survival International and I'm in Berlin. I'm at home, actually, and I look forward to talking to you and chatting with you.It's dark outside already, but, well, that's, I guess, the time of the year. Martin: And I'm based in Paris, also at home, but I work at Survival's French office. And how does the world feel right now? It feels a bit too warm for October, but other than that. Chris: Well, thank you both for for joining me today. I'd like to begin by reminiscing on the season three interview that I had with your colleague Fiore Longo, entitled "Decolonizing Conservation in Africa and Beyond."And in that interview, we discussed the history [00:01:00] of conservation as colonization in the context of Tanzania and the national parks that were built there and the indigenous lands that were stolen in order to do so. I'm curious if you two could offer a bit of background for our listeners in terms of the history of conservation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and especially in regards to the Batwa people and the Kahuzi Biega National Park.Linda: We were quite you know, astonished of the colonial history that, we find in the park where we're here to discuss today. Well, the Congo, obviously, you know, was a colony. And I think in this context, we also need to look at the conservation that is happening in the DRC today.And a lot of the things that you have discussed with our colleague, feel very true for the DRC as well. And the, the park that we're going to look at today, I think it's probably [00:02:00] also the best example to start to explain a little bit what conservation looks like in DRC. It's an older park, so it was created a longer time ago, and it was always regarded as something that is there to protect precious nature for people to look at and not for people to go and live in.And this is exactly what the problem is today, which we see continues, that the people that used to live on this land are being pushed outside violently, separated from the land which they call home, which is everything for them, the supermarket, the church, the school, just in the name of conserving supposed nature.And unfortunately, this is something that we see all over the DRC and different protected areas that exist there, that we still follow this colonial idea of mostly European [00:03:00] conservationists in history and also currently that claim that they're protecting nature, often in tandem with international conservation NGOs.In the park we look at today, it's the Wildlife Conservation Society, and they're, yeah, trying to get rid of the original inhabitants that have guarded these spaces for such a long time. Martin: To build on that, in our campaign to decolonize conservation and survival, we often say that fortress conservation has deep colonial roots and you can definitely see that with the the actual history of the of Kahuzi Biega National Park because it started as a reserve that was created by the Belgian colonial government in 1937 and It was transformed into a national park after independence.So in the 70s, but it was still designated as such following the lobbying of a Belgian conservationist. So it's really the continuation the Western and the European will to keep controlling the, [00:04:00] the independent territories. And that in Africa oftentimes was done through conservation.Linda: And it also has this idea of, I think a lot of the conservation projects that we see, Martin just said it, there was also this post independence push on creating national parks, which was obviously related to the idea that Europeans might lose hold of control in certain areas, so they were pushing for the creation of national parks like the Kahuzi Biega National Park.And that is the setting that we're talking about, basically, something that has very colonial roots and has been pushed into the post colonial era, but in a way which is actually very colonial. Chris: Thank you both for that brief, brief history and introduction into what we'll be speaking about today, Linda, you mentioned that so many of the circumstances around the creation of these national parks includes the exclusion and [00:05:00] displacement of the original inhabitants.And in this case, among others, this includes the Batwa people. And so I'd like to just give our listeners a little bit of a context for what's happened to the Batwa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And so the statistics tell us that "over 90 percent of the 87, 000 indigenous Batwa people in the park have lost legal access to their native territory, turned into conservation areas, and who are desperately poor," according to a 2009 United Nations report.Now, in a recent Reuters article, it's written that, quote, "Local human rights and environmental experts say that the authorities failure to fulfill promises to the Batwa has undermined efforts to protect the forest and its endangered species, including some of the last populations of eastern lowland gorilla.Some of the Batwa around the [00:06:00] park participate in the illegal poaching, mining, and logging that are destroying the gorilla's globally significant habitat. As a result, the conservation outlook for the park is critical, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature." The article goes further and says that "the Batwa have no choice because they are poverty stricken, according to Josue Aruna, president of the province's environmental civil society group, who does community outreach for the Batwa." It seems in this way that the land rights and traditional lifestyles of the Batwa are intimately tied to the health and survival of the ecosystems within the national park, which they've been excluded from, and that their poverty is a consequence of their displacement. Do you think that the issue is as simple as that? Martin: It's always interesting to read these reports from the conservationists, whether it's the IUCN or the NGOs, because the problem is always "the local people. So they are poor and they [00:07:00] have no choice. They participate in poaching." and it's always their fault.Like you were saying, if they end up being poor it's because they were evicted from the land. And as Linda was saying earlier, the forest and the land more generally is everything to them or was everything to them. So it's not only the place where they get food, it's also the whole basis of their identity and their way of life.So once they lose that, they end up in our world, capitalist system, but at the lowest possible level. So, that's why they end up in poverty. But it's a problem that was created by the conservationists themselves. And even when you read Their discourse or their position about trying to improve the situation for the Batwa, it's always about generating revenue ,lifting them out of poverty, developing alternative livelihoods. But what we are campaigning for is not some alternative to the loss of their rights. It's Their land rights themselves. And to go to your other question [00:08:00] about the fact that the loss of their land rights has led to a degrading in the health of the ecosystem.I think, yes, for sure. That has been the case, and it's what we're seeing all around the world in these protected areas that are supposed to protect nature. But actually, once you evict the best conservationists and the people that were taking care of the land for decades, then there is room for all kinds of exploitation whether it be mass tourism or luxury safaris or even mining and logging concessions.So it's not a coincidence if 80 percent of the biodiversity on the planet is located in indigenous territories. It's because they have lived in the land. It's not wild nature. They have lived there for generations. They have protected it and they have shaped it through their practices. So, to us, the best way to protect this ecosystem is to ensure that their land rights are respected and blaming them for poaching or putting that on the fact that they are poor, it's just [00:09:00] dishonest and ignoring the basis of the problem.Linda: Yeah. I agree. And when you just read out these sentences, I noted down like the way it was formulated, as a result, the park is threatened. It's again, just focusing on the local people as being the problem. Like the protected areas, they are to protect an area from the local people, which I think becomes very clear in the way you explained it. And also, like, Martin, I'm quite struck by the idea that they talk about poor people, but ignoring that, you know, their actions that of the Batwa have also caused this poverty. So it's, in a way, you know, first you make people poor and then you kind of insult them almost for being poor and then, you know, acting accordingly.I think that is quite, you know, ignoring what has happened. And I think it's the same with [00:10:00] the general model of conservation. Like the sentences you read, I mean, there is some sympathy in it, you know, it sounds like, "oh, these poor people," you know, "in a way we regret what has happened and that they were evicted."But it's like "those poor people," they don't really look at, you know, why were they evicted and what are the consequences for our kind of conservation today? Like the consequence could be that the Batwa can return to their land because they are the best guardians and because it would give them a base to, to live, not in poverty.So that consequence, they don't see it's because they ignore all the things that have caused the supposed poverty and have caused this kind of conservation that we see. So, don't think about what we've done in the past, we'll just go on, but that is a problem because they don't learn any lessons from what has happened and that land rights should be so important.Chris: Yeah, I think that it definitely points towards this notion that I think a lot of people are becoming apt to in our [00:11:00] times in these days, which is the general kind of approach to the dilemmas in these contexts are to look at the symptoms of the dilemma and not the causes.And in the context of the eviction and exile, displacement of the Batwa people, one of the articles mentions that "one of the consequences of the induced poverty includes the endangering and further endangering of the eastern lowland gorilla." And I mention this because in my research leading up to this interview, this conversation, I looked into the tourism offerings in Kahuzi Biega, in the National Park, and I found the following.I'm just gonna read off a list of what I did find. " Gorilla safaris, or trekking. Chimpanzee Rehabilitation Center tours. Camping safaris. Cultural tours. Bird [00:12:00] watching. Hiking. Climbing and boat cruises." And so my next question is this. To what extent does the safari tourism in the national park play a part in this conflict?Linda: Oh, that's a super interesting question. I mean, it obviously depends on the specific park that you look at. But I think I would say in almost any national park that we look at in Survival, there is some kind of idea that this park needs to have tourists. Tourists need to come and go and see the beauty of nature, ideally Western tourists, so that they become involved in conservation and donate money, and also in a way that tourism would be a way to pay for services that are related to maintaining the park.So it's something that usually always pops up. It's kind of, it's like twins a little bit. And, you know, I, I work on, on [00:13:00] mostly German politics and how they relate to this conservation. And it's something that you can't really separate where you read about conservation projects that the German government funds, you will always also read about tourism.So they're very interlinked. In some parks, you know, there isn't a lot of tourism because the situation is not very attractive to western tourists, but the idea is always there. And then the extent to which tourism actually happens obviously differs and then has different effects. In some parks that we work on, There's a lot of tourism, there's a lot of creation of infrastructure for tourists, hotels, for roads, for tourist vehicles to go places.Then it obviously has a much stronger impact on the area and also on the people that live there. If there are less tourists, then the actual effect of tourism is, of course, a little bit less than it might sound in these proposals to have tourists there at all.Chris: In the [00:14:00] context of conflict zones, which from what I understand this particular park in the Congo is a conflict zone, or at least parts of it, that tourism can act as a kind of barrier between local populations or local ecologies and the consequences of those conflict zones, right? But it doesn't necessarily stop the conflict. It just turns it underground, it turns a kind of blind eye to it, waiting, in most instances that I know of, until the organized crime in the area ends up getting, you know, their hands into the economy of, of the tourism itself.Martin: Yeah, I mean, I agree with Linda that it's always there and it's always under the discourse and it's never only about conservation, there's always tourism. And often the national parks are created for this purpose. If you read the UNESCO definition or the IUCN definition of what a national park is, it says it's also for [00:15:00] recreation.So these places are built for tourists. against the locals. So, yeah, it's always there and it's even in the definition.Linda: So yeah, when you said tourism is a barrier in some cases tourism can amplify the problems that are there because there is more eviction or there's more interest of, for example, governments to evict people, to create this great picture of nature, which is so attractive to tourists.So I think, I would find it as something that can really worsen the situation. I think from what I've seen, you know. We sometimes talk about sustainable tourism or respectful tourism, but in the terms of conservation projects, my impression really is that it's been harmful.And the indigenous populations that work in tourism, which is one of the things that funders of conservation projects often [00:16:00] say, that they can find jobs in tourism. A lot of these jobs are not very good. And I would argue that a lot of times people need to take these jobs because they have lost the choice to not take a job and live from the forest.Chris: Yeah, it's an interesting thing to wonder about in the little research that I did around what's happening in this particular park in the Congo, that there are rebel groups. It is a conflict zone, and yet there are these tourism offerings, right? And that surely, the champions of the National Park and conservation and in many areas would say, "well, you know, the more, the more tourism we can get in here the more we can undermine at least the economic causes if not the political ones that are contributing to the violence," when in fact, from what I can understand from Survival's work, that this is just deepens the causes that produced that conflict and that exile in the first place.Linda: Yeah. And I think there's also [00:17:00] perception of injustice, which we shouldn't underestimate. I mean, if you're an indigenous person that has been violently evicted or whose family has been violently evicted from a certain area, and then you see, Western tourists mostly, which are rich, you know, pay a lot of money for these trips, are allowed to go in and use that area in a way. I think that also creates, yeah, a sense of injustice, which is also, yeah, it's quite, quite sad. Chris: Mm hmm. Definitely. And then that's certainly what we see in over touristed places around the world and in places that are just starting to become over touristed, this kind of deep resentment amongst locals for the inequalities, the growing inequalities and yeah, as well, the injustices that these industries bring.And so on that point of conflict zones, especially in and around Kahuzi Biega. I wanted to ask you both a question around the militarization of conservation. So, [00:18:00] some people believe that militarized park police, which is what exists in this park, are a necessary evil.Officially, at least, "the guards protect the park from armed militias or rebel groups in the area, ensuring that they stay out of the park." Of course, those who they confront and sometimes attack also include the indigenous people, the Batwa in this case, who are trying to retake and reclaim their ancestral lands.And the argument is that without the guards, the land would fall into the hands of much more malevolent groups or forces. And so how do you think the presence of armed conflict as well as militarized conservation guards complicates the issue? Linda: That's a tough question. Well, maybe I can just give like a little anecdote.It was actually about this park, the [00:19:00] Kahuzi Biega National Park, and we were talking to German politicians and government officials about the problem of conflict and about the problem that these park rangers you know, are trained and have a lot of weapons, which seems very militant. And they, they were seeing the problem.They were seeing that this is probably not the best thing they should do, support security forces in an area which is already so problematic. But their thinking was, if we don't give them the money, now we have created this this force, basically. We have hired people, we have trained them.Now, if we stop supporting them, what are they going to do? You know, they're gonna maybe take the training and their weapons and make it even worse. So in a way, I mean, this was off record, right? They were just kind of thinking out loud. But in a way, they were seeing that the projects that they have supported have created structures which [00:20:00] very likely will increase conflict.And it seems quite obvious also because you see all these conflicts with indigenous peoples. So, I'm not going to say that it's a very peaceful area and there is not a need maybe for people to defend themselves. But in a way, the structures that we have in militarized conservation are not the solution.You know, they make the situation much more complicated than it initially was. And now, like, in this park, we're in a situation where we witness terrible human rights abuses, and everyone's scared to act and do something because it could get even worse. And it's, yeah, it doesn't seem like a very good solution.I think we need another way. We can't just stick our head, and say, oh, you know, we just go on, we'll just go on and then let someone else deal with it in a few years. I don't think that's a very good solution. Very good example.Martin: And it's questionable also to what extent do these these guards, these armed [00:21:00] rangers actually protect the, the parks and the species because they are here supposedly to fight against illegal wildlife trade and poaching and everything.But what studies have shown is that the root cause of of poaching and of the, of the illegal wildlife trade is mostly the demand for such products that comes from industrialized countries or at least other parts of the world and the system is made for the guards to take action against the local population and not against the actual criminal networks that lead to illegal wildlife trade and poaching.They get money for people they arrest and the easiest people to find are the locals that are trying to get to their ancestral lands. And there's also sometimes the park management involved in these criminal networks. So, you pretend to put in place a system to fight against illegal wildlife trade, but there ends up being no choice but [00:22:00] for the guards to, to take on the local people. Linda: Maybe we should also think about the indigenous populations as guards, or maybe guardians is the better word, of this area. And if we zoom out of the DRC and look at South America, where we have much stronger land rights... it's not perfect, but of course, better for indigenous people.They often act as guardians or guards of these territories, even though they're also confronted with illegal logging, quite brutal illegal logging, for example. But in a way, they are there and they, of course, are supported by authorities ideally, in defending these territories, but you see a less violent or militarized conflict because you have the indigenous guardians, as opposed to starting out with their protected [00:23:00] areas and armed guards, which are not just there to defend themselves, but have extensive rights of use of violence, and they don't have to fear any repercussions if something goes wrong and they kill, for example, an indigenous person.I mean, that's what we've seen in this park, that they can basically act with impunity. Chris: And thank you, Linda, for offering that example of the difference or the contrast between places like the Kahuzi Biega National Park and the DRC and other places in South America, for example, where there is this inherited intergenerational understanding of guardianship and while there's only maybe a half a century of conservation industry in these places, of course, they're an extension of the colonial project or projects that were undertaken much further back in time in places like Africa and places like the DRC before it was known as such.And then what happens, you know, after X amount of [00:24:00] generations after this kind of exile and displacement, that there is no lived memory anymore of what it means to be a guardian of your place. And I don't just mean as a title, but in terms of how you guard that place, as an indigenous person.We might be able to say that the Western world or the modern world that that's very much what we've become is people who are unable to remember or have a lived memory of what it's like to adequately stand as guardians for a place. You know, I think with the work that you two in Survival International are doing, there's a path forward towards that.And I'd like to remind our listeners that we're also here speaking today in part because there was a victory that was won by Survival International on behalf of the Batwa people and activists like yourself. And so I'd like to just read very briefly from [00:25:00] July 2023 press release from Survival International, in which it is said that, quote, "in a landmark decision, the French government has scrapped its plan to fund the controversial Kahuzi Biega National Park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo."France's Minister of State for Development, francophonie and International Partnerships, Chrysoula Zacharopoulou, confirmed that the plan to begin financing the Kahuzi Biega National Park has been scrapped. Ms. Zacharopoulou said, quote, "It has been abandoned, in line with our requirement for the respect of human rights."So first of all, I'd like to say congratulations to you both and to your teams at Survival for for getting this this victory and for doing the work you need to do in order to get there. And I'd like to [00:26:00] ask about the strategies that were employed in order to revoke French support for the park. You know, so many of these efforts and victories are either ignored in the context of the endless dilemmas or they're celebrated kind of superficially without considering the work it took to organize such campaigns.And so my question is, how has this campaign been organized by Survival International? Martin: Well, to give a bit of context the first time we heard about the French Development Agency planning on funding Kahuzi Biega, it was in the exact same time period as the publication of a report by Minority Rights Group International detailing brutal waves of violence in 2019 and until 2020 of appalling human rights abuses. So, atrocities that including murder, torture, rape [00:27:00] the burning alive of children, the burning of villages. So, we are, in this context, where we are reading the minority rights group report and understanding the scale of these waves of violence against the Batwa.And around the same period, we see that the French Development Agency has been a delegation, including the director, has been to the park and plans on funding it. So, of course we are appalled and and decide to write to the French Development Agency, but also to the to the ministry that has oversight.So, one of them is the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. And then we wait. And then we also got the support of a senator who also sent a letter and asked a question in Parliament to the government about their plan to fund this park in the context of these human rights violations.And so in July 2022, so last year, they decided to suspend temporarily the project. It was also in the context of an internal scandal because there was an expert[00:28:00] in the field and contracted by the French development agency to carry out a feasibility study. And he was basically saying around, and it can be heard in recordings saying that basically the study is just a formality and that the decision to fund the park has already been made.So there's both scandals. An internal scandal about the due diligence apparently being considered a formality on the field and the scandal of the very detailed report that had just gone out about the atrocities. So, that led to a temporary suspension. And they said that they would conclude the study and look into the abuses into social aspects.And then a year passed and we kept sending letters, of course, and doing some public campaigning about it on social media, et cetera. And then the senator asked again a question in July this year, and that's when we learned that the project was cancelled. So, of course, it's a victory, and it shows that sometimes the government actually does have the oversight[00:29:00] on the development agencies and takes the right decisions.But, of course, it's just the whole model still needs to be challenged and the park still has many international backers, even in the context of the atrocities that we that we know about. Chris: Mm. So the senator that asked about the status of the funding and found out that it was in fact scrapped, the scrapping of the funding was never made public until that point?Or there was never any press release saying so? Martin: No, they made it public, In the answer to the question, orally, in, in commission in Parliament. Chris: Mm. And would there be no way that the French public, for example, would be able to find out about this otherwise?Martin: I don't think so. And to be honest, I'm not even sure the decision had been taken before. I think they looked into it again because the senator asked a question again, but that's just speculation. Chris: And you spoke about writing letters, obviously to politicians and to the ministries [00:30:00] and also social media campaigns. Do you think there was more of an effect on the scrapping of the funding because of the public campaign, the social media campaign? Martin: Yeah, I think and that's basically the whole premise on which our campaigns are based is that an efficient mobilization of the public opinion will lead and the fact that the public cares and is informed will lead to a more efficient lobbying and advocacy of the governments and, and other government agencies. So yeah, I think one can't go without the other. And I don't know what would have happened if only the Senator had asked the questions or if only the Senator had asked a question or if we had only sent a letter and no public campaigning at all, or no press release, or no social media, I don't know. So I think, yeah, both go hand in hand.Chris: Mm hmm.So do you think that without the report from the Minority Rights Group, that the funding would have gone ahead, regardless of what was actually happening there? Martin: It's possible because we know that the funders were aware for years and [00:31:00] years of the human rights violations. And even before the waves of violence that are described in the report, we know that they were aware of that risk of violence at that time and of the human rights violation in the whole context of the militarized park.So, I think it could have very well gone ahead, because the other funders knew and kept funding it. And yeah, it's very important to get that kind of report with very detailed testimonies and information from the ground, and really documenting these atrocities. Otherwise, it's just business as usual.Chris: And the original proposal for the funding at least by the French government or the ministries involved, they were basically just promoting conservation in the way that it typically is. That's what the funding was for? Martin: Well, it's hard to know because they never published anything and actually, they never actually started funding it.It was just, just a project. Like I said, they went on a visit there and started making [00:32:00] promise to the local conservation agencies and to the local authorities. It's not clear to this day what exactly they were planning on funding, but it was clearly stated that there were planning on supporting the park itself, but I don't know for which kind of activities, but still, funding the same structure that that has been responsible for these abuses is still unacceptable.Chris: Mm hmm sounds "sketchy," as we say in English. And and so for our listeners, just a little bit of further context while France simply abandoned plans, the country had not yet made, or the government had not yet made, Germany continues to finance the park despite France's, however, subtle acknowledgment of human rights violations.And so, Linda, my question for you is, first of all, why is Germany funding a national park in the DRC to begin with? And, if you know, [00:33:00] how does that money get spent? Linda: Well, I guess the, the German interest in this park is pretty old, so the German government started funding the park already in the 80s.And there were some other projects even before that, supposedly. But it's considered to be a very, well, it obviously is a very long running project financed by the German government. And some local people call it the German park, because they assume that without the German funding, it wouldn't even exist. Like the kind of money that has been given over decades and the kind of things that have been funded, the infrastructure, the Congolese conservation authorities, the park rangers, you know, all the things that were funded basically crucial for the park to function. So yeah, it is a very German funded project. And also the German government has for very, a very long time looked at it as being a prestigious [00:34:00] project.You know, it was this great park, the gorillas, you already mentioned it, you know, and the Germans been funding it, which when you know a bit about German history, post World War II, there was a lot of interest in biodiversity and conservation funding because it was a good thing to do, which gave Germany a little bit of a different international picture than it had after the war.So there was a lot of interest in funding projects, and they were perceived as being fantastic, and they were shown to be these great projects that Germany is supporting internationally. And then, obviously, it isn't, but the German government has been very, very good at denying that there are these problems, and the role that it has had in facilitating these horrific human rights abuses. Mm. Chris: And how, if at all, has the German government responded to the [00:35:00] scrapping of the French funding? Linda: Very good timing, because I just got a response today, actually from the German government. Mm. 'cause we did point out to them that the French government has decided to not fund the park because of the violations of indigenous people's rights and because of human rights concerns. So we pointed this out to the ministry again, just in case, they would not have learned about this themselves. But the reply basically doesn't address this at all. You know, this was what we wrote the letter about and the replies about all the great things that the German government keeps funding and the improvements it is supposedly seeing on the ground and these improvements justifying their continued support.So it's just a letter explaining why they continue funding it and not addressing why maybe partners like the French government have decided not to fund it. And it's something that we have seen over the years. I think [00:36:00] survival first raised human rights violations in the Kahuzi Biega National Park in actually 2017, so that's quite a few years ago.There was a Batwa family. A father with his son, a teenage son. They were going into the park to collect herbs for medicine because another son of the family was sick. They encountered park rangers who killed the teenager and hurt wounded the father. So it was quite a terrible incident.And the father wrote to the German government, to the funders, and he complained about these human rights violations and the fact that the Batwa had lost access to the park and to their livelihood because of the German funding. The German government just said, "well, you know, there's not much we can do about it, basically."They tried to pay some money, but then really nothing, nothing else happened. And over the years, the situation hasn't improved. It has [00:37:00] gotten worse. But the German government keeps saying that they have faith in the Congolese conservation authorities and they do not see grounds to stop the funding or the project.They keep saying that they see progress. And things will get better. And we know it hasn't gone better. Chris: I'd like to return anyways to this this question around tactics and strategies and organizing. It seems that activists and those not directly involved in social movements struggle with the weight of our times.I mean, it's you know, kind of hard to ignore these days. And so, given that the German government, I imagine, is the obvious next target in the campaign to defund Kahuzi Biega, or at least the conservation authorities and programs there, what tactics, what strategies are being employed by Survival in your campaigns, [00:38:00] and how might our listeners in Germany, France, Europe, and, and beyond, how might they participate?Linda: That's a very good question, because, as I said, you know, Survival has been working on this for a few years, and there's a little bit of frustration, of course, that not much is happening in the terms of acknowledging the problem of funding this park. I think what Survival, what we're thinking is, quite important in this issue of conservation is making sure that donors in the West understand that this is a very symptomatic problem.So, a lot of conservation projects function like this and it is because there is this underlying problem with them, that they do not acknowledge land rights. But they continue to say that certain government authorities or certain conservation organizations are best put to run these places. It's the same with the [00:39:00] Kahuzi Biega National Park.The German government now says, "well, we know there are problems, so we pull in the WCS. They're the conservation organization and everything will be better. But it won't because they also have a record of not respecting indigenous people's rights. So, we need to make them understand that there is this underlying issue of not acknowledging indigenous people's land rights.And we try to do this by pointing out that this is a problem which is happening in a lot of national parks. So, protected areas that Survival has looked at in Africa and Asia, almost all of them, even the ones that we were told were good examples, have these problems. And we try to show that to the donors that have such big impact on these conservation projects and make them rethink what they're doing.It's a very difficult process, of course, because they've always done it in a different way. And now it's hard for them to think [00:40:00] about, you know, giving control and power to local people, which until now they've always said is a threat to conservation. It's like a total turn of what they assumed so far.But for us, it seems like that's the thing that we have to do for them to actually acknowledge the problem, because otherwise all the solutions that they come up with are not real solutions. They put people like the WCS in power, which is also not going to respect the Batwas' rights. Chris: Yeah, I think one of the critiques around development is in the context of these industries, especially things like conservation, volunteerism is another one that as industries, you would imagine that they would have in their mission statement, or vision, or ten-year plan, the slow and intentional disappearance of their own industry, right? Because if what they were [00:41:00] doing was working, we would need less of them. And there would be less of them, but here we are, right? And it's just, of course, a massively growing industry, both conservation and volunteerism. Martin: Yeah, it's true that our key targets are the donors, because like many of the issues that indigenous peoples are facing across the world, the root of the problem and the funding for these problems come from the West and our societies. So that's going to remain one of our targets and key part of the strategy. I think we are starting to see a shift in the discourse, in France, at least. And when we talk to the politicians, we also see that shift, that shift in the discourse of the conservation NGOs, but it's still as harmful. So instead of saying that these places are wild and empty and that the local artists are destroying it or encroaching, well, they still say it, but they also say that what we were saying before about the poverty issue and that [00:42:00] they will generate new projects and new activities and development basically.So, I think that they are starting to acknowledge the presence of these people. They couldn't be further from recognizing their land rights because, like you said, otherwise it means their own disappearance, and they're not built for that. Linda: Yeah, so it's a difficult, it's a difficult thing. I mean, I think we try to talk to people that are more inclined to understand the importance of indigenous people's rights so that we can have a base of people that support our campaigning, which is very important for us.And then we select our targets and try to engage the people that support us in convincing these targets to change projects or change their minds. And sometimes, you know, that can just be it a tweet that texts someone who we know makes decisions about certain [00:43:00] projects, try to raise awareness that there is concern about this project, that some people disagree, that this doesn't comply with human rights, that this doesn't comply with, agreements or treaties they're supporting for indigenous people's rights.And sometimes it's a more complex lobbying strategy. So there are different things we try to do and sometimes, like we saw with the example of the French government, sometimes it works because there's timing, there's different things coming together. But obviously, even though we have a lot of strategies, it's always difficult to know what will work in the end.So we try different things and try to engage with people that will help us spread the word about the need to decolonize conservation and do it differently and acknowledge land rights. And sometimes it's little things that really change a lot. Sometimes we work on something for a long time and it wasn't the right strategy and we need to change.[00:44:00] Chris: Well, speaking of how might our listeners find out more about Survival International and the decolonize conservation campaigns and especially around the work that you two are doing. Martin: Well, I strongly encourage people to read more of our campaigns on the website, on social media, also to subscribe to our newsletter, because that's where we mostly share our urgent actions.So which are one of our tools to put pressure on the targets. So, mass emails basically sent by our supporters to the targets about specific projects. And we also publish some video, direct video testimonies in our tribal voice projects, as we call it.So if they want to listen to, to the victims explaining the problems they are facing, but also the way of life that they have lost or sometimes more inspiring things about the resistance and and the fight. I think it's also very interesting to hear directly from the people affected.But yeah, I strongly encourage people to join the movement by [00:45:00] any means possible. And sometimes as Linda said, just small actions like a tweet or sending an email through these campaigns can be can really make an impact and and it does help ensure that the advocacy and the lobbying is effective.Linda: Yeah, and I think it's also a nice way to picture that you're showing solidarity with, for example, the Batwa, who often perceive the Western donors as being the cause of their problem. And I think for them, it's nice to see that there are also people in the countries that, where the problems originate that are standing up for their rights and supporting them.And I think it's probably the least we can do also, because we're so obsessed with African nature that I think it would be a very good step for us to think about the people that live in these places.Chris: Yeah, absolutely. And maybe not immediately or superficially in part because of the inundations and the dilemmas in our times, but that kind of [00:46:00] solidarity can begin to break down as well, the largely like unconscious nationalist tendencies we have when we think of other people in other countries, we always associate those people with their governments, right?Which is just like, absolutely ridiculous when anyone thinks of themselves in relation to their own government, right? But these are two faces, two voices of the resistance that are working on behalf of many others.And so I just wanted to reiterate that we're here today just to have the chance to be able to speak about a little bit about this this small victory that all willing will lead to many more to much bigger ones in regards to the Decolonize Conservation campaign of Survival International.It takes work and I'm grateful to be able to speak with you both today and to have you share some of your work and your dedication with our listeners and I will make sure that all of those links that you mentioned, Martin, will be on the End of Tourism website and available for our [00:47:00] listeners to sign up to the newsletter and follow on social media and of course participate if they so wish.Thank you both. Linda: Thanks. Martin: Thank you.​ Get full access to ⌘ Chris Christou ⌘ at chrischristou.substack.com/subscribe

This insight episode comes from full episode ninety-four with Dan Brockington. Dan is a professor and director of the Sheffield Institute for International Development at the University of Sheffield. Michael and Stefan talk with Dan about his book, Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania, specifically looking at the myths that help to sustain nature reserves and the positive and negative implications of fortress conservation.  References: Brockington, D. 2002. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Indiana University Press. Brockington, D., Duffy, R., and Igoe, J. 2008. Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas. Routledge. Brockington, D. 2009. Celebrity and the Environment: Fame, Wealth and Power in Conservation. Bloomsbury Publishing.

The debate about how to best protect the Congo Basin's rainforest increasingly finds experts and Indigenous leaders arguing that it's time for a change, one that brings local and Indigenous people into the conversation. Fortress conservation, a model exported to Africa during the colonial era, typically expels local people from land they once relied on for food, fiber and medicine, but experts argue the concept that this model uses – that of a 'pristine wilderness' untouched by humans – is a flawed construct. Many protected areas in Africa still use this conservation model, though, to the detriment of local people, sometimes resulting in violence.  On this episode of Mongabay Explores the Congo Basin, we interview lawyer and Goldman Prize-winner Samuel Nguiffo, Mongabay features writer Ashoka Mukpo, and conservation and Indigenous relations expert Vedaste Cituli about the legacy of fortress conservation in the Congo Basin, how the militarization of rangers has exacerbated tension with local people, and potential pathways forward to return some conservation control to local and Indigenous populations. Find the first three seasons of Mongabay Explores – where we explored Sumatra, New Guinea, and more – via the podcast provider of your choice, or locate all episodes of the Mongabay Explores podcast on our podcast homepage here.  Episode Artwork: The Indigenous Batwa were evicted from their forest home in Uganda in the early 1990s when Mgahinga Gorilla National Park was established, leaving them landless and poor in a society that saw them as a lower class. Image by USAID Biodiversity & Forestry via Flickr (Public Domain). Sounds heard during the intro and outro: The call of a putty-nosed monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans). This soundscape was recorded in Ivindo National Park in Gabon by Zuzana Burivalova, Walter Mbamy, Tatiana Satchivi, and Serge Ekazama. Please invite your friends to subscribe to Mongabay Explores wherever they get podcasts.  If you enjoy our podcast content, please visit www.patreon.com/mongabay to pledge a dollar or more to keep the show growing, Mongabay is a nonprofit media outlet and all support helps!  See all our latest news from nature's frontline at Mongabay's homepage: news.mongabay.com or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and TikTok by searching for @mongabay. Feedback is always welcome: submissions@mongabay.com.    

From government office to grass-roots campaigning, Malidadi Langa has long been a leading force in Malawian wildlife policy. In this episode he chats with Gordon about how he's used his experience in economics to become an international voice in rural development and decentralisation.They discuss the problematic impact of “fortress” conservation policies that historically isolated communities from their traditional resources. And Malidadi explains the journey of the community development association within the Kasungu National Park, known for its elephant population near the Zambian border.He also discusses the challenges created by the Covid-19 pandemic for the park's once thriving foreign tourist trade and shares actions from this year's African Protected Areas Congress in Kigali.Today Malidadi continues to represent Malawi in the Southern Africa Community Leaders Network and advocates for conservation initiatives that prioritise local investment, respect human rights and support sustainable livelihoods. Visit the website https://jammainternational.com to explore more international projects. LINKS: Malidadi on Twitter @MalidadiL https://www.malawitourism.com/regions/central-malawi/kasungu-national-park/ https://communityleadersnetwork.orgLINKS: Malidadi on Twitter @MalidadiL https://www.malawitourism.com/regions/central-malawi/kasungu-national-park/ https://communityleadersnetwork.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr. Aby Sène joins me to discuss fortress conservationism and the 30x30 plan, a proposal by Western conservation agencies and their corporate and state allies "to double the coverage of protected areas around the world by setting aside 30 percent of terrestrial cover for conservation by 2030." On the surface, the 30x30 proposal (the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) to protect biodiversity and wildlife seems like a promising step in halting deforestation, unfettered resource extraction, and poaching of endangered wildlife across Africa, but as Dr. Sène eloquently describes in her work, this plan is but a continuation of the colonialist dynamics that have existed between the Global North and the Global South for centuries. These conservation efforts, aptly termed "fortress conservationism,” is in reality part of a “colossal land grab," displacing indigenous communities from their lands and depriving them of traditional sources of sustenance and place-based cultural practices. There are many threads to follow in examining what is actually taking place here, but to provide some more context, Dr. Sène writes in 'Land grabs and conservation propaganda': Dr. Aby Sène-Harper is an assistant professor in parks and conservation area management at Clemson University. She is a trained interdisciplinary environmental social researcher whose work advances socially and ecologically just approaches to managing public lands, natural and cultural resources in the US and in Africa. Her research lies at the intersections of parks and protected area governance, livelihoods, nature-based tourism, and Race and nature. In the US her work interrogates how history and culture mediate African American relationships with nature, and cultural landscapes. In Africa, her work centers on the colonial structures of power in conservation, and integrative conservation approaches such as livelihood-centered projects, ecotourism and community-based conservation. Episode Notes: - Read 'Western Nonprofits Are Trampling Over Africans' Rights and Land' (Foreign Policy), and 'Land grabs and conservation propaganda' (Africa is a Country): https://bit.ly/3Bq3eEE / https://bit.ly/3Ui5XbN - Follow Dr. Sène on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AbySene9 - Other resources mentioned in this interview: The Red Deal (https://bit.ly/3xvre8k), Survival International (https://bit.ly/3Dt9lL1), 'The Big Conservation Lie' by John Mbaria and Mordecai Ogada (https://bit.ly/3Uf0ouN), 'The Violence of Conservation in Africa' (https://bit.ly/3qMMsuK), and 'Security and Conservation' by Rosaleen Duffy (https://bit.ly/3LkhuDs) - Sounds by Midnight Sounds: https://www.latenightsknowmystory.com - Photo: Elephants in Rain - Serengeti National Park safari - Tanzania, Africa. Credit David Berkowitz via Flickr CC BY 2.0. WEBSITE: https://www.lastborninthewilderness.com PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/lastborninthewilderness DONATE: https://www.paypal.me/lastbornpodcast / https://venmo.com/LastBornPodcast BOOK LIST: https://bookshop.org/shop/lastbornpodcast EPISODE 300: https://lastborninthewilderness.bandcamp.com BOOK: http://bit.ly/ORBITgr ATTACK & DETHRONE: https://anchor.fm/adgodcast DROP ME A LINE: Call (208) 918-2837 or http://bit.ly/LBWfiledrop EVERYTHING ELSE: https://msha.ke/lastbornpodcast

On this episode of “Death in The Garden,” we spoke to conservationist Dr. Aby Sène, professor of Parks and Conservation Area Management at Clemson University, where she researches the intersection between rural development and conservation, race and nature, nature-based tourism, and protected area governance in both the US and in Africa. In this episode, we discuss the colonialism, capitalism, and white supremacy that scaffolds much of the conservation movement, and the societal forces that perpetuate it. We talk about the history of conservation and its relationship to eugenics, as well as the elite powers that currently uphold extractive industries in the so-called “conservation” areas they own and manage, as well as the ways that extractive industries are being permitted to off-set their ecological damage by supporting fortress conservation. Ultimately, we dive into the broader conditions that have made this sort of land-grabbing and social/cultural/spiritual/physical dispossession possible, discussing how the results and human rights violations on the ground are a symptom of a larger system, one which has forced people off their land and into a wage economy which does not benefit them. We discuss how the ultimate goal of conservation should be a world where conservation isn't necessary at all, and finally, we discuss how these same forces are dispossessing Black farmers in the United States. Give Aby a follow on Twitter, and read her articles below for more information about the current state of conservation as she sees it: Land Grabs and Conservation Propaganda Western Nonprofits are Trampling Over Africans' Rights and Land This is part one of a two-part conversation with Aby, so stay tuned for our film interview with her! This is huge, nuanced topic, but Aby's passion should inspire us all.

Ukrainian climate scientist Svitlana Krakovska (pictured) outlines how climate change relates to Russia's invasion of Ukraine - "Ukrainian climate scientist says Russia's invasion is a 'fossil fuel war'". NASA climate scientist Bill Putman helps us understand "A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2". The small Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu "went to" Glasgow to present its case and what they did is quite moving - "'We are sinking': Tuvalu minister gives Cop26 speech standing in water to highlight sea level rise". Other Quick Climate Links for today are: "Traditional Indigenous burning protecting last-known koalas on NSW far south coast"; "Tiwi Islands offshore gas fight shows public banks are under real pressure over fossil fuel funding"; "Why today's energy crisis will lead to ​‘profound change'"; "Illinois offers $4,000 incentive to electric vehicle buyers"; "NASCAR racing team cuts carbon pollution"; "The US lags in the race to build an electric vehicle battery industry"; "Koch Industries continues doing business in Russia"; "Koch-funded analyst raises doubts about Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilians"; "US calls on Australia to increase 2030 emission reduction pledge to help prevent ‘greater destruction'"; "Australian wholesale power costs soaring despite Morrison government's budget claims"; "Alinta Energy boss wants clarity on WA coal shutdowns"; "Should I stay or should I go?"; "3000 years after the Babylonians, the marriage of math and science is as important as ever"; "Climate policy in 2022 is no longer a political bin-fire – but it remains a smouldering issue for voters"; "1.5 vs 2C: What difference can a lousy half a degree of global warming make?"; "What to expect as cold weather and rain move towards the east coast"; "Putting Carbon back where it belongs - the potential of carbon sequestration in the soil"; "EV etiquette, EV envy – and EV-erything in between"; "They derailed climate action for a decade. And bragged about it."; "New program to help residents repair storm-damaged homes"; "In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Unintended Consequences of ‘Fortress Conservation'"; "'It's Not Political to Tell the Truth': Scientists Arrested Over Climate Protests"; "Game theory says the Paris Agreement looks like a winner for the climate"; "Ford's electric Mustang Mach-E is very fun to drive. Is that a good thing?"; "LNG exports will add to climate change"; "‘Lawless logging' in DRC raises concerns over $500m forests deal signed by Boris Johnson"; "Boots to stop selling plastic-based wet wipes in UK"; "How climate change is disrupting the global supply chain"; Enjoy 'Music for a Warming World". Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/climateconversations

A three-strong panel at the recent WOMADelaide festival considered the question of whether or not the climate crisis felt like a fight and agreed that the answer was to be found in "heart", You can hear the whole panel discussion here: "Climate Fighting Farming. The Planet Talks - WOMADelaide 2022". Other Quick Climate Links for today are: "Democratic county executive candidates debate housing, climate, transit"; "Politicians call for $500bn a year to avert climate disaster"; "Coalition's $220m pledge for native forestry ‘bad news' for threatened species, conservationists say"; "Scientist Emma Smart on hunger strike after being refused bail"; "Bristol community secures funding to build tallest wind turbine in England"; "Why e-bikes are booming on Newcastle streets"; "Sinking feeling: cruise ships chart return to Australia amid emissions concerns"; "A Quick Way to Cut Carbon From Your Cocktail"; "Climate change protesters block central Paris square to protest election choices"; "Global Warming Drove a Deadly Burst of Indian Ocean Tropical Storms"; "Ocean Warming Doubles Odds for Extreme Atlantic Hurricane Seasons"; "In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Unintended Consequences of ‘Fortress Conservation'"; "Going green: governments look to fintech to help combat climate crisis"; "As Extinction Rebellion Returns to Britain's Streets, A New Film Charts the Movement's Wild Rise"; "Biomass Industry Pushes Back Against Europe's Plans To Protect Woodlands"; "Major European research organisation establishes base in Melbourne". Enjoy "Music for a Warming World". Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/climateconversations

There's a type of travel industry which defines itself as different: ecologically minded, even “responsible.” It's a type of travel meant to support the conservation of threatened ecosystems. This is not just tourism, but “ecotourism.” This specific brand of tourism is a crucial part of the plan to conserve the Great Himalayan National Park in northern India, a gorgeous patchwork of forests, glaciers, mountains, and rare wildlife. From one perspective, the strategy is working: tourism is on the rise, which provides jobs to locals and incentivizes conservation. But from another perspective, the very thing meant to help conserve the area might also be one of its biggest threats. In our last episode, journalist Yardain Amron reported on the conservation strategy -- and the controversy -- around the creation of the GHNP in the 1980's and ‘90s. Here, Yardain turns to 21st century ecotourism, and explores just how much the Tirthan Valley of India is changing. Who profits from tourism based on exploring wilderness? And just how eco-friendly is ecotourism? Featuring Raju Bharti, Karan Bharti, Dimple Kamra, Upi Kamra, Rosaleen Duffy, Stephan Marchal, Robert Fletcher, Narottam Singh, and a traveler named Nishant. Translation by Vibha Kumar. SUPPORT Outside/In is made possible with listener support. Click here to become a sustaining member of Outside/In.  Subscribe to our newsletter. LINKS To learn more about this approach to conservation, check out our episode on the origins of Yellowstone National Park, “Fortress Conservation.”  Dorceta Taylor, “The Rise of the American Conservation Movement.” Bram Buscher and Robert Fletcher, “The Conservation Revolution.” CREDITS Host: Justine Paradis Reported and produced by Yardain Amron Edited by Taylor Quimby with help from Justine Paradis Executive Producer: Rebecca Lavoie Mixed by Yardain Amron and Taylor Quimby Additional Editing: Felix Poon and Jessica Hunt Special thanks to: Guman Singh, Tony Gaston, and Hema Marchal. Theme: Breakmaster Cylinder Additional Music by Blue Dot Sessions

The Great Himalayan National Park in India is among the most dramatic landscapes on Earth. Count the layers in a single panoramic photo of the park and you might see mountains, glaciers, old-growth forests, and alpine meadows. But National Parks are defined by two things: first, an abundance of wildlife and majestic landscapes; and second, no permanent human presence. So, before anybody was ever invited to visit the park, authorities first told about 15,000 local people to stay out. This episode is the first of two stories reported by freelance journalist Yardain Amron.  In this tale, he explores the strategies of conservation at work in India's Tirthan Valley, and what it took to create The Great Himalayan National Park over the course of two decades. What does it mean to “protect” the natural world? Who is doing the protecting, and who should it be protected from? SUPPORT Outside/In is made possible with listener support. Click here to become a sustaining member of Outside/In.  Subscribe to our newsletter. LINKS To learn more about this approach to conservation, check out our episode on the origins of Yellowstone National Park, “Fortress Conservation.” Dorceta Taylor, “The Rise of the American Conservation Movement.” Bram Buscher and Robert Fletcher, “The Conservation Revolution.” CREDITS Host: Justine Paradis Reported and produced by Yardain Amron Edited by Taylor Quimby, with help from Justine Paradis Executive Producer: Rebecca Lavoie Mixed by Yardain Amron and Taylor Quimby Additional Editing: Felix Poon and Jessica Hunt Translation: Vibha Kumar Special thanks to Guman Singh and Tony Gaston. Theme: Breakmaster Cylinder Additional Music by Blue Dot Sessions

This week, Robi, Kate and Emma discuss fences and conservation, and how they can effect the natural world.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thebiomeproject)

Throughout the 20th century, conservationists and environmentalists have looked to protect wildlife and biodiversity through the creation of parks and other forms of exclusionary wildlife zones. Zones that seek to preserve spaces devoid of human impact - or to create them, by displacing indigenous and poor people who already live there. Today, some academics call this strategy by a pejorative name: Fortress conservation. In this episode, we look at medieval forest law, the early days of Yellowstone National Park, and spreading concern over how conservation efforts are enacted and enforced around the world. Get more Outside/In in your inbox - sign up for our newsletter. Featuring Karl Jacoby, Prakash Kashwan, Rosalyn LaPier, Hadrian Cook, and Vicky Tauli-Corpuz. Find more Outside/In on our website

Transcript -- How locals and gorillas can inhabit the forest in harmony. Conservationists describe the down-side of the Fortress Conservation and the benefits of Integrated Conservation Development.

Transcript -- How locals and gorillas can inhabit the forest in harmony. Conservationists describe the down-side of the Fortress Conservation and the benefits of Integrated Conservation Development.

How locals and gorillas can inhabit the forest in harmony. Conservationists describe the down-side of the Fortress Conservation and the benefits of Integrated Conservation Development.

How locals and gorillas can inhabit the forest in harmony. Conservationists describe the down-side of the Fortress Conservation and the benefits of Integrated Conservation Development.