Beyond parks and reserves: The ethics and politics of conservation with a case study from Perú

This paper elaborates, analyzes, and partly defends the normative and empirical foundations of a “social ecology” model for natural habitat and resource management. This model treats human societies as being irreducibly integrated with the natural systems in which they are embedded. It argues that any concept of biodiversity necessarily embodies cultural values for it to be operationalized for conservation decisions. It accepts the legitimacy of tradeoffs between biodiversity conservation and other values including human resource development. It prioritizes local control of decisions in regions which are often targeted by Northern conservationists: areas of the South, where cultural choices have led to the persistence of high biodiversity. This model is used to analyze an ongoing dispute over biodiversity conservation and natural resource control in Perú: the conflict over Kandozi territory in the Abanico del Pastaza. What the Kandozi want is more than just a rejection of what has been criticized as the national park/fortress model of conservation. It consists of an assertion of local institutionalized control over traditional lands which goes well beyond the purview of the usual alternative of the fortress model: the biosphere reserve model of external and internal joint control of natural resources. To the remarkable extent that Kandozi resource management practices have succeeded in maintaining biotic richness and variety in spite of multiple encroachments, the empirical evidence demands that today’s conservationists pay adequate attention to these practices and the social institutions in which they are embedded. But, beyond such prudential concerns, the social ecology model of habitat conservation accepts the normative claims that resident communities should have control over their lands and livelihoods and that they should be allowed to maintain their habitats as cultural landscapes of their choice.