Subscribe
Research findings by a team of 21 global researchers just published in the journal Nature is shedding light on systemic racism, discrimination and marginalisation against Blacks, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) that they say are rampant within the global wildlife conservation system.
The report, by the team headed by leading Zimbabwean wildlife conservation scientist, Moreangels Mbizah, examines how examines how conservation has historically side-lined Indigenous peoples and local communities — and how these patterns persist today, even as countries expand protected areas to meet biodiversity and climate goals. It says exclusion in conservation persists across intersections of race, class, urban-rural divides, nationality and power dynamics from local to global levels and provides a framework for addressing these challenges.
The study highlights how marginalisation and ‘othering’ disproportionately affect BICOP communities, especially in the Global South, pointing out that expansion of protected areas and prioritisation of individual animals over human beings is worsening such inequalities.
Arguing that excluding Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) from conservation decisions not only causes social harm but also often weakens conservation outcomes themselves, the paper says conservation should be an exemplar of best practice on human rights, justice and inclusion, including in regions marred by violence, injustice and weak rule of law.
Citing examples from across the world, the study says conservation in its current form emerged in the late nineteenth century during the European colonial era where systemic racial oppression was widespread in the establishment of protected areas.
“The early modern conservation movement implemented racist forced removals and oppressive policies for the creation of protected areas and land for wildlife that echoed those of the colonial extractive period,” the paper says.
“Preservationist practices helped to create and perpetuate a false notion of a pristine wilderness without human occupation that casts local people as enemies, rather than custodians, of nature. This preservationist framing is inconsistent with many long-standing cultural practices of BIPOC communities and does not recognize the value of human-environment relationships in shared spaces. IPLCs can be — and often already are — very effective stewards of nature, especially if adequately supported.”
The study says marginalisation and racism in conservation is a manifestation of ‘othering’, which is the process of treating individuals or groups as fundamentally different through the creation of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ social boundaries.
“‘Othering’ in conservation has primarily occurred against BIPOC communities, and is exacerbated in the Global South, where governance systems and the rule of law and protection of both individual and collective rights are often weaker,” it says.
The researchers say although conservation has evolved substantially to be more inclusive, the path trajectories of the racist European colonial past creates patterns of marginalisation and othering that inform the present.
“For example, if not carefully governed and managed, the current drive of the global conservation community to expand conservation areas and conserve 30 per cent of the world’s land and sea area by 2030 (known as 30 × 30) risks echoing the marginalizing and unjust practices of the past.”
Citing examples from Uganda, India and Zimbabwe, the study says another visible instance is of Western-dominated campaigns, media and social media that imply that the lives of individual animals are more valuable than (typically) BIPOC peoples in the Global South who co-exist with wildlife, contributing to further marginalization and injustice.
“Conservation campaigns and initiatives, particularly through campaigns aimed at the Western public, often value wild animals over BIPOC people. Moreover, discussions and presentations of conflict between humans and wildlife are frequently polarizing. Such framings and discussions in media and social media have real-world consequences. When marginalized people in the Global South, most of whom are BIPOC, are affected or even killed by wildlife, there is typically little or no media attention — particularly when compared to the attention given to wild animals that are killed by people (sometimes in retaliation for loss of human life).”
It says the framings in the media, social media and by celebrities that implicitly value animal lives over human lives can lead to racially oriented responses in the name of conservation.
“Whereas dehumanization was once thought to occur only in extreme events, it is now understood to be a common everyday occurrence, present in many societies. In the case of animal rights advocates, for example, opinions on conservation actions are often widely held and, crucially, defined in opposition (and sometimes, political subjugation) to other social groups such as ranchers, farmers or hunters.”
It says after Ugandan poachers, in June 2020, killed a mountain gorilla named Rafiki (‘friend’ in Kiswahili), ostensibly in self-defence (their bushmeat target being small antelope and rodents, not gorilla), in stark contrast to the contemporaneous Black Lives Matter protests that raged across the globe in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, there were widespread public calls (particularly from Northern and Western actors on social media) for the Black Ugandans involved to be tortured, brutally killed or at the very least denied due judicial process.
“Heightened support for violence against Black suspects is often perpetuated by implicit associations linking Black people with apes. The Ugandan poachers in this case may therefore be perceived by some as less than human and deserving of fewer rights than the mountain gorilla that they killed. The consequences also manifest within countries of the Global South where there are income inequalities and divides between urban and rural peoples.”
Another example was from India where, in 2018, intense public and media outrage erupted over the killing of Avni, a tigress, with widespread concern expressed over the fate of her two 10-month-old cubs.
“Notably, little mention was made of the number, names or ages of the children left parentless following Avni’s killing of at least 13 rural villagers. Instead, protestors in Mumbai demanded ‘justice’ for the tigress and her cubs. Perspective chanting “Avni’s kids, nation’s kids”, with some attendees dismissing the human death toll as a “farce”. This example illustrates how urban-rural divisions within a country can shape abusive rhetoric towards BIPOC communities occupying conservation landscapes just as the Global North–South division between countries does.”
The same outrage followed the killing of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe in 2015, providing another example of the power of animal rights lobby groups over the needs of IPLCs that bear the costs of living with lions. The killing caused great global outrage, especially in the West, and powerful animal rights lobbying groups leveraged the incident to mount strong campaigns to stop trophy hunting, overpowering the rights of local communities to choose how to manage their natural resources or manage human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) in their own domains.
“In marked contrast to the global attention paid to Cecil, according to the police and media reports 75 more Zimbabweans had been killed by wild animals than by COVID-19 from January to June 2020 — including a baby killed by lions after she fell from her mother’s back — with very little media or public interest.”
The study says increased attention against racial discrimination, especially in the aftermath of the Global Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, provides an opportunity for the conservation sector to address othering and marginalisation of BIPOC peoples globally, including in the Global South.
Building on the extensive body of work examining the social justice impacts of conservation across the fields of environmental philosophy, political ecology and economy, and environmental sociology, the study concludes with the rights, agency, challenge and education (RACE) framework, which proposes how to counter the marginalisation and injustices against mainly BIPOC communities in conservation through strengthening rights, supporting and advocating for agency, speaking out to challenge marginalising practices and enhancing education.
“Amid shifting global politics, including reduced US federal support for social and conservation issues, this framework provides guidance to counter racism and exclusion. By rethinking conservation practice, it seeks to build long-lasting, equitable and inclusive approaches that respect both people and nature.
“That the history of conservation is steeped in marginalization, injustice and racism cannot be denied. Yet there has been strong progress in policies and commitments to human rights in conservation, and there is potential for continued positive change in practice towards greater inclusivity and justice.”
The paper’s arguments are grounded in practice as Mbizah, the lead researcher, heads Wildlife Conservation Action in northern Zimbabwe, where community-led approaches have reduced livestock losses by 98 per cent over five years in parts of Nyaminyami district, contributed to a 50 per cent decline in retaliatory wildlife killings, and protected livestock worth millions through predator-proof bomas and other low-cost interventions.
This study lands at a critical moment for Zimbabwe. More than a quarter of the country is under formal protection, much of it overlapping with rural communities that live with daily human-wildlife conflict. As discussions continue around reforms to the Parks and Wildlife Act, the paper offers timely evidence on why governance, rights, and local decision-making are central to conservation success.