Africa Geographic December 2003/January 2004 [antikvár]

-I'"!!',: f: ,:¦ , . , i i r-.l', I : : . i ¦ I Editorial VOLUME 11 NUMBER 11 DECEMBER 2 0 0 3 / J A N UK ; Y ' ¦ .t: ¦ ¦l i ' 1 , i • ' " •• I. i " I ¦ 1. 1 ' I iM I'l:. ; 'i i ¦; ¦ I [''¦!'. ; ; ¦ ''i ' ' ^ J ,1 ¦ l ' J: ¦) '' ' ¦¦ I suppose we could raise Berlin Walls r around protected areas and patrol them C|k with a well-armed military, but that kind of reactionary thinking is hardly sustainable You have to have your wits about you when in the company of Richard Leakey, as many who have debated African conservation, politics and thinking with him have found to their cost. He has a rapier-like mind and you can never quite know what to expect from this highly articulate iconoclast. I remember one occasion well. Over a relaxing lunch I introduced the topic of conservation's future lying in the successful outcome of integrating the needs and expectations of protected areas with those of the human communities surrounding them. I expected Leakey to be an outspoken protagonist of this view, but instead he bluntly challenged: 'It won't work, you know.' I was taken back. After all, the notion of 'benefits beyond boundaries', which was even the theme of the recently held 5th world congress on the protected areas of our planet, is generally viewed as the 'great way forward'. My own belief in this is firm: unless protected areas can demonstrate their relevance in real terms to their neighbours - and in almost all instances in the developing world 'neighbours' means impoverished communities - then wildlife conservation can have no future. But 1 could see where Leakey was coming from. What can accrue to people living alongside conservation areas? Well, there is employment for starters - trackers, rangers, guides, hospitality staff are all needed. And there are handicrafts, vegetables and other produce that can come from local sources. Communities, too, can negotiate some access to the resources of game reserves. Then there are more complicated relationships, where innovative schemes result in formalised partnerships that build schools, clinics and tourist lodges. There are many examples where this thinking works, and works well. Ultimately, however, the question has to be: 'But is this sustainable?' Human pressure is unlikely to decrease in areas around national parks and other reserves. And are we not going to reach, distressingly quickly, the point where no matter how innovative the community/park relationship, the ability of conservation to meet the expanding expectations of local people will be outstripped? What then? The alternative? Well, I suppose we could raise Berlin Walls around protected areas and patrol them with a well-armed military, but that kind of reactionary thinking is hardly sustainable either. No, the route of 'benefits beyond boundaries' is the only option we have at the moment and we had better pursue it vigorously, for if nothing else it will buy time until better solutions become apparent. Ultimately, of course, sustainability in any shape or form - in Africa or elsewhere - is a myth until issues such as population growth, endemic poverty and disease, cormption and greed, and a universal respect for all life are confronted. And 1 don't see much evidence of international political will to deal with any of these.