Costs and Benefits of Protected Areas: Findings from the Field Kai Schmidt-Soltau ABCG MEETING 13/7/2006 Washington/DC

What are costs and benefits of PAs Local social benefits Jobs & livelihoods Security & empowerment Health Other values Local social costs Physical and/or economical displacement leading to Landlessness; Joblessness; Homelessness; Marginalization; Food insecurity; Increased mortality Loss of access to common property; Social disarticulation

Background Worldwide 49,000 PAs of category 1-4; 21,000 in low or lower-middle income countries; Most of these PAs are inhabited/used by people: –India 65%, South America 85%, Mongolia 80%, East Kalimantan 85%, Myanmar 70%, 91 tropical PAs 70% and Central Africa 100%. Result: Massive physical/economical displacements –130 Million conservation refugees (Geisler) – High risk of further increase under the present setting. 250 studies worldwide on displacements from PAs.

The case study region:Central Africa

Protected areas in the study region Case Studies Dja Biodiversity Reserve Korup National Park Lake Lobeke National Park Boumba Beck National Park Dzanga-Ndoki National Park Nsoc National Park Loango National Park Moukalaba-Doudou National P. Ipassa-Mingouli Biosphere Res. CrossRiver NP. Okwangwo Div. Nouabalé Ndoki National Park Odzala National Park + national studies in Cameroon, Gabon and DRC

The surface area of PAs in Central Africa 92,035 km 2 PAs (the size of the Portugal) On average 13 % of the total surface area The 12 PAs covered in case study have a surface area of 41,384 km 2 The data presented here are extrapolated from these 12 case studies to 31 parks in 6 countries –Nigeria, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Rep. of Congo & Central African Republic

The development of PAs in Central Africa between 1962 and 2012

Did Conservation – Displacement result in landlessness? Yes. The rural population lost forest, with a value of US $1.4 Billion. 215 sqkm 69 sqkm 66 sqkm 48 sqkm 26 sqkm 22 sqkm The three villages lost 215 sqkm

Did Conservation - Displacement result in joblessness? Yes. Since the forest is the major and often only source of income, the displacement from forest resulted in decreased cash income and lower level of subsistence – and in higher (unsustainable) exploitation of forest belonging to somebody else. The displaced population lost income opportunities with a value of US$ 21 Mill per year.

No. Did Conservation – Displacement result in homelessness?

Did Conservation–Displacement result in marginalization? Yes, because they have lost their traditional land use tenure system and utilization rights.

Did Conservation-Displacement result in food insecurity? Not in the short run, but likely in the long run.

Did Conservation-Displacement cause the loss of access to common property ? Yes. The rural population lost access to 92,000 sqkm of forest traditionally used and owned by them.

Did Conservation-Displacement increase the social disarticulation? Decision- maker BeforeAfter Chief57 %13 % Elders33 %4 % Government5 %13 % National Park5 %70 % Yes.

The impact of conservation induced displacement in Central Africa Till date conservation had displaced ~ 130,000 people & forced at least 40,000 people to be„hosts“. The social costs –nearly solely paid by the displaced populations – for all PAs are US$ 1,435,746,000,- (lost stumpage value) & US$ 21,450,000,- per year (lost income).

If there is no change in policy, than within the next 10 years conservation activities in Central Africa will: Displace at least several million people & Force these extremely poor populations to sacrifice forests with a replacement value of several Billion US$ to the goals of conservation without receiving any compensation or assistance.

Is the central African situation different from other areas? Rwanda & Burundi: East Africa: West Africa: Southern Africa: India: South America: No!

The GEF local benefit study 81 % of GEF PA projects (88) involved the economic displacement of local people 40 % of these projects tried to mitigate 20 % actually did something In Sum: 65% of the GEF PAs projects exacerbated poverty.

Parks predicated on forced displacement do not reduce poverty. They cause additional impoverishment.

Displacements are: –Occurring without policy standards; –Involuntary, often violent and barbaric; –Unprepared & under-financed (World Bank/OECD standards); – Inevitably impoverishing instead of safeguarding livelihoods; –Impoverishing “host” populations as well –Backfiring on biodiversity conservation

In sum, the displacement approach did not work in practice as intended; it conflicts with development and conservation philosophy, with stated policy objectives and with human rights

First achievements Cameroon 2003 & Gabon 2005 declared that indigenous peoples are allowed to live in and use all PAs (incl. small scale hunting); nobody will be displaced physically/economically from PAs without a proper assessment (resettlement action plan) and the negotiation of a comprehensive compensation scheme (World Bank standards). The DRC will most likely adopt these measures.

First achievements Some NGOs now support “voluntary resettlements”, but recent case studies highlight some dangers: The current policy climate is biased towards resettlement and undermines approaches which have less social costs; In the name of conservation, diverse means were used to camouflage involuntary resettlements; Voluntary resettlement takes often the form of extortion

The options are: 1)Either radical enhancement in resettlement policy and practices (unlikely due to costs) or 2) De-mainstreaming physical and/or economic displacement as conservation tool

Thank you for your attention, interest and concern Dr. Kai Schmidt-Soltau Webpage: Phone/Tel: Cameroon (237) & Mobile: (237) ; Fax & Global Voice Mail: (49) Europe: (49) ; Senegal (221) ; Gabon (241) ; RD Congo (243) ; South Africa (27) ; Namibia (264) ; Kenya (254) ;