What is the New Deal of the Peoples

New Deal for Nature: Paying the Emperor to Catch the Wind

by Stephen Corry, Director Survival International

The conservation industry says 2020 be her "Great year". She wants thirty percent of that Earth for dReserve species conservation and billions of dollars from the fight against climate change in "Natural climate solutions“Redirect. But that would be a catastrophe for people and the planet.

The protection of nature and species- emerged in the USA in the 1860s from a racist ideology- committed to be philanthropic 30 years ago. But that didn't happen. Now it will be againnew promisegive, if only for critics *inside and financiers *inside like that German government and the European Commission appease that today for landrobbery, murder and torture im Pay names of nature conservation. The new promises will be be meaningless again.

There should be no more public funds for “Protected Areas“To be used up Conservationists acknowledge their crimes, away from those responsible Separate and return stolen land, including compensation. natural reserveassociations must also stop with mining, timber, oil and plantation companies too cuddling.

__________



The doubling of so-called "protected areas" to 30 percent of the earth's surface is the latest idea that the major nature conservation organizations have taken up. It is their most important slogan and their answer to two of the greatest problems on earth - climate chaos and the loss of biodiversity. And it sounds good: it's easy to understand, has measurable numbers, and therefore sells well.


There seems to be no better answer to climate change and the loss of biodiversity than forbidding human “interference” in huge areas - provided that one believes that “everyone” is equally to blame for these two crises and that everything is resolved, by keeping them away. The idea has been around for years, but now governments and industries are promoting it powerfully, so it will be difficult to evade. Yet it remains dangerous nonsense that would do exactly the opposite of what is being announced. If we want to save our world, it has to be stopped.


Undoubtedly, reducing pollution around the world is critical to the climate. Stopping the industrial exploitation of intact areas is of fundamental importance for the flora and fauna as well as for the physical and mental health of residents and visitors. None of this is controversial. But these are not the arguments behind the “New Deal for Nature”. The New Deal is a marketing ploy aimed at raising even more money for those who have proven for decades that they cannot curb climate change or biodiversity loss.


Let us assume that the 30 percent project succeeds. As with the emperor's new clothes, it should be clear to every child that this would not inevitably lead to a reduction in the climate chaos: This is simply because it has no influence on what is going on in the remaining seventy percent of the world happens - where most of the pollution originates.


If the pollution outside is just as severe, then it doesn't matter what happens in the protected areas, because they too depend on the global climate. You can't fence in the wind. Without a global reduction in industrial emissions, it will not be enough to leave the existing forest intact or to plant many trees. If you destroy the atmosphere - even from a tiny part of the world - you destroy it everywhere.


This is not the first time that the “experts” are promoting a policy that - as a child can see - is pointless. But if the lie is big enough and repeated over and over, people will eventually believe it.


What about the second claim that protected areas are necessary to ensure the protection of biodiversity? Everyone rightly wants more of it: the more diverse an ecosystem, the more likely it is that it will adapt and survive. “Biodiversity” is the enormous diversity of life, and the forms of life are interconnected: They are interdependent. Where the flora and fauna is reduced to a few species, there is a domino effect that reduces the number even further.


As obvious as it may be, it has to be said again: To mix metaphors: If the domino effect becomes a snowball effect, then the ecosystems become deserts, even if they are visibly green. Oil palm plantations that grew out of tropical forests are a famous example of many trees being planted in an area where biodiversity has been reduced to a few species. Such plantations are practically “green deserts”.


Leaving the propaganda aside, it is not possible to scientifically prove how effective protected areas are in promoting biodiversity. For example, a border drawn around an area with high biodiversity, which is then declared a national park, does not prove anything about the protected area: after all, the biodiversity was already there. On one point, however, there is great agreement: And that does not mean that protected areas are the solution.


It has been shown that the greatest diversity is not to be found in areas where human interference is prohibited, but on the contrary - it is to be found where indigenous and other local communities have been able to stay and continue to do what they have done so far to have. It is simply not true that “everyone” is responsible for the loss of biodiversity. Studies show that forests managed by such communities have lower rates of deforestation than other protected areas, and that "nature" is better off in tribal-managed areas than elsewhere. In places as diverse as Australia, Brazil, and Canada, indigenous areas are more diverse than nature reserves. It seems clear that biological and human diversity are linked.



This is an important point that conservation organizations sweep under the rug when they themselves demand more money: Areas managed by local residents, especially indigenous people, are more successful than protected areas imposed by outsiders. One study came to the, albeit hesitant, conclusion that "the notion that indigenous reserves are less effective than nature reserves ... needs to be re-examined". You could say so! It is already estimated today that indigenous areas are home to no less than eighty percent of the world's biodiversity. That's exactly why conservationists want to take control. Indigenous peoples are being sacrificed precisely because of their extensive knowledge and success in managing their territories.


Even where protected areas are hailed to preserve iconic species, the results are mixed up. For example, the former head of a conservation NGO believes that there could be more Indian tigers outside of protected areas than inside. Nobody knows, but what is certain is that when the British colonizers imprisoned the indigenous Waliangulu elephant hunters in Kenya in the 1950s, elephant numbers skyrocketed, but then fell when the next drought hit and the herds for them Vegetation became too numerous. Thousands of elephants starved to death. Eventually the balance that the Waliangulu had maintained for generations or millennia was restored. In South Africa, an average of almost 600 elephants were culled every year between 1967 and 1996 (in order not to deter donors and donors, as quietly as possible). The ban on traditional indigenous hunting generally harms biodiversity.



Protecting nature by locking out local residents has not worked. It is also not helpful that many “protected areas” are not really protected: Industrial exploitation - mining, clearing, plantations, concessions for trophy hunting or extensive, mostly high-quality tourist infrastructure are the reality. The residents are thrown out if the land is taken over by one or the other industry in cooperation with one or the other large nature conservation organization.


Like it or not, many protected areas are not just about nature conservation, but also about robbing the local residents of the land in order to generate a profit for someone else. Botswana's famous Central Kalahari Game Reserve is the second largest game reserve in the world, but it is also leased to mining companies. There is a diamond mine with roads and heavy machinery where a tiny handful of indigenous people who have lived there for generations occasionally get menial jobs (the government evicted them until the Supreme Court demanded the right to return). As in almost all African sanctuaries, affluent travelers can enjoy luxury accommodation within the reserve. The man responsible for both tourism and the diamond mine is the former President of Botswana: General Ian Khama, a celebrated conservationist who also served on the board of conservation giant Conservation International.


This land grab is a problem for all of us, and not only because the local residents are generally much better conservationists than “we”: it is not surprising that they are resisting it when their land and their self-sufficiency for profit being plundered by others. Not surprisingly, their need for food - and sometimes their anger - translates into disregard for hunting bans (which makes them “poachers” for trying to feed their families). Not surprisingly, they are taking action to reclaim their ancestral territory.


For example, cattle herders, whose herds are banned from private conservancies in East Africa, cut through the fences and go back inside. They may be armed and violent clashes are increasing. Some researchers fear that increasing bloodshed is inevitable and that the increasing militarization of conservation will only make things worse. But this is the model that is being touted as the future of protected areas, a model that is said to be implemented with the support of local communities (which is often a lie). The protected areas are supported by the American NGO The Nature Conservancy and are largely profitable investments aimed at wealthy businesses and travelers. They are taking over vast areas in East Africa and beyond.


Just as Africans have withdrawn (at least partially!) From European rule in the last century, it is unlikely that they will quietly join what is viewed as further colonization - this time by conservationists. If things don't change, sanctuaries in Africa will become real, not metaphorical, battlefields. Serious environmentalists know that no sanctuary can last long if it is surrounded by angry people. Still, conservation groups seem unable to change their practice. They admonish the industry to become sustainable while promoting their own model, which it obviously isn't.


The WWF, for example, regularly violates human rights, the law and its own guidelines. He has already spent millions of dollars on the illegal creation of a new sanctuary in the Congo, Messok Dja. The money comes from the WWF itself and its supporters, including a wood and oil palm company and a luxury tourism company, as well as from the Wildlife Conservation Society, the US government, the EU and the UN. As with the creation of almost all African sanctuaries, the first step was to kick out and terrorize the indigenous Baka, who have probably lived there for thousands of years and who have sustainably managed their biodiverse environment. Now they are being kept away from their ancestral lands and terrorized, beaten and arrested if they return to look for traditional foods or medicinal plants.



This is what the thirty percent for the “New Deal for Nature” will look like - a third of the earth's surface is stolen for profit reasons. It's a new colonialism, the largest land grab in the world, supposedly "green" and supposedly to save the world - a really big lie. As Odette, a Baka woman from the Congo, says of such forced nature conservation projects that don't work: “We have had enough of this talk about 'borders' in the forest. The forest is ours. "


The last few generations have shown enough that meetings of companies, NGOs, politicians and celebrities will not solve the climate and biodiversity crisis. Rather, they are among the primary culprits in the problems and the least willing to accept any change that could threaten their position. They argue about statements that no one actually uses or even intends to use, and that are full of clauses that guarantee “business as usual”. The meetings and declarations are surrounded by an enormous media circus, but resemble the emperor's workshop, in which hundreds of tailors are busily cutting suits from material so diluted that they do not obscure his nakedness.


The real answers to the climate and biodiversity crisis are to reverse the current approach and reject the New Deal for Nature and its assumptions about the relationship between indigenous peoples and nature. If we really want to save our world, then we have to start with the rich reducing their massive overconsumption. The wealthiest 10 percent cause about half of all pollution in the world, so they have to work the hardest to reduce it. Both military conflict and the growth of information technology must be seen as the major polluters that they are. The former is barely mentioned in climate activism, and the plan of the second is the exact opposite of what would be needed with even more energy-hungry "artificial intelligence" overseeing our lives for the benefit of industry and government control. If we want to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, we also have to reduce dependence on “smart” technology, and we have to accept the fact that real solutions are not in marketing tricks like “net zero emissions”, carbon offsetting , Emissions trading or "valorisation of nature" can be found. Real solutions are found with the local and indigenous communities who have always successfully created and managed the world's biodiversity.


It is not humanity as a whole that is responsible for these problems, but a specific sector, namely the same one that worked out the “New Deal for Nature”. Those who advocate this want to determine how the rest of the world should live - but they act primarily for themselves. The prohibition of human activities in other “protected areas” is another manifestation of hubris that only affects us in these Messed up. The local people - those who maintain a level of self-sufficiency, common sense, and connection to their environment - are still the strongest backbone of humanity today. They have better answers than conservation technocrats and other global elites who lack perspective. Throwing out even more of them drives them into landless poverty at best. In the worst case, it destroys them and their environment. It would be catastrophic for everyone.

Sources and the English original of the text can be found here.