Central Africa’s protected areas and the purported displacement of people: a first critical review of existing data

This paper examines the validity of data from the 12 case studies in six Central African parks cited by Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau (2003, 2006) and Schmidt-Soltau (2003). The same data are used for multiple papers to support the authors’ arguments relating to the human welfare costs of protected area...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maisels, S., Sunderland, Terry C.H., Curran, B., Loebenstein, K. von, Oates, J., Usongo, L., Dunn, A., Asaha, S., Balinga, M., Defo, L., Telfer, P.
Formato: Capítulo de libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: Wildlife Conservation Society Institute 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/10568/19643
_version_ 1855533734685573120
author Maisels, S.
Sunderland, Terry C.H.
Curran, B.
Loebenstein, K. von
Oates, J.
Usongo, L.
Dunn, A.
Asaha, S.
Balinga, M.
Defo, L.
Telfer, P.
author_browse Asaha, S.
Balinga, M.
Curran, B.
Defo, L.
Dunn, A.
Loebenstein, K. von
Maisels, S.
Oates, J.
Sunderland, Terry C.H.
Telfer, P.
Usongo, L.
author_facet Maisels, S.
Sunderland, Terry C.H.
Curran, B.
Loebenstein, K. von
Oates, J.
Usongo, L.
Dunn, A.
Asaha, S.
Balinga, M.
Defo, L.
Telfer, P.
author_sort Maisels, S.
collection Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace)
description This paper examines the validity of data from the 12 case studies in six Central African parks cited by Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau (2003, 2006) and Schmidt-Soltau (2003). The same data are used for multiple papers to support the authors’ arguments relating to the human welfare costs of protected area establishment, which is, in turn, being uncritically cited by others also questioning whether such trade-offs are acceptable (e.g., Hutton et al. 2005; Tiani and Diaw 2006). All the data were collected by Schmidt-Soltau alone. To avoid multiple citations of the same data in the various publications, the authors refer to the data source as “Schmidt-Soltau.” The sites concerned range from protected areas established in colonial times to new ones established in the last five years. These papers provide an overview of the surface areas of the different countries, area of original forest cover, rate and extent of tropical forest loss, and the extent of protected areas in each country. The data on the specific sites presented include: 1) park area, 2) whether there is a resettlement policy, 3) the population in or around the parks, 4) whether people were expelled from parks or denied access to previously used land, 5) whether there is a compensation strategy, and 6) whether there was any demonstrable “success.”1. The authors echo the call of Wilkie et al. (2006) for the use of sound science to examine these issues, as the perceived conflict of poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation is creating polarized viewpoints that are, at times, based more in the halls of academia than in real-life village and park situations. The presentation of detailed and accurate data is essential when constructing and testing hypotheses about cause and effect. In this paper the accuracy of the data presented in the Schmidt-Soltau articles is examined and found wanting in various ways; more precise data are offered instead to demonstrate a more accurate picture of what is happening on the ground, and in the communities around these protected areas in Central Africa.
format Book Chapter
id CGSpace19643
institution CGIAR Consortium
language Inglés
publishDate 2007
publishDateRange 2007
publishDateSort 2007
publisher Wildlife Conservation Society Institute
publisherStr Wildlife Conservation Society Institute
record_format dspace
spelling CGSpace196432025-01-24T14:20:10Z Central Africa’s protected areas and the purported displacement of people: a first critical review of existing data Maisels, S. Sunderland, Terry C.H. Curran, B. Loebenstein, K. von Oates, J. Usongo, L. Dunn, A. Asaha, S. Balinga, M. Defo, L. Telfer, P. protected areas national parks biodiversity nature conservation rural communities displacement resettlement case studies This paper examines the validity of data from the 12 case studies in six Central African parks cited by Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau (2003, 2006) and Schmidt-Soltau (2003). The same data are used for multiple papers to support the authors’ arguments relating to the human welfare costs of protected area establishment, which is, in turn, being uncritically cited by others also questioning whether such trade-offs are acceptable (e.g., Hutton et al. 2005; Tiani and Diaw 2006). All the data were collected by Schmidt-Soltau alone. To avoid multiple citations of the same data in the various publications, the authors refer to the data source as “Schmidt-Soltau.” The sites concerned range from protected areas established in colonial times to new ones established in the last five years. These papers provide an overview of the surface areas of the different countries, area of original forest cover, rate and extent of tropical forest loss, and the extent of protected areas in each country. The data on the specific sites presented include: 1) park area, 2) whether there is a resettlement policy, 3) the population in or around the parks, 4) whether people were expelled from parks or denied access to previously used land, 5) whether there is a compensation strategy, and 6) whether there was any demonstrable “success.”1. The authors echo the call of Wilkie et al. (2006) for the use of sound science to examine these issues, as the perceived conflict of poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation is creating polarized viewpoints that are, at times, based more in the halls of academia than in real-life village and park situations. The presentation of detailed and accurate data is essential when constructing and testing hypotheses about cause and effect. In this paper the accuracy of the data presented in the Schmidt-Soltau articles is examined and found wanting in various ways; more precise data are offered instead to demonstrate a more accurate picture of what is happening on the ground, and in the communities around these protected areas in Central Africa. 2007 2012-06-04T09:12:35Z 2012-06-04T09:12:35Z Book Chapter https://hdl.handle.net/10568/19643 en Wildlife Conservation Society Institute Maisels, S., Sunderland, T.C.H., Curran, B., von Loebenstein, K., Oates, J., Usongo, L., Dunn, A., Asaha, S., Balinga, M., Defo, L., Telfer, P. 2007. Central Africa’s protected areas and the purported displacement of people: a first critical review of existing data . WCS Working Paper No.29. In: Redford, Kent H., Fearn, Eva (eds.). Protected areas and human displacement: a conservation perspective. :75-89. New York, USA, Wildlife Conservation Society Institute.
spellingShingle protected areas
national parks
biodiversity
nature conservation
rural communities
displacement
resettlement
case studies
Maisels, S.
Sunderland, Terry C.H.
Curran, B.
Loebenstein, K. von
Oates, J.
Usongo, L.
Dunn, A.
Asaha, S.
Balinga, M.
Defo, L.
Telfer, P.
Central Africa’s protected areas and the purported displacement of people: a first critical review of existing data
title Central Africa’s protected areas and the purported displacement of people: a first critical review of existing data
title_full Central Africa’s protected areas and the purported displacement of people: a first critical review of existing data
title_fullStr Central Africa’s protected areas and the purported displacement of people: a first critical review of existing data
title_full_unstemmed Central Africa’s protected areas and the purported displacement of people: a first critical review of existing data
title_short Central Africa’s protected areas and the purported displacement of people: a first critical review of existing data
title_sort central africa s protected areas and the purported displacement of people a first critical review of existing data
topic protected areas
national parks
biodiversity
nature conservation
rural communities
displacement
resettlement
case studies
url https://hdl.handle.net/10568/19643
work_keys_str_mv AT maiselss centralafricasprotectedareasandthepurporteddisplacementofpeopleafirstcriticalreviewofexistingdata
AT sunderlandterrych centralafricasprotectedareasandthepurporteddisplacementofpeopleafirstcriticalreviewofexistingdata
AT curranb centralafricasprotectedareasandthepurporteddisplacementofpeopleafirstcriticalreviewofexistingdata
AT loebensteinkvon centralafricasprotectedareasandthepurporteddisplacementofpeopleafirstcriticalreviewofexistingdata
AT oatesj centralafricasprotectedareasandthepurporteddisplacementofpeopleafirstcriticalreviewofexistingdata
AT usongol centralafricasprotectedareasandthepurporteddisplacementofpeopleafirstcriticalreviewofexistingdata
AT dunna centralafricasprotectedareasandthepurporteddisplacementofpeopleafirstcriticalreviewofexistingdata
AT asahas centralafricasprotectedareasandthepurporteddisplacementofpeopleafirstcriticalreviewofexistingdata
AT balingam centralafricasprotectedareasandthepurporteddisplacementofpeopleafirstcriticalreviewofexistingdata
AT defol centralafricasprotectedareasandthepurporteddisplacementofpeopleafirstcriticalreviewofexistingdata
AT telferp centralafricasprotectedareasandthepurporteddisplacementofpeopleafirstcriticalreviewofexistingdata