Overview: A chilling reminder from the field
Two decades ago in Nepal’s Chitwan National Park, a farmer, Shikharam Chaudhary, faced brutal interrogations after rangers believed he helped his son hide a stolen rhino horn. The story, cited by researchers, underscores a troubling pattern: conservation efforts in some parts of the Global South have been accompanied by human rights abuses. This article examines how scholars are reframing conservation to prioritize people’s rights without sacrificing biodiversity.
The core critique: rights neglected in pursuit of protection
Conservation in the Global South often hinges on protecting ecosystems and endangered species. Yet researchers argue that the emphasis on protection can eclipse the rights and livelihoods of local communities. In some cases, authorities have used coercive tactics—detentions, interrogations, or excessive force—to deter poaching or enforce park rules. While the intention is to preserve biodiversity, the methods can inflict harm on individuals and communities who rely on the land for food, water, and income.
What researchers are saying
Academics and practitioners point to a growing body of evidence that suggests a more nuanced approach is needed. Key arguments include:
- Human rights and biodiversity goals are not mutually exclusive; they can be pursued in tandem through inclusive governance, consent-based enforcement, and transparent judicial oversight.
- Community-led conservation models—where locals participate in decision-making and benefit-sharing—tend to yield better long-term outcomes for species and habitats.
- Judicial remedies and accountability mechanisms are essential to prevent abuses similar to those alleged in the Nepal case, ensuring rangers and authorities face consequences for rights violations.
Case studies and learning opportunities
Across the Global South, several initiatives illustrate a shift toward rights-respecting conservation. In some regions, co-management agreements give communities a formal stake in park resources, while monitoring and reporting systems increase transparency in enforcement. Critics, however, caution that reforms must be implemented with consistency and cultural sensitivity. Without genuine consultation and protection of basic rights, reform efforts may merely relocate harm or erode trust between communities and conservation agencies.
Balancing protection and human rights: practical pathways
Experts advocate concrete steps to align conservation with human rights:
- Adopt participatory governance models that include local leaders, women, and marginalized groups in planning and enforcement decisions.
- Strengthen legal frameworks to protect the rights to land, livelihood, and due process for individuals affected by conservation actions.
- Implement independent oversight bodies to monitor abuses, provide redress, and ensure accountability for rangers and authorities.
- Invest in community-based monitoring that rewards conservation successes while safeguarding human dignity.
Why this matters for the future of conservation
As biodiversity faces mounting threats—from climate change to habitat loss—the integrity of conservation programs depends on public trust and legitimacy. When communities perceive enforcement as unjust, cooperation erodes, and sustainable outcomes suffer. Conversely, rights-centered conservation can unlock local stewardship, improve compliance, and foster resilience at both human and ecological scales.
Conclusion: A call for reform, not retreat
Conservation in the Global South is not destined to be a story of coercion and rights violations. By foregrounding human rights, policymakers can craft strategies that protect wildlife and support the people who share these landscapes. The Nepal case remains a stark reminder of what can go wrong when rights are sidelined, but it also serves as a catalyst for lasting reform grounded in fairness, transparency, and shared stewardship.
