Introduction: a troubling paradox
Two decades ago, a routine counterpoise between wildlife protection and local life turned deadly for a farmer in Nepal. Shikharam Chaudhary was accused of aiding his son’s involvement in a deed tied to a stolen rhino horn. What followed—interrogation, alleged waterboarding, and confinement—shines a harsh light on a broader pattern: conservation practices in the Global South sometimes obscure human rights protections in the name of protecting biodiversity.
Researchers, human rights advocates, and some policymakers warn that the urgency of wildlife preservation can eclipse the dignity and safety of communities living in or near protected areas. The debate centers on a core question: can conservation be effective without upholding fundamental human rights?
Where rights are at risk
Rights violations in conservation aren’t limited to a single incident or country. They emerge where park governance concentrates power away from local residents who depend on forests for shelter, food, and income. In several Global South contexts, rangers and authorities have used coercive methods—detentions, physical threats, or punitive surveillance—to enforce rules. In some cases, communities report being wrongly accused of poaching or illegal activity, then subjected to investigations that ignore due process.
Researchers argue that such practices can erode trust between communities and conservation agencies, making cooperation in wildlife protection harder to achieve. When legal norms trump local livelihoods, residents may disengage, or worse, resist, by hiding activities that could otherwise have been managed transparently and humanely.
Why the tension persists
The tension is not simply about cruelty or malice. It stems from a mix of factors: the high stakes of wildlife crime, limited resources for community-centered management, and historical legacies of marginalization within governance systems. In many places, national laws and international conservation categories—such as protected area designations or anti-poaching campaigns—fit poorly with the everyday lives of forest-adjacent communities. Without inclusive governance, security-based approaches become the default, and human rights can slide to the periphery.
Evidence and voices from the field
Field researchers emphasize that the damage is cumulative: livelihoods shrink, trust dissolves, and marginalized groups—often Indigenous peoples and rural farmers—bear the brunt. These are not theoretical concerns. They are documented in assessments that call for accountability, transparent procedures, and independent monitoring of ranger conduct. The human rights lens does not weaken conservation; it strengthens legitimacy and long-term success by aligning protection with communities’ interests and dignity.
Pathways to reform
Experts propose several reform avenues that integrate human rights with biodiversity goals:
- Strengthen community governance: grant meaningful decision-making power to local residents in protection strategies, benefit-sharing, and dispute resolution.
- Independent oversight: establish civilian commissions to review ranger actions, with clear channels for complaints and redress.
- Due process and legal clarity: ensure arrests, detentions, and prosecutions follow fair procedures seasoned with cultural and contextual sensitivity.
- Right-to-benefit alignment: tie conservation funding and incentives to measurable improvements in communities’ livelihoods and safety.
- Human rights training for rangers: expand curricula to cover proportionality, non-discrimination, and the principle of precaution in enforcement.
Looking ahead
Protecting wildlife and protecting people are not mutually exclusive. A rights-based approach to conservation seeks to harmonize biodiversity goals with the daily realities of those who live beside protected landscapes. When communities see tangible benefits and assurance of safety, they become durable partners in preserving ecosystems. As researchers remind us, the ultimate judge of success in conservation is not only the number of poachers deterred, but the lived dignity and security of the people who carry the weight of protection on their shoulders.
