Advertisement

Conservation Jujutsu, or How Conservation NGOs Use Market Forces to Save Nature from Markets in Southern Chile

  • George Holmes
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Anthropology of Sustainability book series (PSAS)

Abstract

Much of the anthropological literature on conservation nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) in recent years has explored their interactions with markets and corporations. A key part of this debate has considered the extent to which NGOs see using market mechanisms and engaging with corporations as a positive force for conservation, or as a necessary evil in a market- and corporation-dominated world, or a mix of the two positions. The purpose of this chapter is to explore these debates through a review of the work of conservation NGOs in Chile. In the last few decades, two key features of Chile’s political economy have been the dominance of market mechanisms and an economy built on the export of natural resources, controlled by a few firms and industries. In this time, international conservation NGOs have greatly increased their presence in Chile, with much of their work focussing on establishing and supporting private protected areas. This engagement has been facilitated by regulations that facilitate purchase of land by outside investors, measures originally introduced to encourage foreign investment in industries that exploited natural resources. Measures originally created to facilitate environmentally damaging industries, such as forestry and mining, are now used by those seeking to preserve nature. This raises the question of whether these NGOs see markets as a positive force for conservation in southern Chile, or whether they are engaged in an act of conservation Jujutsu—using mechanisms created to facilitate markets in environmentally damaging industries to save the environment.

References

  1. Blanchard, L., C.G. Sandbrook, J.A. Fisher, and B. Vira. 2016. Investigating the Consistency of a Pro-market Perspective Amongst Conservation Professionals: Evidence from Two Q Methodological Studies. Conservation and Society 14 (2): 112–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brockington, D., and R. Duffy. 2010. Capitalism and Conservation: The Production and Reproduction of Biodiversity Conservation. Antipode 42 (3): 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brockington, D., and K. Scholfield. 2010. Expenditure by Conservation Nongovernmental Organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Conservation Letters 3 (1): 106–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brosius, J.P., and L.M. Campbell. 2011. Collaborative Event Ethnography: Conservation and Development Trade-offs at the Fourth World Conservation Congress. Conservation and Society 8 (4): 245–255.Google Scholar
  5. Büscher, B., S. Sullivan, K. Neves, J. Igoe, and D. Brockington. 2012. Towards a Synthesized Critique of Neoliberal Biodiversity Conservation. Capitalism Nature Socialism 23 (2): 4–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carruthers, D. 2001. Environmental Politics in Chile: Legacies of Dictatorship and Democracy. Third World Quarterly 22 (3): 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castree, N. 2008a. Neoliberalising Nature: Processes, Effects, and Evaluations. Environment & Planning A 40: 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2008b. Neoliberalising Nature: The Logics of Deregulation and Reregulation. Environment & Planning A 40: 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corson, C. 2010. Shifting Environmental Governance in a Neoliberal World: US AID for Conservation. Antipode 42 (3): 576–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de la Fuente, A. 2010. El nuevo mapa de la conservación. Que pasa 11 June.Google Scholar
  11. Doyon, S., and C. Sabinot. 2014. A New ‘Conservation Space’? Protected Areas, Environmental Economic Activities and Discourses in Two Yucatán Biosphere Reserves in Mexico. Conservation and Society 12 (2): 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dressler, W.H., P.X. To, and S. Mahanty. 2013. How Biodiversity Conservation Policy Accelerates Agrarian Differentiation: The Account of an Upland Village in Vietnam. Conservation and Society 11 (2): 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher, J.A., and K. Brown. 2014. Ecosystem Services Concepts and Approaches in Conservation: Just a Rhetorical Tool? Ecological Economics 108: 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fletcher, R. 2010. Neoliberal Environmentality: Towards a Postructuralist Political Ecology of the Conservation Debate. Conservation and Society 8 (3): 71–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fortwangler, C. 2007. Friends with Money: Private Support for a National Park in the US Virgin Islands. Conservation and Society 5 (4): 504–533.Google Scholar
  16. Holmes, G. 2010. The Rich, the Powerful and the Endangered: Conservation Elites, Networks and the Dominican Republic. Antipode 42 (3): 624–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2011. Conservation’s Friends in High Places: Neoliberalism, Networks, and the Transnational Conservation Elite. Global Environmental Politics 11 (4): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2013. What Role Do Private Protected Areas Have in Conserving Global Biodiversity?. SRI working papers (46).Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2012. Biodiversity for Billionaires: Capitalism, Conservation and the Role of Philanthropy in Saving/Selling Nature. Development and Change 43 (1): 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 2014. What Is a Land Grab? Exploring Green Grabs, Conservation, and Private Protected Areas in Southern Chile. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (4): 547–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2015. Markets, Nature, Neoliberalism, and Conservation Through Private Protected Areas in Southern Chile. Environment & Planning A 47 (4): 850–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hrabanski, M., C. Bidaud, J.-F. Le Coq, and P. Méral. 2013. Environmental NGOs, Policy Entrepreneurs of Market-Based Instruments for Ecosystem Services? A Comparison of Costa Rica, Madagascar and France. Forest Policy and Economics 37: 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Humes, E. 2002. Eco Barons: The Dreamers, Schemers, and Millionaires Who Are Saving Our Planet. New York: Ecco/HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  24. Igoe, J., and D. Brockington. 2007. Neoliberal Conservation: A Brief Introduction. Conservation and Society 5 (4): 432–449.Google Scholar
  25. Igoe, J., and C. Fortwangler. 2007. Whither Communities and Conservation? International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management 3 (2): 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Igoe, J., K. Neves, and D. Brockington. 2010. A Spectacular Eco-Tour Around the Historic Bloc: Theorising the Convergence of Biodiversity Conservation and Capitalist Expansion. Antipode 42 (3): 486–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacoby, K. 2001. Crimes against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jose Tapia, M. and M. Muñoz. 2012. Tierras en Aysen duplican en valor por conservacionismo y proyectos electricos. La Tercera. 31 March.Google Scholar
  29. Kareiva, P. 2014. New Conservation: Setting the Record Straight and Finding Common Ground. Conservation Biology 28 (3): 634–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kareiva, P., C. Groves, and M. Marvier. 2014. Review: The Evolving Linkage Between Conservation Science and Practice at The Nature Conservancy. Journal of Applied Ecology 51 (5): 1137–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klubock, T. 2014. La Frontera: Forests and Ecological Conflict in Chile’s Frontier Territory. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lalasz, R., P. Kareiva, and M. Marvier. 2011. Conservation in the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Journal 2: 26–36.Google Scholar
  33. Latta, A., and B.E.C. Aguayo. 2012. Testing the Limits Neoliberal Ecologies from Pinochet to Bachelet. Latin American Perspectives 39 (4): 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacDonald, K. 2010. The Devil Is in the (Bio)diversity: Private Sector ‘Engagement‘ and the Restructuring of Biodiversity Conservation. Antipode 42 (3): 513–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mbembé, J.-A. 2001. On the Postcolony. Stanford: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  36. McAfee, K. 1999. Selling Nature to Save It? Biodiversity and Green Developmentalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17 (2): 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murat, A., and B. Büscher. 2012. Nature™ Inc.: Changes and Continuities in Neoliberal Conservation and Market-based Environmental Policy. Development and Change 43 (1): 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murray, W. 2002. From Dependency to Reform and Back Again: The Chilean Peasantry During the Twentieth Century. The Journal of Peasant Studies 29 (3–4): 190–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelson, M., and G. Geisse. 2001. Las lecciones del caso Tompkins para la política ambiental y la inversión extranjera en Chile. Ambiente y desarrollo 17 (3): 14–26.Google Scholar
  40. Neves, K. 2010. Cashing in on Cetourism: A Critical Ecological Engagement with Dominant E-NGO Discourses on Whaling, Cetacean Conservation, and Whale Watching. Antipode 42 (3): 719–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Niklitschek, M.E. 2007. Trade Liberalization and Land Use Changes: Explaining the Expansion of Afforested Land in Chile. Forest Science 53 (3): 385–394.Google Scholar
  42. Peck, J., and A. Tickell. 2002. Neoliberalizing Space. Antipode 34 (3): 380–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pliscoff, P., and T. Fuentes-Castillo. 2011. Representativeness of Terrestrial Ecosystems in Chile’s Protected Area System. Environmental Conservation 38: 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robinson, J.G. 2012. Common and Conflicting Interests in the Engagements Between Conservation Organizations and Corporations. Conservation Biology 26 (6): 967–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sandbrook, C., I.R. Scales, B. Vira, and W.M. Adams. 2011. Value Plurality Among Conservation Professionals. Conservation Biology 25 (2): 285–294.Google Scholar
  46. Sepúlveda, C., and P. Villarroel. 2012. Swans, Conflicts, and Resonance: Local Movements and the Reform of Chilean Environmental Institutions. Latin American Perspectives 39 (4): 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Soule, M. 2013. The ‘New Conservation’. Conservation Biology 27 (5): 895–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stephenson, M., and E. Chaves. 2006. The Nature Conservancy, the Press, and Accountability. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35 (3): 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tecklin, D.R., and C. Sepulveda. 2014. The Diverse Properties of Private Land Conservation in Chile: Growth and Barriers to Private Protected Areas in a Market-friendly Context. Conservation and Society 12 (2): 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tecklin, D., C. Bauer, and M. Prieto. 2011. Making Environmental Law for the Market: The Emergence, Character, and Implications of Chile’s Environmental Regime. Environmental Politics 20 (6): 879–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Valdés, J.G. 1995. Pinochet’s Economists: The Chicago School of Economics in Chile. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wynne-Jones, S. 2012. Negotiating Neoliberalism: Conservationists’ Role in the Development of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Geoforum 43 (6): 1035–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Holmes
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Earth and the EnvironmentUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations