CIFOR-ICRAF berfokus pada tantangan-tantangan dan peluang lokal dalam memberikan solusi global untuk hutan, bentang alam, masyarakat, dan Bumi kita

Kami menyediakan bukti-bukti serta solusi untuk mentransformasikan bagaimana lahan dimanfaatkan dan makanan diproduksi: melindungi dan memperbaiki ekosistem, merespons iklim global, malnutrisi, keanekaragaman hayati dan krisis disertifikasi. Ringkasnya, kami berupaya untuk mendukung kehidupan yang lebih baik.

CIFOR-ICRAF menerbitkan lebih dari 750 publikasi setiap tahunnya mengenai agroforestri, hutan dan perubahan iklim, restorasi bentang alam, pemenuhan hak-hak, kebijakan hutan dan masih banyak lagi – juga tersedia dalam berbagai bahasa..

CIFOR-ICRAF berfokus pada tantangan-tantangan dan peluang lokal dalam memberikan solusi global untuk hutan, bentang alam, masyarakat, dan Bumi kita

Kami menyediakan bukti-bukti serta solusi untuk mentransformasikan bagaimana lahan dimanfaatkan dan makanan diproduksi: melindungi dan memperbaiki ekosistem, merespons iklim global, malnutrisi, keanekaragaman hayati dan krisis disertifikasi. Ringkasnya, kami berupaya untuk mendukung kehidupan yang lebih baik.

CIFOR–ICRAF publishes over 750 publications every year on agroforestry, forests and climate change, landscape restoration, rights, forest policy and much more – in multiple languages.

CIFOR–ICRAF addresses local challenges and opportunities while providing solutions to global problems for forests, landscapes, people and the planet.

We deliver actionable evidence and solutions to transform how land is used and how food is produced: conserving and restoring ecosystems, responding to the global climate, malnutrition, biodiversity and desertification crises. In short, improving people’s lives.

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

Ekspor kutipan

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.

Publikasi terkait