WHY NOT JUST BUY LAND?
 ©Oscar Mujica |
On the surface, outright land purchase for conservation in the tropics sounds like a great idea. Just buy land, set it aside, and preserve it for perpetuity. But this simple strategy belies risks, complications and hidden costs. Land purchase for conservation just isn’t a “buy it and forget it” arrangement.
|
In particular, four issues complicate land ownership for conservation: existing land rights, local laws and conventions of ownership, costs of management, and local community involvement:
Problem #1: Many prime locations have been ceded or titled
to local communities.
These lands can never be sold into private hands. On the bright side, these
sites can offer promising opportunities for community-based ecotourism.
Problem #2: Legal rights for foreign landowners aren’t
always guaranteed.
In much of the world, the security of land ownership that we’ve come to
expect in the United States is still in its developing stages. On paper, most
countries have laws allowing absentee foreign land ownership. But in practice,
laws and enforcement vary regionally, and shift with political whim. In all
but special cases, foreign land ownership is a risky venture.
Problem #3: Private landholdings must be protected from loggers, miners, oil-seekers,
road-builders, hunters, farmers, colonists, etc.
Left unattended, land owned by foreigners has seen invasions by timber and oil
companies, by national mines and road crews, and by individuals trespassing
to farm or hunt. In South America, it is common for subsistence-level farmers
to colonize remote property and eventually claim “squatter’s rights”
that equal or overrule official land title.
A typical preventative measure is to hire local caretakers. But full-time policing
of private land rivals the cost and responsibility of maintaining a national
park, with the same associated risks. Any lapse in funds or management renders
the property open for misuse and degradation, if not outright takeover.
Problem #4: Foreign management of local residents is complicated and costly.
Perhaps the most sensitive issue facing foreign landowners involves relations
with local communities. Residents that have hunted for years in a forest are
immediately at odds with a new owner who plans to enforce strict hunting bans.
In the worst case, communities may perceive transgressions on their traditional
rights as a form of “environmental colonialism”—yet another power
move by a wealthy, absent “gringo”. Pity to the owner who must argue
that case!
|
The short answer is that subsistence-level communities must gain from conservation to support it. Whether conservation is a government or private initiative is of little matter. We need look only to the bottom line: if it pays, it stays. |
|
Conservation donors can support community programs for medical care, education, agricultural improvements, and the like. But these are continuing costs. An initial investment in ecotourism will, in the long run, prove self-sustaining. |
Exceptions to the rule: A special form of ownership
Though a clear first choice, ecotourism is not an option everywhere. In cases
where outright purchase is the most viable means for conservation, Tropical
Nature has developed ownership strategies that ensure the highest possible economic
and environmental security. Basically, these strategies involve donor purchase
of land through a local nonprofit organization set up and administered by Tropical
Nature. The benefits to this approach are:
|
1) land title is
held by a resident, national entity, so maximizing ownership rights, and
Although costly, we find well-managed land purchase to be a vital way to save exceptionally remote forests or to rehabilitate forests that have been degraded logging, overhunting and other impacts. We encourage donors to discuss this and other creative land management strategies with us in greater detail.
|
 ©Oscar Mujica |
