IB ESS HL3.2 Human Impact on BiodiversityHL only~11 min read
Conservation and Environmental Justice
Creating the Serengeti National Park meant removing the Maasai, who had grazed cattle there for generations. Conservation is usually framed as the good outcome. This page is about the times it has caused harm, and what doing it differently looks like.
📘 What you need to know
Environmental justice is the fair treatment and involvement of all people, regardless of race, income or geography, in environmental policies and practices.
It seeks to ensure no group bears an unfair share of environmental harms, or is excluded from the benefits of protection.
Areas most affected by biodiversity loss are often in developing countries with significant Indigenous and low-income populations.
Creating protected areas has sometimes led to forced relocations, violating rights.
Named example: the Maasai and Serengeti National Park, Tanzania.
Named example: the San people and the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, Botswana.
Environmental justice argues Indigenous and local communities should be partners in conservation, not obstacles.
What environmental justice means here
DefinitionEnvironmental justice — the fair treatment and involvement of all people, regardless of race, income or geography, in environmental policies and practices. In conservation, it aims to protect both biodiversity and the rights of local and Indigenous communities.
Conservation efforts are essential for reducing biodiversity loss. But the areas most affected by that loss are often in developing countries, many with significant Indigenous and low-income populations. Regions such as tropical rainforests and savannahs are rich in biodiversity while also facing intense pressure from deforestation, mining and agriculture — and people live there.
When conservation causes harm
Many conservation programmes have historically focused on protecting land and biodiversity by creating protected areas such as national parks. This has sometimes led to the forced relocation of local and Indigenous peoples, violating their rights.
The right-hand panel is not idealism. It reflects that Indigenous peoples often hold ecological knowledge invaluable for sustainable conservation strategies.
Case study: the Maasai and the Serengeti. The creation of Serengeti National Park in Tanzania led to the relocation of the Maasai people, who had traditionally lived there and relied on the land for grazing their cattle. The displacement caused long-term challenges including loss of livelihood, poverty, and cultural disruption and disconnection from their land.
Partners, not obstacles
Environmental justice argues that Indigenous and local communities should be partners in conservation, not obstacles. Forced relocation undermines the traditional stewardship of land that Indigenous peoples have practised for generations — and in many cases these communities were sustainably managing the land before being removed for conservation purposes.
Indigenous peoples often have deep knowledge of their environments, which can be invaluable for sustainable conservation strategies. In certain parts of the Amazon, some Indigenous groups work with conservation organisations to manage their lands sustainably, combining traditional practices with modern conservation techniques.
Lack of legal support
The San had occupied the Central Kalahari for thousands of years. Length of occupation is not the same as legal title, and only one of them protects you.
Many Indigenous communities lack legal recognition of their land rights, which makes it easier for governments and corporations to seize land for conservation or development. In Botswana, the San people were removed from their ancestral lands in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, despite having lived there for thousands of years, and were relocated without proper compensation or support.
Without legal rights, Indigenous and marginalised communities have little ability to defend their land when governments or organisations prioritise conservation projects over their livelihoods.
Be prepared to discuss how conservation can harm Indigenous communities if their rights are not respected, and familiarise yourself with at least one example — the Maasai, the San people, or the Adivasi. The examinable point is not that conservation is bad. It is that conservation which excludes the people who live somewhere is both unjust and often less effective, because it discards the stewardship that kept the ecosystem intact in the first place.
Worked examples
WE 1
Justice in conservation
Outline what environmental justice means in the context of conservation. (3 marks)
Step 1: the general principle
Environmental justice is the fair treatment and involvement of all people, regardless of race, income or geography, in environmental policies and practices.
Step 2: what it seeks to prevent
It ensures no group bears an unfair share of environmental harms, or is excluded from the benefits of environmental protection.
Step 3: applied to conservation
In conservation it aims to protect both biodiversity and the rights of local and Indigenous communities, treating them as partners rather than obstacles.
Protecting ecosystems and the people who live in them, togetherthe “both…and” framing is what the question is really testing
WE 2
When conservation harms
Using a named example, explain how conservation efforts can harm Indigenous communities. (4 marks)
Step 1: the mechanism
Many conservation programmes protect biodiversity by creating protected areas such as national parks, which has sometimes led to the forced relocation of local and Indigenous peoples.
Step 2: the example
The creation of Serengeti National Park in Tanzania led to the relocation of the Maasai, who had traditionally lived there and relied on the land for grazing cattle.
Step 3: the consequences
The displacement caused long-term loss of livelihood, poverty, and cultural disruption and disconnection from their land.
Step 4: the wider problem
Forced relocation also undermines traditional stewardship. In many cases these communities were sustainably managing the land before being removed for conservation purposes.
The protection succeeded; the people who had protected it were removedthe San people in Botswana work equally well as the example
WE 3
A better model
Suggest how conservation programmes could better respect environmental justice. (4 marks)
Suggestion 1: partnership
Treat Indigenous and local communities as partners in conservation, not obstacles, involving them in decisions rather than excluding them from the land.
Suggestion 2: use existing knowledge
Indigenous peoples often have deep knowledge of their environments, invaluable for sustainable conservation. In parts of the Amazon, Indigenous groups work with conservation organisations to combine traditional practices with modern techniques.
Suggestion 3: legal recognition
Recognise Indigenous land rights legally. Without this, governments and corporations can seize land and communities have little ability to defend it, as happened to the San people in Botswana.
Suggestion 4: fair compensation
Where relocation does occur, provide proper compensation and support, which the San people did not receive.
Partnership, recognised knowledge, legal rights, fair treatmenteach suggestion should answer a specific failure from the case studies
💡 Exam tips
Define environmental justice as fair treatment and involvement, covering both harms and benefits.
Learn one case study in detail: Maasai, San people, or Adivasi.
Name the three Maasai consequences: loss of livelihood, poverty, cultural disruption.
Use the phrase partners in conservation, not obstacles.
Emphasise that communities were often already managing the land sustainably.
Explain why legal recognition of land rights matters.
⚠ Common mistakes
Arguing conservation is bad. The point is how it is done, not whether it should happen.
Treating displacement as historic only. These conflicts continue today.
Ignoring the effectiveness argument. Excluding local stewards can make conservation work less well.
Giving no named community. The syllabus asks for at least one example.
Listing only economic harms. Cultural disconnection is a named consequence.
Overlooking legal rights. Lack of recognition is what makes seizure possible.
Up next: Losing Biosphere Integrity. This sub-topic has worked through threats, status, commons and justice. The final page steps back to the planetary scale and asks what happens when biodiversity loss stops being a conservation problem and becomes an Earth-system one.
Want this explained one-to-one?
Book a free session with an experienced IB ESS tutor and get your trickiest topics made simple.
