Conservation practice as primitive accumulation

Abstract

Protected areas appear to be examples of Marx's primitive accumulation, complete with acts of enclosure, dispossession, dissolution of the commons and accumulation. There are limits to these parallels, however. Though primitive accumulation generally involves the enclosure of a commons in favor of private property, protected areas generally create public, not private property. Protected areas that limit extraction are not being commodified, but are being taken out of the market. This paper shows that arguments against the parallels between primitive accumulation and the creation of protected areas may be confounded bythe realities of conservation practice. The violent acts of enclosure and dispossession related to the creation of protected areas may lead to private benefit, and expand the conditions under which capitalist production can expand and continue. I show the mechanisms by which enclosure and dispossession take place, the consequences of these actions, as well as the acts of resistance against them.

Keywords:

• protected areas
• primitive accumulation
• conservation practice
• enclosure

Notes

¹Fieldwork conducted by the author between the months of October 2010 and May 2011 in the Extreme North Province of Cameroon.

²Fieldwork conducted by the author between the months of October 2010 and May 2011 in the Extreme North Province of Cameroon.

³Fieldwork 2010–11

⁴Fieldwork 2010–11

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alice B. Kelly

Many of the ideas for this paper were borne out of discussions with Nancy Lee Peluso, Michael Watts, Christian Lund, Megan Ybarra and Noer Fauzi Rachman. Their help and guidance were invaluable in the conception of this paper. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers who offered many helpful suggestions as to the revision of this paper.