Paper short abstract:

Main-stream thinking, within most socio-economic disciplines, perceives the overall objectives of conservation and development /poverty alleviation as difficult or impossible to reconcile. In this paper it is argued that the trade-off is less clear on the ground. Examples used from Madagascar.

Paper long abstract:

Green grabbing builds on well-known histories of colonial and neocolonial resource alienation in the name of the environment, the opponents of conservation argue. Compared to the previous century more players are now involved, like multinational companies, acting upon a capitalist rationality. Dispossessing private owners by violent actions, delegitimizing poor people's land rights or even more obscured 'through the market' are the main components in the new era of privatization of land. In short, the critics of conservation name the new trend 'green grabbing'.

The paper takes on these arguments and links them with the experience in conservation efforts in Madagascar. Contrary to the claims of the critics of the so-called 'neo-liberal' conservation approach, the paper suggests that conservation critics, being right in the observation of the social phenomenon, are excessive normative in their approach and less explicit about the basic assumptions in their analyses. The most adverse opponents to conservation base their arguments on a number of implicit assumptions: village homogeneity, promotion of laissez-faire policy (ultra-liberal), non-existence of opportunity costs, and an unclear rights concept. Finally, the paper contemplates whether a middle ground can be identified between the proponents and opponents to nature conservation.