Biosphere reserves are often celebrated as success stories of modern conservation, spaces where nature protection, sustainable development, and community participation coexist. But a peer-reviewed study published in Sustainability challenges this narrative in the Lebanese context, revealing deep gaps between conservation ideals and on-the-ground realities.
The study, “Biosphere Reserves in Lebanon: Rifts between Conservation Discourse and Practice,” authored by Sarah Karam, Giuliano Martiniello, Ali Chalak, Mounir Abi-Said, and Shadi Kamal Hamadeh, examines how one of Lebanon’s flagship biosphere reserves has reshaped rural life, often without the consent or participation of the people most affected.
Using Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve as a case study, the researchers ask a simple but unsettling question, does conservation in Lebanon truly work for local communities, or does it reproduce old inequalities under a green banner.
Studying Conservation from the Ground Up
Rather than relying on policy documents or institutional narratives, the research team adopted a qualitative, field-based approach. Between interviews and focus group discussions, the researchers spoke to 65 stakeholders, including officials from the Ministry of Environment, the reserve’s management team, and residents of villages surrounding Jabal Moussa.
The study deliberately centered the voices of farmers, shepherds, women, and youth, groups often excluded from environmental decision-making. Their testimonies reveal a conservation model that, while effective in protecting landscapes, has struggled to secure local trust, legitimacy, or shared ownership.
Conservation without Consent
One of the study’s most striking findings is that local communities were not consulted during the designation of Jabal Moussa as a biosphere reserve. Residents reported that decisions were taken by external actors, NGOs, and state authorities, with participation limited to symbolic representation through municipal or religious figures.
For many villagers, especially those living closest to the reserve, this exclusion translated into a sense of dispossession. Shepherds, charcoal producers, and small farmers described how new regulations restricted grazing routes, land access, and traditional practices that had sustained families for generations.
The authors emphasize that this form of “displacement” does not always involve physical eviction. Instead, it often occurs through restricted access to land and resources, quietly undermining livelihoods while leaving communities with little recourse.
Unequal Benefits, Concentrated Power
While the reserve’s management highlights job creation through ecotourism, guiding, and conservation activities, the study found that economic benefits were perceived as limited and unevenly distributed.
Most respondents said that only a small number of people benefited directly from the reserve, while decision-making power and control over revenues remained centralized within the managing organization. This imbalance reinforced perceptions that conservation served institutional interests more than community needs.
According to the authors, such dynamics reflect a broader pattern in global conservation, where participatory language masks deeply unequal power relations.
Awareness without Understanding
Despite more than a decade of biosphere reserve status, the study found low levels of environmental awareness among local residents, particularly regarding biodiversity and wildlife conservation.
Many respondents viewed wild animals primarily as threats, and few could identify the ecological importance of species protected within the reserve. The researchers argue that this lack of awareness is not a failure of communities, but a failure of conservation strategies that prioritize protection over dialogue and education.
Without genuine engagement, the study warns, conservation efforts risk remaining confined within reserve boundaries, unable to foster long-term environmental stewardship.
Distance Shapes Perception
Another key outcome of the research is the link between proximity and perception. Residents living closest to the biosphere reserve, especially those dependent on natural resources, were far more critical of conservation than people living farther away.
This finding challenges the assumption that conservation automatically generates local support. Instead, it suggests that those who bear the costs of protection often receive the fewest benefits, while outsiders are more likely to view biosphere reserves positively.
Rethinking Biosphere Reserves in Lebanon
The authors do not argue against conservation. On the contrary, they acknowledge Lebanon’s urgent need to protect its rapidly disappearing ecosystems. What they challenge is the way conservation is implemented.
Their conclusion is clear, biosphere reserves cannot succeed if they treat local communities as obstacles rather than partners. The study calls for a fundamental shift in approach, one that places people, their livelihoods, and their knowledge at the center of environmental decision-making.
Rather than prioritizing conservation over communities, the authors argue that conservation should become a tool for poverty reduction, food security, and rural resilience, especially in a country facing overlapping economic and environmental crises.
A Warning, and an Opportunity
Published in 2021, the study arrives at a critical moment for Lebanon, as the country expands its network of protected areas under national biodiversity commitments.
Its message is both a warning and an opportunity. Without meaningful participation, biosphere reserves risk deepening social fractures. With it, they could become models of inclusive, locally grounded environmental governance.
As the authors conclude, the future of conservation in Lebanon depends not only on protecting mountains and forests, but on rebuilding trust between people and the land they have long called home.
