Both commentators,find,problems,in our,abstract. Robinson,dislikes our premise,that global conservation is largely ‘ ... devised,and,controlled by a small group,of powerful, external voices’. This he suggests ’ .. .does not forward,[our] analysis’. Nonetheless,he avoids engaging with the charge,and,the implications,of the democratic deficit it entails. Who does, could and should conserva- tion serve? Coming from the opposite perspective, Mav- hunga, ‘ ... in the trenches fighting .. .’, castigates our encouragement,for conservationists,to give local people ‘the opportunity’ for deeper involvement. His analysis, andcreativeuse ofitalics, revealsoureagerness to exploit local people. He calls partnerships,passe´ but,fails to explain why. We wish Mavhunga,well in mobilizing,his ‘global coalitions against poverty’, his ‘new democracies of knowledge’,and,his ‘answer to global warming’. But it may take a while. In the meantime stopgap measures, such as partnerships, can be helpful.