Common Sense Conservation
[Guest post by DRJ]
A University of Texas philosopher and conservationist brings some common sense to his work:
“Sahotra Sarkar, who specializes in environmental ethics, and other scholars have been changing how environmental groups and businesses set aside land and parks. Last month, in the online edition of the journal Biological Conservation, he fleshed out what he called the “social ecology” model of folding local values into the decision-making process.
The Indonesian company, Medco, was planning to build a power plant and a wood pulp and paper mill in New Guinea. Conservation International was hoping to get some concessions for land preservation. Enter Sarkar, who urged that the conservation group and Medco take into account the needs of the people who live near the industrial sites.
“It might be obvious now, but traditionally nongovernment organizations, based in London, operated in the Third World and would not have done that,” he said.”
Conservationists have found that incorporating local concerns works better:
“The social ecology model, he and a co-author wrote in Biological Conservation, contrasts with the “fortress” model of conservation work, which excludes human habitation and use from parks and open space.
A fortress-model project to build tiger reserves in India, for example, failed in large part because the villagers who were expelled to create the parks then collaborated with poachers to decimate the tiger population, he said. In Peru, on the other hand, the World Wildlife Fund has worked with indigenous groups to protect lakes that are also important fishing areas.
He traces part of the difference between the models to a cultural gulf between a “stridently vocal group of Northern conservationists” and their counterparts in the global South. The northern conservationists “view humans as categorically distinct from the natural world,” while people in the South “view nature as a resource.”
That difference in how land is set aside, and the degree of local involvement, has important consequences, he writes.”
This sounds so obvious it’s tempting to say something snarky, but I’m just glad to see common sense may be coming back in vogue. Although I admit I enjoyed the “stridently vocal group of Northern conservationists” part.
— DRJ
Make that “stridently vocal white liberal group of Northern ecofascists.
It would be nice if they started to do that here in the U.S.
jakee308 (a38882) — 4/25/2010 @ 7:47 pm“There are hidden contradictions within the minds of people who ‘love nature’ while deploring the ‘artificialities’ with which ‘Man has spoiled Nature.’ The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of ‘Nature’ — but beavers and their damns are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver damn (erected by beavers for beaver’s purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purpose of men) the ‘Naturist’ reveals his hatred for his own race — i.e., his own self-hatred. In the case of ‘Naturists’ such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. Sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women — it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly ‘natural.’ Believe it or not, there were ‘Naturists’ who opposed the first flight to old Earth’s Moon as being ‘unnatural’ and a ‘despoiling of nature.'” – Robert Heinlein
Rusty Bill (ca7b34) — 4/25/2010 @ 8:21 pmCommon sense often works well for all involved.
The problem with common sense is it’s not easy. Sometimes, there are no victims to elevate nor villains to abhor.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/25/2010 @ 9:08 pmAs has been known for some time, the signature animals of Africa have suffered great depradation at the hands of poachers, particularly after they were put off-limits for hunting.
AD - RtR/OS! (fb87e7) — 4/25/2010 @ 9:51 pmBut, in a few countries, the herds are thriving.
What’s the secret?
The governments in those areas turned the property interest in the herds over to the local tribes, to protect, and exploit, as they feel is proper.
The poaching in those areas is practically non-existant, since the tribes do not suffer poachers gladly, seeing them as property thieves.
But poaching thrives in those areas of Africa where title to the the herds is held by the National Government, because nobody has an individual interest in making sure the animals survive, and they are not.
Local concerns do not concern our betters that know better.
Icy Texan (de6635) — 4/26/2010 @ 2:59 amAg80 –
Precisely.
Vivian Louise (643333) — 4/26/2010 @ 3:22 amHow did man get here if not as part of the natural world? I forget, which alien world brought us here? Or are these Northern conservationists fundementalists that believe God put us here as an alien species separate is distinct from all other life on this planet?
Corwin (ea9428) — 4/26/2010 @ 5:46 amYes, it is obvious, and talked about for years. Just look up “the tragedy of the commons” or, as Rumsefeld would say, no one washes a rented (government) car.
Patricia (5f1523) — 4/26/2010 @ 8:03 amActually Patricia, it was Larry Summers who said that before his brain was sucked out by Obama. There are a few environmental groups that have adopted the mixed use theory of preservation. I think it was the Audubon Society that considered allowing drilling in sanctuaries. They are not as enlightened in the ANWR situation. I am sure that the radical enviros are enraged to learn that caribou cluster near the Alaska pipeline for warmth in very cold winters.
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/26/2010 @ 8:19 amOr are these Northern conservationists fundementalists
Oh, they’re fundies all right, but not as we think of fundies as Social-Cons;
AD - RtR/OS! (69f893) — 4/26/2010 @ 8:20 amtheir fundamentalism is in the Universal Church of Gaia.
Common sense is not a language many of those people can speak.
JD (959071) — 4/26/2010 @ 8:21 amAgreed. The language of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” is one that eludes them.
Icy Texan (de6635) — 4/26/2010 @ 8:43 amI wish they could bring that approach home to America. Here in my rural valley, a large solar project is proposed that would devastate local ranchers and homeowners. In trying to organize, I am running into every extreme, I would say polar extreme, but there are too many.
Having been encouraged to vilify, many are doing so, to the detriment of their analytic or strategic thinking. I am afraid these people will wreck our credibility before we get off the ground, and I can’t think of much that can be done about it.
jodetoad (7720fb) — 4/26/2010 @ 8:53 am“So far, the landscape of the conservation movement has tended to be a landscape of extremes, which you can see pictured in any number of expensive books of what I suppose must be called ‘conservation photography’. On the one hand, we have the unspoiled wilderness, and on the other hand we have scenes of utter devastation – strip mines, clear-cuts, industrially polluted wastelands, and so on. We wish, say the conservationists, to have more of the one and less of the other. To which, of course, one must say amen. But it must be a qualified amen, for the conservationists’ program is embarrassingly incomplete. Its picture of the world as either deserted landscape or desertified landscape is too simple; it misrepresents both the world and humanity. If we are to have an accurate picture of the world, even in its present diseased condition, we must interpose between the unused landscape and the misused landscape a landscape that humans have used well.
There have been and are well-used landscapes we know, and to leave these landscapes out of account is to leave out humanity at its best. It is certainly necessary to keep in mind the image of the human being as parasite and wrecker – what e.e. cummings called ‘this busy monster manunkind’ – for it is dangerous not to know this possibility in ourselves. And certainly we must preserve some places unchanged; there should be places, and times too, in which we do nothing. But we must also include ourselves as makers, as economic creatures with livings to make, who have the ability, if we will use it, to work in ways that are stewardly and kind toward all that we must use. That is, we must include ourselves as human beings in the fullest sense of the term, understanding ourselves in the fullness of our cultural inheritance and our legitimate hopes.”
– Wendell Berry, Another Turn of the Crank
Leviticus (35fbde) — 4/26/2010 @ 9:06 amMy local county park district has the conservation mission 80% preservation, 20% developed. But many of the preserves are open for walks (by appt, scheduled events) as well as accessible by the public (self guided).
The thought of walling out humans is a pretty narrow-minded view.
Corwin (ea9428) — 4/26/2010 @ 9:35 amCorwin – Doesn’t the act of walling out humans have a detrimental effect on the area that is purported to be protected?
JD (959071) — 4/26/2010 @ 9:41 amJD #16, exactly. Humans are part of the system. The Park District puts some limits on some areas, but periodically rotates trails and level of access. A 20 acre prairie might still have paths through and around it. How can humans appreciate and support a park if they can’t experience it?
Corwin (ea9428) — 4/26/2010 @ 9:47 amWall out me, wall out my money!
AD - RtR/OS! (69f893) — 4/26/2010 @ 9:51 amYes, there are those who see people as not part of the system, but only as consumers and exploiters. Such is the view, I believe of those who want to limit the earth’s population with extreme measures. They see human beings only as parasites on “mother earth”, not creatures who contribute to the planet as well as use.
For the theologically inclined, in Paul’s letter to the Romans it states that “thinking they were wise, they became fools, and enchanged the glory of God the Creator for the creation itself” (my paraphrase).
MD in Philly (0f793a) — 4/26/2010 @ 11:11 amIt comes down to responsibility. Responsible people make good stewards (of land, resources, etc.). Irresponsible people rape and pillage.
It is society’s onus to praise and support the former; while demoting and removing power from the latter.
Corwin (ea9428) — 4/26/2010 @ 11:26 amMany decades ago I was a member and active participant in the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy – but they both went off the rails during the latter part of the 80’s. They took the insidious view that things like the internal combustion engine were truly evil, and in private their attitudes displayed an overt hostility to humankind as well. They’ve lost their way, and the sooner they stop listening to Fat Bore the better off they’ll be in the future.
Dmac (21311c) — 4/26/2010 @ 1:45 pmI think one of the founders of Greenpeace dissociated himself from the group some years ago as well because it had gone “too far”.
MD in Philly (0f793a) — 4/26/2010 @ 1:53 pm