At 12:44 AM 1/25/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>>From time to time on the list we've discussed the desirability of
>mechanisms such as "ecotourism" for preserving natural areas and
>biodiversity. Here is a link to an article by David Simpson that discusses
>some of the problems inherent to ecotourism, bioprospecting, and the like.
>Simpson argues that the widespread optimism about ecotourism, for example,
>is largely misplaced. He observes that "[o]nly well-to-do people in the
>industrial world can afford to care more about preserving biodiversity in
>the developing world than the residents there," and therefore it is largely
>up to the people in the industrial world to pay for
>conservation--directly--and to put their money where their mouths are, so
>to speak. "You get what you pay for," Simpson insists.
>
Jim,
Looks like an excellent, thoughtful article to me.
Of course, it takes as given that the right framework for analysis is
global capitalism (in its talk of marginal costs, and returns on investment
for example). But, given the way the world looks at the moment, that's
probably not an unreasonable stance. I would like to have seen more of the
numbers: Does the sustainable exploitation of biodiversity cover 10% or 90%
of the costs involved? But at least it does provide references to the
detailed studies for those who are interested.
The bottom line does seem to be that if the rich countries want to preserve
biodiversity, they will have to pay at least some of the costs involved. I
would argue that it is right that we should pay. This argument does
gradually seem to be taking hold in the climate change field. The Clean
Development Mechanism and so forth are the first hesitant steps towards
making the rich countries pay for actions to combat climate change.
Chris
Chris Hope, Judge Institute of Management Studies,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1AG, UK.
Voice: +44 1223 338194. Fax: +44 1223 339701
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|