Jim Tantillo wrote -
Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 18:44

                " The reality is that these entities cannot be counted on
to finance widespread conservation. Only well-to-do people in the
industrial world can afford to care more about preserving biodiversity in
the developing world than the residents there. Perhaps in some cases local
economic activities will help reduce the rate of biodiversity loss. But to
stem that loss globally, we must, in the short run at least, pay people in
the developing tropics to prevent their habitats from being destroyed. In
the long run, they will be able to act as strong stewards only when they
too earn enough money to care about conservation."


Jim again:  Somewhere in the not-too-distant past on this list, I made the
statement, "Global conservation programs are paid for by countries with
money," a claim that raised at least one or two eyebrows here.  :-)   But I
think Simpson is making a similar argument.  Conservation programs don't
pay for themselves . . . .  Nor is it clear how programs of "castigating
the rich" and other such anti-wealth policies (as discussed here on the
list last month) will actually pay for such things as biodiversity
protection.

Thoughts, comments, reactions?  (I just thought I'd ask--it's been rather
quiet lately.)    :-)

Jim T.

Interesting points.  One related issue in NZ is the 33 % of the country
under the Dept of Cons management.  There was an all too common assumption
(from both the preservation end and the commercial development end) that
placing these lands under a preservation mandate (no consumptive
extraction - just recreation, research and tourism as human enterprises)
that we would have solved our environmental problems and everyone could shut
up about it (so the commercial end hoped perhaps).  But it is introduced
pests that are the major source of environmental harm - not sensitive
extractive management.  The preserves continue to decline as the stoat and
possums eat out the habitat.  It costs money to protect - and NZ has to fund
the environmental protection on this 33 % of our land area - sourced from
the rest.  We cannot afford it as a country.  The failure of preservationism
to protect is one reason why a number of us are arguing that the allocative
model (complete preserves [supposedly oases] kept discrete from commerce
[with increasing intensification] and no increase in biodiversity etc ) -
which we think is a double failure - needs to be replaced by an integrative
model which emphasises a marriage of culture and nature (a "becoming native
to this place approach).

The Madonna worshippers and the "nature as commodity and whore" have one
thing in common - they hate the idea. One hates the thought of a grubby
proletariat hand touching Our Lady of Natural Virginity, and the other wants
no truck with sandal wearers who wear multi-coloured, hand knitted, tea-cosy
hats and shoulder bags with tassels and peace emblems.  Those who attempt a
"becoming native" sustainable management are labelled as weirdoes by both
extremes.  So the unaffordability of environmental protection - tied up with
continuing environmental decline - including some of the world's most
endangered species - continues.
We need active management to protect our environment - and that means money
and dedicated manpower - either through people working the land with that
protection in mind for their own ethical satisfaction ( which doesn't
preclude their USE of elements) - or through government funds (other
people's money when they want schools and health provisions first).

Chris P