 |
 |
Perhaps someone should make the point that if local inhabitants don't feel conservation is important, then it represents something of a colonial attitude to impose it upon them from above (North>South). There is a rhetoric of "place" that holds that we form an attachment to our place and those with such an attachment in place hold the responsibility of caring for it. It may be that it is impossible, or just too late in the game, to adequately preserve the communities of others'. with respect, -Tc Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Professional Writing Department of English University of Houston-Downtown One Main Street Houston, TX 77009 713.221.8520/713.868.3979 "Question Reality" > ---------- > From: Chris Hope[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:24 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Conservation: You get what you pay for > > 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] >