Thanks for the responses on this, definitely a step in the right
direction.
I'm trying to avoid using an economic approach because animal
conservation economics seem to be based mainly around tourism and local
job creation. This works fine initially with endangered charismatic
animals but with something like Zebra where the common Zebra is
reasonably secure what is the marginal financial benefit of preserving
a second or third species? The genetic diversity argument is compelling
but not in any economic sense. The economic argument also struggles
with less charismatic species. I'd have difficulty making a tourism
argument for preserving sand lizards in Dorset for example.
The ecological footprint method was where we started our discussions
in the office but assuming the conservation work is doing more good
than the resource depletion method is doing harm then we would end up
with a negative footprint! The contradiction involved in the concept a
negative footprint was what led me to start looking for alternative
ways of assessing impact.
Thanks for your help
Duncan
__________________________________________________
What can Tiscali do for you? Visit www.tiscali.co.uk/services
|