Closing Remarks are for Bishops

The close of a semester always makes me feel all reflective and sentimental. And I can't help but be the most reflective when it comes to this class. Like Bill was saying yesterday: I have actually been able to internalize what we have discussed in this class; I can talk about development in Africa with a surprising amount of confidence. But, it's not just the self-esteem I've gained that has made this class so great. As we were allowed to be introduced to such an array of perspectives, I could feel myself becoming more and more level-headed in my passions -- if that even makes any sense.
Anyway, every last one of you have contributed to my feelings toward this class and all the turmoil abroad. Its been a privilege to listen and learn from you.

I was just doing some research about North Korean development, and I came across a another blog of University Students discussing issues via blogging here. They discussed a lot of really interesting topics from human rights to the entertainment biz in North Korea. And look at this, they think the same as us!!-->I came across some entries on foreign aid, and one person posted this comment: "Economic development in Africa [and I think also applies to NK] will depend -- as it has elsewhere and throughout the history of the modern world -- on the success of private-sector entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs and African political reformers. It will not depend on the activities of patronizing, bureaucratic, unaccountable and poorly informed outsiders.Development everywhere is homegrown." The link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201150.html

Can free market economics boost Amazonian land rights?

So maybe nobody will look at this blog anymore since the class is officially over, but just in case I found a really interesting article about some things Hernando de Soto (author of The Mystery of Capital) is doing in the amazon of Peru. Check it out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8648699.stm

Also

If you're looking to be inspired, look no further:
Wangari Maathai is my hero.

Prepare To Be Impressed Huntsman Scholars!!

During our discussion on Wednesday, I started to think about the concept of incentives in relation to conservation of ecosystem services. While I was considering this concept, an instance in our very own state of Utah in the heart of Emmigration Canyon came to me. Long story short: a few years back the people of Emmigration Canyon were being required to adhere to certain building codes that had been implemented in the area in effort to more readily prevent wildfires. These codes included: a clearing of all flammable foliage of at least 30 feet around the property of your home, changing roofing materials (if they were at all combustible), removing all plants species that are foreign to the climate of Emmigration Canyon, etc. Under required circumstances we usually see grievances (or at least a lot of whining) among the "requirees", but what is peculiar in the case found in Emmigration canyon is: the people recognized the intangible incentive in adhering to these codes. Meaning: not only did the majority of them obey and implement the majority of the codes, they rallied themselves together for the cause; starting councils and committees that informed community members about the advantages of this implementation. You may be wondering how this at all applies to the eradication of poverty and the conservation of biodiversity. My point is this (and it's not one we haven't already gone over): the education of people about the benefits they'll receive from a newly imposed lifestyle is an incentive we often times employ in the private sector but often don't consider in the political realm. It's not unlike the concept of soft power--though intangible and highly unquantifiable, it is when we can dangle a carrot as opposed to threaten with a stick that we start to see positive result like: community recognition of the benefits and organization around the positive cause.

This concept can be applied to the Review by William M. Adams and company. The review states "if local people do not support protected areas, the protected areas cannot last". While that is essentially inarguable, I would add to that claim that: if the local people do not support and hold genuine stake in protected areas, then protected areas cannot last. I see the mere support of something as too passive in this context, and becoming a genuine stakeholder with real sentiments for the land as you understand how it affects your livelihood, rather than the rhetoric of another's agenda, is when you are in true support of something.

How this concept is to be instituted into a country is complex, but I do like Ann Laudati's anecdote in relation to the NGOs in Tanzania. Thus, the people may not learn any one specific thing from an NGO, but they do learn to organize themselves and rally around one another, which, to me, is incentive enough to take part in such organizations.

World Food Production

This is an exerpt from a papper that I wrote for Dr. Thomas' International Development class.

With the threat of the worlds population reaching 9 billion by the year 2050, this begs the question “Will it be possible to feed everyone?”(Clemmitt 557) While the state of world food production is complicated, and has far reaching implications, analysts are cautiously optimistic. World food production has not yet reached a resource limit, rather it is market structure's and government policy that are stifling production possibilities. "Potentially, can we feed everybody? Of course we can," says Ray Cesca, president of the World Agricultural Forum.(Clemmitt 557) It is a fact that there is a finite and scarce amount of resources available to us on this planet. The efficiency to which we utilize these resources and how efficiently they are distributed are the two factors that will prove out the answer to this question.

“Care should be taken not to think of food production only in fixed physical terms. Those with such a view often conclude that the potential for improving food output is limited. They argue that because there are too few new land frontiers to open, the worlds best farmland is already being farmed and available irrigation water supplies are already being used. This view of food production ignores the importance of economic forces and human capability. Land and water availability are important to food production , but as they become scarce, economic forces create strong incentives to use them more efficiently.”(Whenegren 6)

Jeffery Sachs talked about not thinking of our current food production in fixed terms in the end of poverty. But at the same time there is certain to be some type of limit but as far as we can asses we are far from it. The point I am trying to make is that there is an element of self regulation that is present with what we consume and how we consume it. What worries me is the damage that can be done in the time period leading up to our facing the constraints production. That is the period we are most concerned about when addressing poverty and conservation. Are we promoting an unsustainable standard of living in developing countries? We are certainly living one in developed countries and that problem has its advocates. But we must keep in mind the pressures in demand on the environment we are placing in our development efforts.

biodiversity vs prosperity

Often one goal (poverty reduction or biodiversity conservation) is prioritized over the other. Which one should it be?

As stated in the article, "projects that seek to integrate conservation and development have tended to be overambitious and underachieving." But I don't think this means that one has to be sacrificed for the other. We can achieve biodiversity and poverty reduction at the same time. What makes it so difficult to have both is the scope of our projects.

As pointed out in the articles, there is considerable overlap between poverty reduction and biodiversity to begin with. But this overlap is most apparent on a small scale. However, when we try to create large scale plans (either for biodiversity or poverty reduction) it seems that we have to choose one or the other. In my opinion, when people work out their own problems they are better able to preserve both goals, because both goals are relevant to them. But when larger government agencies or development organizations decided to spend billions of dollars on just one of those goals, it seems inevitable that they will undermine the other.

The authors state "if local people do not support protected areas, protected areas cannot last." I once heard a podcast with Carol Beaudreaux on wildlife management in Namibia. Namibia is doing a decent job at protecting its wildlife because the management is turned over to the people. The reserves aren't run by the government but by local communities. Once the people see that it is in their best interest to maintain biodiversity they become excellent stewards. The locals are far better able to find a balance between biodiversity and human prosperity than the government and NGO's are.