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.
I completely agree with you. While doing the reading, I thought of the Amazon jungle in Peru. Like most environments, the Amazon is in danger of destruction. But any attempt of international forces to set up wildlife refuges have been unsuccessful. I have a mission companion from Madre de Dios in the southern rainforest and his father works for the national park in that jungle. He explained to me that that refuge has been successful because it hired locals to run the park, so both the environment and the local economy progress together.
ReplyDeleteThe same successes can happen in Africa, and I'm sure they have to some extent. In Tanzania, there have been international efforts to stop the poaching of mountain gorillas but until the people find another source of income, poching will continue.
Bryson I'm so glad you made this post! It reflects a lot of what I was thinking while I was reading these two articles. It is difficult to have these two goals in the same scope. The best solution I could think of would be to have narrowed, simpler goals that are mindful of one another. We can't expect to just fix everything with one project.
ReplyDeleteIn Adams article it says, "The principle that the needs of local people should be systematically integrated into protected-area planning was agreed to at the 3rd world parks congress in Bali in 1982." When I read this, I thought...well duh. It seems so weird that we have to get these big organizations and committees together to decide where to put humans, and how we can 'integrate' them into protected areas for animals. I wonder how many of the people that would actually be affected were actually involved with the decision making? How often are they ever involved?