3/29 - Blog 6 - Conservation and Water Conflicts

From: Cristin Williams Date: March 29, 2011 Readings Discussed: Postel & Wolf (2001), Dowie (2005)

Summary Today I read the Postel & Wolf article, as well as the Dowie article. The articles were not directly related, though they definitely have some overlapping themes. The Dowie article was actually a rather enjoyable read. As a visual learner, I appreciated the pictures that accompanied the article. The Dowie article talked about how certain indigenous tribes are being kicked off their traditional lands in favor of environmental conservation. These tribes only seek to continue living as they have for hundreds of years. They live off the land, which may sometimes involve killing endangered animals or cultivating "protected" lands. The tribes see nothing wrong with their existence, and claim that they were the original conservation specialists. Observers have often claimed that these tribes are so in-tune with nature that they are included in the flora and fauna. In an effort to create protected areas and parks, these tribes are being removed (sometimes forcibly) from their lands. This will ultimately result in the dissolution of their unique culture. The tribal people are so used to the forest that when removed from it, they have difficulty developing spatial awareness and can often be seen walking in front of vehicles (unaware to the fact that they are moving fast and can be dangerous!) Worldwide organizations that many claim are the cause of the tribes' problems (UN, WWF, World Bank), are trying to develop resolutions to protect these tribal communities.

On the other hand, the Postel and Wold article focuses instead on drinking water and how it can create conflict. I remember about a year ago I was watching a late night talk show that happened to feature Matt Damon as a guest. After promoting his latest movie and providing witty banter with the host, he did a peculiar thing. He spent roughly 5 minutes of his time discussing something that he thought "really mattered." He discussed the issue of drinking water in Africa, and announced a new project called Water.org that seeks to educate the public and provide drinking water solutions. Listening to Damon speak about this website really got me to start thinking about how severe the water crisis is. The Postel & Wolf article points out that the last time humanity went to war over water was over 4,500 years ago. Today, however, mini water conflicts are breaking out all over the world. Due to overuse, our aquifers, rivers, and lakes are drying up. The Aral Sea has almost completely turned to desert. Humans need water to survive, all people know this. Obtaining clean drinking water, in some regions, has turned into a matter of life and death.

Comparing and Contrasting
As I previously mentioned, the articles are about two different topics: conservation refugees and conflicts over drinking water. However, certain themes within the articles do overlap. Both problems seem to affect poverty-stricken areas. Though I suppose many indigenous tribes would claim that they aren't technically poverty-stricken, due to the fact that they are happy and are living as they have for hundred of years. Nonetheless, areas like Africa, South America and South Asia do seem to have problems with conservation and water conflicts.

Both issues are also of concern to major worldwide organizations like the UN, World Bank, World Wildlife Fund and The Nature Conservancy. These organizations are concerned with aiding poor regions of the world. Providing safe drinking water and establishing protected environmental areas are concepts on the agenda of organizations like the UN.

Reflections/Questions/Puzzles
Firstly, I wonder how we will resolve the problems associated with conservation refugees. Ask any person on the street and they'll probably tell you that creating wildlife and environmental conservation areas seems like a good idea. If you were to ask me, even yesterday, I would have struggled to think of a downside to conservation areas. I think that this issue goes back to an idea I presented in a previous blog post. This idea is human-centric environmental policy. We need to keep bringing our enviro-policy measures back to why they are important to humans. Are we saving the zebras because they look interesting? No, we're saving them because we know they are an important part of the food chain on African savannas. There is a scientific reason why we conserve the things we do. Another interesting concept from the Dowie article is the idea posed by Duke University's John Terborgh. Terborgh stated that "...a park should be a park, and it shouldn’t have any resident people in it." This would mean that pre-existing tribes within a newly created park shouldn't have the right to live there. Terborgh's reasoning is that the tribe may quickly acquire advanced weapons from park visitors with which to hunt in larger numbers.
I'm not sure if I agree with Terborgh. We (new) Americans swiftly exterminated the Native American population without thinking twice. Do we really want to repeat this on other continents?

Where the water crisis is concerned, I think that the solution will lie in advanced technology. If we can find a way to cheaply sterilize water (a way cheaper than boiling), millions of people could drink from local sources. The TED Talk we watched in class showed examples of how people have collected groundwater and rain for centuries. Clearly the human race has the capability to create innovative solutions in times of need. I wonder what types of water collecting and sterilizing equipment is already on the market? How expensive is it? How can we make it cheaper and effectively distribute it to the less-fortunate?

Memo 4 - Can We Really Afford to Conserve Biodiversity?

It shocked me to read that less that 8% of Earth's surface is classified as a protected area, receiving governmental aid. However, 6 billion dollars is spent yearly by various world organizations and countries to protect the environment. These numbers seem small, though it is also somewhat difficult to put them in perspective. The James article also states that current expenditures are usually nowhere near what is required to reach pre-established conservation goals. I wonder if our goals are too overreaching?

After taking a class on Soviet-era Russia, I know that Russian leaders would enact "five year plans" that set unrealistically high goals for production. The government knew that people would never be able to meet these goals, but they still served to incentivize workers. I wonder if this is how world leaders think about climate change abatement techniques and conservation? Does President Obama really think that we'll have 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015? Is this a realistic goal or is he just being optimistic? I wonder if conservation goals work the same way. Is it better to be realistic and say, "We know with our current resources we can conserve 200 hectares of this forest" or "We know we can conserve 200 hectares but lets set a conservation goal of 400." After debating this issue in my head, I would have to side with a more Soviet-style approach. As an athlete, I know that you can sometime surprise yourself by reaching goals that you never thought were possible.



Also after looking at James's pie charts, I wonder if we are conserving the right areas. We note that North America contributes 55% of world conservation funding, though it is only required to do 14%. Africa on the other hand, contributes 4% but should be contributing 15% percent. Obviously these funding discrepancies deal mainly with the fact that we have more money as a continent, than Africa does. We'll "pick up their slack" and donate more than we really need to in order to cover some of their conservation costs. Also to be considered is the fact that we all share the Earth, regardless of our current domain. Conserving resources in Africa will no doubt end up benefiting the residents of other continents someday.

The Nijam article points out the differences between "Northern" developed nations and "Southern" less developed nations. He then goes on to talk about what the purpose and value of the "South" is to the North. Is the South worth aiding? How can the underdeveloped South ultimately benefit the residents of the North? These less developed nations have formed coalitions in order to collectively bargain with larger more influential organizations (Group of 77, Trade Union of the Poor). How effective are these unions really? Would the individual countries be benefited more by simply joining organizations like NATO, EU and other large alliances, or are they unable or simply not welcomed into these organizations? These are all questions I have and look forward to discussing during class!

2/21 How Should We Tackle Poverty and Conservation

Among the world's greatest problems are poverty and destruction of natural resources. Some seem to argue that these problems are linked, and therefore can be solved using combined efforts. Others suggest that these problems are relatively independent of each other, and require unique and specific methods to remedy each situation. Both stances make sense to me, and I can understand the arguments of both sides. It is difficult to promote conservation in poverty-stricken areas, especially when the poor people make their living off the land. Clear cutting of rain forest areas is obviously bad, but some forget that natives have practiced clear cutting techniques (on a smaller scale) for thousands of years. The locals live off many aspects of the rain forest but also require some clear land on which to farm.

Plans for combining conservation and poverty elimination have seen both success and failure. One plan includes establishing wildlife refuge and resource conservation areas near poverty stricken areas. These poverty stricken villages would then be trained to manage and maintain the refuges. However, the main problem with this method comes down to funding. Who will be able to shell out grants with which to pay the workers? The answer to this may lie in large international organizations like World Bank and the UN. The president of the IUCN argues that even these efforts will not be successful unless the local people have a vested interest in conserving the environment. In many cases, these locals may not need to be educated and informed about conservation. Having lived alongside the animals and trees their whole lives, they are well aware of their value. They locals may not know the scientific benefits of the biodiversity, but a minimal amount of education can provide a basic understanding.

Other experts argue that poverty and resource conservation are entirely different policy realms. Trying to combine them, they say, would result in the misallocation of specific and important resources. Individuals trained to research and remedy poverty, don’t always have a conservation related background and vice versa. It could be time consuming and costly to cross train individuals to the point where they were knowledgeable about both areas. Also ultimately, we want to save human lives however possible. It should never be the case, in my opinion, that people are dying because of environmental conservation efforts. After all, the goal of environmental conservation is to benefit humans in the end.

Though I consider myself to be an environmentalist, I am first and foremost a humanist. I care strongly about the survival of eagles and redwood trees, but mostly I care about the survival of humans. The most important reason why we need to conserve the environment is because it will majorly benefit the human race. The most successful environmental conservation efforts focus on how the conservation will ultimately help people. I've been reading the book Collapse by Jared Diamond and this book first introduced me to these humanistic theories. Diamond’s writings focus on past societies and the reasons for their ultimate success or failure. These factors like resource conservation, cooperation and trading with neighbors, healthcare, and communication skills can all be applied to today’s societies and problems.

The only reason poor people damage the environment is because they have no other options. They are too poor to import food, so they must often practice damaging land cultivation techniques. If we could economically help these people, as in find a way for them to make money that doesn’t damage the environment, we could feasibly kill two birds with one stone. The economically fulfilled people would see no reason to cut down trees or poach endangered animals for pay. It will be a challenge for this century to find ways to employ low skilled, poverty-stricken populations. India, for example, has so far lead the way in providing these kinds of opportunities. The rise of the “information age” has provided many computer-related jobs that can be learned with a minimal amount of specialized training. Also, the practice of microloans has allowed poor business owners to put their ideas into practice for only a small expense. These techniques could prove effective in places like Africa if a minimal amount of infrastructure like better roads and power lines could be created.

Overall I am optimistic that we will find ways to tackle these problems in the future. Though the process of trial an error, we will no doubt learn if combining poverty reduction and conservation tactics will be successful or not. I believe that technology will play a large part in providing opportunities to eliminate poverty, while also allowing us to maximize conservation efforts.

Sustainable Development, 3/6/11

As an environmental management major, I have taken several classes concerning aspects of sustainability. Sustainability, to me, means finding a way to live that does not jeopardize the lives of future generations. The idea of sustainability is particularly interesting to me because its concepts are important to the economically incentivized business world, as well as to environmentalists. People are starting to realize that sustainable practices are the wave of the future. As unrenewable resources like oil, coal, and natural gas start to run out and become more and more expensive, we will need to come up with innovative new ways to power our lives. Renewable energy sources like solar power, wind power, and nuclear power will need to be improved and utilized in the near future. Reuse and recycling will need to be put into practice. The US has an ecological footprint that largely exceeds the footprint of most nations in the world. As the effects of global warming become more obvious, the world will no doubt look to the US to start making some more sustainable changes.

I guess my largest question concerning sustainable development would be about developing nations. As the worlds populations slowly become more urbanized, we will need to generate more power. Countries like the US and Britain had the luxury of building up their nations with very few environmental regulations. We polluted like crazy for years before we realized how much harm we were doing to the environment. Now that we realize that global warming is an issue, worldwide climate change legislation is in the works. Will developing nations be able to industrialize in a sustainable manner? Or will it be too expensive or simply not feasible? Many of these developing nations have massive populations. It will be interesting to see if they can sustainably provide necessities like power, sanitation, and healthcare for these large numbers of people.

I do have several expectations for this course. After skimming the syllabus, I notice that we are going to be doing a large amount of writing. This will hopefully give me the opportunity to improve my writing skills. Also, the course topic is very interesting to me as someone who hopes to be employed in the environmental field. I’m not quite sure what I want to do after undergrad, so perhaps learning about global sustainability will push me in one direction or another. Last summer I studied at Oxford University in England with the IU@Oxford program. Much of our coursework at Oxford focused on the international community and their response to global warming and climate change issues. We actually got to meet some of the people that worked at the Copenhagen conference, so it will be really interesting to learn more about what goes on at international summits.