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.
No comments:
Post a Comment