I agree with the postings below. A purely scientific approach to conservation of natural resources is unlikely to go anywhere without a thorough understanding of the socio-economic causes of natural resource degradation. However, NGOs do not always have the answer or the understanding needed to develop a successful approach. In my experience groups like CARE with years of experience working with local populations are more likely to develop successful approaches than the strictly environmental NGOs. Also some international development agencies, like USAID, led the way in developing successful approaches to natural resource, including biodiversity, conservation.
One example, for years foresters claimed to know how to manage tropical forests for sustainable production, but their schemes constantly failed. They blamed the failures on extraneous causes. The most common cause of failure was, and is, the spontaneous colonization of forest areas following harvesting which built logging roads making the areas accessible to the rural poor looking for land to grow subsistence crops. The only "successful" attempts to manage tropical forests of which I am aware are those which directly involve local populations of poor in the (economic) benefits derived. Unfortunately, there still appear to be too many foresters around who do not understand this dynamic. I think that most of the NGOs have now caught on, but for a while they too believed that valuable biodiversity resources could be protected by drawing a line on a map, declaring the area a protected area, and posting a few guards. A letter to the editor of the most recent edition of The Nature Conservancy magazine decrying the Conservancy's work to alleviate poverty in and around protected areas indicates that the NGOs still have a lot of educational work to do with their membership. I also should note here that most, if not all, of the "sustainable" forest management plans which are certified by groups like the Forest Stewardship Council may be "sustainable" in terms of timber production but probably aren't in terms of biodiversity conservation. As far as I am aware even the best of these management plans do not take into account the impact of timber harvesting on the species of plants and animals living in the forest canopy. Bob Mowbray Tropical Forest Ecologist -------------- Original message from Amartya Saha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -------------- > if related to conservation of ecosystems or biodiversity, environmental > studies > programs ought to include a field component with grassroot NGOs, for students > to get an exposure to the realities of implementing conservation plans, and > the > difficulties that do arise ( socioeconomic, cultural, political, financial). > > cheers, amartya > > > Quoting Loren Benton Byrne : > > > > In short, I contend that while environmental science programs should > > surely be rooted in science, this doesn't mean that environmental > > studies programs cannot have strong science components nor that science > > programs are any better or more important than other, more > > interdisciplinary programs that emphasize many ways of approaching > > environmental questions. > >
