It's a shame. Conservationists are sitting on the sidelines while the Big Game unfolds before our eyes. A major campaign is under way to change the terms of development, alleviate crushing debt, and help poor people around the world live better lives. Successes are being racked up. And conservation and environmental groups are nowhere to be seen.
There are 39 groups listed as partners in the Campaign to Make Poverty History. Not one of them is a conservation or environmental organization.
It's a shame, not just for the leaders of the conservation and environmental movements, but also for conservation and the environment. The changes happening now will shape the future of the poorest regions of the world, many of which are home to the earth's greatest biodiversity -- as well as its most desperate people.
People used to talk about conservation and development. For a while, it seemed development advocates would do anything to hitch their projects to conservation. Not anymore. Now conservationists fret that they've dropped off the A-list.
I recently attended a conference on "Conservation Incentives That Work for People on the Land." When I heard Walter Reid, the director of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and Carter Roberts, the new president and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund U.S., complain that conservation was not getting adequate attention -- even from such sympathetic types as Jeffrey Sachs, author of The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time -- I wondered whether there might be a new way back into the heart of the development dialogue. Not through conservation, but through something the development community has put at the center of its own agenda: governance.
These days, governance is the key word in international development, from multilateral agencies to governments and NGOs. When the finance ministers of the Group of Eight (G8), a coalition of the world's leading industrialized nations, agreed to cancel $40 billion of debt owed by 18 of the world's poorest countries, they tied the debt relief to good government practices, improvements in health and education, and elimination of poverty.
Once again, the environment was not on the agenda, despite the fact that maintenance of ecosystem services such as clean water is a critical concern in poor countries and despite the fact that good governance is essential for conservation. In a study published in Nature, researchers found that poorly governed countries tend to lose biodiversity faster as corruption rises. Higher corruption correlated with loss of forest cover and, in Africa, with declines in elephant and black rhino populations.
Good governance -- which starts with free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and property rights -- needs to be pushed further to embrace conservation of ecosystem services and biodiversity through good laws, adequate administration, and practical incentives that work for people on the land.
I am sure there are many conservationists and environmentalists among the more than 3 million people wearing white "Make Poverty History" wristbands worldwide, and the more than 2 million people who sent text messages on their mobile phones trying to get tickets to the Live8 global series of concerts this summer. It's not too late for them to get the message to leaders of conservation and environmental organizations, too.
Conservationists can sit on the sidelines while history is made. Or get back in the game.
Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash
Climate Citizen: Majora Carter
Consumer Reports finds BPA traces in common canned foods
Comments
View as Flat
davedenali Posted 7:30 am
11 Aug 2005
I've worked as a poverty lawyer for nearly 20 years, and as an environmental activist for nearly that long. I support the thrust of your message. The criminals who now run the US government -- and they are criminals -- have succeeded in making the very idea of fighting poverty unfashionable. That needs to change, and conservationists need to help -- first, by getting criminals like Bush out of office. But it will take a whole lot more than white wristbands.
Permalink
SolarBozo Posted 8:46 am
11 Aug 2005
And this front-line environmental work is being done on a financial shoestring, not with fellowships with PhDs in mind. Ahh, if only the local environmental groups had a tiny portion of the CESP program's (where Christensen works & purportedly thinks) $2-3/4 million annual budget, think what a difference they could make.
The bottom line is that all, social and environmental activists alike, are trying to make the world a better place. It doesn't help a bit to have someone blasting one type or the other for what they are not doing.
Permalink
Jon Christensen Posted 9:20 am
11 Aug 2005
As for real conservationists and environmentalists working hard in the real world, tell me more about them. Many of them are real heroes and heroines to me. And I didn't mean to cast any aspersions their way. What I meant was to suggest that governance--which is being actively discussed, debated, reformed, and funded--might be a productive way for conservationists to get back into the big game at the moment.
For the record, I'm also a fan of small ball. I just happen to think that good governance at all scales might improve the prospects for conservation and the environment and people at the grass roots.
Permalink
Ronald Rutherford Posted 11:19 am
11 Aug 2005
Democratic Peace would also agree with you. While the study you link to looks at corruption, all of us including Dr. Rummel would say democracies lead to the things that make environmental progress possible. As the phrase goes "Wealthy makes Healthy". Bringing the poor up and giving them opportunities in democracies are the best way to avoid wars and famines and environmental damages. This is better than handouts to corrupt and not free nations.
I am surprised but happy that you used the phrase "property rights". In addition to having a stable democracy, having well defined property rights are important in protecting the environment and avoiding problems of "tragedy of the commons".
I have more to say on this subject but this is enough for now.
Permalink
trouserdude Posted 11:25 am
11 Aug 2005
Where I differ from the author, though, is the focused blame on governments of the Global South. Countries in Africa and countries in South America are largely curropt because of the history of Western Imperialism. The West sells these countries guns and has supported horrible dictatorships to further its own ends. These countries are responsible for their own actions, but the West is responsible for helping them to remedy the negative reactions to historical and present colonialism.
This message connects here as conservation groups have had difficulty in their conservation work because of this history of colonialism. Many times (not at all always as some groups are actively examining how historical colonialism is affecting their conservation work) these groups have pushed their own leadership far beyond supporting the work of local environmental activists. Many conservation efforts have got to learn to follow and listen to activists in the Global South if sustainable progress is going to be made.
Where the environmentalism found oftentimes in the US (not at all with every person) finds itself trying to preserve some piece of land rather than bringing up social and political issues as much of environmentalism in the Global South does. Environmentalism should connect social and political issues, such as poverty elimination through sustainable development, if it is to be effective at all.
I hope, as the author wrote, that Conservation Organizations outwardly support the work of sustainable development, but also work within the reality that imperialism has created and is creating by seeking to support the good work and leaders in the Global South.
Permalink
OzGeoff Posted 4:45 pm
11 Aug 2005
I have no moral argument with easing the world's poverty but I also know that richer people will use more energy and produce more carbon dioxide, - as you see China now starting to do.
The long term consequences of this on the climate will make current misery levels seem like a Sunday picnic.
- Not only will human civilisation be likely to be destroyed, but also most of the plant and animal species as well, - slowly.
When your attention is focused on Global Warming and you become informed of the issues, really it seems to be much much more important than any other area, and you can only hope there are still some other folk out there saving rare tree frogs or whatever, because you know that if you fail there probably won't be any tree frogs left, rare or otherwise. - It is a dilemna, and you can only stretch yourself so far, emotionally and physically.
Permalink
OzGeoff Posted 4:53 pm
11 Aug 2005
Permalink
skyhorse Posted 6:31 pm
12 Aug 2005
The dialogue in the UK has definitely shifted over the past years. Politicians and activists alike are increasingly making the link in public between environment and poverty/development. In March 2005, Gordon Brown (UK Prime-Minister-elect) made a speech echoing this very point - see here : "If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be banished, and if the wellbeing of the world's people enhanced - not just in this generation but in succeeding generations - we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends."
Permalink
Jon Christensen Posted 1:23 am
13 Aug 2005
Permalink
cathedralspires Posted 3:47 pm
13 Aug 2005
Steve Paulson
Permalink
Jon Christensen Posted 12:55 am
14 Aug 2005
You're right. Generalizing is a risky business. My observation about what seems to be happening at one scale (conservation is conspicuously lacking voices in the international development dialogue), has been taken by some to be a criticism of locally-based organizations working on conservation, sustainable development and good governance. As I said above, nothing could be further from the truth. Such efforts are not only on my radar screen, they are inspirations to me, and I have written a lot about them. That I could only guess at the group you work for and not be sure, indicates that there are many groups like yours around the West and that's a good thing, but also that such groups need to be better known and have a higher profile on all of our radar screens.*
That you identify your work as being "trying to protect the environment, work for sustainable development, and press for good governance," is very interesting. My argument is that this is precisely the kind of approach that could be productive at the international scale too: particularly the focus on good governance and its fundamental importance for development and conservation. Thanks for joining in the conversation.
Yours truly,
Jon
* This is in the absence of Google, of course. Now I can find out in an instant. Over the years, I have heard many good things about the work of the Northern Plains Resource Council. Although I have never written about it, it is on my radar screen. Still, it was nice to be reminded that there are many more groups like yours out there, and without Google I couldn't have been sure which it was. Keep up the good work.
Permalink
Ronald Rutherford Posted 3:00 am
16 Aug 2005
I am sure there is much I could learn from your study of history with specialties in History of conservation, the science of conservation biology, and measuring conservation. But today I want to expand your radar screen more (if that is possible).
The most important aspect of expanding environmental protection and healing parts of our world is the spread of Democracy around the world (Democratic Peace). If we are to treat the world as a metaphore for an island, then let us look at a situation in one island Haiti/Dominican Republic. I could not find any of the satellite pictures I had seen before from NOAA but this article explains the difference. Let us now look at Freedom House and then clicking on FH Country Rankings and downloading the Microsoft Exel table. Just using a simple average of the 32 years of surveys done we can see that the freedom rating for DR is just under 2 1/2 and Haiti is almost 6.
Each country is assigned a rating for political rights and a rating for civil liberties based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest degree of freedom present and seven the lowest level of freedom.US and Iceland are examples of pure freedom with a ranking of 1 and Zimbabwe being close to being 7 consistantly.
Do you think environmental protection may be correlated in a direct proportion to freedom?
Permalink
Pickwick8 Posted 3:10 am
16 Aug 2005
Permalink
Jon Christensen Posted 3:30 am
16 Aug 2005
I would like to see more studies of the relationship between good governance -- which should include at the most basic level free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and property rights (and I think would encompass political rights and civil liberties) -- and protection of environmental services and conservation of biodiversity. I suspect there is a positive correlation. The study published in Nature indicating a correlation between corruption and loss of habitat and biodiversity is the only study I know of that directly investigates this relationship. If there are others, I would love to hear about them. And I hope there will be more studies, and not just of the correlation between measures of good governance and the environment, but of the many specific ways in which governance encourages or hinders conservation at the grass roots. As so many of the folks who have responded to this column have pointed out, that's where it really counts.
Yours truly,
Jon
Permalink
gaelwolf Posted 6:30 am
16 Aug 2005
What is environmental impact displacement? Well, one example would be the success in preventing fossil fuel exploration and extraction in North America. We may be able to prevent drilling in ANWR, but the result is pools of oil waste on the surface of Russia's arctic tundra or in rural Ecuador, to name two. While trumpeting their success with ANWR, our environmental conservation "majors" are strangely silent in the North American media when it comes to oil companies shifting research and extraction to countries where there is either a lack of environmental regulation or an absence of enforcement of what little regulation there may be.
Sure, there's an occasional article...but never on Page One or at the top of the Six O'Clock News.
If the environmental bigs are not going to place emphasis on impact displacement, why would we expect them to be fully on the ground with respect to poverty elimination?
Permalink
jer45 Posted 7:42 am
16 Aug 2005
Some good news: The United Nations Association in Wisconsin, and in Milwaukee, is working with environmentalists, especially those involved in water conservation/drinking water and other sustainability issues, as an integral part of a city/statewide conference and call to action in Milwaukee on Saturday, October 8th, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.
The conference will feature speakers, a fair with exhibits, and workshops - - all to connect people here with the eight UN Millenium Development Goals (MGD's), The UN's Global Call to Action to Make Poverty History campaign, and the 60th anniversary of the UN's founding.
Among the speakers is the luncheon keynoter, George McGovern - - former US Senator, presidential candidate and Roving Ambassador for the UN World Food Program.
If you are in the upper Midwest, please plan on attending. The admission, registration and luncheon is only $10.
I can supply contact and other information.
Thanks.
Jim Rowen/jer45y@yahoo.com
Permalink
Ronald Rutherford Posted 8:20 am
16 Aug 2005
I have seen the problem brewing in Zimbabwe for some time, and as there freedom surfers so will their environment. If Zimbabwe can force resettlement andcleanup and more 'cleanup' all the while getting protection money from their rackets and willing to sell (um give) their resources to a Communist China, what do you think they will do with their environemt?
The book Free Market Environmentalism has been an inspiration to me since it was assigned in my graduate level class of "Economics for Public Policy". I will not bore with every time "Tragedy of the Commons" has occured with undefined or poor enforcement of property rights, but let me show one location Togo: Almost Club Med.
I agree that Northern Plains Resource Council is the type of environmental group that even Terry L. Anderson would support. But I am not sure how many on this site would agree with " Northern Plains has taken the lead in ensuring coal bed methane is developed responsibly in Montana." Why not responsible development of ANWR. Which ties in with what gaelwolf said, (sorry to paraphrase but studying ecnomics I would say) that we are "exporting our environmental damages".
Thank you Dr. Christensen.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 11:21 am
16 Aug 2005
And not all of us are convinced that property rights are the cure for bad impact, since private property can be used for whatever the owner wants, regardless of the impact on the Earth. The 'tragedy of the commons' is an (unfounded) excuse for stealing resources away from the public. I agree that rules are needed to protect common ground from selfish jerks, but the majority of people want to protect their neighborhood from abuse, and making it private doesn't guarantee protection.
As for democracy itself saving the environment, boy, I sure don't see our current 'democracy' doing much of that- look what the 'shining city on the hill' has done to it's own land and that of countless other countries in the last 100 years! Unless the 'commoners' have the right to decide what happens to the resources, as long as 'the market' makes all the rules, democracy is powerless against resource consumption and environmental degredation.
Permalink
gaelwolf Posted 2:47 pm
16 Aug 2005
I am not blaming our environmental activists for their success in preventing drilling in ANWR or in other locations in our nation. I am trying to take them to task for not acknowledging and publicizing what their success here means for those who bear the brunt of the consequences of the impact displacement that results. I'm hoping that they would not only make sure we understand what that displacement is all about, but that they would turn their attention to bringing about more appropriate environmental regulation and enforcement in the less developed nations, so that people will be protected from extraction industry excesses in the less well-off parts of the world.
"Clean" energy sources are a wonderful concept, but we are at a stage where they have their own impacts that their promoters oftend don't want to discuss too much. Biodiesel is great...the first diesel engine ever built ran on peanut oil. Have you ever stopped to figure out how many acres of oilseed it takes to run a single diesel VW for a year? Do you know how much fossil fuel energy it takes to produce a gallon of biodiesel, and whether or not you are going to get as much useful energy out of that gallon of biodiesel as it took to raise the crop and produce the fuel?
How clean is that "clean" energy, when you take all of the production requirements into account?
If you want to run your personal vehicles and your local government vehicle fleets on biodiesel, how do you feel about the irrigated agriculture it's going to require to produce the fuel to do that?
Electric transportation is also a great idea in development. It doesn't come without costs of its own, though. Plug the car into the wall, and you contribute either to pushing water through a turbine where fish can't use it, or putting more CO2 into the air from a smokestack.
What about all the hazardous materials in the car's batteries? What happens to them when the battery finally dies?
Environmental impact displacement and environmental justice...topics that go hand in hand...
Permalink
tropicalreb Posted 10:30 am
19 Aug 2005
I've listened to the speeches from leaders of the large conservation organizations (especially WCS); who say that issues of poverty and good governance are 'off the mark'; and there are plenty of other organizations focusing on that. I fear that it's due to big business funders who don't want to see the organizations they donate to getting involved in politics. But land-use and control in the tropics is at the very heart of politics. There's no way to seperate the two and any organization that claims otherwise is living in a wishful bubble.
Permalink
tropicalreb Posted 10:42 am
19 Aug 2005
It's a fine line in the minds of many people, I realize. But on the ground it plays out to be a huge difference.
Permalink
OzGeoff Posted 9:53 pm
26 Aug 2005
It is not life or death that Solar Panels are produced initially by coal fired energy, - which can be replaced by wind etc energy, but that a solar panel, after the 2 years or less that it takes to replace the energy required for it's manufacture etc, is then a net energy contributor.
Wind farm wind generators, interestingly, on a world average, produce enough energy in their first 3 months of operation to replace all the energy required for their development, manufacture, transport, installation and final destruction, - give or take, - refer to the World Wind Energy Organisation.
It just takes a bit of thinking through, - use renewable energy everywhere and human beings will remain renewable, - at least with respect to the environment.
Best Wishes. Geoff Thomas
Permalink
allisonxc Posted 1:00 am
29 Aug 2005
Heifer's mission is...
To work with communities to end hunger and poverty and to care for the earth.
http://www.heifer.org
Permalink