I've always been fascinated by the Nature/Debt swap concept.

let's face it, we spend a lot of money on less worthy ends.

Well, it is understandable that President Rafael Correa of Ecuador would want to get as much money for his country as possible out of this negotiation.  And a fairly decent ethical argument can be made for that position.

Nevertheless, it is far easier to give a much stronger argument, that a sovereign state must do everything it can to protect a place such as this, inhabited by countless unique and rare sentient beings, whether or not there is any financial compensation, as described in the article:

<<
Yasuni National Park protects one of the most biologically rich regions in the world, including a large stretch of the world's most diverse tree community and the highest known insect diversity in the world. It is one of the most diverse places in the world for birds and amphibians.

...

Relatives of the Waorani, the Tagaeri and Taromenane, are believed to be living in voluntary isolation in the ITT area. These groups are renowned for their giant spears and regarded as among the fiercest tribes on Earth. Dr. Finer says they maintain no peaceful contact with the outside world and are completely dependent on a thriving rainforest for survival.
>>

It is unclear what President Correa is supposed to do with the requested money: buy off the petroleum companies?  But why did the petroleum companies have rights to plow into Yasuni' National Park in the first place?  Why cannot Correa simply say to the PetroCos, "Bug off, leave me alone!," and stop answering his telephone?

To be sure, "Ecuador could use the cash," as Kit Stolz writes.  But I fail to understand why the choice is so stark: "O people of Ecuador, either exploit Yasuni' N.P., which will mean the destruction of many animals and people, and live; or refuse to exploit it, and die."  Is a gun pointed at someone's head?  If so, the nature of the gun, and the nature of the head, are not at all clear.

Storm Dragon excellently writes: "A better cause than the Iraq war: let's face it, we spend a lot of money on less worthy ends."  Amen, Brother Dragon!  Just a fraction of what the US has spent on that crazy adventure would do wonders, especially in a country such as Ecuador.

My point is, Yasuni' National Park should be considered by all parties in itself inviolate, and should not be treated as a hostage, or kidnapping victim, who may or may not be ransomed.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

While I applaud your conviction, it appears that you do not realize the harsh realities of a financially insolvent country. Ecuador is not the largest of countries, but it contains one of the most biodiverse transects on earth: from the sea level to the high peaks of Andes. It also contains a large amount of oil.

In the same time, the country went nearly or fully bankrupt in recent years. And while it's nice to talk about protection for rainforests, as a leader of a country in full suffering with half of its people in poverty; it seems pointless for us Americans, who as a collective are rich precisely because we exploited our land, to tell them to protect the rainforest while being poor. This kind of reasoning, at least superficially, taken further by the people in charge is why USA did not sign the Kyoto protocol: India and China do not have to reduce their emissions because they are developing countries.

It is easy to understand a Third World country's problem: should we drop our economic gains and conform to rich countries' requests or should we increase our standard of living. Hmmm... What would you do?

I would make it a matter of international convention, that such land-based treasures as the Yasuni' N.P. should not be considered the possession or responsibility of only that country in which they happen to be located, but are the common possession of all humanity.  Therefore, all the countries of the world -- and the rich countries are especially obligated -- must contribute to the maintenance of such fragile treasures, when the government of the respective sovereign state is too poor to do so.  "Maintenance" includes giving the local population a significant financial incentive to preserve their natural treasure, in effect an income paid to them for doing the job of "guardian."

So certainly President Correa should be given funds, to be used to benefit the poor people of his country, especially those who live in and around Yasuni' N.P.

ATreyger, the way you use "transect" is clear enough from the context and from the word's Latin etymology (that which is cut across, a cross section).  But the Penguin Dictionary of Biology gives a definition which perhaps suggests something a bit different: "Transect: Line or belt of vegetation selected for charting plants; designed to study changes in composition of vegetation across a particular area.  See: Quadrant."  If the "line or belt" regularly varies in altitude from one end to the other, then that would fit exactly what you are saying about Ecuador.  But that is not clear from this definition.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

Your idea of an international convention on land-based treasures could be problematic since the majority of biodiversity hotspots and ecologically important zones occur in less developed countries. I wonder how the conservation of these important resources can be done in an equitable manner without developed countries reaping disproportionate rewards.

OK, DearJulia, that is a good caution.  But in fact, I have no real experience here.  I was just stating the principle that the Earth contains certain kinds of treasures, natural or cultural or whatever, which belong to everyone, not just to the nation or group in which they happen to reside.  And this reflects to some extent the thought of the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah, in his recent books "Ethics of Identity" and "Cosmopolitanism."

More specifically, the Yasuni' N.P. belongs to you, me and everyone; but the people of Ecuador are the actual caretakers and guardians.  Therefore, we (specifically we in the rich countries who can afford to take on this obligation) owe something (e.g. money!) to the people of Ecuador.

Now, there ought not to be anything imperialist in that kind of transaction.  We in the rich countries would not be entitled to special privileges, on account of our support.  Nor would we be directing how the park is managed, so long as it is managed and conserved well.

However, you may be suggesting that we in the North, with our education and interests of a certain sort, necessarily evaluate a place such as the Yasuni' N.P. differently than do the people who live there.  That is certainly true.  But that does not quite amount to what we mean by "imperialism," if we seek to explore those peculiar interests of ours in their park.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

I think both of the definitions are very similar in meaning, with the difference being that the latter is applied to a sampling design. However, I meant it in the first sense.

I agree with your premise. We should give them the money. I think there are several foundations that, when combined, cough up that much on graduate research. Maybe the president needs to write a grant?