Blogs > Wildlife , Forest Laws > Protected areas vs. poverty and resource profit

Posted by Dr.Susan Sharma on June 04, 2011

(This blog was posted by 'tarientree' on 11 Oct 2010 15:11 in the discussion forum of 'connecttoearth')

I am living in a well developed country and I think most of you, as you are having access to internet, do as well. We can think about protecting areas and wish there are more such all over the globe. But do we really know and can we even comprehend, how it is, when there is war in the country? Or if we would be so poor, that we must get our food out of the bush? I read about Africa and national parks there. Nationalvparks in countries in war are sometimes almost empty of game, because people go hunting for their food supply. Parkbrangers get killed or corrupted. I do not mean the ivory or trophy hunters, allthough they are a major problem as well. If they would have a better perspective, they would do otherwise.

I think, protecting nature habitats is only effectively achievable, if the people around and in this area have everything to live and therefore can be made sensible for sustainable handling of their land through education. But even this is very hard to achieve, because the well developed countries (Europe, USA, meanwhile parts of China, etc.) take their resources where ever they can get them - and this would be in the underdeveloped countries. The people there get nothing than total nature destruction and health problems, they do not see a cent the incredible earnings the foreigners get.

The mentality of rich and well developed countries like USA can best be seen in Alaska. A national park should be a strongly protected area, right? But oil drilling is allowed! So what is this protected area for then? It is only valid as long it does not concur with capital interests, this means, if the area has no resources or is uneconomic, only then it can be well protected.

So how can we effectively protect nature? The answer is wide spread and not achievable in short-term, if even ever:

* Leaving fossile energy beyond and invest in renewable energy, especially in "free" solar energy so that destroying natural habitats and exploiting of Third World countries is no longer economically of any interest..

    * Elect politicians with natures interest and not economic interest (this means, if they promise you work and good development, it is pure economical thinking). So if you are egoistic (which is natural) you would first choose your own convenience and only then followed by nature preservation, right?

    * Sensible consumption behaviour (organic, MSC, FSC, etc.)
    * Stop rich countries exploitation in countries, where the population is poor and only a very view are rich through sale of their resources (China, USA, Europe, Russia --> Africa, Eastern Europe, South-America)
    * Why need gold and diamonds on your neck or arm? For status? Get rid of this thinking - it is only a material, which makes other people rich, when you buy it.
    * Ask where your sorted out computer, TV or mobile-phone is recycled or trashed. (Does it end up in Africa to be pulled apart for gold and copper by children?)

There is so much more which would be necessary, but most of it would mean, that global economy and globalization need to be completely renewed. The current behaviour of mankind means complete destruction of nature and leaving some small isles of protected areas for a while.

Post your Comment