From Readers

Additional Letters and Comments

Conservation and Governance

I was very surprised to read in “The Uneasy Chair” in the  July-September 2005 Conservation in Practice, “…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.”

Mr. Christensen sounds as though a light bulb just went on–a  link between governance and conservation, why hadn’t anyone thought of this  before??  Yet, for those of us who work in the conservation and development  fields, this light bulb went on over fifteen years ago.  We realized that use of natural resources, and thereby, conservation, is inextricably linked with governance. Therefore, we have been working on community-based natural resources management, co-management of protected  areas, participatory approaches to land use management, etc. Over  the last several years, we have been emphasizing this link because of the limited resources currently available for traditional conservation; but for field practitioners, this is nothing  new.

And also, I am curious, when was it that “development adovcates  would do anything to hitch their projects to conservation”?  I must  have missed that window of opportunity, although I’ve been working in the conservation-development fields for about 15 years.

KAREN MENCZER

Public Expectations, Government Responsibilities

I enjoyed Jared Diamond’s article “Oil Change.” It was encouraging to read about Chevron’s proactive conservation policies and interesting to learn that these practices had been profitable. I agree that like it or not, the public bears the onus of encouraging green business practices. The public can and should act as a catalyst for social and environmental change.

But what of the role of government?  Don’t democratic governments share some responsibility for responding to their citizenry’s environmental concerns?  The seeds of regulation may be sewn by the public, but can only reach fruition if the government enacts and enforces them. The environmental rollbacks of the past six years in the U.S. have proven that popular support and pressure don’t always yield results. Despite a great deal of public sentiment against drilling in ANWR, weakening the Endangered Species Act, and repealing the Roadless Rule, the government seems intent on denigrating these environmental icons. And what about governments without democratic traditions?  Should we hold their citizenry accountable for environmentally harmful business practices?

It may be unrealistic to expect profitable corporations to make changes that diminish profits without activism. However, expecting and requiring different behaviors from business by the public are only part of the equation. The bigger question seems to be “How will 21st century governments respond to the public’s moral expectations?”

SETH SHTEIR

San Fernando Valley Audubon Conservation Chair

Sherman Oaks, CA

Bushmeat

How can you write an entire article on bushmeat, suggesting the importance
of bushmeat in providing necessary proteins in West African diets, without
once admitting that meat is not the only source of protein and that
millions of people around the world, in developed and developing nations
alike, lead perfectly healthy lives without any meat in their diet at all?
Rather than hinting that environmentalists are as insensitive and arrogant
as Marie Antoinette if they seek to deny people bushmeat, how about
suggesting that those who eat bushmeat are insensitive of the plight of
their countrymen by consuming a protein source as wasteful as meat? Not to
mention the arrogance of assuming one is more important than the
individuals one sees as food, even when that food comes from a species less
numerous than one’s own.

TORMOD V. BURKEY