This was one of my first articles posted on Steemit two month ago and it hasn't got any attention back then. Because I think this is really an important matter, I'd like to repost this article today.
One of the most convincing arguments people bring up in favor of the state is that it is the only entity capable of protecting nature. Without it private companies would exploit nature indefinitely and wipe out any trace of wildlife - so the argument goes. But does this notion match reality?
The way of the state
Ecuador is a relatively small country in the inner tropics of South America and a natural treasure trove. From the Pacific coast over the Andes to the Amazonian lowland, biodiversity is said to be the highest in the world. Yet today, it is in dramatic decline. Maybe you've heard the story of 'Yasuní National Park' - an area of exceptionally high endemism where one hectare of forest contains more tree species than the US and Canada combined. And hurray this area is protected by the state and the UN once and forever and nature lovers should celebrate every day. They did so until one day in 2013, when the Ecuadorian Government approved oil drilling within the park boundaries with the earnings promised to help the poor
....
Yasuní is still a national park, but what do these words mean when a small group of people can violently impose whatever use upon any given area they see fit to serve the 'greater good'. Everybody loves National Parks and so do I, but you should never forget that, eventually, they're totally at the whim of some bureaucrats.
The way of the individual
Same country, totally different story. The Pacific coast of Ecuador was once covered with lush tropical jungle known as the 'Pacific Equatorial Forest'. Because the Andes posed an insurmountable obstacle between the coast and the Amazon, a completely different composition of species evolved like nowhere else. Today, the forests are down to 2% making it one the most threatened ecosystems in the world.
In 2007 some people from the US founded a private organization Third Millenium Alliance(check out the webpage for detailed information) and purchased some land with remnants of untouched coastal forest, effectively putting it under protection. Step by step the reserve was extended, a research station and trails were built and the forest was given value where there was none before. Donations from nature loving people and fees from visitors and researchers help fund the conservation and expansion. Reaching out to the local communities is of particular importance. By offering job opportunities to locals to work at the reserve and attracting visitors that in turn bring money to the local economy has quickly eroded initial skepticism. People are seeing how the reserve is adding value to their lives making it PROFITABLE to protect and support it.
There is so much more to say and I'd love to elaborate if there is interest. Private companies can indeed protect nature. Here are some photos that I took when I served as a volunteer at the Jama-Coaque Reserve - sorry for the poor quality. The last photo shows the nearby town 'Pedernales', which was struck by a severe earthquake earlier this year. Oh and what surprise -Third Millenium Alliance was the first to respond and help with donations totaling well over 100,000$ while state programs are still pending.
The coastal town of Pedernales before the earthquake.
Hi! I am a content-detection robot. This post is to help manual curators; I have NOT flagged you.
Here is similar content:
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@mcsvi/private-vs-state-environmental-protection-ecuadorian-rainforests-at-risk
I appreciate the efforts and dedication of those involved in funding and carrying out the mission of their conservation group. As a life long environmental activist, any personal contributions to preserving our biosphere is awesome to see and participate in.
Unfortunately the entire planet needs protection from abusive for profit or personal use resource extraction and destruction. Funding the level of protection and oversight needed for adequate preservation and future biosphere health takes more then a few people pitching in voluntarily or having fundraisers....
Protecting the health of our planet is worth a community effort whether locally or globally. Yes bureaucracies are an imperfect structure and subject to many pressures and human breakdowns, but they belong to the community whether that is local, state, national or international, subject to oversight and directives from a representative structure. Another words, they work for US, the land is held in trust for US and future generations, however imperfect.
Leaving land preservation to non-profit philanthropic agencies on a global scale is unworkable solution considering the size of the job and the fact that at any time that non-profit is subject to outside challenges and pressures, same as bureaucracies but with no oversight or legal obligations except to their own board and donors. Planet preservation funded by bake sales and no community oversight????? I don't think that is workable on such a grand scale. But I love to hear that this project in Ecuador is beneficial to the ecosystem and human community and applaud all positive human/ecosystem partnerships...... oc
I do understand your point, but in my opinion I think the incentives have to put in a way that conserving natural ecosystems becomes profitable. If those who care about the protection of nature own the land, they are a lot more incentivized to keep it in good shape compared to politicians who have no incentive. And if people come voluntarily together, they can also purchase large portions of land and conserve it.
Anyway, thanks for your opinion :-)
can you reshare your original post?
What do you mean? The cheetah bot linked it back automatically ;)