Student: Nyssa Cheruvattam
Graduation date: May 2018
Type: Area of Interest (double major)
Date approved: November 2015
Go to concentration landing page
Summary
The popular concept of ‘conservation’ holds various definitions depending on location, thus putting biological conservation into effect has been haphazard. Ramachandra Guha explains that not only the practices, but even the meanings of environmentalism differ depending on the context of the country of origin. An environmentalist in India will have a different mindset that an environmentalist who’s grown up in North America (Guha 2006). The environmentalism we are most familiar with has evolved to be highly Eurocentric; its perspective is narrowed towards the benefits of having unlimited resources. Ecological preservation has become one of the main focuses of the North American environmental movement (Guha 1989), and by looking at the relationships between humans and the surrounding biotic and abiotic life, the ecological concerns become clearer in their issues, but blurred when trying to understand their solutions.
Megafauna are the most charismatic species on the planet, yet are not located near developed areas due to habitat destruction and resource removal by humans. “Environmental destruction is seen as a matter of world concern, but as a Third World Problem” (Gadgil and Guha 2011) Eurocentric ideas of environmentalism have therefore been applied overseas to less developed countries, or low-income countries, defined by the world bank as “those with a GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method, of $1,045 or less in 2013”** (The World Bank 2014), to save the ‘majestic’ animals of the world as they no longer exist in the areas we do. The fact that these creatures are distant from our everyday lives allows foreigners to keep the socially constructed image of a powerful, mysterious and elusive creature in need of saving (Hintz et al). The United States, Europe, and wealthy countries have a limited understanding of how to promote biological conservation in areas they have little in common with, as they do not have to live with the aftermath. They come from completely different contexts; not only are these countries experiencing environmental degradation, but “severe social and economic problems such as poverty, long standing economic stagnation, and rapid population growth” (Hackel 1999). Conservation is mainly focused on the biological needs; however, there are other aspects to be addressed in order for conservation to be successful. Because of this, foreign supporters have met local resistance when implementing a plan of change. Biologists are not only changing the life of the megafauna, but the lifestyle of the surrounding community and need to view the situation with the amount of complexity that is necessary.
The United States relies heavily on State and Federal government planning for maintaining thousands of ecosystems, and this method of conservation is completely different from conservation in Southern Asia or East Africa – as the wealth of the country defines how it deals with environmental concern. In low-income countries, survival is the driving factor of policies; non-immediate crises are not considered. Some countries are “ ‘too poor to be green’ and have ‘less to gain from environmental concerns for they are ‘concerned with the urgent care of survival’” (Guha and Martinez 2013). The U.S. governs resource usage, but it is not practical to take conservation from this context and try to situate it in a completely foreign culture. For effective conservation without conflict, the needs of the community as well the fauna of the area need to be met.
Keeping these conflicts in mind, I would like to study fauna native to low-income countries, the importance of biological conservation in these areas, and how to effectively combine conservation and the communities that are affected. Some of the most loved megafauna in the world are native to these areas and are under large amounts of stress due to changing ecosystems and local human activities. Within areas of East Africa, lions are stealing livestock, harassing villages, harming locals, and have become a dangerous pest. A Zimbabwean author was shocked when he realized the media was depicting the man who killed the lion as the perpetrator, and stated in his New York Times article, “In my village in Zimbabwe, surrounded by wildlife conservation areas, no lion has ever been beloved, or granted an affectionate nickname. They are objects of terror”(Nzou 2015). In the United States, where there is a distance from these creatures, lions can be viewed as mysterious and exotic. But the local communities have started to resent the ‘abundance’ of these animals as they have negatively affected their livelihoods, and have resorted to poisoning the animals with pesticides – contributing to their decline in global population (Gavshon and Magrattan 2009). This not only affects the lions’ already low population, but those of other predators and decomposers who feed off their infected carcasses, causing large amounts of damage to the entire ecosystem. Though this damages the ecosystem and in the eyes of Eurocentric conservationists is a crime that proves one’s lack of humanity, this method keeps the villagers source of income and lifestyle safe – an aspect which conservation plans need to take into account for long term conservation success (Newmark 2000).
In Southern India, Bhadra, a popular tiger and elephant reserve has started to create deep resentment among the local villagers. Though the reserve keeps the animals safe, the surrounding villages have had to deal with an influx of megafauna ransacking their communities – rampaging elephants destroy 15% of their paddies and prowling leopards and tigers feed on 12% of their livestock per year (Saberwal 2003). Villagers have resorted to poisoning, shooting, and setting forest fires to keep themselves safe. As a society that lives far from the natural habitat of these animals, we have the luxury to be outraged when these animals are killed. The existence of this reserve fails in its inability to take into account the economic and cultural needs of the neighboring areas, and the safety of the animals.
I am currently considering a double major in Environmental Studies and Biology; allowing for any field I pursue in biology to be situated in a broader context. These situations are much more complicated than what they appear to be when just looking at the biological aspect of conservation. Taking into account the necessities of people’s lives as well as those of the organisms in question will make carrying out resolutions quite challenging, but feasible if working with a kind of community based conservation.
** “Note that low- and middle-income economies are sometimes referred to as developing economies. The term is used for convenience; it is not intended to imply that all economies in the group are experiencing similar development or that other economies have reached a preferred or final stage of development.”
Works Cited:
Alpert, Peter. 1996. “Integrated Conservation and Development Projects Examples from Africa.” BioScience 46 (11): 845–55. doi:10.2307/1312970.
Gavshon, Michael, and Magratten, Drew. Mach 29, 2009. “Poison Takes Toll On Africa’s Lions.” CBSNews. Accessed October 6, 2015.
Barrett, Christopher B., and Peter Arcese. 1995. “Are Integrated Conservation-Development Projects (ICDPs) Sustainable? On the Conservation of Large Mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa.” World Development 23 (7): 1073–84. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(95)00031-7.
Gadgil, Madhav, and Ramachandra Guha. 2013. Ecology and Equity: The Use and Abuse of Nature in Contemporary India. Routledge.
Guha, Ramachandra, and Joan Martínez Alier. 2013. Varieties of Environmentalism: Essays North and South. Routledge.
Guha, Ramachandra. 2006. How Much Should a Person Consume?:Environmentalism and the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Guha, Ramachandra, and Center for Environmental Philosophy, The University of North Texas. 1989. “Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Perservation: A Third World Critique.” Edited by Eugene C. Hargrove. Environmental Ethics 11 (1): 71–83. doi:10.5840/enviroethics198911123.
Hackel, Jeffrey D. 1999. “Community Conservation and the Future of Africa’s Wildlife.” Conservation Biology 13 (4): 726–34. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98210.x.
Hintz, John, Moore, Sarah A., Robbins, Paul. 2014. Environment and Society: A Critical Introduction. 2 edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Newmark, William D., and John L. Hough. 2000. “Conserving Wildlife in Africa: Integrated Conservation and Development Projects and Beyond Because Multiple Factors Hinder Integrated Conservation and Development Projects in Africa from Achieving Their Objectives, Alternative and Complementary Approaches for Promoting Wildlife Conservation Must Be Actively Explored.”BioScience 50 (7): 585–92. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0585:CWIAIC]2.0.CO;2.
Nzou, Goodwell. 2015. “In Zimbabwe, We Don’t Cry for Lions.” The New York Times, August 4.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html.
Redford, Kent H. and Sanderson, Steven E. 2003. “Contested Relationships Between Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation”. Accessed October 28, 2015.http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/11/845.full.pdf#page=1&view=FitH.
Saberwal, Vasant K. 2003. Battles Over Nature: Science and the Politics of Conservation. Orient Blackswan.
The World Bank.“Country and Lending Groups”. Last modified 2014. http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-and-lending-groups .
Questions
- Descriptive: What are biologists currently practicing with biological conservation of megafauna in low income countries? How can we get them to realize the importance of involving the local community in conservation attempts? Is there a difference between which countries are able to successfully apply biological conservation to megafauna? Are middle income countries also struggling with the economic, political and cultural implications of conservation? Which of these aspects seems to be the most problematic?
- Explanatory: Why is biological conservation when situated in low-income countries unsuccessful even with local support? What makes some successful and others not? Why is political status of such high importance when looking at restrictions of megafauna conservation? Why are some countries able to overcome political and cultural issues? Is it solely due to economic status, or is there something more?
- Evaluative: How does biological degradation affect us and why should it be considered a problem? If there are areas where reconciliation ecology is not practical should it still be exercised? Why can some practices work in some countries while the same practices are ineffective in other places? How can we institute the importance of community interactions for both biologists and the community?
- Instrumental: What can be done for reconciliation ecology while still keeping in mind the necessary actions of daily life for those in the area? How can we conserve future biome health so reconciliation is not required? Can establishing new kinds of governing systems within local systems work as beneficiary to both the community and its organisms? What are the long term effects of community based conservation? How long should they be monitored? Is there a way to change the alter the outlooks people have on the animals? How can we keep the communities from being depended on the external inputs?
Arts and humanities courses
- PHIL 215 (Philosophy and the Environment, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.
- HIST 388 (What's for Dinner?, 4 credits). The politics of food and how it relates to each culture.