Summarising a case study on a San-Francisco-based pharmacy company that promised monetary rewards to locals for preserving certain medicinal trees in tropical rain forests of South America (notably in Equador and Brazil), the following question was asked:
Should we use the means of market economy to implement nature conservation?
I would go further to ask:
How often can we use the means of market economy to implement nature conservation?
My understanding native medicine wrt the case study is limited. But I would first want to find out if this is a specific instance of commercialisation favoring nature conservation. It is not hard to see that the Pharmacy company can continue to do business provided they have continued access to those trees used in making the medicine. It follows then that the forests in which these trees grow need to be conserved. But, does commercialisation always favor conservation where ever nature is harvested for commercial use? I would not believe so for the simple reason that there are continuing protests world-wide where commercialisation and conservation are at loggerheads.
The study goes to show that there are instances where the two are not in conflict. But, are there more instances like the pharmacy company?
It is a different matter if the compensation promised to the locals was indeed handed out? It turns out it wasn't as good as promised because the drugs failed to make profit.
Another important question that the fact sheet poses in the context of action taken for environmental conservation in developing countries, is:
Is it really a ‘first world luxury’?
To gain insight into this question, I would like to know to what period in modern history of the world could any concrete action in environmental conservation be dated? Lets take the instance of the insistence of World bank in the 1940s and 50s to build dams on rivers. The case for conservation being damage due to submersion of surround land areas (damage to human settlements and bio-diversity in the vicinity). I would like to know what the U.S did in containing reported environmental damage[1] due to the construction of Hoover Dam in 1936. For example, how does it contrast with the Narmada dam project in India in this regard? The reasoning is that India today could be more fairly compared with America in the past and not in the present due to delayed development (because of reasons this post is not concerned with). It is a question of fairness really. Did the U.S (first world) have the moral authority to hold India (third world) responsible for its present day actions? Or Is this a fair question to ask at all?
In the view of true-blue environmentalists, it pays to conserve and not quibble about moral obligations or the lack of it? In other words, India (third world) cannot hold a lack of action wrt conservation on the part of U.S (first world) if any against it. The argument that 'You did not conserve then, so I won't now' although a morally correct argument cannot be an actually correct one,for, both are mis-using nature. The problem with this line of thought is the economic implication of conservation. Noting instances where economic development (commercialisation) is the antithesis of conservation, is it fair to ask India (third world) to compromise economic prosperity for a greater duty to conserve? Please note that the need and importance of conservation is not being questioned here? What is being questioned is the fairness in weighing all in the same scale.
Honey, I have some questions for you! :)
P.S: Sweetheart, I really enjoyed reading the document. Keep 'em coming :*
