Managing parks can always be challenging. As previously discussed, India and Botswana have serious political pressures with their park management. In India, state governments in the south are adding more zoning laws to protect the endangered tiger species. The creation of this zoning has led to the displacement of thousands of Indigenous peoples living within these vast parks. In Botswana, people are forcefully removed from parks because the government ostensibly wants to protect and preserve species. Removing human pressures is seen as an optimal goal. But remember, there is always that hidden agenda of actually getting to the natural resources that are overwhelmingly concentrated in these parks.
Is this really a problem though? Well, yes because natural resource extraction produces winners and losers. In natural resource management theory there is a concept called Pareto Optimality. The Pareto Optimality principle suggests “a state in which the resources of the environment are being used in such a way that no individual can be made better off without some other individual being made worse off. In other words, it describes a ‘zero-sum’ situation because new benefits that one individual receives must be compensated by losses experienced by another individual. So with context to parks and wildlife, time and time again resource interests from companies supersede those of community and wilderness interests. The benefits of resource extraction for instance, always favour the company because of collected capital or wealth, however the loser continues to be the community at large and the various species affected by the process of resource extraction.
Namibia seems to understand how to minimize this through their policy of Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) but this problem continues to be manifested in parks around the world.
So, the primary economic decision is always associated with extracting the resource in abundance to generate higher returns for the end product. The result, there is no concept of a conservation culture or wilderness recognition and at times, the environment is simply ravaged, leaving no room for regeneration.
This may not seem like a big issue but it certainly is. Canada will face numerous challenges in the future with its national and provincial parks. As natural resources dwindle in supply, we are going to turn to areas that we have not adequately explored yet because of rigid zoning laws. Those areas are parks. We need to take pro-active measure to ensure that those laws do not vanish. I think we need to have a stricter biosphere reserve zonation policy. The biosphere reserve concept was first introduced in 1968 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Its primary aims at that time were threefold- promote ecological sustainability, minimize biodiversity loss, and enhance linkages between cultural and biological diversity.
The biosphere reserve zonation concept is an effective and rational tool for park management. It has three zones- The core zone monitors natural changes and serves as a conservation area for biodiversity. Human influences are limited because of its rigorous protection standards. The next zone is equally as important for the park- a buffer zone which allows for low-impact activities such as research, environmental education and recreation. Finally, the transition zone, as stated by UNESCO, allows and encourages sustainable use of resources by local communities.
Key message: Biosphere reserves are crucial for advocating the protection of ecosystems and striving towards protecting the rights of the species found therein. They involve and heavily draw upon the community for consultation and advice.
They also limit natural resource extraction because the rights of wildlife supersede those of the companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment