We still need the wisdom of Ubuntu for successful nature conservation
- PDF / 2,834,411 Bytes
- 3 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 25 Downloads / 157 Views
COMMENT
We still need the wisdom of Ubuntu for successful nature conservation J. Marc Foggin
Received: 9 July 2020 / Revised: 16 September 2020 / Accepted: 18 September 2020
Comment to: Gao, J., Y. Wang, C. Zou, D. Xu, N. Lin, L. Wang, and K. Zhang. 2020. China’s ecological conservation redline: A solution for future nature conservation. Ambio 49: 1519–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-01901307-6. In their article “China’s ecological conservation redline”, Gao et al. (2020) properly diagnose loss of biodiversity as one of the most significant challenges to development. They highlight limitations of prior uncoordinated or unsupervised responses, and point to benefits of large-scale, transboundary and network-oriented approaches. From China’s own experience, they highlight ecological civilization, which is now well integrated in Statelevel perspectives to ensure coordinated development not only of the economy, but also considering societal and environmental concerns. This is good. Yet, I suggest two additional ways that could further strengthen the overarching purpose of the redline approach, namely nature conservation. China’s proposed approach may be complemented, first, by greater inclusivity of stakeholders in the processes of assessments and development of solutions, and secondly, by sharper focus on the local communities most affected by change and their deeply held values. Overall, the Ecological Conservation Redline (ECR) appears to be premised largely on an understanding of human–nature interactions with people and nature seen as distinct, even in opposition to each other. Although external, mostly urban perspectives may see this as suitable description, globally and over generations local communities and indigenous peoples— those who have long lived close to the land and who will most directly appreciate the incalculable worth of biodiversity—have used and conserved the environment in sustainable ways (Garnett et al. 2018). In their livelihood
practices as in their local knowledge, value systems and sense of community writ large, they still maintain deep and lasting bonds with the environment. Such communities and cultures epitomize integrated social–ecological systems, or ‘territories of life’ (Sajeva et al. 2019). Yet the notion of society—and of the broader community of life, including nonhuman nature—appears to be excluded from ECR with its view of nature as if independent from people and a core focus on technical measures and legislative responses. A second challenge is more operational and, as above, the best response may lie in adopting more inclusive attitudes rather than “control and command” approaches with exhaustive lists of do’s and don’ts. In light of emerging trends in “new economics” that now are recognizing how we don’t live independently from each other, related together only transactionally, but are in fact even defined by our relationships (Eisenstein 2011), ensuring opportunities for greater local involvement in addressing challenges and creating solutions are deemed most likely
Data Loading...
