|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||||
|
“We have learned that our mission of protecting biodiversity is more intrinsically linked to human well-being than our founders could ever have imagined.”— Stephanie Meeks |
When conservation emerged in the United States, there was a sense that some natural places should be set aside to protect them from people. Yes, national parks could be enjoyed for recreation, but the human activities associated with sustenance and habitation were to be kept out.
Indeed, in the early days of The Nature Conservancy, we were about the business of buying land in the United States to create relatively small nature reserves. While many allowed for hiking and passive recreation, most were at least figuratively “fenced off” from people.
We have learned a lot in the ensuing years. First off, “postage-stamp” preserves are rarely adequate to protect the wildlife they were established to safeguard; animals and plants alike tend to stray beyond arbitrary borders. We know now that effective conservation requires a larger canvas. Whole watersheds need to be considered, as do natural processes that operate across vast areas.
In these large landscapes and seascapes, wildlife cannot be fenced in, and people cannot be fenced out. People—their activities, livelihoods and aspirations—dwell in the vast geographies where we work. Furthermore, we have learned that we cannot do conservation around these communities or for them; conservation will be successful only when considered and undertaken with them. That’s true in both the developed and the developing worlds.
As The Nature Conservancy has evolved, we have learned that our mission of protecting biodiversity is more intrinsically linked to human well-being than our founders could ever have imagined.
For example, a recent study co-sponsored by The Nature Conservancy provides evidence that the establishment of marine protected areas has contributed to the reduction of poverty at specific places in the Asia-Pacific region. The findings fly in the face of conventional wisdom that assumes conservation of nature is always at the expense of people, especially poor people. Interestingly, local people at the study sites identified benefits beyond more fish and increased income, including improvements in health, education and community governance.
Recently, the lead author of that study, Craig Leisher, joined with conservation experts from within and beyond The Nature Conservancy to discuss the complex intersection of conservation and poverty alleviation (see “The Poverty Question" in Nature Conservancy Magazine).
As we pursue our ambitious goal to double the amount of our planet in protected status in the next decade, we will undoubtedly encounter daunting challenges in balancing the immediate needs of people with the long-term health of natural systems. What gives me hope are the burgeoning efforts to mainstream sustainability into our social fabric and economic systems.
One such promising effort is the Natural Capital Project, created by The Nature Conservancy, Stanford University and WWF to establish demonstration projects that account for the true economic value of nature’s services.
Society is awakening to the fact that our health, our economies, our livelihoods and our children’s futures—whether we are rich or poor—are dependent on whole and healthy ecosystems that are sustainably maintained. That places our ambitious goals for the coming decade truly within reach.
Stephanie Meeks
Acting President and CEO
The Nature Conservancy
Spring 2008
Read the previous message from Stephanie Meeks.
