Commodification of Biodiversity Conservation - Coursework Example

NEOLIBERAL CONSERVATION Introduction Neoliberalism is a term that describes an economic and social studies approach that allows the shift of economic factors control to the private sector from the public sector. This means that the economy will see the reduction of government deficit spending, backing of deregulation, limitation on subsidies and protectionism. Conservation on the other hand, refers to the management, use and protection of natural resources and the environment in general in a manner that is ethical to ensure its continued existence and prosperity. Combining the two terms, the meaning derived is the approach to the protection of the environment and capitalist expansion in a mutual process where the two are compatible. Over the years the debate on whether the practice is really pushing conservation has been going on with both sides having strong points. This paper seeks to analyze the arguments and rationales that support the practice of neoliberal conservation with a presentation of a critique of the practice through the discussion of various scholarly articles. Pro-neoliberal conservation arguments The core ideas behind Neoliberalism are marketisation, improved private sector roles as well as deregulation and voluntarism (Humphreys, 2007). When applied to the practice of conservation, these core principles aim to enhance the marketisation of conservation areas that will see them valued with rights to property secured while the market is freed at the same time. This is interpreted to mean that there is reduced government participation hence the government spends less in the conservation activities as the private sector is charged with this role. The idea is that the private sector that is mainly blamed for the environmental degradation associated with capitalisation will voluntarily adopt partnerships and codes that are aimed to at the conservation of the environment (Buscher, 2012). The Kyoto Protocol for example has a neoliberal conservation rationale that emphasizes the need for carbon trading (Humphreys, 2007). The protocol’s trading system requires the establishment of the carbon dioxide emission right that will see states with low emission sell their rights to large polluters who exceed their quota. Theoretically, since this cost is passed on to the industries in the states, the market forces will determine the carbon emission price that will reward low polluters. The end game is that the high polluters will turn to cleaner energy that will see a conservation of the environment (Humphreys, 2007). It is common knowledge that because the profits accrued by a private entity are shared amongst a few individual as compared to a public resource, private sector works tend to be faster, efficient and more cost effective as compared to governmental works. It is such thinking that advocates for the practice of neoliberal conservation (Duffy and Brockinton, 2010). The argument is that the increase in privatisation of natural resources like forests will see the improved management of these resources as there is improved resulting in better conservation efforts (Buscher, 2012). The privatisation scope starts from individual citizens and local groups to international entities with corporations from developed worlds able to purchase rights to manage resources in the developing worlds (Igoe and Brockington, 2007). This would be especially helpful in poorer states where governments have inadequate resources and capacity to participate in the protection and conservation of biodiversity. The privatisation that incorporates rural communities also proves beneficial as the ventures create conservation oriented businesses run by the locals that yield incomes while securing their property rights. This is because the participation of the communities in the conservation efforts prevents the exploitation of the resource by external parties (Duffy and Brockinton, 2010). At the same time it creates and promotes the idea that “green is profitable” because it enables the practice of ecotourism in the area where tourists come to the area to see the biodiversity in it is natural state(Igoe and Brockington, 2007). This creates a win-win situation as the community is able to have the cake of conservation while having the dessert of development(Igoe and Brockington, 2007). Without the privatisation and conservation neoliberal practice, the community would not have a source of income. This means that they would exploit the biodiversity in the area to fend for themselves which would see its slow depletion. As such, the practice purposes to mitigate spread of commercial activities that destroy the environment. Critique of neoliberal conservation The supportive arguments purpose to create a rosy picture developed by the adoption of the practices which is not always the case. Some practices applied in the process of neoliberal conservation have a negative impact on the environment. One such practice is the rehabilitation of degraded land and resources as a measure of compensating for the intended exploitation of existing natural resources (Walker et al., 2009). Take the case of the T4 Project. The project seeks to exploit and degrade the Upper Hunter Valley estuary in Australia for the purpose of development of a coal mine and loader (Maddock, 2007). As a counter measure which is meant to sway the public by showing the company’s conservation acts to cover the degradation, the coal exploring company plans to rehabilitate the Ellalong Lagoon in Ellalong Reserve in Australia (Maddock, 2007). The general idea behind conservation is to ensure that there is no loss of biodiversity or ecological function as a result of human activity (Kittmer, 2013). Thus using Ellalong does not result in conservation. This is because the lagoon exists in a different ecosystem altogether that is around 40 kilometres away and therefore the whole process will result in the destruction of the Hunter estuary with displacement and of fauna loss of a habitat that is not replaceable (Maddock, 2007). This is only a case of bribing one side to conduct a wrong on the other. As such critics of neoliberal conservation have argued that such practices do nothing to conserve the environment. At the same time there is the argument that the rehabilitated areas do not measure up to the degraded areas in terms of size. The fact that the practice also replaces pre-existing natural systems with manmade systems that lack the correction abilities of natural systems also gives momentum to the opposition of the process (Maddock, 2007). Then there is the issue of the conflict created by the practice. Neoliberalism introduces capitalism to conservation activities (Kittmer, 2013). This results in the value creation for everything in the natural resource sphere. Instead of viewing nature as a priceless object that cannot be replenished once depleted, the notions turn to those where every part in the biodiversity has monetary value and therefore nature is a client with the conservationists being service offering businesses. As such nature has to pay a price determined by the capitalist as payment for the services of conservation (Buscher et al., 2012). The process is not about conservation but circulation of capital with the payments being accrued by those able to capture them instead of nature itself. The wrong is in infusing the policies of conservation in to the neoliberal economics analytical tools that reinforce ideological positions associated with relationships between humans and non human natures (Buscher et al., 2012). This is attributed to the basic economic gains that everyone wants to maximise on economic gains. The end result is that the capitalistic approach to conservation creates conflict. The conflict may be the result of the displacement of communities as in the case of Guatemalan peasants by commercial tree farms that were established in the community’s land. In other cases like Zanzibar it arises because residents view the protected areas as business ventures that profit from their local resources while excluding them from the benefits (Igoe and Brockington, 2007). There are extreme cases where the law has to intervene as in the controversial community-based wildlife management in mainland Tanzania where a group of elders were put in jail. As such, neoliberalism has succeeded in making the peaceful conservation processes a charade that is comprised of conflicts between different stakeholders. Conclusion The arguments and rationales of neoliberal conservation core ideas are that the practice has its benefits. The idea of paying for degradation of the environment is behind such innovative policies as the Kyoto Protocol have dramatically changed the global carbon emission as big polluters try to adopt cleaner energy practices. Introducing capitalism in conservation is helpful especially in the developing countries as this can be influential to an economy. This is because new entrants with enough capital to invest in conservation practices have ensured the practice is maintained. It has also created business ventures for locals creating a source of income while maintaining the state of biodiversity which is a win for both sides. However, it also comes with the demerits with the thinking that we can exchange one ecosystem being wrong. Human nature associated with capitalism has also been known to result in conflict aimed at establishing control over the resource with the environment being the victim. It has also resulted in the displacement of population in some areas. As such it is important to conduct a study before incorporating the practice so that all concerned parties including nature, benefit. References Buscher, B. (2012). Payments for Ecosystem Services as Neoliberal Conservation: (Reinterpreting) Evidence from the Maloti-Drankesberg, South Africa. Netherlands: Erasmus university. Büscher, B., Sullivan, S., Neves, K., Igoe, J. and Brockington, D. (2012). Towards a Synthesized Critique of Neoliberal Biodiversity Conservation. Duffy, R and Brockington, D. 2010. Capitalism and Conservation: The Production and Reproduction of Biodiversity Conservation. Antipode. Humphreys, D. (2007). Discourse as ideology: Neoliberalism and the limits of international forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics.Walton Hall, Milton Keynes: Open University. Igoe, J. and Brockington, D. (2007). Neoliberal Conservation: A Brief Introduction. Denver: Dept of Anthropology, University of Colorado. Kittmer, S. (2013). Neoliberal conservation: Legitimacy and exclusion in the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. Ottawa, Ontario: Carleton University. Maddock, M. (2007). Why the T4 Coal Loader Proposal Must Be Dismissed A Summary of its Major Ecological Problems. Walker, S., Brower, A.L., Stephens, T. and Lee, W.G. (2009). Why bartering biodiversity fails. Conservation Letters. Read More