If you read this site, you probably value nature and biodiversity for its intrinsic worth: You want to protect it for its own sake, not human self-interest. Much of the rest of the world doesn’t see things our way, though, and it’s not because they’re selfish. It’s because they’re too busy with the struggle for survival to worry about rare orchids or endemic birds. The chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy and the director of the Environmental Studies Institute argue in the October Scientific American that conservation efforts focusing on roping off biodiversity “hot spots” are doomed to failure, because they take away needed resources from the world’s poorest people, thereby losing the support of the local community. In contrast, they say that working to conserve areas where the poor rely most heavily on ecosystem services, and where those services are most in danger of disappearing, will provide better long-term protection of biodiversity. The mangroves of Southeast Asia, wetlands of the southeastern U.S., and coral reefs worldwide are all places they think conservationists should be paying more attention to, with an eye for the greatest benefits to the local people.
Source: Peter Karieva and Michelle Marvier. Conservation for the people (subscription required). Scientific American, October 2007, pp. 50-57. Photo: Mangroves have low biodiversity, but are essential for the protection of coastal communities and are rapidly being destroyed.
