How should conservation be carried out? This is a fundamental question that has been discussed endlessly and must always be on the mind of any inquisitive conservationist. As with everything concerning conservation and the natural world, there is no simple answer. There can be no single solution, no recommended best practice. How you conserve something will depend on a huge range of factors, including; location, habitat, species, resources, aims, history, pressures. However, this complexity should not dissuade us from exploring potential answers to this knotty, tangled question. After all, it is only by enquiring and debating that we come to understand things better and get closer to the truth.
Unusually for me, inspiration for this article came from abroad and not the UK. The spark generated from the stunning region of Patagonia in Chile. Specifically it was the story of Doug and Kris Tompkins, told in a beautiful film called Wild Life. They both amassed huge fortunes working in the outdoor clothing industry. They cared deeply about the planet and like many who have a strong connection to the natural world, they wanted to do something to help halt the destruction of the planet. They had a particular love of Patagonia, and so they started to use their wealth to purchase large areas of land in the region. Their aim was to purchase as much as they could, and to eventually hand it back to the Chilean government for them to run as highly protected national parks. They achieved their aim, in 2018 they handed 1 million acres over, creating one of the largest protected areas in the world.
As I write, the story is repeating itself. A coalition of organisations are seeking to purchase a large area of land in Cochamo. This remarkable valley, famous within climbing circles for its spectacular rock walls, is on sale for $68 million. I learnt about this place through an episode of the Climbing Gold podcast. Cochamo has been under threat from development and resource extraction for a long time. The coalition now need about $30 million to complete the purchase and secure the protection of this unique natural wonder.
Whilst the intentions and aims of these projects are laudable and appear to be the right thing to do, they have not gone unchallenged. Doug and Kris Tompkins faced opposition to their plans, with many viewing them with suspicion. Why were two rich Americans buying up huge tracts of land in Chile? What were the implications for local Chileans and the countries security if foreign individuals could own and control such large parts of it? Whilst Doug and Kris had noble and well-meaning intentions, there are enough examples from around the world to give validity to such suspicions.
Perhaps because I don’t live in Chile, or because my mind is focused on other things, these are not the questions that I started to contemplate. I’ve started to consider the economical ethics (for want of a better term!) of this approach to conservation. The question that lingered in my mind, as the credits of Wild Life rolled, was; is it right that the protection of these precious ecosystems relies on the private wealth and noble intentions of individual millionaires? To leave the future of these irreplaceable wonders to the (unlikely?) chance that a wealthy person decides to use their fortune to protect the natural world seems reckless and irresponsible.
Perhaps in this capitalist world this is the way things have to be. Everything revolves around money, has a value and has to be worth something. The world has been privatised, carved up and those with the greatest wealth have the means to own the most. Yet just because this is the way things are doesn’t mean it is the way they should be. I’m not disputing the amazing things that Doug and Kris Tompkins have achieved. In fact, there is a great deal of cognitive dissonance rattling around in my head right now. The planet is dying and part of me will take any gains for nature, no matter how they are achieved. However I cannot shake the nagging doubt in my mind that we need to not become complacent and rely on good will and personal wealth to save the world.
Another reason why this method of conservation feels questionable is that it can perpetuate a system that prevents local people from owning and conserving the land. There is a long history of wealthy individuals buying up land, increasing the size of their holdings and further concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. This is why Doug and Kris Tompkins were able to buy such large chunks of Patagonia. The history of this process is littered with questionable acquisitions, evictions and access restrictions. It now makes it hard for ‘normal’ (i.e. not a millionaire) people to own land as the cost is prohibitive. It means the system is not equitable, it feels unfair.
These examples serve to illustrate why strong environmental legislation and protections are needed. Now more than ever, we need strong governments who do not allow the future of their countries most valuable natural wonders to be left open to fate and the vagaries of private trading. There are many good examples of this from around the world, but sadly there are also many bad examples, where protections are weak and fail to protect the natural world. We also need to seek to democratise the world of land ownership, along the lines of community right to buy rules, which seem to be starting to rise in prominence around the world. This will further help increase the chances of people who care about the environment being able to own a piece of it. Which all contributes to increasing the likelihood of us saving the planet.
Comments