Lecture, 2009

The title of my talk is conservation and consequence: the role and responsibility of humans in a wild landscape. This represents my personal view about what ultimately contributes to successful conservation.

I begin with a strong belief that successful conservation requires acknowledgement of people in the landscape and people as the solution.  Not a popular notion, but a practical one.  I’d like to start this conversation with a clip from the upcoming BBC/National Geographic Show called Galapagos. 

What did you see, what impressed you? And what didn’t you see?

           

You didn’t see people.

As much as I love this film, it is troubling because it inadvertently feeds a deeply held notion about conservation.  That is that conservation is about landscapes without people.  People are an afterthought or worse, a problem to be solved,

The filmmakers, both of whom I met, didn’t intend this consequence.  They wanted to show how special Galapagos is and how hundreds of years after their discovery (1535), Galapagos still remains relatively wild and intact.  That’s a noble goal for a filmmaker

Please understand that I am not necessarily pro people.  I am however, after more than 20 years in conservation, a realist.  There are few places on this earth where people aren’t. 

I’d like to use Galapagos as a model for a place which offers a special opportunity to develop a model for successful conservation.   I am suggesting that there are four basic pieces to successful conservation, and frankly each one has flaws.  But together, they appear to be the pieces that ultimately work

Acknowledgement of People in the Landscape

We are used to thinking about successful conservation reflected in the establishment of large continental land masses (Serengeti, Amazon) where the indigenous peoples are simply moved out of the way.  Their presence is not (or was not at the time) considered integral to the conservation or preservation of these areas or their biological systems.    

Then there are models where large land masses (Yellowstone) are set aside and have varying degrees of land use defined by governmental agencies.  A park like Yellowstone was also created long after the native people lived there.  However, via a more benign system of relocation (but relocation it was), those who live in and around the park generally agree that this is a place of special use and almost all folks willingly stay out.

Incidentally, when I talk about large continental land masses, I am not making a statement about the value of these to conservation, or inviting discussion about fragmented systems versus contiguous systems.  I’m just talking about familiar park areas

These models, which are the oldest and most familiar models to us, have a spotty track record.   Land masses where people have been integral to the management and cultivation of these lands require their presence.  The biological systems have become integrated with the human systems.  These areas, such as the Amazon and Serengeti, are constantly disrupted by conflicts over appropriate use (and who’s doing the using!)  ranging from traditional land clearing in the Amazon, to overpopulation of certain species, to poaching and in many cases, deadly violence. 

I am not someone who believes that native people are inherently better at long-term land management than newer colonists, but I do believe that systems which evolve together cannot easily be ruptured without some consequence.  Today, there are simply too many people, too large a footprint in natural places, too many processes we have set into place, either deliberately or inadvertently, to ignore or marginalize the importance of bringing humans into the equation

Then there are places like Galapagos where people never really were.    The Charles Darwin Foundation was a construct of scientist and academics, and functioned as the first national park service until 1968 when Ecuador created the Galapagos National Park Service.  The Park was created, and then the scientists came, the industry came.  And then population came.  Being originally in the equation or coming relatively new to the equation does not appear to have an impact on the creation of a conservation consciousness as we understand it.  Or for purposes of this talk, an ethic which guides behavior in such a way as to minimize biologically destructive behaviors and sacrifice short term objectives for the greater, long term health of the biological system.  In this rather obscure definition which I just made up, what you don’t see is spontaneity.  No one just “gets it.”   Regardless of how and when they got there, people must be deliberately and  meaningfully engaged in conservation.

Regulatory Instruments and Infrastructure

Conservation requires successful regulatory instruments and infrastructure.  That infrastructure doesn’t necessarily mean bricks and mortar.  It means feedback mechanisms which refresh and reexamine conservation methodologies on a regular basis.

Hence the role of scientists.  Science has focused the world’s attention on Galapagos; it has brought money, prestige.  Galapagos was one of the first World Heritage Sites, is a Man and the Biosphere Reserve, has a 40,000 Square Mile marine reserve, it is a whale sanctuary, etc. etc.  That’s the good bit. 

Science provides the long-term monitoring, the external, practiced eye, and the benchmarks against which the various systems can be monitored.  It is necessarily distant and disengaged.  I believe it is as integral a part of useful infrastructure as is the legal regulatory systems which define either conservation settings or conservation activities.

But these systems are imperfect and cannot stand alone. The U.S. and Canada have impressive legal structures surrounding its parks and those systems are being compromised daily due to human impact.   People know what they can and cannot do, and often they choose what they should not do.  Galapagos has an impressive legal framework guiding the decision-making in the national park.  And impressive feedback mechanisms and science advice at the ready.  But those systems are  being compromised or ignored daily.  Laws alone don’t make people do the right thing.

Equitable Economic Return and Closed Systems

Successful conservation requires place-specific economic models and revenue systems (concessions, permits, etc.) which are transparent in their operation and appropriately finite and internally controlled.  As an example, island systems require island specific industry, industry which is not dependent on large inflows of product and people.   Fishery based societies, such as industry surrounding the Great Barrier Reef has put a premium on the opportunities to fish and “close” the opportunities to relatively few people.  Land based models have slightly more flexibility, but concession systems in our own US national parks must be necessarily controlled if we are to avoid an upward spiraling of people flocking to make more and more money with fewer and fewer opportunities

In Galapagos, tourism, which is the largest economic driver, has already shown this upward spiral, bringing more people into Galapagos and more residents dependent on tourism.  Either the system collapses on its own, and it will, or the tourism and conservation industry join hands and deconstruct the current tourism models to produce higher return on investment.  This essentially requires fewer boats, fewer tourists, but more money per tourist. 

One might think that if people fully understood the economics of, say, sea cucumber fishing in Galapagos, for example, they’d figure out that a sustainable harvest is the only way to go.  Fish what you can without compromising the resource.  If people understood the economics of logging in US national forests, they would harvest sustainably.  Further, they would mitigate the accompanying resource management problems such as accompanying runoffs into salmon streams, etc.  But they don’t

The economics are clear, but people don’t do the right thing because there are long-economic benefits.  Or because those benefits have been pointed out to them.  Remarkably, they do just the opposite.  People will grab a short term economic opportunity and let the consequences be felt by a future generation.  Or anyone who isn’t them!

Proximity and Respect

What is the difference between conservation and preservation?

What words do you associate with preservation: formaldehyde, vacuum packed, sealed, set aside,  static?  Those are my words anyway.

What are words you associate with conservation?  Compromise, competition, dynamic, incomplete.

Conservation is complex and thorny.  It is not just doing the right thing or getting money to the problem.  It is strangely practical and spiritual. 

I’ve addressed the practical.  I’ve talked about the economics and the legal frameworks.  I’ve talked about the value of bringing people into the problem solving, because in many parts of the world, they were there at the beginning, and in other parts of the world like Antarctica and Galapagos, they are there now.  Because there are people, wild places are jeopardized.  I don’t know of an example of a human/wilderness interaction where wilderness hasn’t lost.

Let’s address the spiritual.  Sylvia Earle, oceanographer extraordinaire and unabashed Galapagos enthusiast once said to me that she didn’t have to actually see the Crown Jewels of England to appreciate them and value the fact that they are there.  She’s quite right, not everyone has to go to Galapagos to appreciate what they are and what they represent.  But the people who are there, and the people who can visit, form the fourth and most important piece of this protective framework.  Ultimately, we protect what we love and value, and understand.  

Do you remember what we said about preservation?  The problem in my mind with preservation is that it distances you from the natural world.  It closes things in, and shuts you out.  It creates a destructive distance. 

Returning to our “recipe” for successful conservation, does Galapagos have it all? 

Galapagos has survived with 95% of its presuming biodiversity intact.  That’s impressive.  It has fared well because of international focus, scientific prestige, and a well funded park and research station.  But in my mind it has survived because people have come to know Galapagos, they understand it, they care about it, they are passionate about it.  People like Martin, like the Grants.  The scientists, the tourists, the residents. 

Conservation happens only because people give meaning to wild places.  And as dangerous as it sounds, a spiritual connection, which cannot be legislated, parsed, quantified, or even adequately expressed, is the most powerful conservation tool we have.