Local priorities can be too parochial for biodiversity

Local priorities can be too parochial for biodiversity I cannot accept the provocative point made by R. J. Smith and colleagues in their Opinion article ( Nature 462 , 280 – 281 ; 2009 ) that decision-making for conservation research and implementation priorities should be left to local people. Speaking mainly from experience in North America, I believe that most local agencies (for example, US county governments) have little concept of what biodiversity is, much less how to measure, prioritize or protect it. Local land-use planning tends to be parochial and is divorced from conservation planning, which occurs on a broader geographical scale (see Lasting Landscapes , Environmental Law Institute, 2007). Local governments often allow development in biodiversity-rich and ecologically sensitive areas, even when it is demonstrably unnecessary. In Florida, huge subdivisions and condominium complexes can sit vacant for months or even years. This irrational development is encouraged because local agencies are controlled by politicians and powerful economic interests. They care about species conservation only when the species in question is protected under state or federal law or if it is hunted; unlisted and non-game species (especially unvertebrates) receive scant attention. The situation is aggravated because local agencies lack appropriately trained personnel for managing ecosystem conservation. Local agencies' capabilities are likely to be even more of a problem in developing countries. Letting them set the conservation agenda by themselves could therefore be a mistake. Academic researchers, conservation non-governmental organizations and other 'foreign' interests tend to be better informed, less subject to local political influence and more experienced in conservation planning than local agencies. Let's allow these parties to work together towards mutual conservation goals, rather than radically switching from hegemony by the broad thinkers to hegemony by parochialists. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Nature Springer Journals

Local priorities can be too parochial for biodiversity

Nature, Volume 463 (7280) – Jan 27, 2010

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/local-priorities-can-be-too-parochial-for-biodiversity-Jxkk3DF7cW
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Nature Publishing Group
ISSN
0028-0836
eISSN
1476-4687
D.O.I.
10.1038/463424a
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

I cannot accept the provocative point made by R. J. Smith and colleagues in their Opinion article ( Nature 462 , 280 – 281 ; 2009 ) that decision-making for conservation research and implementation priorities should be left to local people. Speaking mainly from experience in North America, I believe that most local agencies (for example, US county governments) have little concept of what biodiversity is, much less how to measure, prioritize or protect it. Local land-use planning tends to be parochial and is divorced from conservation planning, which occurs on a broader geographical scale (see Lasting Landscapes , Environmental Law Institute, 2007). Local governments often allow development in biodiversity-rich and ecologically sensitive areas, even when it is demonstrably unnecessary. In Florida, huge subdivisions and condominium complexes can sit vacant for months or even years. This irrational development is encouraged because local agencies are controlled by politicians and powerful economic interests. They care about species conservation only when the species in question is protected under state or federal law or if it is hunted; unlisted and non-game species (especially unvertebrates) receive scant attention. The situation is aggravated because local agencies lack appropriately trained personnel for managing ecosystem conservation. Local agencies' capabilities are likely to be even more of a problem in developing countries. Letting them set the conservation agenda by themselves could therefore be a mistake. Academic researchers, conservation non-governmental organizations and other 'foreign' interests tend to be better informed, less subject to local political influence and more experienced in conservation planning than local agencies. Let's allow these parties to work together towards mutual conservation goals, rather than radically switching from hegemony by the broad thinkers to hegemony by parochialists.

Journal

NatureSpringer Journals

Published: Jan 27, 2010

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off