[MPWG] IUCN-For Plants and People

[Center for Sustainable Resources]

I am responding to your response to the article Pat posted.
While you seem to be on the right trac you are also flirting with some 
political pifalls which may explain why such decision making has not worked 
here.
First, It is not really about the poor and not poor or rich and poor. People 
on the land through generations learn how to use the land and to draw a 
livlihood from it while becoming the best stewards for the land. Private 
property rights are the most important aspect of making this work.
You also talk about the virtues of "native americans" and their impact on 
the forest. No real evidence of this exist. More evidence to the contrary 
exist but what does it matter.
As soon as you start referring to something or a group of people as native 
little chance of success is possible. A hundred years of that kind of 
thinking has gotten us what?
There simply are no native humans in north america. Everyone came from 
another part of the world.
The idea of native in this instance and in many others is nothing more than 
a political position.
I have shawnee in my family but am not aware of anyone receiving any kind of 
green card at anytime in history. Our government has many strange concepts 
regarding this issue. In fact the elk is not a native animal in america. It 
came over with the first pilgrams as much research suggest.
America is still america at this point and time where anyone has 
opportunity.Misguided decision making has eroded our rights to a certain 
extent but this will fail.  By attacking the very people who are working 
with the land you are attacking what you claim you see as hopeful.
Fred Hays



>From: Cafesombra at aol.com
>To: mpwg at lists.plantconservation.org
>Subject: Re: [MPWG] IUCN-For Plants and People
>Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:07:55 EDT
>
>Patricia, Thanks for sharing this article.
>
>To many of us who have been working in "developing nations" over the past
>decade (I know for some of you it's been much longer...) in the 
>"alternative"
>areas of organic agriculture, or of non-timber values and products from 
>forests,
>or of "alternative" health (such as herbal medicine), this article, 
>refreshing
>though it is, simply points out the obvious.  People depend on a diverse
>range of economic activities involving a diverse range of plants (a.k.a 
>"natural
>resources").  Where access to natural resources is restricted, poverty 
>deepens,
>and conversely, where access is enhanced, poverty is alleviated.  I think 
>the
>work of IUCN is great.  My question is, what has impeded these ideas from
>truly taking hold for so many years, why is this "new" to the "development
>community?"  And, how do these breakthroughs in thinking apply to our North 
>American
>cause of conservation?
>
>There are a couple of fundamental points missing from this article.  First 
>of
>all, what is working here to alleviate poverty is allowing communities to
>return to the old ways -- systems of cooperative management, where people
>co-manage and co-benefit from local natural resources.  This is nothing 
>new, it's
>quite ancient.  As just one example, conventional wisdom now suggests that 
>native
>North Americans intensely used and groomed the forests of the Northeast
>United States.  The only reason these forests seemed wild and untamed by 
>the time
>the Pilgrims landed was that small pox had already spread throughout the 
>native
>communities (from contact with Spaniards in the South) and had wiped out
>perhaps millions of people for 100 years before John Smith set foot in the 
>New
>World.
>
>That community resource management works for both conservation and
>alleviation of poverty leads to a second fundamental point, which is so 
>unpopular or
>taboo that almost no one addresses it:  how much do private property rights
>contribute to poverty?  And, how much do private property rights hinder
>conservation?  I'm not saying that I am against private property.  I'm just 
>pointing to
>two fundamental questions which, in my opinion, have to be addressed before 
>we
>can truly alleviate poverty or before we can implement conservation 
>strategies
>that might turn the tide of global extinction rates.  In my opinion we can
>have private property that works, so long as "private property" is not 
>analogous
>to gross inequity.  This is not to say that public property as practiced in
>the US today is better -- not when corporations are allowed to use public
>resources for private gain as extensively as they currently are.
>
>Now the corporate world is also catching on -- believe it or not I just got
>an invitation to a conference on "Eradicating Poverty Through Profit"
>(sponsored by socially-responsible companies including Shell, Texaco, and 
>Dupont) which
>notes that the poor are "the world's largest untapped market for business
>innovation and partnership."  I have to wonder what this $900 conference 
>(plus
>hotel plus food) has to do with people in poverty?  What is the definition 
>of
>poverty anyway?  Having enough money to afford a cigarette addiction?  What
>untapped markets are we going to dump on the poor next?   I have to remain
>skeptical about the notion that business is going to save the environment 
>or
>eradicate poverty.  The historical evidence points clearly and 
>overwhelmingly to the
>contrary.
>
>I took the time to write these comments because the types of sollutions
>described in this article by Rowe for IUCN / Plants and People are truly 
>inspiring
>and hopeful.  These are exactly the types of approaches we need to take -- 
>but
>we need to be very watchful that decision making and control remains in the
>hands of local people, not corporations.
>
>Jennifer Chesworth
>_______________________________________________
>MPWG mailing list
>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org 
>with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
>Disclaimer
>Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc. 
>reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message. The 
>information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a 
>substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific 
>medical condition or question. All medical and other healthcare information 
>that is discussed on this list should be carefully reviewed by the 
>individual reader and their qualified healthcare professional. Posts do not 
>reflect any official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation 
>Alliance.

_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and 
more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx