During discussion in
class yesterday, we went over the difficulties of having a larger organization
coming into an area with an established set of values, and trying to change
them in the name of environmental protection. Particularly, with the African
tribe and the WWF coming in to help with conservation within the Sangha basin.
It seems that the ways in with WWF approached the situation ultimately lead to
it not being embraced with open arms.
For
the WWF to come into an area that they do not live in and try and force a new
way of living is completely unreasonable. How are they determining that the
deaths of species within the Sangha basin are more valuable to the deaths that
would occur due to the creation of the national park? Creating this park would
take away vital resources used by the Africans. The inhabitants incorporate the
Sangha into multiple parts of their lives. It can provide materials for
clothing, food, as well as defining their gender roles within their community.
Removing them from this area would harm them physically and mentally because it
would take away so much that would be extremely difficult to replace.
Another problem with
the approach of the WWF was the prevention in any of the tribe members
participating in any of the protection tactics. Very few Africans were hired.
This would further damage the relationship the inhabitants had with the area
since not only were they forbidden from living there, but not allowed to help
out in protecting the area they valued so highly. It seems that it would make
sense for the WWF to utilize individuals that respect and value the land, and
Africans would be exactly that. Extreme limits were placed on forest-resource
exploitation, which was the point of the conservation plan, but taking away
vital resources without replacing them is bound to be detrimental. Additionally,
there were very little transportation services or medical services provided to
those impacted. If the WWF expects to drastically change people’s lives, they
should provide adequate services to aid them in transitioning.
The WWF portrays the
Sangha untruthfully, painting the picture that it’s the “last remaining
undisturbed tropical lowland forest in the Central African Republic.” This is
incorrect. The forest is “disturbed” by animals and people. It makes the land
seem sacred and deserving of being saved, however it remains actually sacred to
those who use it for resources.
In
discussion, someone mentioned that education would be a way to gently nudge the
Africans into integrating conservation tactics, which I think is a great
approach. However, crucial to this would be a two way education system; both
WWF educating the tribe members, and the tribe members educating the WWF. Clearly,
the WWF did not know all about this area, thinking it was undisturbed. There
needs to be a platform that allows for an open discussion where each side can
present why they think their values deserve attention and action. The WWF
thinks the Sangha should be protected, but do not seem to be taking into account
just how much that would affect those who use the area to live. And also, the
Sangha might not be adequately informed of how their actions might be
detrimental to the area.
I completely agree that organizations just as the WWF have no right to come into a country and change conservation techniques, having no true understanding of the local environment and how the people live on the live species, whether plant or animal. I think the bigger issue comes in, like you said, with not even hiring the local workers. Ideally, the point of conservation organizations is to teach a country or local group the processes to best use their land and give them the tools they need to accomplish the goals on their own. However, by not fostering this education, the WWF is making these people worse off. This is why we so often see African countries so willing to work with the Chinese. They approach these countries as business partners, not as charity cases like the U.S. and so many other places do.
ReplyDeleteI agree that education will be the most important tool in fostering conservation growth. While the tribes know what is best for their land, perhaps they might not know what some of the greater consequences are to surrounding lands. Perhaps the first part of the education should be to bring a few different tribes together so they can understand all of their surrounding environments and work together to make each of their environments benefit off of each other.
Is the WWF's viewpoint untruthful or is it simply using a definition of 'undisturbed' that isn't very useful and ignores the roles that African people have played in their own environments?
ReplyDeleteGood point that the Chinese treat the countries as equals not as if they are below them. Bringing multiple different tribes together to understand surrounding environments is an excellent idea! I wonder if ideas were ever thrown around, and the WWF approach was decided to be the best way to go.
ReplyDeleteMaybe using a particular definition of 'undisturbed' isn't necessarily untruthful, but I would say is inaccurate in this situation with the Africans. As you said, it undermines the important role the Africans have with their environments.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you that the approach used by the WWF in this case was terrible. I do not, however, necessarily think that education would change the views of the Africans, but perhaps the views of the outsiders trying to impose this conservation plan on them. The WWF and organizations like it should be willing to provide the necessary resources to the Africans, but should not impose their own viewpoints, rather build the capacity of these people to make their own decisions.
ReplyDelete