Environmental Management

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 19–25 | Cite as

Conservation Through Different Lenses: Reflection, Responsibility, and the Politics of Participation in Conservation Advocacy

Article

Abstract

This essay considers the arenas of advocacy, politics, and self-reflection in strengthening conservation and resource management initiatives. It frames key questions that reflective conservation practitioners may address in seeking to enhance the results of conservation projects, including equity and more inclusive participation by nonprivileged groups. The essay touches on the importance of understanding conservation work within particular political and historic dynamics, including the need to understand non-Western and/or indigenous or traditional perspectives on conservation. The author makes the case that Western or privileged conservation practitioners are uniquely situated to advocate effectively for change.

Keywords

Advocacy Equity Historic dynamics Participation Politics Reflection 

References

  1. Abrash A (2002) Development aggression: observations on human rights conditions in the PT Freeport Indonesia Contract of Work Areas with recommendations. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Agyeman J, Bullard RD, Evans B (2003) Just sustainabilities: development in an unequal world [introduction]. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Beanal T (1997) Public forum remarks. Loyola University, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonner R, Perlez J (2006) New York Urges U.S. inquiry in mining company’s Indonesia payment. The New York Times, January 28, p 8Google Scholar
  5. Borrini-Feyerabend G, Pimbert M, Farvar MT, Kothari A, Renard Y (2004) Sharing power: learning-by-doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world. IIED and IUCN/CEESP/CMWG. Cenesta, Tehran, Iran, pp 140–142Google Scholar
  6. Cohen D, de la Vega R, Watson G (2001) Advocacy for social justice: a global action and reflection guide. Oxfam America and Advocacy Institute. Kumerian Press, Bloomfield, CT, p 8Google Scholar
  7. Dove MR (1993) A revisionist view of tropical deforestation and development. Environmental Conservation 20:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guerriere Ciaccio A (2006) Freeport denies pollution claims by NYC comptroller. Dow Jones Newswires, December 7Google Scholar
  9. Harkes I, Novaczek I, Sopacua A, Tatuhey M (1998) An institutional analysis of Sasi Laut in Maluku, Indonesia (TR 59). ICLARM—The World Fish Center, Penang, Malaysia, pp 121–140Google Scholar
  10. Jones L (2003) Facts compute, but they don’t convert. Sierra 88:46Google Scholar
  11. Kennedy D, Abrash A (2001) In Evans G, Goodman J, Lansbury N (eds) Moving mountains: communities confront mining and globalisation. Otford Press, Australia, and Zed Books, London, pp 59–74Google Scholar
  12. Kissya E (1995) Sasi aman haru-ukui: traditional management of sustainable natural resources in Haruku. Sejati Foundation, Jakarta, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  13. Ministry of Finance, Norway (2006) Two companies—Wal-Mart and Freeport—are being excluded from the Norwegian Government Pension Fund-Global Investment Universe. Available at http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Press-Center/Press-releases/2006/Two-companies---Wal-Mart-and-Freeport---.html? id= 104396. Accessed 24 June 2008
  14. Seager J (1993) Earth follies: coming to feminist terms with the global environmental crisis. Routledge, New York, NY, p 3Google Scholar
  15. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (no date) Convention text: Article 8j. In-situ conservation. United Nations Environment Programme. Available at http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles.shtml?a=cbd-08. Accessed: November 13, 2007

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental StudiesAntioch University New EnglandKeeneUSA

Personalised recommendations