By Abby Ward

As a fresh faced ‘Green Teen’, my initiation into environmental activism involved learning to use the words ‘conservation’ and ‘environmental protection’. Indeed, these two words appear inseparable with the modern environmental movement. Just as McDonalds and KFC have become seemingly acultural outlets, these phrases have become naturalised foundations of environmental action.

However, I suggest that the underlying values and assumptions of the words ‘conservation’ and ‘environmental protection’ must be examined and questioned. The first evidence of the term ‘conservation’ emerged in the USA, with the creation of the Yellowstone National Park in 1872. In order to preserve nature, the indigenous inhabitants were evicted from the area. This ‘fences and fines’ model was then exported overseas, and resulted in an explosion of government sanctioned national parks.

In order to create the Los Uros National Park in Peru, indigenous Maya communities were allowed to stay in the national park, but on the condition they live in ‘harmony with nature’. Thus, the group was required to make villages out of reeds from the lake, in order to adhere to western tourists’ conceptions of conservation¹.

Even New Zealand’s prized national parks were once Maori owned land, acquired through confiscation or purchased well below the market price. These ‘patches of paradise’ became conservation land through social exclusion. As these indigenous populations saw people and the environment as one being, cultural practices ensured they sustained their lifestyle over hundreds of years. The strict protectionist model, on the other hand, presents conservation as the removal of human presence in the land, in order to ‘save’ nature from our destructive influence.  

This mentality is the dominant discourse of modern day climate change debates. Climate change negotiations promote and discuss western ideas such as the commoditisation of nature through carbon trading systems and sinks.

Researcher Emily Boyd notes that international level negotiations largely exclude socially marginalised groups, such as women and indigenous people . As a result, mitigation projects are founded on a view which supports the workings of the market-based system whilst excluding women and the poor².

The Copenhagen conference is testimony to this observation, with Tuvalu accusing the US of bullying the smaller states into submission to the Copenhagen accord. Governments see technological and market fixes as the only avenue to combat climate change. In the carbon trading proposal, for example, wealthy businesses and individuals may continue to pollute at their free will, as long as they have extra cash in their pocket to fund a mitigation project in Bolivia or Borneo.

The website Cheatneutral.com provides a useful and humorous analogy between carbon trading and infidelity, whereby sponsoring a stranger to remain loyal to their partner will grant you ‘cheating credit’, ensuring that the total amount of cheating in the world remains constant. Most people would be morally outraged at the possibility of cheating with a clear conscience. Similarly, carbon offsetting will simply continue economic exploitation of resources, without any thought the environmental consequences. This proposed solution to the climate crisis will not result in the ultimate change of attitudes needed to reverse our polluting lifestyle.

‘Conservation’ is a western concept which does not always produce the best outcomes; socially and environmentally. Instead of focusing on monocultural solutions, I believe we should introduce different viewpoints into the climate debate and our environmental thinking as a whole. If we can swallow our pride, we could learn a great deal from other cultural perspectives.

¹ Kent, M. 2006 From Reeds to Tourism: The Transformation of Territorial Conflicts in the

Titicaca National Reserve, Current Issues in Tourism, 9(1):89-90 - Link

²Boyd, E. (2002). The Noel Kempff project in Bolivia: gender, power, and decision-making in climate mitigation. Gender & Development, 10(2): 70-77  - Link