Suchergebnisse

After applying the dilemma illustrated in Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" to open-access fisheries, which face overfishing, the idea of conservation cartels is discussed. While they have been successful, these cartels are held as uniformly per se illegal arrangements under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Private property is seen as a potential solution, with such regimes manifesting in the form of collective or "common property" rights. However, despite the benefits of such a regime, the most common approach to fishery conservation is government regulation. It is argued that such regulation does little to fend off the tragedy of the commons. Antitrust litigation against marine conservation cartels inhibits the development of nongovernmental cooperative management structures that can address fishery problems. Further, the anticompetitive nature of these cartels does not preclude their working in the interest of the common good.

Abstract: Developing countries have become the primary proponents of integrative
conservation—conservation that relies on the enhanced participation
of local people to achieve the sustainable management of natural
resources. The case studies of Zimbabwe and Costa Rica support the
idea that integrative conservation allows governments to gain greater
political influence while sucessfully administering conservation. Both
cases suggest that local people demand greater access to natural resources
to bolster their livelihoods and their autonomy. Governments, in turn,
acquiesce to these demands because relinquishing control of resources
to the local level confers the benefit of a wider and more positive
political influence in marginal areas. Integrative conservation emerged
in these two countries because it served both the interests of local
people and those of the governing bodies.

Christopher M. Rea on conservation banks that price the priceless and change how we protect natural resources.

ABSTRACTIn view of the Aichi international policy targets to expand areas under conservation, we analyze to what extent conservation has become an inherent element of extraction. We scrutinize the Land Sparing versus Land Sharing debate by explicitly incorporating environmental justice issues of access to land and natural resources. We contend that dominant conservation regimes, embedded within Land Sparing, legitimize the displacement of local people and their land use to compensate for distant, unsustainable resource use. In contrast, the Land Sharing counternarrative, by promoting spatial integration of conservation in agroecological systems, has the potential to radically challenge extraction. Common ground emerges around the concept of sustainable intensification. We contend that if inserted in green economy's technocentric and efficiency-oriented framework, sustainable intensification will contribute to undermining diversified peasant agroecological systems by transforming them into simplified, export-orientated ones, thereby stripping peasant communities of the capacity to provide for their own needs.