This article revolves around the discussion of a piece of land
in Columbia called Anori. It is approximately 200 square miles of rainforest
which contains an astounding amount of biodiversity. Despite this, it has been
closed off for 40 years to be used as a war zone. A group of people including demobilized
guerrillas, members of the surrounding community, peacekeepers from the UN, and
researchers were recently granted permission to survey the land and asses the
biodiversity and multitude of species that it contains. This expedition became
possible because of a peace deal that was made. One of the main problems that
this article brings to light is the fact that the surrounding communities of
this land economically benefit from illegal cattle ranching and gold mining.
These practices are very destructive to the environment but also very engrained
in the culture and economy of these communities. For this reason, it is a
difficult issue to address because there must be a balance between protecting
this incredible environment and preventing further destruction, while also
protecting the livelihoods of these people.
Questions:
What can you imagine happening to the land without the peace deal (meaning it would have remained unaccessible)?
How do you think the violence towards environmental activists
in Columbia should be addressed?
How can the structure of these communities who base their livelihoods
and economy on destructive practices be altered to avoid mass environmental
destruction?
I guess if this area had remained inaccessible many wonderful discoveries would have remained undiscovered, which is fairly depressing as we lose species we know about to extinction, but cannot account for those scientists have not discovered. In terms of the violence, that really was astonishing to read considering Colombia's status as hosting the second highest rate of biodiversity in the world, one would think conservationists and environmental activists would play a large (and important) role in this country's society, rather than the reality. Obviously, this has to do with their rejections of the cattle ranching and gold mining that the Colombians rely on for their economy, but conservation of their biodiversity could lead to a whole new ecotourism source of income instead. I have incredibly little knowledge about Colombia's position on ecotourism, so what I am saying could be irrelevant to their situation, but I know from other studies done in Southern Africa that ecotourism benefits both the economy and biodiversity around these preserved areas. This article even discuses such a concept by means of intertwining this amazing forest and a means of ensuring the people living here do not go without basic needs. I think their situation resembles that of Puerto Rico, meaning the people living in this particular place have the best solutions to benefit both parties.
ReplyDeleteThis article posed several questions about the protection of the environment. If the peace deal had not been accepted, the land would most likely have been destroyed further and researchers would have been unable to come and find new palm leaves and see a more natural environment. In reading that 30 environmental activists had been killed in 2017, I was shocked. The environmental activists are only trying to promote the preservation of this beautiful space; however, the various groups could see this as an invasion and them trying to take over the land. Although the people rely on destructive practices, they should respect the environment that they live on and use for survival. A possible solution would be to create a nature reserve of the land to help preserve biodiversity, and create this space as a neutral zone, where destructive practices of the people cannot take place. The government should still make sure that these people can practice their customs and have the resources to survive, but without harming the environment.
ReplyDeleteThis article brings to light an interesting ecological opportunity, seeing that we have an opportunity to look a place that was researched, then left untouched for years, then researched again. Seeing this position, Researchers must be careful in the way that they engage in this exploration. The struggle that researchers are having with the locals, who depend on the environment but are damaging its resources, reminds me of an article I read on Madagascar. Many species are going extinct as a result of Madagascar's Damage to its environment, but for the expectation for a developing country to put biodiversity and protection above its own interest is a high bar. I think that the violence against environmental activists should be censored by the government, but that Environmental Activists should be aware that they are entering an incredibly dangerous area. The best option, in regards to the destruction of the environment, is to focus relief efforts on teaching local communities how to make money without destroying the environment. That being said, it is an incredibly different issue that is going to take both the government of Colombia, as well as international bodies, in order to resolve and maintain this natural area.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I liked the article, and I think it’s fascinating how it’s possible that there are more animals or plants that have yet to be discovered. Although the article does a good job of showing how the Columbian government has taken precautions to preserve this new environment, I do have reservations about the decision to open up the area to others. In the past, other areas rich in biodiversity that were opened up to exploration were very negatively impacted (think the Americas when Columbus landed). Also, the violence toward the environmental activists doesn’t bode well for the future of this land. On the other hand, this may be the push that the government needs to focus on the surrounding communities and alter them so the families get what they need without continuing to partake in cattle ranching and gold mining. As stated in the article, “the state will have to play a role in the conservation of this forest.”
ReplyDeleteIf the peace deal had not occurred and the forest remained inaccessible, the forest could have seen more damage and exploitation. Although “[t]he conservation of that ‘biodiversity miracle’ was an unintended consequence of [the] armed conflict” and of this inaccessibility, remaining unaware of this “biodiversity miracle” could eventually lead to negative consequences since the local economy is based on the environmentally detrimental practices of cattle ranching and gold mining. Essentially, because people are now aware of this diversity, people are aware of the need to protect it. Ultimately, this new knowledge should lead to the discouragement of cattle ranching and gold mining. Because I am not sure of how effective the government could be in this instance, I am hesitant to say that the government issued regulations and conservation should be the only driving force. Indeed, the environmental activists should shift its narrative from outwardly discouraging the current economies to encouraging other beneficial economies that promote the preservation of the environment; for instance, these activists could emphasize the possible economic benefits of having botanical gardens fit for tourists rather than just emphasizing a need for preservation and condemning the current economies. In other words, instead of a focus on preservation and on the environmentalists’ ultimate goal, a focus on economic benefits may be more appealing and may seem less aggressive on the environmental activists’ part, and thus, it may be better received and may lead to the needed preservation.
ReplyDelete