Environmental Justice vs. Nature Protection

“The Winding Road: Incorporating Social Justice and Human Rights into Protected Areas” Crystal L. Fortwangler

Primary Forms of Biodiversity Protection 1. National Park Model 2. Regional Approaches 3. Community-Based Conservation 4. Private Acquisition

The “Yellowstone Model”

Biosphere Reserves Established by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Programme on Man and the Biosphere beginning in

Biodiversity Protection in Practice: Problems Forced removal of local people to create protected areas. Forced removal of local people to create protected areas. Torture and intimidation of local people to enforce protection policies. Torture and intimidation of local people to enforce protection policies. Restricting local people’s access to natural resources. Restricting local people’s access to natural resources. Excluding local people from participating in decision- making and management of local protected areas. Excluding local people from participating in decision- making and management of local protected areas.

Biodiversity Protection in Practice: Problems Failure to actually protect biodiversity because local people exploit natural resources, kill animals and plants, encroach upon habitat, and/or denude or destroy habitat. Failure to actually protect biodiversity because local people exploit natural resources, kill animals and plants, encroach upon habitat, and/or denude or destroy habitat. Worries that local people will put their own interests above the goal of protecting local biodiversity. Worries that local people will put their own interests above the goal of protecting local biodiversity. Worries that local people will make bad management decisions about how to protect natural areas. Worries that local people will make bad management decisions about how to protect natural areas. Ironically, attempting to protect biodiversity might hasten its demise. Ironically, attempting to protect biodiversity might hasten its demise.

“Feeding People vs. Saving Nature” (1996) Holmes Rolston III 1. If persons widely demonstrate that they value many other worthwhile things over feeding the hungry (Christmas gifts, college educations, symphony concerts), 2. And if developed countries, to protect what they value, post national boundaries across which the poor may not cross (immigration laws), 3. And if there is unequal and unjust distribution of wealth, and if just redistribution to alleviate poverty is refused, 4. And if one-fifth of the world continues to consume four-fifths of the production of goods and four-fifths consumes one-fifth, 5. And if escalating birthrates continue so that there are no real gains in alleviating poverty, only larger numbers of poor in the next generation, 6. And if low productivity on domesticated lands continues, and if the natural lands to be sacrificed are likely to be low in productivity, 7. And if significant natural values are at stake, including extinctions of species, Then one out not always to feed people first, but rather one ought to sometimes save nature.

“Nature as Community: The Convergence of Environment and Social Justice” Giovanna Di Chiro: Because mainstream environmental groups (MEGs) have focused so heavily on wilderness preservation and protecting endangered species, and have focused so little on urban and rural environmental problems, MEGs have contributed to the continued environmental injustices suffered by marginalized urban and rural peoples. Because mainstream environmental groups (MEGs) have focused so heavily on wilderness preservation and protecting endangered species, and have focused so little on urban and rural environmental problems, MEGs have contributed to the continued environmental injustices suffered by marginalized urban and rural peoples. MEGs advocate top-down nature management at the expense of local communities, and MEGs contribute to participatory, recognition, and identity injustice. MEGs advocate top-down nature management at the expense of local communities, and MEGs contribute to participatory, recognition, and identity injustice. MEGs perpetuate past colonial injustices by alienating people from nature. MEGs perpetuate past colonial injustices by alienating people from nature. With their focus on protecting nature (wilderness) and species “out there” in the wild, MEGs deny human-nature relationships. With their focus on protecting nature (wilderness) and species “out there” in the wild, MEGs deny human-nature relationships.

U.S. Wilderness Act of 1964 Introduced in Congress in 1956 and rewritten 65 times until it passed in Introduced in Congress in 1956 and rewritten 65 times until it passed in Created the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) with 54 wilderness areas (9.1 million acres). Created the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) with 54 wilderness areas (9.1 million acres). Set a precedent for subsequent wilderness acts. Set a precedent for subsequent wilderness acts.

Section 2c of the Wilderness Act of 1964 A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Wilderness Under Attack Some members of the Environmental Justice Movement openly criticize wilderness for: 1. Being racist, ethnocentric, colonialist, and elitist. 2. Putting nonhuman nature above people and sacrificing human interests to preserve wilderness. 3. Begin celebrated as a fiction or a place that really doesn’t exist.

No Wilderness Argument 1. The concept of wilderness denotes an area that exists independent of human cultures. 2. To say that an area exists “independent of human cultures” is to say that it is uninhabited and/or untrammeled by people and has been such in the past. 3. New interpretations of both old and new empirical evidence strongly suggest that no areas of the United States were uninhabited and/or untrammeled by people prior to current wilderness designation. 4. No current wilderness areas (de facto or legally designated) satisfy criteria required to qualify as wilderness. Conclusion: Thus, there are no real wilderness areas in the United States. When viewed as a set, the category of wilderness has no members.

Moral Argument Against Wilderness Preservation 1. Wilderness areas—areas that are empty of people and their developments—were created by Euroamericans who intentionally killed and removed Native American Indians from landscapes. 2. Killing and removing Native American Indians from landscapes was morally wrong. Conclusion: Thus, because wilderness areas were created by morally wrong actions, the preservation of wilderness today is morally wrong.

Ethnocentric Argument Against Wilderness 1. The idea of wilderness is largely a product of European and Euroamerican ethnic cultures. 2. Wilderness preservation, as informed by this idea, is largely practiced only by people of European ancestry. 3. The practice of wilderness preservation largely has ignored the presence of non-European descended peoples, such as Native American Indians. 4. To ignore non-European descended peoples is wrong. 5. Ethnocentrism is morally wrong. Conclusion: Thus, the practice of wilderness preservation and the idea of wilderness are ethnocentric, and because of this they are morally wrong.

Values Argument Against Wilderness Preservation (Elitism Argument) 1. Wilderness preservation historically has been justified by appealing to the aesthetic, religious/spiritual, recreational, and symbolic values of wilderness for people. 2. Only people in privileged positions of economic, social, and/or political power historically have been able to appreciate these values. 3. Because most people have never been in privileged positions of economic, social, and/or political power, most people have never been able to appreciate the values of wilderness. 4. Further, many people who have not been in these privileged positions of power have needed to use wilderness resources in order to make a living in an economic sense. Conclusion: Thus, wilderness preservation is elitist. It is justified by appealing to values that are not available to most people. Further, protecting wilderness harms people economically.

Social Constructivist Argument Against Wilderness 1. In order for the concept of wilderness to make sense, it must connote the idea of nature as existing independent of human cultures. 2. The concept of wilderness thus presupposes that a meaningful conceptual distinction can be made between human cultures and nonhuman nature. 3. Because wilderness and nature, like all other concepts, are human social constructions (concepts invented by social groups of people), it is problematic to say that wilderness exists independent from human cultures. That is, because the ideas of nature and wilderness are socially constructed, there are no non- socially constructed natural areas that exist independent of human cultures. What the concept of wilderness connotes––the idea of nature as existing independent of human cultures––is non-existent.