To ban or not to ban, seeking the middle path: A response to Gilardi
In the January Forum, Gilardi (Oryx, 40, 24-26) and Roe (Oryx, 40, 27-28) added valuable observations to the article by Cooney & Jepson (Oryx, 40, 18-23) on the relationship between blanket bans and biodiversity conservation. However, in my opinion, neither focuses adequately on the issue from t...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Articulo Contribucion a revista |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2006
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/84333 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | In the January Forum, Gilardi (Oryx, 40, 24-26) and Roe (Oryx, 40, 27-28) added valuable observations to the article by Cooney & Jepson (Oryx, 40, 18-23) on the relationship between blanket bans and biodiversity conservation. However, in my opinion, neither focuses adequately on the issue from the perspective of those developing countries that struggle to simultaneously conserve biodiversity and overcome their burden of poverty and underdevelopment. Neither author fully recognizes the difficulties such countries face in trying to avoid the classic confrontation between reckless business and fundamentalist conservation approaches, or the efforts they make to maintain the delicate balance between development and sustainability. While Roe does not, perhaps, fully acknowledge the existence of the tension, Gilardi’s response clearly illustrates the conflations, confusions, and misconceptions that face and frustrate such countries, much to the detriment of effective conservation. |
|---|