The Rational choice for
development and conservation
There have been heard broadly
about the natural resources conservation and development trade off, with that many
governments agencies, International Organizations, Non-government
Organizations, private agencies including
individual have been strongly supporting and encouraging the wise use and
management of all natural resources for
the healthy sustainable environment and economy of the world and its citizen.
Many governments, donors have been pouring money into uncountable numbers
balancing development and conservation projects around the world.
Unfortunately, majority of those projects themselves are not sustainable,
because once the project funding over, everything is also over, leaving the
term of sustainable development or balancing the use of natural resource for
development in the myth that no any agency and individual has disclosed. The
fact of development is contradictory to the conservation concept, it is rather an
opportunities cost that we have to lose something in order to get another, for example
in order to get a hydropower dam built we have to forego numbers of ecological
species and lose many river ecological functions. Therefore, development and
conservation is never coming to the win-win situation, but the choice has to
make.
Numbers of
government, decision makers’ advisers always come up with different rational
suggestions on whether a development project should be taken place or not when
concerning about environmental or biodiversity conservation. For example, a
mining project, this project will contribute 30 % to the National Gross
Domestic Products, but according to the Social and Environmental Impacts Studies,
the project will affect 200 families surrounding the project site, since there
will be resettlement of those communities to a newly place. In additional to
that, the Environmental Impacts Assessment suggests that number of wildlife
species will evacuate to others areas
due to disturbance from the project, worsen than that there will be huge change
on ecological function in that areas. The question here is what would be the
most rational choice for the government?. Government advisers suggest different
alternative development plan, event some of them suggests not to go ahead with
the development due to social and environmental impacts from this project. My
opinion is that the government should consider the national development by
authorizing the project operation and mitigate social and environmental impacts
caused from this project. Having decided on operating the projects, it is for
sure that the government will be criticized by many environmentalists and
social activists, since some ecological function and social value cannot be
determined by material value and some ecological function will be forever lost.
However, I am sure that every government officers, decision makers, advisers,
all have common sense of protection and conservation, but when it comes to
making a choice in development; many governments and developers are forced to
focus on the wider benefits from development rather than focus on small group
of people and unpredictable change of ecological functions. The decision on
developments are always made base on national interest rather individual need.
There is always choice to make whether you will go for development (change) or
keeping the whole nation undeveloped with unchanged of ecological function. So,
sustainable use of resource and development is something far behind the reality
of development. It is depending on what target a country does focus on.
In conclusion, development caused degradation
of natural resource and impacts to society are inevitable. There is no win-win
situation for the development world, all are opportunity costs and trading off,
everything is connected to everything. However, decision on development project
operation is always made for the sake of national benefits. And human being is
forced to accept the fact that nothing is forever in this planet.
