Your Letters and Comments
Metaphor as Impediment
Millions and millions of hectares of tropical forest have been affected by human action. Research over the last several decades by prominent ethnobotanists, geographers, archaeologists, historical ecologists, tropical ecologists, and anthropologists has forcefully made this point. From the lowland forests of Central America to the hill forests of southeast Asia and the middle of the Congo Basin, the ubiquitous hand of humans has been shown to have affected forest composition, forest presence, species distribution, species composition, nutrient cycling, and even the shape of the underlying land. Oil-palm kernels in Congo, forest islands in flooded grasslands in Bolivia, and stands of tropical fruit trees in Malaysia are all evidence of earlier and, in some cases, ongoing active management of the forests and their environment. This inescapable conclusion was difficult for many of us trained in the tropical ecology of the 1970s as we learned that we, our teachers, and our favorite texts had missed a very important actor on the tropical forest stage. Ecology was no longer just for ecologists.
But does this fact of human agency make these forests any less suitable as objects of conservation action? In his recent piece, Fred Pearce would have us believe the answer to this question is “yes.” Using a set of metaphors—”virginity” and “red in tooth and claw”—he sets up a straw argument concerning the purported belief in “virgin rain forest” that was taken from us over 20 years ago. Like too many metaphors, virginity is ill-suited to advancing either the understanding of forest ecology or its conservation. In fact, a prominent ecologist wrote an article a number of years ago, pleading for the banishment of this term.
The danger in this article and others of its ilk is that it threatens to undermine the value of the natural world. Surely if humans “built” forests, then why mourn their loss because we can just rebuild them. Perhaps we could even build a “better” forest! Forests are not just static entities but thriving, growing, dying, recycling, changing, interacting composites of pieces. Yes, many of them have been influenced by humans, but the tapirs swallowing large-seeded fruit to spit out elsewhere, the termites eating a dead branch underneath an earthen sleeve, the orangutan feasting on durian fruit in a tree orchard, the frog spawning in a bromeliad, and the mycorrrhizae invading a tree root do not care that humans once planted, harvested, dug, lived, and died. They are busy being actors on the ecological stage. Conservation is about saving both these actors and their stage as well as the ever-evolving script—now starring humans as both villains and saviors. Conservation needs to understand that humans have been and continue to be important actors on the ecological stage; in some cases, the things we wish to conserve will require ongoing action by some of these peoples. But what we need is support, not facile metaphor to understand where and when human agency is important to maintain and where and when it spells only destruction.
Kent H. Redford
Wildlife Conservation Society
New York
Setting Things Straight
The feature “Forward Thinkers” in the January-March 2007 issue contained an article appropriately extolling the appointment of Julia Marton-Lefèvre as new Director-General of IUCN. She should indeed provide excellent leadership to the World Conservation Union. However, in her desire to make what seems like a “gender” point, the author slights the historic nongender stance of this organization. She states, “It has been very rare that any such powerful international environmental coalition has been run by a woman.” In fact, however, IUCN in the past 10 years has had two outstanding women as leaders. These were Dr.Yolanda Kakabadse (IUCN President), and Dr. Maritta R. von Bieberstein Koch-Wesser (Director General). Consequently, I do not believe that “The IUCN is in for quite a surprise,” as author Frances Cairncross states. I think that the record needs to be set straight.
Lawrence S. HamiltonSenior Advisor,
Mountain Biome World Commission on Protected
Areas, IUC
A Call for Diversity
I really enjoy reading each issue of Conservation (usually from cover to cover), but I had a problem with “Forward Thinkers” in the January-March 2007 issue. It’s this: you didn’t include a single person from a southern country in your survey of those to watch. Nor were any of the those profiled people of color. Given the global nature of the conservation challenge and actors within it, I found this astonishing. It also doesn’t fit the magazine’s new name and motto. Surely among the best minds and best writers are many
who don’t hail from Northa America or Europe. I’ll look forward to more diversity in future issues.
Mia MacDonaldDirector,
Brighter GreenSenior Fellow,
Worldwatch Institute
Brooklyn, New York
