When is a forest a forest? Papua New Guinea
arguments about definitions; points made so far
HCVF (High Conservation Value Forest, is a colonial construct designed to accommodated the needs of big business and get a working compromise on biodiversity...the proble with that is that it is a technological fix, and ignores landowner processes and land owner
control...the technology takes the issue out of the hands of the landowners
and gives power to the technocrats...
on the basis of our discussions ...landowners know a forest when they see one...
we should not be supporting technocratic fixes that take power away from communities....
We are fed up with FSC...its been hijacked by the industry and Bingos....
there are major problems with FSC self regulation...
our energy should go into helping communities to be strong
HCVF has totally ignored other natural landscapes such as grassland,
non-forest mangroves (like marshes & salt lakes & the like), etc... It
hinges primarily on the 'western' or industrialised nation's obesession on
forests (which has a wide range of uses for local people beyonf
biodiversity).
The issue of where should be avoided for ecologically destructive activities should lie in land and reosurce use in the local context.
The framework for the determination of what should be out of bound or
carefully considered should not be determined by foreigners with a foreign
lens with a very different view of local landscapes. That is a neo-colonial approach.
Northen Australia Program & the Asia-Pacific are particularly contesting the neo-con approach. We seek a post-colonial approach which incorporates indigenous view of landuse and resource
ownership issues.
The problem is with a huge BINGO like the panda - once they've defined
something, it gets picked up and used as a benchmark. They've been
repeatedly criticised by local groups the world over but unfortunately they
are propped up by rich & poweful corporations & governments so the
determination of concept such as HCVF should not & cannot be ignored.
-----
HCVF (High Conservation Value Forest, is a colonial construct designed to accommodated the needs of big business and get a working compromise on biodiversity...the proble with that is that it is a technological fix, and ignores landowner processes and land owner
control...the technology takes the issue out of the hands of the landowners
and gives power to the technocrats...
on the basis of our discussions ...landowners know a forest when they see one...
we should not be supporting technocratic fixes that take power away from communities....
We are fed up with FSC...its been hijacked by the industry and Bingos....
there are major problems with FSC self regulation...
our energy should go into helping communities to be strong
HCVF has totally ignored other natural landscapes such as grassland,
non-forest mangroves (like marshes & salt lakes & the like), etc... It
hinges primarily on the 'western' or industrialised nation's obesession on
forests (which has a wide range of uses for local people beyonf
biodiversity).
The issue of where should be avoided for ecologically destructive activities should lie in land and reosurce use in the local context.
The framework for the determination of what should be out of bound or
carefully considered should not be determined by foreigners with a foreign
lens with a very different view of local landscapes. That is a neo-colonial approach.
Northen Australia Program & the Asia-Pacific are particularly contesting the neo-con approach. We seek a post-colonial approach which incorporates indigenous view of landuse and resource
ownership issues.
The problem is with a huge BINGO like the panda - once they've defined
something, it gets picked up and used as a benchmark. They've been
repeatedly criticised by local groups the world over but unfortunately they
are propped up by rich & poweful corporations & governments so the
determination of concept such as HCVF should not & cannot be ignored.
-----
posted by ferdinand m at 8:37 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home