Again, my thanks to those who have responded, even taking time over the weekend to do so.
BUT, just in case the thread shows new life and interest and contributions once the work week starts, and I very much hope that will be the case, let me clarify my intent in the posting I contributed to the thread on Saturday. I am not really interested, in fact I'm not at all interested, in validating or vindicating what Johann Hari had to say in the essay he published in The Nation on March 22, this year. The essay, it seems to me, is provocative because of the questions it raises, not because of the conclusions it reaches. As others have already noted, the essay in and of itself is insufficiently substantial to sustain any conclusions. The operative part of my Saturday posting, then, is this: So, what has been and is now, in the face of climate change, the global conservation value of a political strategy centered on the designation and management of protected areas (with or without connective "corridors"). What relevance does this strategy have going forward, both for wildlife and for local populations deriving value from protected area resources? How is the case for species and habitat protection being framed, how is it being financed, and how is it being carried out? I wonder if we could identify a small group of colleagues who have interesting, worthwhile, and research-based things to say about these questions, most especially if it rests on empirical analysis of the work in various parts of the world of groups like Conservation International and TNC, and of the ways in which, on the ground, they are constructing a politics to protect nature as climate changes? If we can, we might have the basis for a publication project that JIWLP can nurture. Paul, David, and Rodrigo have noted pieces in print or about to be published. But I am looking for authors, and recommendations for authors, for three or four manuscripts reporting empirical work that is as yet unpublished and pretty directly addresses the questions, above.* If readers prefer to respond off list, that's fine with me. I will be happy, later, to share a summary of what turns up with the list as a whole. Geoffrey. --------------------------------- * And they are, let's face it, pretty narrow questions, and are framed very much with the international wildlife law and policy interests of the Journal in mind. The entry, noted by Rodrigo, in the blog maintained by David Cleary at The Nature Conservancy does show, however, that they are questions on the mind of people doing what they believe to be good international nature conservation work on the ground and meriting, therefore, thoughtful analysis. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gep-ed+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
