Biodiversity, including entire habitats and ecosystems, is recognized to be of great social and economic value. Conserving biodiversity has therefore become a task of international NGO’s as well as grass-roots organisations. The ‘classical’ model of conservation has been characterised by creation of designated nature areas to allow biodiversity to recover from the effects of human activities. Typically, such areas prohibit entry other than through commercial ecotourism or necessary monitoring activities, but also often involve commodification nature. This classical conservation model has been criticized for limiting valuation of nature to its commercial worth and for being insensitive to local communities. Simultaneously, ‘new conservation’ approaches have emerged. Propagating openness of conservation approaches, ‘new conservation’ has counteracted the calls for strict measures of biodiversity protection as the only means of protecting biodiversity. In turn, the ’new conservation’ was criticised for being inadequate in protecting those species that are not instrumental for human welfare. The aim of this article is to inquire whether sustainable future for non-humans can be achieved based on commodification of nature and/or upon open approaches to conservation. It is argued that while economic development does not necessarily lead to greater environmental protection, strict regulation combined with economic interests can be effective. Thus, economic approaches by mainstream conservation institutions cannot be easily dismissed. However, ‘new conservation’ can also be useful in opening up alternatives, such as care-based and spiritual approaches to valuation of nature. Complementary to market-based approaches to conservation, alternative ontologies of the human development as empathic beings embedded in intimate ethical relations with non-humans are proposed. https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
DOCUMENT
Halfway through the UN 2030 Agenda of Sustainable Development Goals (2015–2030), the achievement of most of the proposed targets have been lagging behind, as has been confirmed in recent UN and UNESCO reports. While these reports mostly provide external features which cause the delay, this paper analyses and addresses possible features within the UN 2030 Agenda which might explain that shortfall. These include an unflagging belief in economic growth and a lack of an analysis of causes, as well as problems to do with costs and benefits of particular SDGs. Hence, the application of some SDGs might be counterproductive for the environment – and thus for sustainability. This article highlights outcomes of analyses of the Agenda, zooms in on SDG4 on education and presents alternative, more promising avenues concerning the SDGs. The 2030 Agenda and the alternative approaches are interpreted in terms of a shallow ecological (mechanistic) and a deep ecological (organic) worldview. We then propose ways forward for critical policy discourse analysis that may enhance the capacity of the UN 2030 Agenda in the direction of what they are meant to do: global cooperation toward a sustainable rearrangement of human life on earth.
LINK
I shall use this editorial to express my mixed feelings about the COVID-19 pandemic that affected our lives strongly, personally and professionally, in very different ways for over two years. Going back to our schools, colleges and universities, without even wearing facemasks, sometimes feel a bit unfamiliar. This unfamiliarity also touches upon the way we think and act in our daily work. We are virtually standing at a crossroads: are we returning to our previous routines or moving ahead by incorporating our new pandemic-related experiences into our routines?
DOCUMENT
