PRIVATIZING ENVIRONMENTALISM

A reader writes:

This article discusses some of the wins of 'Stewardship Partners', a US conservationist group that works with, not against, private land owners, to forward 'down to earth' conservation aims.

The Australian Land Care movement is probably the most successful environmental group in Australia. Mainly because it focuses on practical measures to improve environmental quality at the local level, and avoids green politics and doomsday scaremongering, most of which has next to nothing to do with what used to be called 'quality of life' issues. Campaigns to encourage farmers to plant more trees have been quite successful. Fostering conservation stewardship on private land is also the path most likely to succeed.

Historically it has been the largest and usually richest private land owners, often aristocrats, that have been the main wildlife preservationists in the long settled countries. Many aristocrats were also hunters, in fact the longest running 'conservation program' in the world protected the Chinese Père David’s deer, which survived exclusively in the Imperial Hunting Park in Beijing for nearly 1,800 years. Few 'national parks' in Australia or the US are likely to survive shifting political fortunes that long. Having government as land manager of large national parks for instance is no guarantee that park authorities will have the resources or political will to protect their conservation value. In Australia, national parks as often as not provide refuges for feral animals as much as native species.

One genuine environmentalist I know says we should consider the heresy of selling off one or two of our national parks to pay for adequate fencing and feral animal control in the remainder. Under current politics, more national parks, the rallying point for green voters, will not equate to better biodiversity protection. At the same time recreational users of national parks, whose interests sometimes compete with conservation, are getting better organised politically.

Environmentalists in Australia are currently campaigning against land clearance, something that brings them into conflict with land owners. A more useful tactic would be to change the incentives private land owners face so as to encourage more conservation. Most of our land taxes and local government rates are based on the assessed market value of land. This puts private owners who want to conserve at a financial disadvantage. The solution would be to replace property value based rates and land taxes with user pays charges for local government services. Of course our green politicians oppose user pays. This site has several case studies of private conservation projects in the US..

A common theme they report is echoed by Fred Hebard, from the American Chestnut Foundation, an outfit dedicated to reviving the american chestnut from a devastating fungus, "government funding is too fickle to support a long term project like restoring the American chestnut."

The lesson of all this would seem to be that greens would be more successful if they put their money where their mouths are. If they want to preserve wilderness they should buy land themselves.

***********************************