In the case of SRWT and the Eastern Moors people "biodiversity" defined in their terms is the stock response when they're called on to justify irrational management decisions. Usually these perversions take the form of attacking nature supposedly in the interests of this said biodiversity. In other words nature itself cannot be trusted. This leads to a certain scepticism whenever the word gets used by the conservation industry.
So I was drawn to the article in today's Guardian with the hardly surprising headline "Biodiversity greater in Earth's protected areas, study finds"
But other questions immediately rise up. For example, what kind of 'protected areas' and how are they managed? How much human intervention and is the land being protected from intrusive conservation projects? Do they mean SSSI and SACs? And how many were being improved/trashed by the dreaded conservation grazing?
But then I noticed that below the article comments were enabled and questions were being asked by others much more qualified than myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment