Author: Cara Trettel

The conservation movement began in the United States around 1890. Influential people like John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, and Gifford Pinchott worked to create national parks in an attempt to preserve the natual world.  

 

There are many motivations for preserving nature. Around the beginning of the 20th century, the romanticism movement encouraged people to retreat into nature to find inner peace, or to feel God’s presence. They put an emphasis on the sublime power of nature, and thus people wanted to protect it for the sake of its own beauty.  

 

Many sought out these places that are seemingly untouched by humans. In modern times, the tradition remains. People go out into the great unknown to lose themselves, and to feel a part of something greater. Unfortunately, these spaces are not untouched by humans. They were tailored to humanity. Safaris, hiking trails, nature preserves, these have all been created for our enjoyment, and they are often created at a price. 

 

The land used to create these nature reserves is often stolen from the indigenous people who were forcefully evicted from the land that generations have lived off of, and who are sometimes killed in the process. They are torn away from sites of deep cultural and religious importance because their carefully crafted methods are deemed detrimental to the health of the land.  

 

As the climate continues to warm, more and more of these native lands are being taken in an effort to protect biodiversity and sequester carbon emissions. Ironically, it is the practices of the native people that made the land so rich in biodiversity. When the natives are removed from their land, their rights are being ignored and the land governments were attempting to save steadily loses its value. It is time for the indigenous people to be involved in conservation efforts. For the benefit of the local people and the valuable ecosystems they have created. 

Fast Fashion is the mass production of cheap, disposable clothing. In around the last 20 years fast fashion has become a commonplace in the industry. Clothes are cheaper than ever because they aren’t made to last. But why should they be made to last? With trends changing so quickly consumers are constantly updating their wardrobes and discarding clothes after only a few wears, but this is only the start of the issues with the fast fashion industry. 

 

The fashion industry is the second largest polluter, right behind oil. In many of the countries where these products are produced, the wastewater is dumped straight into rivers. The industry also requires mass amounts of water, which is not as much of a plentiful resource as Americans are led to believe. Waste is another huge problem in the fashion industry. Clothing dumped in landfills can take up to 200 years to decompose.  

 

The conditions under which most textiles are produced is appalling. The employees generally work in unsafe buildings with no ventilation, causing them to breathe in toxic substances. Accidents, fires, injuries, and disease are common occurrences. Additionally, the workers often face verbal and physical abuse. 

 

With all the technology available today, there is no need for the clothing industry to have such a disastrous impact on the environment. There is a time crunch on how far the biophysical boundaries of the Earth can be pushed before extreme consequences are unavoidable. Addressing the problems with the fashion industry will help to limit the harmful impact humanity is having on the environment, and it will raise the quality of life for industry workers.  

 

For this advocacy project, I chose to create an infographic. When people go shopping, they don’t set out to harm the environment or to support the mistreatment of factory workers. This is an issue that goes deeper than most people are aware of. Giving them the facts will expose the ugly nature of the fashion industry and will inspire change. Facts may not be enough, however. Facts can be forgotten easily. That is will my infographic will also contain visuals that will use pathos to really grab the consumers attention and make them feel a connection to the issue.  

 

Consumers can vote with their dollars to make the difference, so they are my target audience. I am partnering with Sustain Your Style, an organization dedicated to exposing the harmful nature of the fashion industry and to helping consumers make sustainable choices when purchasing clothing.  

 

Project memo (for website): “Are you aware of the true cost of fashion? The Cost of Fashion infographic exposes the ugly side of the modern fashion industry which is built up of a long history of crimes against the environment and humanity. Read it to find out the true cost of fashion and how you can become part of the solution.” 

Thesis 

Fortress conservation is ineffective; it harms both the environment and the indigenous people. The United Nations should issue new legislation giving indigenous people the right to be a part of the conservation effort. This legislation should be coupled with the creation of a committee to ensure that proper action is being taken.  

 

Solution 

I am proposing a system change solution. No longer should Fortress conversation be utilized to protect biodiversity. This method is ineffective, it harms the land, and it prompt great acts of injustice to be performed against the indigenous people who have been preserving the land thus far. In replacement of this method, community conservation should be implemented. The indigenous people should be part of the conversation about how to best protect the land since, after all, they know it far better than anyone.  

 

My proposed policy should be implemented by the United Nations. The United Nations (UN) already has policies relating to this matter, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights for Indigenous People. During an International Expert Group Meeting on the topic, they took stock of the current impacts and challenges of conservation and identified the gaps that currently exist between the standards and policies that exist with respect to the rights of indigenous people and their lack of implementation. One recommendation that they came up with to bridge that gap is to set a global set of standards to realize the rights of indigenous people in conservation contexts.  

 

An issue with this plan is that the standards will be difficult to enforce. Potential ways to combat this would be to set up a designated committee to ensure that all countries, especially those known to practice Fortress conservation, are including indigenous people in their land conservation efforts. The committee could be required to have a member present at meetings between nations and the indigenous people when crafting the new conservation framework. Additionally, they should meet with the indigenous people to ensure that their rights are not being violated.  

 

An example of the benefits that occur when indigenous people are included in conservation efforts can be found in and around the village of Pakwach, Uganda, with the Snares to Wears initiative. In this community-based conservation initiative, they are simultaneously transforming lives and addressing the issue of wildlife poaching by empowering local artisans to transform the wire snares used in poaching animals, into wire sculptures of the animals that they are saving. Proceeds from the sale of these sculptures are used in the community to sustain these transformations.  

 

According to one report issued by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), indigenous and local communities contribute in many significant ways to biodiversity. It has been discovered that common techniques used among the indigenous people such as combining wild and domestic species in gardens and traditional burning practices promote biodiversity. They also carry out ecological restoration of degraded lands, as shown by the indigenous communities in the Pacific Northwest who restored the populations of native plant species and shellfish.  

 

In Hungary, traditional herders allowed livestock to graze in grasslands. This promoted biodiversity by maintaining the balance of plant species. When the government intervened by establishing national parks, they discouraged, restricted, and even banned this practice. In the past few decades, scientists have come to realize the crucial role that the herders played in managing the grasslands, and they have reintroduced the practice.  

 

Indigenous communities succeed at conservation because they have a long history of living off the land. This gives them a better understanding of the ecosystem and its dynamics. Indigenous people also tend to have a reciprocal relationship with nature where they look to nature to provide for them, but they also work to provide for nature.  

 

Although there are many benefits of including indigenous people in conservation efforts, there are also many obstacles in doing so. In many nations there is deeply rooted discrimination against indigenous people. There ways of living are often seen as dirty and subhuman. Combating this prejudice will be very difficult to do. Additionally, many governments in Asia and Africa have a focus on integrationist and assimilationist policies. In these nations, there is a lack of policies for community-based conservation efforts, and several policies that oppress the indigenous people. In some cases, the chapters for large conservation organizations are simply not informed about changes made to international policy.  

 

My policy proposal differs from the other existing ones in that it demands more of a follow through. Rather than just making legislation that often does not even get mentioned to those whose position is enforcing it, I am proposing a piece of legislation that will create a committee to enforce it. With clear communication of what is expected of nations, and careful monitoring to ensure that the indigenous people are not being mistreated or overruled, hopefully indigenous rights will stop being overlooked and biodiversity will be effectively preserved.  

The advocacy group I would hypothetically partner with is called TEBREBBA, the Indigenous People’s International Center for Policy Research and Education. This organization was founded by Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. She is also an indigenous leader of the Kankanaey Igorot people in the Philippines, who has been fighting for the advancement of rights for indigenous people and rural women since the 1970s.  Victoria is also a key author of Cornered by Protected Areas, a publication that sheds light on the harmful nature of Fortress conservation. 

 

The organization is fighting for indigenous people’s rights, self-determined development, biodiversity, the Philippine Program, and against climate change. They do so by creating reports, conducting global workshops and conferences, and though publicizing their work in magazines, journal, and books.  

 

Since a key part of their goal is to bring education and awareness to their key issues, and to gather diverse views to figure out how best to solve the issues, the conferences and workshops that they put on are key. One such conference was the Up Global Indigenous Peoples’ Consultation on “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD).“ During this three day conference, they listened to the situation that indigenous groups in many different countries are facing regarding government persecution and loss or lack of land rights. After assessing the situation, they proposed courses of action such as capacity building.  

 

I would partner with this organization because they represent the very people who need to be represented in the fight against Fortress conservation. It is their opinions and needs that should be listened to.  

There are is an important distinction to make between the words conservation and preservation. Preservation is ecocentric. It aims to preserve nature for its own sake. Conservation, on the other hand, is utilitarian in nature. It aims to protect resources for the benefit of mankind.  

 

There are two different approaches to conservation: Community or Participatory conservation and Fortress conservation. Community conservation is the traditional management style, which listens to the wants of the people. The efforts are often enforced at a local scale, to ensure that the needs of the people are being accurately met. It also encourages those helped through the project to take part. 

 

Fortress conservation is much more harmful. This conservation model is built on the belief that biodiversity is best protected by isolating ecosystems to save them from human disturbances. This model is very dangerous because it assumes that indigenous people are misusing the land. It blames the native people for biodiversity loss and environmental degradation by claiming that their land use practices are irrational and destructive.  

 

Fortress conservation often kicks native people out of their own land, on which they are heavily dependent. The land is then protected by rangers who patrol the borders of the land, enforcing its protection through a “fines and fences” approach. Arguably, the most horrific component of this model is that the land is not left entirely at peace. In this approach, appropriate uses of the land include tourism, safari hunting, and scientific research. Why are these practices deemed acceptable, yet people living off the land that they have a deep respect for is labeled a misuse? 

 

All around the world, indigenous people are being forcefully removed from their lands in the name of protecting biodiversity. Ironically, it is the indigenous people’s land use tactics that help to safeguard this biodiversity. In fact, 80% of our planet’s remaining biodiversity is on indigenous land. Removing these native communities from their homes is a human rights violation, and it actually hurts the land people were trying to protect. 

 

Fortress conservation has been identified as active in 27 different countries around the world, and it continues to spread. The global network of protected lands increased by 80% between 1970 and 1985. Between 1980 and 2005, the proportion of Earth’s land surface in protected areas tripled. Currently protected areas account for 15% of the world’s land surface excluding Antartica, and 7% of the world’s oceans. 

 

Ingenious people are encountering appalling violations of their basic rights. They are being forcefully evicted from their lands, which puts them at greater risk for marginalization, poverty, food insecurity, and loss of livelihoods. Additionally, extrajudicial killings are being executed to remove the natives. The indigenous people are being torn away from spiritual sites and denied access to justice. 

 

In 2017, an analysis found that over 250,000 people, spanning 15 countries, were forcefully evicted in to create protected lands between the years of 1990 and 2014. The analysis also found that up to one billion people were affected by conflicts in forest reserves.  

 

Extrajudicial killings are becoming increasingly common. These are justified as being necessary for the sake of protecting biodiversity. A 2017 report found that authorities in India’s Kaziranga National Park were responsible for 106 extrajudicial killings in the preceding 20 years. These so-called necessary killings were even committed against children and the elderly. The Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, and South Africa have also been known to use military action in the name of conservation.  

 

Although there is no standard means of documenting the complaints of indigenous people against protected areas, a 2015 study found that 34 conflicts existed between indigenous people and local communities and protected areas in 21 countries. Only ten of these countries had legislation for the restitution of land to the affected communities, but application of this legislation is often weak. Six of the 21 countries had laws that specifically allowed the eviction and relocation of indigenous people for the purpose of creating protected areas.  

 

The United States was not included in the list of the 27 countries, but its history was built on injustices against the American Indians. A lot of these injustices happened at the time of colonization, but they continue to occur. The majority of these injustices against the native people in America are not done in the name of conservation, but there are instances of it, nevertheless. For example, the National Parks were created thanks Fortress conservation.  

 

As the climate change situation continues to worsen, more and more native land is going to be forcefully taken in the name of Fortress conservation. Although climate change could be considered either an intentional or inadvertent cause, there is no doubt that the injustices being committed against the indigenous people in the name of conservation is intentional. Global environmental policies need to be adjusted to include the indigenous people in conservation efforts. This will be beneficial for both the native people, and for the biodiversity that nations are trying to protect.  

For my issue brief, I intend to focus on the problem of how to decrease carbon dioxide emissions in Virginia, my home state. There is great exigence for discussing this issue. Universally, governing bodies are trying to keep global warming at 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius, with a favor more towards 1.5, for 2030. Keeping global warming at or below this level will help the world to avoid the worst effects of climate change.  

 

Climate change could either be considered an intentional or inadvertent cause. The disastrous affect that carbon dioxide has on our atmosphere has been known about for a long time, yet appropriate action has not been taken to contain this problem. On the other hand, this was not a result anyone intentionally set out to create. It happened as a cost of the industrial revolution and creating progress in other important areas for human life and wellbeing.  

 

I would approach my policy as either an inducement or a capacity builder. Inducements are common when trying to solve environmental issues. It would be unfair to mandate change, since that would hurt those that cannot afford it. Creating incentives will help those who can afford it to implement the necessary change. These people are often the biggest emitters anyway. Using a capacity builder strategy is also an appealing option. If I created a policy that made sustainability a topic that must be covered in school educations, this will help bring awareness to the issue, and it could help to inspire people to make change.  

I am without a doubt an optimist. Whenever I receive bad news, the first words out of my mouth are “Well at least…” As soon as I heard that classes were cancelled, I was crushed. I knew it was a possibility, and I thought I prepared myself for it, but I found myself rapidly going through the five stages of grief before finally being able to think positively. 

 

I told myself that I could make the best of the situation. I could do homework at the library, see my friends from high school, return to my dance studio, maybe make time for the gym, and I could even arrange to meet up with college friends. I was upset not to return to school, and I was daunted by the idea of trying to participate in an architecture studio online, but I thought I could make the situation work.  

 

The situation rapidly worsened. As I quickly found myself quarantined in my home, I found that all my ways to make the situation better had been taken away. Nevertheless, I was determined to find good in this situation. 

 

I know that I have a habit of seeing thing as the way I think they should be and working from there. This situation forced me to actually accept that I have limited control. I have to accept the situation for what it is and to make the most of that. And there are good things in it. 

 

Although we are practicing social distancing, communities are coming together to help each other. College students and teenagers who now find themselves at home are volunteering to babysit for those who are still at work and who need childcare. Community members are checking up on those most at risk: the elderly, those who have recently undergone surgery, and those with chronic health conditions. My friends who were dreading a week home for spring break, due to personal tensions with family members or friends, and now they have been forced to address those issues and to resolve them. Although no one is happy about this situation, we are all trying our bests to accommodate everyone in their own unique situation, and to help each other. 

 

There is no shortage of bad things to focus on right now. But maybe it is the overwhelming bad, that helps us to really appreciate the good in our lives right now. Times are tough, but so is humanity. 

I attended a public deliberation on what should happen to those imprisoned for marijuana possession should recreationally use of the drug be legalized.  

 

Their first approach involves upholding legislature of the past. In this approach, they made the case that those already convicted for marijuana charges would remain imprisoned for the remainder of their sentences. This seems to be a likely outcome considering that the United States is one of the few countries in the world that does not grant retroactive ameliorative relief. A precedent case confirming this occurred with the repeal of Prohibition. The underlying belief of this approach is that punishments exist to deter the general public from committing crimes, thus should the punishment be lifted, crime would increase.  

 

Approach number two is to update punishment to current legislation. In more simplistic terms, this means releasing those who were formally charged and imprisoned for marijuana possession. A precedent also exists for this approach. In 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the legalization of marijuana possession enabled former offenders to appeal their offenses. Since the United States court systems are already overwhelmed this should be systematically automated, meaning that former criminals would be expunged and released without necessitating bureaucratic processing. The argument for this approach is that the government would no longer have a reason to disincentivize marijuana so thus maintaining incarcerations would be at best a waste of prison space, and at worst a gross violation of the foundation of our judicial system.  

 

The third and final approach involves administering reparative justice, meaning that prisoners would not only be released, but also compensated for the punishment inflicted under these charges. Deep-seated racism was the driving factor for marijuana’s initial federal criminalization, and today the vast majority of those imprisoned for marijuana offenses are black or Latino. A precedent for this approach would be the attempted retributions made to the Japanese Americans held in internment camps. This approach is also justified by the Lockean perspective which believes that it is the responsibility of the legal system to provide, “satisfaction due to any private man, for the damage he has received.” 

 

Overall, I thought this was a very captivating subject for a public deliberation. As an increasing amount of states decriminalize and legalize the drug, it is appearing more and more likely that this will be implemented at the national level. Thus, it is important to remember those who are most deeply affected by this, and to ensure that they receive fair treatment.  

This I Believe Podcast Ideas: 

I have always been a firm believer in the idea of judging a person based on their intentions, rather than the results of their actions. We have all experienced a time when our good intentions had disastrous consequences. Not every potential consequence of an action can be thought through. Although dealing with any situation like that can be stressful, I would much rather surround myself with people whose good intentions have a tendency to go amiss than people who choose to cause harm in a fit of rage.  

 

The same can be said about the quality of intentions that produce good results. The benefit of someone helping me for their own selfish interests does not compare to one helping me purely out of the kindness of their heart.  

 

To explain this belief there are a myriad of examples I could reference from my own life, with myself being on either end of the situation; however, the anecdote that I believe will best articulate my point stems from being on the reacting side. I have not decided to commit to this example yet, but I am currently considering discussing the time that my sister decided to meddle in my life by signing me up for activities within the youth group at our church since she thought I needed more friends of a better quality. At the time I was really upset with her for this because who is she to decide that I need new friends? However, I understand that she was coming from a place of concern and had good intentions.  

 

My other idea for this podcast is that spite is a powerful motivator. A while back, a close friend made the observation that I act largely out of spite. I was not entirely sure how to take that at the time, but now that I am self-aware of this, I have found it to be a beneficial trait. This podcast would need to have a categorical structure to the body of it since I feel unable to insert a solid personal anecdote without sounding like a third-grader’s essay about a time they showed perseverance. Nevertheless, I could include smaller examples of the two ways this belief is shown in my life: 1) if someone doubts my ability to complete an action, then that gives me the necessary drive and motivation to complete it to the best of my ability and 2) once I heard that procrastination largely stems from a fear of failure, and since that moment I have refused to allow that fear of failure to prevent me from starting assignments. This life philosophy is not about never backing down from a challenge, but rather about not allowing obstacles to get in the way of achieving.  

 

Civic Issues Ideas: 

 

Access to water is a significant issue for people around the world. The scale of this issues varies greatly, from the crisis in Flint, Michigan, to the droughts in California, to severe water scarcity issues in places like Cape Town, South Africa. In this blog, I could discuss the various water problems places face, and how they handle the issues. I could also discuss the future of water: are our demands raising to an unsustainable level? What other ramifications do these water shortages cause? What new technologies are emerging to resolve these issues? 

 

My second idea is to discuss the role media plays in politics. I could research to see what measurable effects have been recorded since media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook became places where people could share their political opinions with the world. Additionally, I could research whether or not people trust news when it is delivered through a social media platform. We have all heard the sarcastic saying, “Oh, well if you read it on the internet then it must be true,” but how often do we really take that into account? I would also find it interesting to discuss the power media has over politics at the levels of large-scale news networks, celebrities, and the common individual.  

For the upcoming paradigm shift project, I intend to focus on how the special needs population is being treated in our country. In the past, they were pushed aside, but in contemporary times they have begun to be celebrated members of society.  

 

This issue is especially significant to me because in high school, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to work very closely with many members of my school’s special needs program. As a member of my high school’s dance team, I was able to perform several routines with members of this program. Every single one of those kids has a heart of gold, and they were such a delight to be around. After forming relationships with several of those kids, I was motivated to join Buddy Club in my senior year. This club simply allowed me the chance to spend more time with those kids by hanging out with them after school, or at special dances.  

 

Buddy Club, and other such events, have not always been a part of the typical high school experience. In fact, in many places it still might not be. The first nationwide public special education came from the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This act made it so that the millions of children who were being denied an appropriate education solely due to their disability could receive a proper education. Even with the passing of this act, it took some time for this act to largely go into affect.  

 

In 1990, the act was changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The wording was changed to be more sensitive to the people the act benefits. They are not people who are handicapped and are forced to have a dependence on the charity of others. And most importantly, they are individuals. They should not be defined by their disabilities.  

 

Today, children with disabilities do not have to face the same discrimination that others did as recently as the 1970s. They are not as likely to be given up for adoption, and they are given the opportunity to interact with their peers in traditional classrooms. They are even becoming celebrated members of society through events such as the Special Olympics.  

 

I am thoroughly interested in analyzing the shift this group of people faced from mass discrimination to celebration. I understand that there is still more improvements to be made in this field, but analyzing how change has come about in the past sheds light on how to bring future change.