|
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 3/4/2008 5:21:32 PM
Posts: 5, Visits: 27 |
| Wilderness Task Force trip report on IUCN-WCPA Protected Areas Categories Summit in Almeria Spain, May 7-11.
|
| |
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/13/2007 12:22:33 AM
Posts: 1, Visits: 4 |
| | Thanks for this report back Cyril. Just a quick note that I would agree, both in terms of scientific definition and literal clarity, that "biodiversity" is a better term in defining the rationale for Protected Areas than "nature" which i think is too vague. best wishes, karen Karen S. Ross, Wilderness Foundation SA. |
| |
| | | Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/2/2007 1:06:16 PM
Posts: 3, Visits: 6 |
| | The issue of whether "nature" or "biodiversity" is the purpose of protected areas is an important one. Certainly biodiversity is someone more narrowly defined and there is no question that the ecological values are important. "Nature" which is admittedly looser in definition is deliberately so to include artistic, spiritual, cultural dimensions etc. I think the average non-technical person understands what "nature" is even if they couldn't precisely define it. Cetrainly "wilderness" is itself a term with origins in the artistic, poetic, cultural realm. Certainly for most older protected areas the rationale was more "nature" that "biodiversity". I find that for many, many people they will argue from a biodiversity perspective but really, in their heart it is "nature" in its wider dimension that drives them. It's just that this looser ground of subjective, personal, spiritual evaluation is inherently less specific. It cannot be otherwise. That doesn't mean it isn't real just that it cannot be easily frames in legal and scientific language. |
| |
|
|