Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
The State of Natural Capital
Perhaps one can modify a proposition made by Funk (
2008
) and schematize a
relationship between economic development and ecological development based on
the state of 'natural capital'. In such a model, there are two broad, ideal-type, devel-
opment trajectories. In the first, countries which have significant 'natural assets',
would allow their natural resource endowments - sugar, banana, copra, timber,
bauxite, phosphate … - to be mined or harvested and exported, and particularly in
a raw state which means that most of the value added is reaped in other economies;
thus, these countries are not likely to 'develop' beyond 'plantation economy' status.
They transform their land into a mono-crop economy, remain dependent on world
prices, and forego the processing and technological impetus that this involves; and
so, they are not necessarily much richer for what they do (in short:
Rich Land, Poor
Economy
). In contrast, those countries that had no natural capital worth exploiting
to start off with - because of poor soils and fishing grounds, as well as limited fresh
water, exacerbated by high population densities, or because of early deforestation -
would basically have no choice but to promote innovative development policies.
These may include high levels of out-migration (and then remittances), attracting
foreign investment, or otherwise tapping 'rents' from elsewhere, specializing in
such services as tourism and finance; these have typically done well economically,
driven by the need to tap hinterlands and markets beyond their shores (e.g. Kakazu
1994
). Such success attracts immigrants and exacerbates population densities. Bar
some isolated 'pockets' of nature - themselves the subject of intense conflict -
these territories would have ruined any natural capital which they may have
originally enjoyed (in short:
Poor Land, Rich Economy
).
Is there, and can there be, a middle road between these two routes? Can there be
a place which enjoys development but where any 'natural capital' is prized and
conserved, and not adulterated? Can we conceive of an island (and rather than the
much heralded city) as a fully self-supporting 'economy of place' (e.g. Logan and
Molotch
2007
)? The question then becomes: how does one make such natural capi-
tal 'pay' for itself and its maintenance? How does one avoid “picturesque pov-
erty”?
10
Low populations, apart from low population densities, may help (though
this also means that there is less opportunity to reap economies of scale); sustain-
able management practices by indigenous people might help too. The integration of
ecological principles into mainstream development practices is also commendable:
for example, applications related to restoration, rehabilitation, conservation,
sustainability, reconstruction and remediation of ecosystems using ecological engi-
neering techniques are now numerous. Yet: are there other options for revenue
generation, other than niche/eco-tourism, park use and access fees, international
aid, and/or outright sale to private interests? (
Rich Land: but, what Economy?
) The
Biosphere Reserve Management Concept, traced to the early 1970s with UNESCO
and its
Man and the Biosphere
(MAB) program, has evolved to appreciate that the
10
As the Isle of Wight has been described by Councilor Harry Rees. See Arnold (
2003
).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search