Often confused or used synonymously, conserving and preserving are different paths. Both are aimed at the well-being of fauna and flora as a whole, but while one is concerned with protection in its strictest sense, the other seeks a sustainable balance with human beings. Conservationism, because it follows a more liberal path, defends the idea of mutual coexistence between nature and man, using the resources offered by the natural environment, through ecologically correct management, in order to think about the future of the next generations and the survival of our own and other species in their natural cycle. These objectives can be achieved by minimizing damage to the environment and still enjoying what it can offer us, whether in the form of resources or quality of life.
Preservationism, on the other hand, is radical and is directly linked to the protection of nature in its strictest sense, often assuming that man is the main culprit for its imbalance. Furthermore, it is totally against any kind of exploitation and use of its resources, repudiating any human intervention. In more colloquial language, we could say that preservation is when we fence off an area and leave it intact: no one or nothing enters or leaves it. It will be preserved as it is. Whereas conservation is not only about protecting, but also about understanding the impacts the area suffers, how the communities around it impact it and generating strategies to mitigate these deleterious effects, while still allowing the area to provide a community with ways of surviving. Conservation encompasses multidisciplinary factors to address and resolve environmental problems and impacts.
Concern about the environment began when it was noticed that natural resources, especially during the European Industrial Revolution, were not as infinite as had been believed. At that time, there was already scientific discussion about the importance of maintaining natural areas and even about reforestation, but for most people at the time, the idea was absurd, and even infringed on religious precepts of the time. It wasn't until 1892, in the United States of America, that the first systematic forestry work began, giving rise, for example, to the American National Forestry Institute. In Brazil, it was only in 1970 that the issue began to be debated, after a number of environmental impacts and ecologically unplanned exploitation of natural resources. Even so, it wasn't until the 1980s that the ideology of environmental protection gained credibility, especially due to international pressure and waves of environmental activism in the decade.
Initially, the ideas and proposals for environmental protection were aligned with Preservationism, with a more radicalized vision that followed an almost utopian mode, sometimes in conflict with the idea of human population expansion and progress. With the aim of preserving resources such as fishing, wildlife, water, soil and other natural resources, national parks began to be created, in which construction, deforestation, hunting and the use of resources were prohibited. In Brazil, following the same North American trend, several national parks were created.
It is now known that preservation alone is not enough to allow species to survive in an area, as there are important ecological relationships that need to be understood through research into ecosystems. Such research often leads to the development of conservation strategies that require human action, such as ex situ breeding programs for endangered species. In addition, preservation alone does not help human communities to survive in a sustainable way, and can even lead to a community's dissatisfaction with the existence of a natural area or to illegal exploitation of the resources contained therein. The most recent and up-to-date environmental laws follow this line of reasoning, and so we have been able to do some conservation work. However, there are still flaws and problems in its execution, especially in the lack of supervision, corruption and conflict of social interests. The debate between the two concepts ("preserving versus conserving") has always existed and still exists strongly, but we must reflect and think about which is correct, conserving or preserving? How can we use resources rationally? Should we keep natural areas away from humans in a restricted way? The questions about this discussion are endless, with ideals that go hand in hand but with totally different paths, with enforcement laws that in our country are not applied correctly and with the critical chance of losing several species of animals and plants. We should reflect and analyze what the ideal path really is, thinking about all the environments we live in and the way we live. Perhaps the most correct answer is: It depends. After all, why not conserve and preserve too? Each strategy may be the most appropriate in different situations.
Comentarios