The Nature Conservancy
Hey everyone, thanks for a great class last night! For this coming week, please make at least one post about the Nature Conservancy--solely based on the readings that are on the class CD-Rom. What do you think of the organization based on the news articles? Did they make you reconsider how you picture the Nature Conservancy?
After you've read them and posted the blog, skim through the journal article on the Nature Conservancy--and we'll discuss that in class on Wednesday.
Also, if you picked up a copy of the blogging survey--remember you can use it to replace an extra blog for this wk, any previous wk, or any future wk. I just need them turned in next Wednesday night.
Have a good wkend--and the email with the link to the annual report project will be coming up shortly!
After you've read them and posted the blog, skim through the journal article on the Nature Conservancy--and we'll discuss that in class on Wednesday.
Also, if you picked up a copy of the blogging survey--remember you can use it to replace an extra blog for this wk, any previous wk, or any future wk. I just need them turned in next Wednesday night.
Have a good wkend--and the email with the link to the annual report project will be coming up shortly!
posted by Richard @ 11:59 AM
1 Comments:
At 6:44 PM, October 22, 2006,
Giselle said…
I think I fall somewhere in the middle between the assertions that both sets of articles make.
I agree with Stephenson & Chaves that a lot of the language used in the Washington Post pieces was probably intended for dramatic effect. However, I could argue that Stephenson & Chaves' use of the "price and the pauper" metaphor was similarly intended.
That being said, I don't think TNC is blameless. Their "conservation buyer" program raises a red flag for me, especially since the buyers are receiving financial benefits from the deal. The level of development allowed on these parcels (as detailed in the last of the Stephens & Ottaway articles) is disturbing. Maybe I'm old-fashioned in my understanding of preservation, but I thought the whole point is to minimize the amount of activity and development on the land - while it's true that a single family home won't have the same effect as a subdivision would, it's still more damaging that leaving it alone completely. True, TNC does own 2 million preserved acres outright (including 1,400 nature preserves) - which is great, but their other side land projects cast a shadow on some of their other "good deeds."
As for the corporate partnerships, Stephenson & Chaves have a great quote: "the writers might just have easily have argued, however, that an environmental organization formed to preserve biodiversity cannot avoid dealing with polluting organizations if it is to pursue its mission seriously, and far better for that entity to be involved with those organizations constructively than not." I see it as a conflict of interest when executives representing companies sanctioned by the EPA are members of TNC's board. The Post article quotes a TNC source claiming the group "avoids criticizing the environmental records of its corporate board members", which I interpret as turning a blind eye to their transgressions as long as they're able to serve the organization in other ways (ie. land deals, etc.) - which raises governance and accountability issues.
These articles left me wondering who it is really that TNC is serving. Are they truly serving the environment by helping to preserve land and endangered species, or are they more focused on being a corporate social responsibility conduit for corporations?
Post a Comment
<< Home