"Himalayan Perceptions" in context
I've been reading Jack Ives' latest book, Himalayan Perceptions and have found it both illuminating and disturbing. He seems to have picked up where he and Messerli left off in 1989 with that other seminal work, Himalayan Dilemma. As such, Ives' pummeling of what he has termed the "Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation" has gone on for 15 years. He has expended enormous effort at debunking the pernicious belief that the Himalayas are experiencing an environmental super crisis and that mountain farmers are mainly at fault. Furthermore, he has taken up the cause of indigenous mountain people who have often been negatively impacted by the Western conservation ethic as applied in many parts of the Himalayas.
While I agree with much of his arguments over the simplistic and prejudicial views that have been perpetuated since the 1970s, I can't help but think he may be beating a dead horse, or at least engaging in a debate that has long receded into history. His main point that mountain farmers have had far less impact on mountain forests and that even "deforestation" in the hills has played virtually no role in the periodic flooding of the plains, has been well understood in informed circles, even if it has not been taken to heart by more sensational green journalism. Today, few would dare accuse mountain people for wrecking their own commons. However, by overselling the point, Ives may risk aiding and abetting the worst exploiters of the mountains who are wreaking havoc on both the geology and ecology of the region. Due to the political embeddeness of scholarship in the region, environmental skeptics may read into his own skepticism a reason to dither and delay action. While it's vital not to blame the victims of social and environmental injustice, but by subordinating the dramatic changes that are happening due to increased natural resource extraction, urbanization, and tourism, is potentially dangerous. Ives does go through numerous case studies and outlines important caveats, but the overall tone leaves the impression that these are not as serious as the goal of debunking THED.
Interestingly, several statements in the book seem to valorize forests only for their aesthetic value and their role as a source of forest products for local communities. This limited anthropocentric view actually explains a lot. That the forests could also be important habitat for animals in the region is not mentioned at all. This omission becomes quite glaring when its pops up repeatedly throughout the text.
Also, while recognizing overgeneralizations, Ives does not discuss in great detail how THED might actually apply in certain regions. He only briefly mentions the Uttarakhand Himalayas which contradicts the debunking of the Himalayan degradation theory. What's more, it was the mountain people themselves who took notice and acted to prevent worse destruction through the Chipko movement which is only noted in passing if at all.
I think Zurick and Karan actually do a job of bringing together the diverse views and experiences that inform the debate and taking pains to balance them.
The following BBC article reflects THED's conventions. I wonder what the Mountain Forum would say? [link]
While I agree with much of his arguments over the simplistic and prejudicial views that have been perpetuated since the 1970s, I can't help but think he may be beating a dead horse, or at least engaging in a debate that has long receded into history. His main point that mountain farmers have had far less impact on mountain forests and that even "deforestation" in the hills has played virtually no role in the periodic flooding of the plains, has been well understood in informed circles, even if it has not been taken to heart by more sensational green journalism. Today, few would dare accuse mountain people for wrecking their own commons. However, by overselling the point, Ives may risk aiding and abetting the worst exploiters of the mountains who are wreaking havoc on both the geology and ecology of the region. Due to the political embeddeness of scholarship in the region, environmental skeptics may read into his own skepticism a reason to dither and delay action. While it's vital not to blame the victims of social and environmental injustice, but by subordinating the dramatic changes that are happening due to increased natural resource extraction, urbanization, and tourism, is potentially dangerous. Ives does go through numerous case studies and outlines important caveats, but the overall tone leaves the impression that these are not as serious as the goal of debunking THED.
Interestingly, several statements in the book seem to valorize forests only for their aesthetic value and their role as a source of forest products for local communities. This limited anthropocentric view actually explains a lot. That the forests could also be important habitat for animals in the region is not mentioned at all. This omission becomes quite glaring when its pops up repeatedly throughout the text.
Also, while recognizing overgeneralizations, Ives does not discuss in great detail how THED might actually apply in certain regions. He only briefly mentions the Uttarakhand Himalayas which contradicts the debunking of the Himalayan degradation theory. What's more, it was the mountain people themselves who took notice and acted to prevent worse destruction through the Chipko movement which is only noted in passing if at all.
I think Zurick and Karan actually do a job of bringing together the diverse views and experiences that inform the debate and taking pains to balance them.
The following BBC article reflects THED's conventions. I wonder what the Mountain Forum would say? [link]
posted by rajiv | permalink
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home