In Peru, however, some people depend on resources they can find near where they live– and sometimes this means in or near parks. Without the support of these people countless opportunities to protect ecosystems, animals, plants, and cultures might be lost. Legal protections for parks generally go ignored by people who are in need and often such laws are challenging if not impossible to enforce in remote areas anyway. The key for conservation in Peru and elsewhere seems to rest upon finding a middle ground upon where communities choose to help protect natural resources, while also benefiting from the use of these resources in a sustainable manner.

So how have Peru and countless other countries tried to address this challenge? By inviting people who have a stake in national parks and other protected areas to participate in the creation of plans that will guide how these places are protected and utilized for economic gain. While sometimes extraordinarily successful, it’s not surprising that many of these management plans often fall short, and do not end up accomplishing their goals. The public participation processes used to make management plans are sometimes utilized by park managers as a manipulative means to have communities accept already decided upon objectives, or the goals agreed upon during the processes are not easily achieved or are poorly funded. But these failures might be a thing of the past, as researchers in Peru’s Cordillera Azul National Park have perhaps revolutionized conservation through an innovative strategy. It seems to have empowered communities in the buffer zones of the park and won their confidence and support.

Read more of this story »

Interested parties can now let the agency know what they think on EPA’s new interactive Web page (I’d love to a fly on that digital wall). Additionally, agency officials will be made available occasionally online for interactive chat sessions. The first of these was held last Thursday, when EPA’s chief information officer Molly O’Neill was made available for answering questions interactively online.

It is no secret that, under the Bush administration, the EPA has cut back on information available to the public through channels like the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and the EPA libraries. The administration has also been under tremendous scrutiny for interference with EPA science on several separate occasions throughout the last seven years. And in a recent report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 900 employees of the EPA feel like their work has been interfered with for political reasons; sixty-percent of those who responded to the Union’s survey encountered some form of executive manipulation.

Read more of this story »