Q. 11 GIVE A BRIEF HISTORY OF CONSERVATION?

Early history
The conservation movement can be traced back to John Evelyn's work Sylva, presented as a paper to the Royal Society in
1662. Published as a book two years later, it was one of the most highly influential texts on forestry ever published.[2] Timber
resources in England were becoming dangerously depleted at the time, and Evelyn advocated the importance of conserving
the forests by managing the rate of depletion and ensuring that the cut down trees get replenished.
The field developed during the 18th century, especially in Prussia and France where scientific forestry methods were
developed. These methods were first applied rigorously in British India from the early-19th century. The government was
interested in the use of forest produce and began managing the forests with measures to reduce the risk of wildfire in order
to protect the "household" of nature, as it was then termed. This early ecological idea was in order to preserve the growth of
delicate teak trees, which was an important resource for the Royal Navy. Concerns over teak depletion were raised as early
as 1799 and 1805 when the Navy was undergoing a massive expansion during the Napoleonic Wars; this pressure led to the
first formal conservation Act, which prohibited the felling of small teak trees. The first forestry officer was appointed in 1806
to regulate and preserve the trees necessary for shipbuilding.[3] This promising start received a setback in the 1820s and 30s,
when laissez-faire economics and complaints from private landowners brought these early conservation attempts to an end.
Origins of the modern conservation movement
Conservation was revived in the mid-19th century, with the first practical application of scientific conservation principles to
the forests of India. The conservation ethic that began to evolve included three core principles: that human activity damaged
the environment, that there was a civic duty to maintain the environment for future generations, and that scientific,
empirically based methods should be applied to ensure this duty was carried out. Sir James Ranald Martin was prominent in
promoting this ideology, publishing many medico-topographical reports that demonstrated the scale of damage wrought
through large-scale deforestation and desiccation, and lobbying extensively for the institutionalization of forest conservation
activities in British India through the establishment of Forest Departments. Edward Percy Stebbing warned of desertification
of India. The Madras Board of Revenue started local conservation efforts in 1842, headed by Alexander Gibson, a
professional botanist who systematically adopted a forest conservation program based on scientific principles. This was the
first case of state management of forests in the world.
These local attempts gradually received more attention by the British government as the unregulated felling of trees
continued unabated. In 1850, the British Association in Edinburgh formed a committee to study forest destruction at the
behest of Dr. Hugh Cleghorn a pioneer in the nascent conservation movement.
He had become interested in forest conservation in Mysore in 1847 and gave several lectures at the Association on the
failure of agriculture in India. These lectures influenced the government under Governor-General Lord Dalhousie to
introduce the first permanent and large-scale forest conservation program in the world in 1855, a model that soon spread
to other colonies, as well the United States. In the same year, Cleghorn organised the Madras Forest Department and in
1860 the Department banned the use shifting cultivation. Cleghorn's 1861 manual, The forests and gardens of South India,
became the definitive work on the subject and was widely used by forest assistants in the subcontinent. In 1861, the Forest
Department extended its remit into the Punjab.
Sir Dietrich Brandis, a German forester, joined the British service in 1856 as superintendent of the teak forests of Pegu
division in eastern Burma. During that time Burma's teak forests were controlled by militant Karen tribals. He introduced the
"taungya" system, in which Karen villagers provided labor for clearing, planting and weeding teak plantations. After seven
years in Burma, Brandis was appointed Inspector General of Forests in India, a position he served in for 20 years. He
formulated new forest legislation and helped establish research and training institutions. The Imperial Forest
School at Dehradun was founded by him.
Germans were prominent in the forestry administration of British India. As well as Brandis, Berthold Ribbentrop and Sir
William P.D. Schlich brought new methods to Indian conservation, the latter becoming the Inspector-General in 1883 after
Brandis stepped down. Schlich helped to establish the journal Indian Forester in 1874, and became the founding director of
the first forestry school in England at Cooper's Hill in 1885. He authored the five-volume Manual of Forestry (1889–96)
on silviculture, forest management, forest protection, and forest utilization, which became the standard and enduring
textbook for forestry students.

Conservation in the United States

Conservation in the United States

The American movement received its inspiration from 19th century works that exalted the inherent value of nature, quite
apart from human usage. Author Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) made key philosophical contributions that exalted
nature. Thoreau was interested in peoples' relationship with nature and studied this by living close to nature in a simple life.
He published his experiences in the book Walden, which argued that people should become intimately close with nature.
The ideas of Sir Brandis, Sir William P.D. Schlich and Carl A. Schenck were also very influential - Gifford Pinchot, the first chief
of the USDA Forest Service, relied heavily upon Brandis' advice for introducing professional forest management in the U.S.
and on how to structure the Forest Service.[13][14]
Both conservationists and preservationists appeared in political debates during the Progressive Era (the 1890s—early
1920s). There were three main positions. The laissez-faire position held that owners of private property—including lumber
and mining companies, should be allowed to do anything they wished on their properties.[15]
The conservationists, led by future President Theodore Roosevelt and his close ally George Bird Grinnell, were motivated by
the wanton waste that was taking place at the hand of market forces, including logging and hunting.[16] This practice resulted
in placing a large number of North American game species on the edge of extinction. Roosevelt recognized that the laissez-
faire approach of the U.S. Government was too wasteful and inefficient. In any case, they noted, most of the natural
resources in the western states were already owned by the federal government. The best course of action, they argued, was
a long-term plan devised by national experts to maximize the long-term economic benefits of natural resources. To
accomplish the mission, Roosevelt and Grinnell formed the Boone and Crockett Club, whose members were some of the
best minds and influential men of the day. Its contingency of conservationists, scientists, politicians, and intellectuals
became Roosevelt's closest advisers during his march to preserve wildlife and habitat across North
America.[17] Preservationists, led by John Muir (1838–1914), argued that the conservation policies were not strong enough
to protect the interest of the natural world because they continued to focus on the natural world as a source of economic
production.
The debate between conservation and preservation reached its peak in the public debates over the construction of
California's Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite National Park which supplies the water supply of San Francisco. Muir, leading
the Sierra Club, declared that the valley must be preserved for the sake of its beauty: "No holier temple has ever been
consecrated by the heart of man."
President Roosevelt put conservationist issue high on the national agenda.[18] He worked with all the major figures of the
movement, especially his chief advisor on the matter, Gifford Pinchot and was deeply committed to conserving natural
resources. He encouraged the Newlands Reclamation Act of 1902 to promote federal construction of dams to irrigate small
farms and placed 230 million acres (360,000 mi2 or 930,000 km2) under federal protection. Roosevelt set aside more federal
land for national parks and nature preserves than all of his predecessors combined.[19]
Roosevelt established the United States Forest Service, signed into law the creation of five national parks, and signed the
year 1906 Antiquities Act, under which he proclaimed 18 new national monuments. He also established the first 51 bird
reserves, four game preserves, and 150 national forests, including Shoshone National Forest, the nation's first. The area of
the United States that he placed under public protection totals approximately 230,000,000 acres (930,000 km2).
Gifford Pinchot had been appointed by McKinley as chief of Division of Forestry in the Department of Agriculture. In 1905,
his department gained control of the national forest reserves. Pinchot promoted private use (for a fee) under federal
supervision. In 1907, Roosevelt designated 16 million acres (65,000 km2) of new national forests just minutes before a
deadline.[20]
In May 1908, Roosevelt sponsored the Conference of Governors held in the White House, with a focus on natural resources
and their most efficient use. Roosevelt delivered the opening address: "Conservation as a National Duty".
In 1903 Roosevelt toured the Yosemite Valley with John Muir, who had a very different view of conservation, and tried to
minimize commercial use of water resources and forests. Working through the Sierra Club he founded, Muir succeeded in
1905 in having Congress transfer the Mariposa Grove and Yosemite Valley to the federal government.[21] While Muir wanted
nature preserved for its own sake, Roosevelt subscribed to Pinchot's formulation, "to make the forest produce the largest
amount of whatever crop or service will be most useful, and keep on producing it for generation after generation of men
and trees."[22]
Theodore Roosevelt's view on conservationism remained dominant for decades; - Franklin D. Roosevelt authorised the
building of many large-scale dams and water projects, as well as the expansion of the National Forest System to buy out sub-
marginal farms. In 1937, the Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act was signed into law, providing
funding for state agencies to carry out their conservation efforts.
Since 1970[edit]
Environmental reemerged on the national agenda in 1970, with Republican Richard Nixon playing a major role, especially
with his creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. The debates over the public lands and environmental politics
played a supporting role in the decline of liberalism and the rise of modern environmentalism. Although Americans
consistently rank environmental issues as "important", polling data indicates that in the voting booth voters rank the
environmental issues low relative to other political concerns.
The growth of the Republican party's political power in the inland West (apart from the Pacific coast) was facilitated by the
rise of popular opposition to public lands reform. Successful Democrats in the inland West and Alaska typically take more
conservative positions on environmental issues than Democrats from the Coastal states. Conservatives drew on new
organizational networks of think tanks, industry groups, and citizen-oriented organizations, and they began to deploy new
strategies that affirmed the rights of individuals to their property, protection of extraction rights, to hunt and recreate, and
to pursue happiness unencumbered by the federal government at the expense of resource conservation.[23]
Conservation in Costa Rica
Although the conservation movement developed in Europe in the 18th century, Costa Rica as a country has been heralded
its champion in the current times.[24] Costa Rica hosts an astonishing number of species, given its size, having more animal
and plant species than the US and Canada combined[25] while being only 250 miles long and 150 miles wide. A widely
accepted theory for the origin of this unusual density of species is the free mixing of species from both North and South
America occurring on this "inter-oceanic" and "inter-continental" landscape.[25] Preserving the natural environment of this
fragile landscape, therefore, has drawn the attention of many international scholars.
Costa Rica has made conservation a national priority, and has been at the forefront of preserving its natural environment
with over a quarter of its land designated as protected in some form, which is under the administrative control
of SINAC (National System of Conservation Areas) [26] a division of MINAE (Ministry of Environment, Energy and
Telecommunications). SINAC has subdivided the country into various zones depending on the ecological diversity of that
region - these zones are depicted in figure 1.
The country has used this ecological diversity to its economic advantage in the form of a thriving ecotourism industry,
putting its commitment to nature, on display to visitors from across the globe. It is estimated that a record 2.6 million
foreigners visited the country in 2015,[27] almost half the population of Costa Rica itself. This tourism is facilitated by the fact
that Costa Rica has a stable democracy and has a human development index of 0.776, the highest for any country in Latin
America.[28]
It is also the only country in the world that generates more than 99% of its electricity from renewable sources, relying on
hydropower (78%), wind (10%), geothermal energy (10%), biomass and solar (1%). Critics have pointed out however, that in
achieving this milestone, the country has built several dams (providing the bulk of its electricity) some of which have
negatively impacted indigenous communities as well as the local flora and fauna.[29]
Historical development

Figure 2. 16th century Spanish expansion in the Caribbean

"The Green Republic: A Conservation History of Costa Rica" by Sterling Evans is a renowned book that traces the
development of the conservation movement in Costa Rica from the mid 1700s to present day.[25] Evans mentions that when
the Spaniards first arrived in the Americas, the landscape of Costa Rica did not appear particularly hospitable to them,
compared to Guatemala or Mexico which seemed more reminiscent of the Spanish climate. Therefore, up until the 18th
century, there was very little agricultural development in the region. It also lacked gold and other minerals that Christopher
Columbus had hoped to find in these areas (hence the name, Rich Coast). As a result, the forest cover of Costa Rica was left
more or less intact by the European settlement in the Americas.
By the mid-19th century, it was observed that the Costa Rican soil was particularly conducive to the growth of coffee. The
global demand for coffee was growing rapidly, fueled by the demand from the working class in the industrializing west. The
agricultural model adopted by coffee growers in Costa Rica was of small family owned farms known as cafeteras, and they
strove to be responsible stewards of the land. This approach was in stark contrast to the coffee monoculture that would've
developed by adopting a purely capitalistic ideology. As a result, even though the coffee production increased substantially
from 1850 to 1950, there wasn't large scale deforestation in Costa Rica until the 1950s, contrary to popular belief.[25]
Some of the key points often overlooked in Costa Rica's conservation history between 1850 and 2000 according to Evans,
are as follows:
1. President Bernardo Soto's government in 1888 began the process of attracting scholars from all over the world,
particularly Switzerland and Germany in an effort to educate the locals about agricultural practices harmonious with the
environment such that by 1914, Costa Rica became a leading scientific research center in tropical America
2. The establishment of the University of Costa Rica (UCR) in the 1940s was a landmark event, since the university acted as a
springboard for research into tropical studies in Central America. At the helm of UCR were many influential academics such
as Rafael Lucas Rodríguez and Alexander Skutch whose forward thinking publications served as a foundation for the future
policy decisions. Skutch noted,[25]
"in the mid-1930s, Costa Rica was still largely unspoiled. Its population of less than a half a million people . . .was
concentrated in the narrow Meseta Central. . . . Other advantages . . . to the naturalist were its political stability and the
friendliness of its people. . . . Costa Rica has a record of continuous, orderly constitutional government that scarcely any
other country in Latin America can match. Thus the naturalist working in some remote spot was not likely to have his studies
suddenly interrupted or his thin lines of communication cut by a violent upheaval, as has happened to many in Latin
America. ."
3. By 1950, Costa Rica became heavily reliant on coffee exports to Europe and the US. Around the same time, it was battling
the dilemma between increasing agricultural output on one hand and protecting natural resources for future use on the
other. In 1958, however, the world coffee prices plummeted, and Costa Rica's main source of income was shown to be very
vulnerable to unpredictable forces. The government responded by promoting internal manufacturing and encouraging other
industries. One such industry that emerged as a result, was the meat industry.
The Central American valley has been described as "perfect for cattle" by Carl Hoffman. Until 1970, the cattle raised in Costa
Rica were primarily used for domestic consumption. Around 1970, the demand for beef from the US started showing an
exponential growth due to the rise of the fast-food industry. This robust demand, coupled with the falling coffee prices gave
the cattle industry a boost and forests started getting replaced with pastures. At its worst, Costa Rica was losing 4% of its
forested area per year.
An alternative analysis by Julia Flagg within the framework of "process-tracing" reveals that after gaining independence in
1821 the isolation of Costa Rica from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua was critical in shaping its future and
served as a divergence point in the evolution of the Central American nations.[30] According to Mahoney [31] “ . . . while all of
the other provinces quickly became engulfed in warfare and political chaos, Costa Rica escaped such devastation and made
tentative economic strides forward”. She also argues that the lack of a land-owning elite class in Costa Rica was instrumental
in the development of good governance and maintaining a stable democracy in the country. The abolishing of the military in
1948 helped free up valuable resources that the government chose to invest into education and resource protection.[25] The
country entered into a positive reinforcement cycle thereafter, where new laws enacted drew international praise which
helped solidify Costa Rica's position as global leader in resource protection .