107
and places limits on human property rights. It will be implicit in such a framework
that property owners will look to nature as the standard or measure for their action.
Consider, for example, that the Nigerian Government passed a law which recognised that the water bodies in Nigeria had the right to a healthy flow of water. Plainly
such a law would conflict with the pre-existing rights of landowners, farmers and
towns to draw water to meet their own needs. On a purely individualistic account of
rights, this dispute would focus on the adversarial clashing of interests and a legal
hierarchy would be established to settle the dispute. If the focus is on relationship,
then both social and environmental contexts become relevant to resolving the dispute. A court could examine their respective needs and their specific relationship.
From a conservation perspective, a good outcome would be that the irrigators’ right
to draw water would become encumbered. This does not remove the irrigators’
right; it contextualises its use and requires careful consideration and knowledge of
the needs of the river and the unique function it plays in the ecosystem. Water could
be drawn to the extent that these vital functions are maintained.
Setting realistic, measurable and locally relevant biodiversity objectives will provide a sound basis for the negotiation of trade—offs that would result in the implementation of eco relationalism. It is important to recognize that local people may
have their own priorities for Nature that differ from those of outside conservation
groups. Building on these may provide a sound basis for securing local buy—in
(Sheil et al. 2006). It is also important to recognize that sustainable use of biodiversity may be a more attractive option for local people than total protection. If people
can benefit from using a species they are more likely to conserve it. This goes to
question the reality of either pure anthropocentrism or ecocentrism. Aldo Leopold
realized this paradox and wrote: ‘conservation is a state of harmony between men
and land’ (Leopold 1970). Ideally, both sides must look towards a compromise.
Grumbine argues that if ecosystem management is to take hold and flourish, the
relationship between the new goal of preserving ecological integrity and the old
standard of providing goods and services for humans must be reconciled (Grumbine
1994).’ Jason Veil also made the same argument by asserting that a balanced
approach to ecosystem management is a call to face reality, gather input from
opposing viewpoints, and let these lessons drive future policy objectives. This
depends on utilitarians recognizing the folly of relentless consumption and environmentalists accepting the reality of society’s continued growth (Veil 2001). What is
advocated therefore is ‘sustainable development in an environmentally and sociallyresponsible manner through discussion, redesign, and active negotiation with
potentially- affected communities’ (Caron 2003).
6 Conclusion
Unlike mainstream Western ethics, African environmental ethics has recognized the
interconnectedness and interdependence of all beings and the more-than
human world.
African Eco-Philosophy and Its Implications for Ecological Integrity in Africa
and places limits on human property rights. It will be implicit in such a framework
that property owners will look to nature as the standard or measure for their action.
Consider, for example, that the Nigerian Government passed a law which recognised that the water bodies in Nigeria had the right to a healthy flow of water. Plainly
such a law would conflict with the pre-existing rights of landowners, farmers and
towns to draw water to meet their own needs. On a purely individualistic account of
rights, this dispute would focus on the adversarial clashing of interests and a legal
hierarchy would be established to settle the dispute. If the focus is on relationship,
then both social and environmental contexts become relevant to resolving the dispute. A court could examine their respective needs and their specific relationship.
From a conservation perspective, a good outcome would be that the irrigators’ right
to draw water would become encumbered. This does not remove the irrigators’
right; it contextualises its use and requires careful consideration and knowledge of
the needs of the river and the unique function it plays in the ecosystem. Water could
be drawn to the extent that these vital functions are maintained.
Setting realistic, measurable and locally relevant biodiversity objectives will provide a sound basis for the negotiation of trade—offs that would result in the implementation of eco relationalism. It is important to recognize that local people may
have their own priorities for Nature that differ from those of outside conservation
groups. Building on these may provide a sound basis for securing local buy—in
(Sheil et al. 2006). It is also important to recognize that sustainable use of biodiversity may be a more attractive option for local people than total protection. If people
can benefit from using a species they are more likely to conserve it. This goes to
question the reality of either pure anthropocentrism or ecocentrism. Aldo Leopold
realized this paradox and wrote: ‘conservation is a state of harmony between men
and land’ (Leopold 1970). Ideally, both sides must look towards a compromise.
Grumbine argues that if ecosystem management is to take hold and flourish, the
relationship between the new goal of preserving ecological integrity and the old
standard of providing goods and services for humans must be reconciled (Grumbine
1994).’ Jason Veil also made the same argument by asserting that a balanced
approach to ecosystem management is a call to face reality, gather input from
opposing viewpoints, and let these lessons drive future policy objectives. This
depends on utilitarians recognizing the folly of relentless consumption and environmentalists accepting the reality of society’s continued growth (Veil 2001). What is
advocated therefore is ‘sustainable development in an environmentally and sociallyresponsible manner through discussion, redesign, and active negotiation with
potentially- affected communities’ (Caron 2003).
6 Conclusion
Unlike mainstream Western ethics, African environmental ethics has recognized the
interconnectedness and interdependence of all beings and the more-than
human world.
African Eco-Philosophy and Its Implications for Ecological Integrity in Africa