development down societally virtuous paths – to embrace
conservancy and communitarian values. Some individuals have
always stood out against tax-gathering (evasion and avoidance).
Others stand against control over plunder-freedoms, and there
are others who hold out against the likes of resource quotas (free-
range ocean fishing and the exploitation of indigenous forests).
Some others opportunistically cruise the commercial cyberspace- namely, the economic buccaneers who plunder societal
resources through the use of imperfectly regulated instruments
(stock exchange hits, futures leveraging, commodity buyouts,
franchise dealings, capital shunting, tax avoidances). Of course many others live
a ‘to them’ higher code, although even they mostly extract from, and fail to restore
and regenerate, the resource base they consume.
Second: the family, the household and the individual are best positioned to focus
on development and conservation values because it is at these levels that it is pos-
sible to identify a connection to social and economic wellbeing, the environmen-
tal heritage, and their attachment to the cultural heritage.
Third: the embodiment of socially appropriate development and conservancy
principles into the law of the land, as part of a new liberal corporatism, gives rise
to the ‘sustainability’ mode for establishing rules for community involvement and
associations of a neomodern kind.
It is the parliamentarians and lesser political figures who provide the legal and
operational breath of life for neomodern sustainable conservancy and develop-
ment, for at base operations of these kinds have a political genesis. One challenge
is to wean ourselves away from a populist ‘if you cannot beat them join them’
conservatism. This is Beatley’s (1994: 202) perspective on that matter.Frequently officials make decisions about controversial land-use issues by counting
and comparing the number of people speaking for and against a proposal. What
emerges often in these decisions is a kind of utilitarian logic with public officials
seeking, in the crudest of ways, to support the interests of the majority...Politics in
land-use matters is not inherently bad. Indeed it is essential – no public decisions can
be made that are not political, but the ethical content and focus of these policies are
inadequate...What is desperately needed is to expand the land-use debate, to begin
to recognise that ethical and moral obligations extend beyond narrow economic or
utilitarian views.Communities end up with whatever policies politicians form and the guidelines
they promote – all a consequence of their example while holding onto their elec-
toral mandate – mindful that the ballot box always awaits them!Conservation with development practice has at its core one dominant and several
accessory value sets. The core is ‘social value’ which is, of course, diverse and
complex, comprising national-level social goals, regional and local community
goals, indigenous peoples’ pre-ownership values and rights, settler-freeholder30 Principles
For reasons of
difference between
developers, public
persons, professional
practitioners and
politicians it is useful for
students of planning,
development and
conservation to de-
construct individual
motives and preferences.