As part of my agenda of tracking the ways in which science and other forms of knowledge contribute to describing and manipulating the environment, I've kept an eye on the institutions (and their values and interests) that have mapped landscapes, in the past and today. It's a history of mapping that's been reflected in, for example, the colonial surveys that imposed grids on landscapes, preparing it for European settlement and the imposition of private ownership, the work of the Geological Survey of Canada (taking an inventory of the country's resources, as Suzanne Zeller described it), and government surveys of potential protected areas.
But I just wanted to note the transition that's underway (and has been for some time), in the institutions that do this practice of mapping. Once, it was government agencies that were dominant: they were seen as "objective" institutions, describing the landscape in ways able to ensure it could be converted to purposes consistent with prevailing social priorities. But in the last couple of decades it appears that non-government organizations have taken a larger role.
One current example is the work of Stewardship Association of Municipalities (in Newfoundland), which, among other activities, maps wetlands and other habitats, as a basis for conservation action.
Another example is the recent Living Planet Report Canada produced by WWF-Canada, which maps the status of wildlife across the country. The report has received a great deal of attention since it was released a little less than two weeks ago -- setting the agenda for discussions about wildlife protection across the country.
A couple of interesting implications flow from such reports. One is that it illustrates how scientific and technical capacities, including mapping, are now widely distributed, not just within government, but within civil society more generally. And secondly, it illustrates how so much of the initiative of surveying the state of wildlife, or of the environment generally, has flowed away from government in recent years. I would expect that 20 years ago, the WWF report would have more likely been produced by a government agency, such as the Canadian Wildlife Service. That this is no longer the case illustrates a transformation in the institutions through which we think about our landscapes.
Above all, it's a noteworthy instance of the evolving relations between institutions and ways of knowing and valuing landscapes.
No comments:
Post a Comment