Filmmaker's Journal
Scientists suggest media should pay for conservation
Ever had an idea that sounded great at first blush and then as you waded into the details, it started to lose its luster? We've all had them. Some were undone right at the start while others seemed to be heading in a positive direction as the details were fleshed out, only to hit a wall when some fundamental truth - an unknown obstacle - shows itself.
I was reading an article/podcast in Scientific American about four British scientists who, in a recent issue of Science, were promoting the idea of media companies that profit from wildlife films being required to contribute a portion of their profits to conservation causes.
Writer David Biello poses the question in Scientific American, "Given the success of channels like Animal Planet, shows like Planet Earth and even films like March of the Penguins, big media makes big money from nature. Do they then have an obligation to re-invest some of their profit on the nature that provided the "ecosystem service" of existing to be filmed?"
Ecosystem service is a term used by some scientists and conservationists to describe human-valued benefits provided by ecosystems such as pollination, clean water, and the minimizing of storm damage by wetlands. Applied to nature filmmaking, if companies profit from the visual images and interesting stories that nature provides, shouldn't these companies be obligated to give something back in return.
