Conservation Needs Assessment: Fill & Download for Free

Every thriving culture needs a balance of liberals, conservatives, and moderates. Why do people never think about moderates, who comprise a plurality of humans? Because they aren’t loud and angry. Just a plurality.To understand why cultures need all 3, consider the situation of the sort of nomadic hunter/gatherer tribe nearly all of our ancestors lived in until around 10,000 years ago—often in difficult circumstances, often with other tribes competing for the same scarce resources.Where to go each day? Revisit a known locale or strike out into an unknown one? Fight with another tribe or flee? Trade with another tribe or not? What will the weather be like tomorrow? Change how we raise our children or not? How to interpret what the shaman said while in a trance? Change tribes mores due to changing circumstances or not? Choose this leader or that one?People are generally born conservative, liberal, moderate or some shading of those options. Conservatives are predisposed to focus on the dangers of anything new/unknown. Liberals, on the upside. Moderates mediate between these.No approach is always best, contrary to what both liberals and conservatives think. Nor is waffling of course. If you’re standing on a frozen lake and suddenly see cracks radiating out from your position, the conservative approach of not moving until you’ve carefully assessed the situation is a poor survival strategy. On the other hand, if you see horses for the first time and shun these new creatures, as the Hopis did and the Navaho didn’t, you’ll wind up begging the white men for help in a few decades because the once-peripheral Navahos now rule…on horseback.Your tribe needs passionate advocates for change and for tradition—but neither should be in power without the check of the opposing side and the balance of the many moderates.This should be obvious, but too often conservatives and liberals wish the other would just go away and allow their liberal/conservative fantasy world to come about.

Now a days the strategy to follow is - 'jo dikhta hai woh bikta hai ' & therfore measuring the impact and then adequately showing it off to outer world is very very important.The whole process of impact assessment starts before the start of the development project. For example, we take a water conservation project in an area. Once you do the need assessment in the area and reach to a conclusion that water conservation efforts are required, this is your first document which would also be required during impact assessment for making a pre -project vis-a-vis post project comparison. Then its Baseline survey / photographic/ Video documentation & so on.And once you have all these results/ impacts with you, then depending on the need of the hour/ client requirement, you have to take a call about what to show and what not to , what to emphasise and and at what time, etc

In many ways, the distinction you make is only applicable in one country, the USA, embroiled in a particularly fruitless model of politics: conflict between 'liberals' and 'conservatives', each of whom accuses the other of being a particularly threatening entity. Viewed from outside (and apparently, many Americans share this view), this dichotomy seems a dysfunctional way of viewing the world, and leads to needless rancour in public life, and poor government. Government in other Western democracies is not perfect, but it tends to lack the poison, enmity and self-imposed crises that characterise the US political system over the last 20-25 years. British MPs, for example, socialise with each other across the aisle, and work cordially with each other in committee work. There are showpiece confrontations, and exaggerated statements, but basically, many assumptions are shared.Of course, we have conservatives in the UK, and they exist in France and Germany and other Western European democracies too. But in these countries, most conservatives would also describe themselves as liberal - liberal is not an insult in these countries. With a small 'L' (Germany and the UK have official parties called 'Liberal Party': in Germany it's a party of economic liberalisation and laissez faire, in the UK it's a sort of mish-mash of single issue policies focused on educated middle-class aspirations), everyone in politics in Western European democracies is 'liberal', in the sense that they all agree on a certain idea of freedom and the rule of law. Conservatives in the UK, Germany and France will happily call themselves liberal. They all believe in practice (if not in language - conservatives can talk tough) in rehabilitative penal policies, universal welfare provision, subsidies for the arts, the construction of public transport infrastructure, progressive taxation, the theory of evolution, and other 'liberal' threats that might have some American political conservatives freaking out (I doubt Chris Christie or Arnold Schwarzenegger would have problems with these ideas - there are many ways to be a conservative in America, though few of them get much airtime).And conservatives in all three of these countries believe in the existence global warming, affordable healthcare for everyone, increasing childcare provision for working parents, and so on, and they are content to tolerate (and in some cases, proactively support) ideas like gay marriage. They can cut defence budgets to balance the books, and raise taxes sharply to limit national debt. Very few serious conservative politicians, thinkers or commentators in Western European democracies would even suggest that capital punishment should be permitted (most - 99%? - would vigorously oppose it in all its forms, everywhere), or abortion should be restricted or disrupted, and absolutely none would argue that guns should be legalised.So when you translate the terms of a uniquely American form of cultural politics into the political landscapes of other mature Western democracies, they just don't have any real meaning. We don't have 'liberals' in the sense that is meant in American political discourse. Almost everyone in the UK, France and Germany bar the extreme right and the extreme left is happy to call themselves 'liberal'. There are differences between right and left in the UK, but each side generally accepts the inheritance of the other when they take office. They may reform how a particular endpoint is reached (say, the provision of universal affordable healthcare), but all mainstream parties in Europe have a consensus on which particular endpoints should be reached (so, all agree that universal affordable healthcare is a must).The differences between a government of the Social Democratic or the Christian Democratic parties in Germany, the Socialist Party or the Union for a Popular Movement in France, or the Labour or Conservative Parties in the UK, will be ones of emphasis and style, more than profound policy confrontation, or a clash of world views. It is certainly possible to find conservatives and progressives who will talk very pessimistically - even catastrophically - about the proposals the other makes if you look for them. And in particular, the print media in this country (the UK) can offer a range of extremist conservative 'moods' (but their policy prescriptions tend to be much more moderate). However, most conservatives and progressives share many basic assumptions, and mainstream political types (whether in office, in parties, in the media, and in day-to-day life) would tend to disagree on emphasis and method, rather than fundamental matters of principle. So, the current Conservative government in the UK has raised the tax allowances for low earners, so that many of them no longer pay income tax, but cut direct welfare payments for these people. The previous Labour government gave poor people in work substantial welfare payments. Each policy was focused on improving the lives of the poorest, but one did it by needs assessment at the expense of self-sufficiency (the Labour way, great for poor workers with kids) and one did it by emphasising autonomy and self-sufficiency but at the expense of meaningful needs assessments (the Conservative way, great for poorer single workers and workers without kids). Both methods targeted a lot of money at people at the bottom, but with different emphases.