Like forestry issues, global biodiversity loss illustrates how environmental conservation can be frustrated by the division between the North and South. The availability of unique terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals within developing nations is often utilized by developed nations. Often, developed nations benefit from the use of these organisms in their medical and agricultural research. However, developing nations strive to conserve these resources and argue that they suffer the consequences of biodiversity loss caused by this research while reaping none of the benefits. This topic illustrates issues regarding conservation of resources and the polarization of the North and South. It is this polarization that in part causes states to become pushers and draggers in negotiations for policies regarding these types of issues In addition, this topic demonstrates that the framing of an issue can be used to promote the goals of each side of the debate.
Developed nations have cultivated the skills and technology necessary to utilize exotic plants to promote medical and agricultural goals. Developing nations on the other hand often lack these specialized skills but have access to a wide variety of exotic plant and animal life necessary for this kind of research. The exploitation of these resources by the North can be viewed as a new type of imperialism of the South and as an attempt to take advantage of developing countries without adequately compensating them. Because of historical views of imperialism and the perceived threat of the continuation of historical patterns, developing countries could be less likely to negotiate the use of their resources. Developed nations on the other hand, provide technical skill and contribute to the development of the research. However, they often refuse or are reluctant to negotiate extending benefits to developing nations. In addition, because medicinal plants are a primary source for healthcare in many developing nations, the South could resist Northern intervention due their different objectives and medical values. Perceived attempts to imperialize the South and contradictory medical values could make negotiations even more difficult. This also demonstrates how differences in value systems of the North and South lead to polarization in environmental negotiations.
Because the consequences of biodiversity loss in developing nations are felt primarily by their inhabitants, developing countries are more likely to be pushers for international efforts to conserve biological diversity. Conversely, developed nations who use exotic plants and animals for research are more likely to be draggers when faced with these types of policies. This results in increased polarization and stagnation regarding international biodiversity policy. This can be seen in the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) slow efforts to come to an agreement regarding conservation of biodiversity and just distribution of benefits from research utilizing indigenous biodiversity. Though the CBD has stated that they value protection of biodiversity in developing states, they have yet to formulate any type of legally binding policy. This issue demonstrates how the North-South divide can frustrate international environmental agreements and ultimately stall policy.
This issue also raises interesting concerns related to the framing of environmental issues as global commons issues. More specifically, where it benefited supporters of strong forest policy to frame it as a global commons issue, it would now benefit the South to frame biodiversity as a private good. This would increase their ability to exercise control over their resources and to demand sufficient compensation from developed countries. In contrast, to frame biodiversity as a global commons issue would allow for the interests of developed countries to be more strongly considered when creating policy. This demonstrates the importance of framing and relates to in class discussion regarding how the framing of an issue can set the stage for international negotiations or lead to further divisions between the North and the South.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou explained how framing of an issue can lead to a polarization between the North and the South very well. My one question regards to the solution that was proposed in your blogpost. You suggested that framing biodiversity as a private good will, at least, lessen the tension between the North and the South. However, how can we be sure that the South will not exploit its own biodiversity when setting it as a private good? Even if the inhabitants feel the negative impacts of biodiversity loss, it may not be enough of a reason to prevent from exploitation; the privatization of biodiversity could give the government more control to sell more of its biodiversity for economic gain. For example, in the US, even though Americans experience the negative impacts of coal, this does not inhibit private companies from exploiting the use of coal due to huge economic gain. Therefore, how can we hold the South accountable to ensure that biodiversity is maintained?
ReplyDeleteThough privatization of biodiversity could help protect the resources from researchers from outside developed nations, I agree that this will not prevent exploitation from within developing countries. In order to prevent biodiversity loss from the actions of private actors I would suggest international agreements that set limits on how much of its biodiversity a country can exploit while at the same time ensuring that the country that provides the resource is guaranteed adequate compensation from countries that conduct research using their biodiversity.
DeleteAs far as maintaining biodiversity for scientific and medical importance, I would argue developed nations may care about it more than developing nations. The resources to utilize biota on a genomic scale is a processes used by highly developed nations with scientific research resources. If anything, I would think the developed nation's desire to maintain biodiversity could lead them to attempting to protect species harmed by development patterns of developing nations. For example, an endangered species may live in a forrest that a developing nation seeks to exploit for wood, fuel, and land among other resources. Prioritizing a single (or a few) species above other ecosystem services would seem to be something developed nations weigh greater than developing.
ReplyDeleteI think that the discussion made in your blog goes well with our readings and the discussion of a global environmental organization. This is something that could become lesser of a north south divide if a GEO was actually created and utilized. The North and South both consume and use resources, but in a different manner. I think that as the North likes to use the developing nations resources, they need to first check to see how much is already being exploited to avoid extreme biodiversity loss.
ReplyDelete