Colonialism's Role in Environmental Protection

While reading over environmental issues, many may find a term reappearing in various literature - eco-imperialism. Usually, theories over eco-imperialism boil down to the idea that environmental conservation was an idea that was propagated throughout the world via the spread of European Civilization throughout the world. During the course of the colonialism period, ideas and values from European nations such as Britain, France and Spain were transplanted throughout the world. While there were a number of issues that arose from this mass expansion of a non-native group's ideals, one idea that could be considered helpful was the idea of conservation. 

Many native groups had some sort of reverence for the natural resources they utilized, but through their use of the resources. They may have extracted goods from various ecosystems, but saw that overexploitation would harm them in the long run. Colonists brought the idea of completely setting aside some regions for protection. While they may have clear-cut wooded areas, diverted natural water flows and negatively impact the environment, they saw a value in keeping some areas pristine. This idea differed from native's own "conservation" of the land through using limited amounts and taking just enough as to not permanently damage. It's interesting to note the two different types of environmentalism at play here. On the one hand, traditional conservation seeking to stop all involvement and leaving “pristine” ecosystems behind. On the other, anthropocentric views of environmentalism focus on taking the least amount of resources from an ecosystem to ensure both human needs and ecosystem needs are met. While groups at this time probably didn’t classify themselves as such, they seem to fit these archetypes of environmentalism nicely.

Modern society is influenced by a number of factors, but one of the most telling may be this initial spread of European ideas of “environmentalism.” While European settlers may have introduced the idea of preserving ecosystems, their motivations for exploring the world in general were anything but environmentally conscientious. Colonialism at its core was finding new resources for home countries. Those who explored the world may have had motivations outside of this, but the financial backing usually came from monarchs looking for more power and resources. Columbus’ voyage may have satisfied his own desire to prove his hypothesis, but his trip was paid for by the crown of Spain looking to expand their influence. Once arrived in new locations, colonists needed large volumes of resources including trees, water, arable land, animals and a host of other natural resources.

Even though these colonists may have preached environmental conservation, the main goal of colonialism involved the exploitation of natural resources. As Europeans spread out throughout the world, the demand for natural resources continued. There is a double standard at play – those who claim that colonialism brought environmentalism throughout the world neglect to mention the basis for travel was exploitation of natural resources. The “good” that colonialism spread through its self-described beliefs of environmentalism are far outweighed by the systematic degradation of resources world wide.

Would a Global Environmental Organization benefit Southern Nations?

Would a Global Environmental Organization benefit Southern Nations?

Renee Kelly

            The overall idea of creating a Global Environmental Organization is a powerful one, which will hopefully lead to the success of future environmental policies/treaties. A GEO would serve to address global-scale pollution and climate change. As global warming and trans-boundary pollution is becoming an ever popular problem around the world, it is important to note that there is no fix unless all nations can agree to do their part.  A GEO would create a sanctuary for all States to meet, discuss and implement plans that account for all nations. Although the purpose of a GEO would be to promote better environmental practices between developed and developing nations, it would also be a means for economic stability and reduce friction between the North-South divide.  Previous attempts of creating treaties/policies, such as the Kyoto Protocol, were unsuccessful in getting many nations to ratify and implement its policies. This is a perfect example of a treaty which could have benefited from a Global Environmental Organization. A GEO would push for combined efforts and increased ratifications of treaties in order for treaties, such as Kyoto, to become successful in accomplishing their designated goals.

            The GEO would consist of the developed North as well as the developing Southern nations. One of the current problems with the Southern nations though, is the divide between ideals on environmental issues as well as future plans for economic development. Najam discusses the view of the Southern nations in regards to global environmental politics. Najam notes that one of the biggest issues amongst these countries which seem to promote environmentalism is their, “apparent fractures and frictions in the collective.” These fractures and frictions tend to be formed due to Southern nation’s personal interests. The South however has shown a collective interest in promoting a new international environmental order and promoting sustainable development. The creation, therefore, of a Global Environmental Organization could be the start to the international order that the South is looking for.

            There is skepticism, as with the creation of any global organization though. As mentioned, Southern States suffer from self-interest getting in the way of environmental cooperation. These Southern States are striving to become developed and/or simply keep their nations safe, healthy, fed and growing. Skeptics of creating a GEO, might further push the fact that Southern nations have been known to act in their own self interest, especially when it involves monetary issues. Southern nations, known as developing or third world countries, need any and all financial assistance they can get. A GEO would be a good way to allocate funding to these nations so they can grow in a sustainable way, but skeptics may not have faith that the funds provided will strictly go towards sustainable development, as noted that some Southern nations have other priorities. Najam points out that, “many developing countries perceived environmental concerns… as an effort to sabotage the South’s developmental aspirations.” One might fear that a GEO would only further disturb tensions on economics and cause the South to then disagree to terms of the organization in fear of being held back developmentally. 

            Regardless of skepticism revolving a GEO, the benefits for the South seem to rise above any negative expectations. First, Southern leaders have consistently been on board with goals towards sustainable development. A GEO would allow for the less economically stable nations, as Najam puts it, “to modify global economic relations in such a way that the South obtains the required resources, technology, and access to markets which would enable it to pursue a development process that is both environmentally sound and rapid enough to meet its needs and aspirations.” This may seem as a one sided success in regards to the North-South divide, but this would then allow for the resources of Southern origin to make their way into the markets faster, which would promote global prosperity and development all around. A successful creation of a GEO would allow nations who want to develop, to do so in a manner that is both rapid and sustainable. Historically, developed nations have been blamed for the current global environmental problems, but the GEO would also allow for discussion on how to allocate funding and resources in a way that is fair to all. 

            The main problems with environmental treaties not working out are failed collective action, fragmentation, deficient authority in terms of being unable to influence policies or other States, and insufficient legitimacy. Programs such as UNEP, have been set up as “theoretical” global environmental programs in the past, but in fact they lack the authority, tools, budget and support to accomplish any of their goals and cannot be considered true global efforts.  A GEO would be the most effective way to engage all nations in an authoritative, cooperative manner, where all voices can be heard equally. The South, although trying to pick up the pace in terms of development, needs a steady support system if they hope to sustainably develop without it being too costly or harmful to the environment.. 

Hiring Searchers over Planners: a Step toward Wildlife Conservation

By: Rebecca Kim

One of the most difficult aspects of trying to conserve the wildlife is the cultural clashes between developed countries and developing countries. For example, in developing countries, many of the constituents do not culturally understand the reasons why rhinos or elephants must be conserved when rhinos or elephants do not provide any direct source of food or land. On the other hand, many conservationists from developed countries advocate for wildlife conservation to preserve the world’s biodiversity. In order to diffuse the cultural gaps between developing countries and developed countries to effectively conserve wildlife, conservationists should adhere to William Easterly’s idea about hiring searchers instead of planners to carry out the conservation programs.  

In order to explain why some foreign aid programs fail to work, William Easterly identifies the two types of foreign aid workers in his The White Man’s Burden: the planners and the searchers. The planners are workers who approach development issues as a technical problem that can be solved by centrally-controlled campaigns and be backed up by cash. Unfortunately, planning lacks market feedback mechanisms, so there are no ways to effectively measure how well foreign aid programs are performing.  Due to the lack of ways to measure program’s performance level in planning, it will be harder to directly hold planners accountable, which increases the chances of program failures.

Given the shortcomings of planners, Easterly, thus, prefers searchers over planners to lead foreign aid programs. Searchers are the workers who work directly on site (i.e., in the developing countries), where they learn the efficiency of a proposed foreign aid program through series of trials and errors. Even though learning from market feedback mechanisms will not necessarily accomplish the ambitious goals set by planners, it will deliver practical results. More specifically, Easterly believes that evaluating foreign aid programs based on feedback from intended beneficiaries, rewarding successes, punishing failures, and encouraging many NGOs to share their failures and successes will result in a more efficient way to help developing countries develop.

Easterly’s approach to improve development programs could also be applied to wildlife conservation. Instead of simply organizing campaigns or giving money to programs that may not work, conservationists must reside in the developing countries to slowly build market feedback mechanisms; having conservationists become searchers is one of the many first steps that will help monitor any conservation plans’ effectiveness, which, in turn, will improve conservation plans in the long-run.

However, Easterly’s proposal addresses how foreigners could effectively execute programs, not directly how to diffuse cultural clashes. Therefore, while Easterly’s proposal to hire searchers should still be favored to ensure effective outcome, wildlife conservation initiatives (e.g., the UN, NGOs, interested states) must require searchers to open a dialogue with the citizens in developing countries. To explain, before evaluating conservation programs based on feedback from intended beneficiaries, rewarding successes, punishing failures, or encouraging many NGOs to share their failures and successes, searchers must also open a dialogue with the intended beneficiaries. The open dialogue gives searchers the opportunity to explain the logic and their intentions behind wildlife conservation programs. The dialogue also allows searchers to figure out any alternative methods that could achieve wildlife conservation without compromising any traditions or values of the citizens from developing countries.

Furthermore, the nature of searching holds searchers directly accountable. As part of the market feedback mechanisms, searchers are required to evaluate programs based on feedback from intended beneficiaries. Therefore, if the citizens from developing countries feel that their traditions are compromised from wildlife conservation programs that were previously explained by the searchers, they can immediately report to searcher. The negative feedback then should promote searchers to create a new proposal.   

GMOs: A Case for Bilateral Education

Since their introduction, GMOs have become a source of contention internationally.  Stakeholders in the debate approach the subject with varying value systems that often conflict.  Shiva's argument demonstrates that differences in value systems between the North and South, specifically in India can lead to increased conflict between the North and South.  In her argument against GMOs, Shiva identifies many practices and values held by small farmers and women that she believes are ignored by those pushing for increased industrialization and genetic engineering.  These views not only progress her argument but serve as an example of Thursday's discussion regarding the importance of education between the North and South when debating complex environmental issues.

Through her argument, Shiva expresses India's cultural devotion to promoting biodiversity and feeding the people through biodiversity.  This cultural value conflicts with perceived Northern attempts to push GMOs to promote the production of a single crop and ultimately destroy biodiversity.  This relates to class discussion of trying to make changes in developing countries without taking the time to learn about the culture beforehand.  Because biodiversity is a main component in the production of food in India, this should have been taken into account before the introduction of GMOs to evaluate if they would do more harm than good.  Increased collaboration and education could help establish whether or not these views are shared by all people in India and if so how this cultural value can be respected.

Shiva discusses the view that golden rice is necessary for reducing vitamin A deficiency in India.  However, she believes that without extensive reliance on herbicides and industrial processes, women and small farmers in India can produce enough vitamin A to serve the same purpose.  This illustrates how small farmers and women in developing nations may view agricultural innovation differently than developed nations. Where the North may view golden rice as the key to eliminating blindness, the South can view the development of the same rice as an unnecessary burden that ultimately leads to increased poverty.  This component of the GMO debate could benefit from increased education on both sides of the issue.  As discussed in class, it can often be ineffective to attempt to fit a solution to a group of people without taking their individual values into account.  Instead, when considering golden rice as a solution to vitamin A deficiency, it could be more helpful to not only educate the people in the region but also to learn from the people already living in the area.

Shiva's argument regarding the production of women and small farmers demonstrates how value systems can vary and lead to increased polarization.  This disagreement could stem from diverging definitions of productivity between the North and South.  Where the North may view the work of women as unproductive and economically inefficient, developing nations like India, may view the production of women and small farmers as a main food source in the country.  Though the people may be told that without GMOs the people of India will starve, many native Indians may value the work of women and small farmers in feeding the people. Increased Northern education about native people could lead to a better understanding of the concerns of small farmers and those who rely on the food they produce.

Increasing international environmental education and embracing a spirit of collaboration and understanding could potentially help ease some tensions between the North and South in environmental debates.  This view does not assume that increased collaboration and education on both sides will eliminate all conflict.  There could still be debate over conflicting values and framing of issues.  However, when debating environmental issues like GMOs, this collaboration has a better chance of leading to compromise by at least educating each side on the views of the opposing side.

Developing Countries Responsibility in Climate Change

            Driessen’s article states many reasons why it is unfair for developing countries to be held responsible for making efforts to mitigate climate change. He believes that they are not in an economic position to be able to think about environmental problems, and that developed countries are ignoring their needs and problems by expecting them to make efforts towards becoming environmentally friendly. However, developing countries are only hurting themselves by continuing to pollute and contribute to climate change. By continuing with their current lifestyle, they are only exacerbating their problems and making them more difficult to overcome.

            Driessen seems to expect developing countries to get a free pass for dealing with climate change due to the other problems they are facing such as disease, malnutrition, and poverty. However climate change is a global problem that cannot be solved with only developed countries. Regardless of what countries contributed the most to climate change in the past, the entire world will be forced to deal with the consequences without international efforts. It is unfair that the rest of the world, and future generations will have to deal with the harsh effects of climate change if developing countries choose to not lower their emissions.

            A common argument for why developing countries should not have to make mitigation efforts is that developed countries were able to burn fossil fuels without limits in order to create a strong economy. However this is before the majority of information regarding climate change was released. Had developed countries known then the harsh consequences of burning fossil fuels, they would have been expected to curb their emissions. With current technology and knowledge that is known regarding climate change, it is fair to expect developing countries to do their part to lower greenhouse gases.

            By expecting developing countries to lower their emissions, developed countries are by no means ignoring the interests of the global south. Many of the affects of climate change will hit developing countries the hardest. Higher temperatures will reduce the growing periods for crops, hurting crop production. Lower crop yields will cause disrupted incomes, both of which could increase world hunger. Many diseases such as malnutrition, malaria, and dengue are climate sensitive and increased temperatures will only increase cases of these diseases. Because of these problems climate change could cause, it is certainly in the best interest of developing countries to lower their greenhouse gases. It will become impossible for them to overcome their other problems with the risks posed by climate change.

            Perhaps environmentalists are leaning towards the precautionary side when dealing with climate change. However due to the complexity of the problems climate change could cause, taking preventative measures is more than necessary. The longer the world waits to see the full effects of climate change, it will be too late reverse the effects. The consequences are not only very long term, but will be very difficult to handle, and will eventually effect the quality of life among many. When dealing with problems this big, taking precautionary measure is necessary and is by no means limiting growth. 

            The author also disagrees with the term sustainable development, and he believes that it is impossible to achieve under such a rapidly growing population. The author should think about sustainable development not as limiting growth, but as smart growth. Developing countries can still grow, but it needs to be done in a way that considers future generations and their needs. It would be unfair to leave them with our huge mess to clean up, and force them into a lower quality of life.

Overall, Driessen does not seem to think about the future or the problems they will face if nothing is done to mitigate climate change now. The potential problems climate change could cause are not something the world should risk. Even if lowering greenhouse gas emissions and requiring developing countries to do the same is taking a precautionary measure, avoiding the potential large scale problems that could occur is certainly in everyone’s best interest.