Thoughts on ethics and culture and bottom up v top bottom startegy

After the discussion yesterday someone made a comment the different between bottom up or top bottom strategy on conservation, and another made one on the ethics of whether or not  it is okay to spread conservation to native people. One on hand the spread on knowledge dealing with conservation can have positive effects and on the other hand how it is usually meet with resistance such as in the roots of colonialism. The video of milking the rhino brought up some good points on how people who have lived there for so long and are not used to change and when the “pink people” (which was funny), come in and invade their culture to tell them one thing or another they are inclined to basically refuse their advice on certain environmental problems like conservation of certain animals. One of the guys living there commented on what a rhino was to him and he it was really nothing import at all to him, it was just another animal like any other. I’m actually believe that he probably wouldn’t mind not seeing any more rhinos for the rest of his life. Also he said “you need a committee of white men when it comes to an antelope”, and another one commented on how all the west or north, just bring papers and contracts.  So here I believe we see that there is obviously a large gap that we the NGOs need to address. Maybe some of these people that are fighting in order to have stricter rules on different environmental ideals need to think of a more bottom up strategy and get to know exactly what kind of culture that they are dealing with and how they would feel about their ideals if they were in these peoples shoes who have lived here for so long. The student who brought this up on Thursday mentioned for example how maybe ethically it is better to have a stricter stance on environmentalism such as a sort of utilitarianism stance. Here it would be even if it causes great displeasure to certain small villages, it would still be good for the environment and the people as a whole, I suppose, if certain ideals are made into law to protect the biodiversity of the area. Of course this more sounds much more extreme then what they actually do, I think it brings up a good point that some of these people can even be struggling to get by, and when someone comes to you with a contract to sign on what type of animals to hunt it can become very confusing as to why this is happening to them. There was also a point brought up in the Columbus power point about their stupidity about generosity and how they seemed to not know what private property is. This can be linked back to no days and for example most of these small villages probably share food like wheat and meat. And when NGOs come in to tell the people what they can and cannot hunt they may be like “but no one owns these animals, (or wheat when talking about GMOs) how can one man tell us what to them”. Or like when the one guy in the video said “why are you selling gods water?” Anyways going back to how I think a more bottom up strategy, I could kind of think of an example here in Maryland. Although I have personally never gone hunting, I do have a hunting license and they really stress how hunting white tail in Maryland is part of conservation. And this leads in to how in one county, I believe it was Montgomery County, was going to try to have a billed passed in order to extend the hunting season for white tail because they have become so overpopulated. If NGOs can promote a more bottom up strategy, I think that it will improve conservation.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the G-77

I would like to discuss the main points raised in Adil Najam’s paper “The View from the South: Developing Countries in Global Environmental Politics.” Specifically, I would like to focus on the advantages and disadvantages of referring to the developing world as one whole, or the “global South” as it is known in common parlance. Najam recognizes that the developing countries of the world cannot simply be referred to as one entity; surely, the political activities that occur within these countries are far too varied to group them all together as one whole. While Najam recognizes that each country differs in its environmental needs and policies and that they often disagree, he also points out that there is a sense of unity among these countries. The biggest advantage that developing countries have in sharing a common identity is that it gives them a stronger voice in the international arena. Inevitably, the sharp divide that exists between global North and global South can lead to the more powerful countries having all the power, while the voices of the less powerful countries are lost. Forming one unified whole helps developing countries become stronger in dealing with global environmental politics and helps them overcome domination by developed countries. In addition, grouping developing countries together will likely lead to greater cooperation among them. Such cooperation not only gives these countries a stronger voice and more power, but can also help them aid each other in the development process. This aligns strongly with Frank Biermann’s discussion on “capacity-building” in the developing world, which states that the formation of a global environmental organization would allow developed countries to provide technical assistance to developing countries. This process can also work between developing countries so that they can provide each up other with assistance in the development process.

On the other hand, there are several disadvantages in grouping the developing countries together as one whole. For one, it completely deindividualizes each country and ignores their individual needs entirely. Grouping all of the developing countries together is basically calling them all the same. In reality, the developing countries of the world are vastly different from each other. While they all face a similar economic situation, their needs in light of the global environmental crisis are extremely various. Each individual country has its own environmental issues and grouping them together (especially when dealing with global environmental politics) would completely ignore this individuality. In addition, grouping the developing countries together could actually have the opposite effect that Biermann predicted when talking about “capacity-building.” Instead of fostering greater cooperation among developing countries, it could actually lead to more disagreement among them due to the broad nature of each country’s environmental problems. Such disagreement would likely lead the countries to resent each other and take away from the strength of their collective voice in the international arena. Quite frankly, this is the last thing that developing countries need at a time when they’re trying to develop their economies while simultaneously dealing with their environmental issues.

Najam points out that despite their differences, developing countries have found a way to work together and prefer to address international issues through their collective organization, the G-77. The success of the G-77 seems to suggest that grouping countries together could have beneficial impacts on them. Najam talks about some of the benefits that the G-77 has had, including greater economic cooperation and technical assistance among some of the countries. I agree with Najam’s point that grouping these countries together is beneficial simply because in such a polarized world, less powerful countries would be unable to exert an influence on global politics without a unifying voice. When we bring complex issues such as transboundary pollution and climate change into the mix, we see that there is a serious need for unification among the countries of the world. Grouping the developing world into one whole would provide this unification and aid in the process of global environmental negotiations. 

The Natural Resource Trap

In recent weeks, our class has been discussing the various aspects of conservation and how different actors (states, NGOs, indigenous peoples) view it, feel about it, and treat it as an issue in today’s world. While reading and talking about state governments using conservation as a way of achieving different goals, and the corruption we see around the world, I could not help but think about the concept of natural resource traps, which I learned about in a class last semester on the international political economy.

In Paul Collier’s book, The Bottom Billion, he analyzes the poorest billion people in the world, the countries they reside in and the common traits among those countries.  These countries are not developing - they are stagnant or even moving backwards. He claims there are several different ‘traps,’ or situations these countries are in that prevent positive progress from happening. One of these traps is the natural resource trap.

About 29% of the worlds one billion poorest people live in resource-rich countries (Collier 2007). There are several theories as to why an abundance of natural resources cause most countries to experience a reduction in growth, but Collier finds one particularly important: the issue of governance.

According to collected data, autocracies experience greater growth than democracies in a situation of surplus natural resource revenues. However, in regards to bottom billion countries specifically, it is an entirely different case, and this is because many resource-rich, low-income countries are ethnically diverse. In the case of most autocracies existing in a diverse country, rulers depend on the support of their own ethnic group. The more diverse the country is, the narrower his support group will be, and the more likely he is to sacrifice the economic growth of his country in order to redistribute wealth into his support group.

It seems intuitive that a transition to a democratic political system would solve the problem of autocratic misspending, but it is not that simple. Big natural resource revenues weaken political checks and balances. One reason for this is because a government with a lot of revenue has no need to heavily tax the public, which provides little encouragement of the public to pay attention to how their taxes are being spent. If there are few or no political restraints (checks and balances,) then patronage politics, or politics based on bribery, is likely to occur. Rational, corrupt politicians will spend their money on “buying community leaders,” because electorate loyalty to ethnic communities is strong in bottom billion countries (Collier 2007). Similar to autocracies in resource-rich societies, the more ethnically diverse the country, the worse the democracy will perform. This allows for political patronage to run rampant, with large amounts of revenue from natural resources available for corruption and bribery, and a democratic system that attracts cronies. In order for a resource-rich, ethnically diverse bottom billion country to encounter economic growth, strong political restraints need to be in effect – this is very rare. Most democracies develop strong, balanced institutions as their economy develops, but these low-income countries that have a boom of natural resource revenue are trapped in a stagnant autocracy or failing democracy, lacking the political restraints to ensure proper growth, and in turn lacking the growth to ensure political improvement.

While Collier’s is concerned specifically with non-developing countries, this theory can be applied to developing ones as well, for many of them have rampant corruption. In class, we wondered aloud if Kenya’s government was corrupt, and if that could be why there is such conflict surrounding the conservation movement, the tourism industry, the state, and the local tribes. At first glance, in looking at the Politics of Kenya Wikipedia page, it appears as if Kenya has a democracy not unlike our own. They have an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The president is elected for a five-year term, there are political parties, and counties are represented by elected officials. However, in reading further, one can see that corruption and conflict certainly exist. As recently as 2008, there was widespread violence after the announcement of a president following what was believed to be rigged elections. Thousands died, hundreds of thousands were displaced, and some scholars note that land disputes between ethnic groups were also violently settled at the same time ("The Politics of Kenya," Wikipedia).

Kenya is rich in many resources in addition to their wildlife. Could this be why corruption seems to surround the conservation movement taking place there, or at least one of the reasons? What came first, the corruption or the natural wealth?

Sources:

Collier, Paul. The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 2007.

"The Politics of Kenya" on Wikipedia

The Principle of Subsidiary and the Environment

The recent articles we’ve been reading about the developing world and environmental problems pinpoint the fact that many times there is a clash between the developed countries and developing countries when it comes to the environment, among other things. For instance, in the “Poverty and Globalization” article by Vandana Shiva, she claims that many times we do not think about the impact of globalization on the lives of ordinary people. This is so true, especially in terms of the environment. As much as I agree with this analysis, simple globalization is not the root problem. The true problem is that some believe their cultures are better than others, and therefore, when globalization happens it is a loss of one country’s culture in deference to another’s. Instead of a sharing of cultures, globalization in this form stifles the growth and culture of one country.

In terms of the environment, this sort of mindset can lead to developed countries believing they have better answers for how to conserve the environment than developing countries. The perfect example of this is in today’s reading, Cutting the Vines. The African people had a different view on the forests than the western cultures, which led to conflicts and failures by the WWF. The problems the WWF ran into reveal the importance of acceptance from the local people in environmental projects. When the local people are not invested, the projects will not work as well. Many environmental projects should take into account the principle of subsidiary: solving problems on the most local level possible, and only when that does not work taking it to a higher level. This principle seems to always be ignored when talking about environmental issues. So much of the time people focus on the large-scale projects. But, as we see in this example large-scale projects do not work well. Local people are crucial, not just because they fully understand the problems and may have some solutions, but tactics will not be adopted if the local level is not involved. There involvement can take many different forms.

One idea that was brought up in class was the need for education. Education is important, but what is more important is remembering education, like globalization, is a two-way street. Much of the time education seems to be centered around the developed country imparting information on the developing country, when, for environmental problems especially, having a two-way learning process is necessary. This two-way process will also help with the principle of subsidiary because the people in the developing countries will at least be a part of the conversation, which is a good start. Developing countries have a voice, but much of the time it is drowned out by the louder developed countries. There is not an easy way to solve the problem of listening to the voice of developing countries. This is why I believe large-scale corporations like the WWF should not be coming into these countries at all. They are outsiders and though they try to help, they end up harming things more often than not. Instead of large, centralized corporations, different measures must be taken with developing countries. The principle of subsidiary needs to be the driving factor in issues with the environment. This could look like people in their local towns commit to conserving the environment, in the way that makes sense for that community. As Shiva said in her article, economic globalization has become a war against nature and the poor. We can ensure that this is not the same with environmental globalization if we follow closely the principle of subsidiary and defer to the local people in creating and implementing environmental projects.