Environmentalism in the South

Environmental Politics: Perspectives from the South
Pham Van Dung
12 April 2011
The Southern Environmentalism (Guha, 2000)
Poor countries can generate environmental movements
Five examples of third world environmentalism:
The Penan community in Sarawak, Malaysia fight against commercial loggers with forums and network action.
The Sardar Sarovar dam on Narmada river in Central India, and movement of Medha Patkar to raise awareness of effected people.
Peasant protest against eucalyptus and monoculture in Thailand with Buddhist priests mobilization and practice of ‘ordination’ ceremonies for keeping natural forest.
Ogoni in Nigeria lost from Royal Shell oil exploration and beneficial government.
Environmental reconstruction by Green Belt Movement in Kenya.
Nature of Southern Env’t struggles (Guha, 2000)
Causes/ oppression:
Commercial logging
Industrial monocultures
Oil drilling
Destructive ‘mega-projects’
Large dams, displaced people
Consequences:
Environmental degradation
Intensifies economic deprivation
Moral urgency
People’s rights:
Traditional community rights
Natural forest

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol21no4/214-saving-africas-forests.html
India/ Brazil comparison (Guha, 2000)
Similarities:
Large, cultural diversity
Poverty
Aggressive gov industrialized programs
Free use of nature and natural resources
Env’l movement contributed to democracy, openness, accountabililty
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/maps.htm
http://www.istanbul-city-guide.com/map/images/country/Brazil-map.jpg
India/ Brazil comparison (Guha, 2000)
Differences:
India:
take more account of the human costs involved
long settled rural communities – farmer
Brazil
shorter history and vast Amazon resources
urban squatters and indigenous people
higher levels of literacy and education
environmentalism has higher inter’l visibility and influence
Renewing the land and the people (Guha, 2000)
People’s involvement for good nature management
Equitable and ecologically sound way
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/09/16/rinjani-community-push-forest-regulations.html
Chipko/ Chico comparison (Guha, 2000)
Chipko:
remote Himalayan peasant stopped loggers from felling hornbeam trees in 1973
Represent for many conflicts:
access to forests, fish and grazing resources
effects of industrial pollution and mining
the sitting of large dams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chipko.jpg
Chipko/ Chico comparison (Guha, 2000)
Chico:
deforestation during 1960-80s & road expansion
indigenous people do not have land titles
rubber tappers + indigenous inhabitants form a Forest Peoples’ Alliance
http://www.chicomendes.com/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/14/endangeredhabitats.forests
Chipko/ Chico comparison (Guha, 2000)
Outcomes:
Formulation of people-sensitive forest policies in India
Rubber Tappers Council of Brazil
Policies for Development for Forest People
Eco-feminism
Active environmental debate

Question 1
How do you evaluate the environmental movement in developing countries?
Pesticides Poison the South & Environmental Justice (Pellow, 2007)
Toxic waste dumping
Transnational environmental inequality
Reflects North/South divisions
Theorized in the context of race, class, nation, and environment
Impacts of pesticides
Problematic: greater efficiencies by producing larger crop yields
Devastating public health and ecological harm
Violence to the ecosystem is similar to social domination
Thousands of suicides by pesticide
Pesticides banned in US are exported, dumped, or used in South –> global environmental inequality and racism

Social Inequality, Labor, and the Ecology of Pesticides (Pellow, 2007)
Women
Lack access to meetings, training, information
Excluded from decision making
Gender-specific jobs & more exposed to pesticide poisoning
Risks to physical and reproductive
Difficulties to access medical care
Cultural sensitivities, language barrier
Labour, marginalized, indigenous people, migrants
http://www.hoahocngaynay.com/fr/hoa-hoc-va-doi-song/hoa-hoc-nong-nghiep/881-22022011.html
Environmental Injustice, and the Violence of Toxic Markets (Pellow, 2007)
Migrant and agricultural workers are squeezed
Developing countries increasingly import pesticide
Consumption increase: 22% (in 1985) to 30% (in 1991).
“development aid” - $250.8 million worth of pesticides (1988-95)
Flow of pesticides as a system of dependent relations
Pesticide firms enjoy profit / poverty / gap
Illegal/ legal pesticide trade
70.000 Vietnamese citizens suffer from Agent Orange exposure
Herbicides killed coca, cannabis, and opium poppy in Colombia
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2006/Agent-Orange-Vietnam1aug06.htm
International Agreements on Pesticide Production and Export (Pellow, 2007)
No law in the US against exporting and dumping banned pesticides
Some international law/ treaties:
The international Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (1985)
The Stockholm convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001)
Rotterdam Convention (2003)
Weak environmental regulations
Efforts of grassroots transnational networks to develop & implement
Resistance against Pesticides (Pellow, 2007)
Two cases:
Obsolete pesticides in the Bahamas
Mozambique’s battle with foreign pesticides
Actions:
Gather information
Launch a global letter-writing campaign
Networking and pressure
Campaign
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-02-01.html
Resistance & movement (Pellow, 2007)
Advocated a return-to-sender approach
Antipesticide activists are also deeply opposed to militarism and state violence
Ban and remove pesticide
Sustainable agriculture & IPM adoption
Policy making of repelling and returning pesticides
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/greenscapes/projects/pji.htm
http://www.speri.org/eng/index.php?act=newsdetail&pid=112&nid=123&id=515
Question 2
How do you comment on the unequal trade relation between North and South (especially relating to toxic pesticides)
Subaltern public: CSR omissions (Munshi & Kurian, 2007)
Ideal CSR
ethical governance
sustainable development
environmental sensitivities
profit generation with a conscience
Authentic CSR
elitist–self-serving
simple-minded paternalism
Subaltern publics
nonconsumer citizens together constitute the subaltern “Other
power differentials
large and heterogeneous group
Corporate proxies (Munshi & Kurian, 2007)
Powerful corporations – states – financial institutions
Big businesses invariably team up with the state to get profit
State grant precious resources: land, water, and power
First and Third world trade in toxic waste
Powerful financial sector - capitalics system
Dominant coalition undermines subaltern publics
Political realties (Munshi & Kurian, 2007)
Undermined the welfare of poor people
Child labour
Impacts of globalization & ecological degradation on women
Impacts of profit-driven businesses
Business gain a good environmental reputation to offset human rights
http://fairtradechocolate.wikidot.com/system:page-tags-list
Question 3
How can citizens (subaltern/ nonconsumers and consumers) address and contribute to improve social responsibility of businesses?
North-South Non-cooperation (Roberts & Parks, 2006)
A right to social and economic development
Global inequality & socially shared understandings of “fair” solutions
Understandings of fairness and justice can
reinforce zero-sum worldviews and causal belief
erode conditions of mutual trust
promote risk aversion
foster retaliatory attitudes
Ecologically unequal exchange is a social reality
http://graduateinstitute.ch/corporate/Internationalnegotiation.html
North-South Non-cooperation (Roberts & Parks, 2006)
A Hierarchy of Explanations
unequal structure
environmental burdens disadvantages poor countries
Worldviews and causal beliefs influence issue definition, expectations, interests, principled beliefs
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=27015&Cr=climate&Cr1=change
North-South Non-cooperation (Roberts & Parks, 2006)
Global Inequality & Climate Treaty Deadlock
three types of beliefs that influence policies and outcomes
Worldviews
Principled of beliefs
Causal beliefs
Structuralist ideas about the origins and persistence of global inequality
Perceptions obstruct North-South efforts to protect the climate
Profligate North consumption
Environmental reform depends upon South position of labour division
North use environmental issues to undermine South growth
North-South Non-cooperation (Roberts & Parks, 2006)
A Climate of Mistrust
climate of mistrust is obstacle to cooperation
promote conditions of mutual trust
reciprocity
evaluating other actors’ expectations, strategies
Mistrust in reality
North – South different point of view on compensation
South conomic liberalization and trade deficit, lost control
Financial event/ crisis
North-South Non-cooperation (Roberts & Parks, 2006)
How the Development Crisis Breeds Mistrust in Climate Negotiations
rich nations need to rebuild conditions of trust
Trust, sincerity, and diffuse reciprocity are sustained by principled, consistent behaviour
Poor countries face risk averse
Post-2012: Participation in a Climate Treaty
principled belief affect environmental cooperation
contract: no involved country stands to lose
Definition of fairness are elastic, manipulated
Negotiation is sometimes influenced by emotion rather than material self-interest
Aid needs to be reoriented and combined with favorable trade, debt, investment, finance, and intellectual property rights policies
Question 4 & 5
What is the strongest influence to international environmental negotiations?

What are essential factors to improve North-South environmental cooperation?
Thank you!