What is Lost in Conservation Efforts?

            From the time westernized children are young, we are indoctrinated to believe in saving the whales, the rhinos, and the rainforests. We are cultivated in a social environment which targets specific niches of environmentalism and latches on, professing the necessity of ecological activism and conservation. And while these convictions which developed states stem from a moral concern for the well-being of the planet earth and its inhabitants, the infiltration of conservationist efforts in developing states often leads to unforeseen repercussions. Loss of political sovereignty, cultural norms, and the possibility of state use of force against citizens are all lurking consequences to the involvement of conservation regimes in developing areas. While in no way do I propose that the exploitation of resources is a viable or sustainable option, it is undeniable that the externalities of conservationist efforts need to be planned and accounted for in order to prevent unnecessary environmental, social, and political harm.

            In her analysis of the repercussions of conservation efforts in the “Third World,” Nancy Lee Peluso introduces the idea that these precautionary measures often lead to, “external intervention in what were previously the sole affairs of the states.” (Peluso 1993). The common response to this insinuation is that developing states lack the knowledge and understanding of how to manage and protect the valuable resources within their boundaries, and that international conservation involvement is the only method through which the resource is safeguarded. Even with this in mind, I think it is worth considering the political implications of this involvement. Rather than leaving the resource management to the native persons of a given state, these international organizations come in with sanctions, laws, and regulatory policies which dictate the actions and use of the resource by the entire state. Such measures assume that the moral and environmental predispositions of the Western order – usually the backing force of these conservation efforts – are “right,” while the environmental tactics of those inhabiting the land are dowdy and ineffective. This loss of sovereignty in the jurisdiction of a state over a resource raises red flags in terms of social customs and governmental action.

            While conservationist coalitions such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), seek to protect the biodiversity of a given region, their actions often have unintended consequences. A pivotal example of this is found in the case study of the Maasai, an indigenous group to Kenya whose primary way of life had previously been to coexist with the wild game of Kenya. Their land access was effectively quartered off by the state government due to pressures from international environmentalist regimes, their lifestyle habits entirely altered, and primary form of economic gain (hunting) thwarted due to protectionist policies implemented by the government. Such instances in which the sociocultural norms of an indigenous group of people to a state are cast aside in an effort to maintain biodiversity have lasting effects; civil unrest in states and a general sense of discontent from the locals could result in conflict between the public and the government. While the importance of the conservation of a given resource for the sake of biodiversity protection certainly has merit, are international groups willing to prioritize this over the social well-being of the citizens of a state?  

            As social scientists and politicians continue to analyze the externalities of conservation policies and regime involvement in resource-dense developing countries of the world, it is becoming clear that this is a question which demands to be answered. As is the case in Kenya, there is a pattern of developing state leaders to use the conservation of resources as justification to use militarized force against civilians. Rangers in these states are legally permitted to kill poachers without any trial, questioning, or formal due process. This blatant violation of human rights in exchange for ecological protection is an issue which needs to be addressed, and which further questions the sanctity of conservation regime involvement in developing states.

            As someone who has been socialized to appreciate the biodiversity around the world, I would argue that preventative measures are necessary in order to ensure the continuance of species for future generations. This being said, the policies created by international conservation regimes must account for the sovereignty of states, the rights of the people who depend on the resource, and the protection of citizens from abuse of power in the name of conservation efforts. Rather than a collective group of individuals from western states constructing policies for these developing states, I would offer that it might be beneficial to involve citizens from communities within the states when drafting policies, to get a realistic understanding of how the regulations will influence the state itself. By accounting for externalities of conservation efforts before they are implemented, the successful protection of pivotal resources can be accomplished without threatening the rights of developing states and the citizens.  

Say Yes to Labeling: Let the Consumers Decide on GMOs

As if we needed another reason to love Chipotle, we just got another! Chipotle Mexican Grill has recently become one of the first major corporations to support Proposition 105 in Colorado. Being voted on in a few weeks, Propositon 105 “would require manufacturers, retailers and suppliers to label raw and packaged foods produced entirely or partially by genetic engineering” (ABC7, 2014). However, Chipotle’s support for this bill comes with no surprise. “With more than 1,700 restaurants worldwide, Chipotle is one of the bigger and more recognized brands to already voluntarily label GMO ingredients in its food” (ABC7, 2014).

            The high level of public support for Proposition 105 and labeling has stemmed from the great controversy raised in some areas regarding genetically modified (GM) food. A recent article published by Livestrong expressed the concerns that the safety of GM foods is uncertain, that chemical contamination is possible, and that environmental ramifications might occur (Kannal, 2014). The article explained that there is “no long-term data on how genetically modified foods affect human health,” that “the [GM] food you eat may contain traces of these toxic chemicals,” and that the spread of GM crops may make it harder to control noxious plants while decreasing biodiversity (Kannal, 2014).

            However, Chipotle’s support for labeling and the resistance against GM foods has not been universally shared. “The United States has invested heavily [into GM crops] to ensure global leadership in integrating biotechnology into agriculture” (Stone, 2010). The United States’ support for GM crops is due to the fact that these crops “bring new mechanisms to prevent seed replanting and for agricultural capital to benefit from public investment—particularly government-supported academic research” (Stone, 2010). In other words, GM crops serve to benefit the self-interest of the United States, so the United States has pledged its support.

            In addition to the praise raised by the government for GM crops, many corporations have also illustrated their support. Corporate support for GM crops has resulted in “industry-favored framings” that “naturaliz[e] GM crops” to make them seem as though they are as part of the long history of plant manipulation (Stone, 2010). This manipulative framing “is standard in histories of biotechnology from corporate media departments, showing a natural progression from grain domestication to genetic modification” (Stone, 2010). Typically, this narrative is also coupled with a “specter of famine,” depicting starving people, that can be resolved with the usage of GM crops (Stone, 2010).

Proponents of GM crops often illustrate the image of the technologies alleviating the hunger of starving people in developing nations; however, this image is misguided. It is true that the limited access to food in developing nations is a major international concern. In Africa, “high rates of population growth and little application of improved production technology during the past three decades have resulted in declining per capita food production, escalating food deficits, deteriorating nutritional levels among the rural poor, and devastating environmental degradation” (Borlaug, 2007). However, nearly the entire world’s “GM acres are planted to crops developed for industrial farming” (Stone, 2010). Even in developing nations GM acres largely consist of “cotton and soy,” and golden rice still has yet to make an appearance (Stone, 2010). Rather than serving its advertised purpose of improving the quantity of food production, GM crops have thus far been utilized primarily to benefit corporate interest.

Even with the knowledge of all the potential consequences of genetic modification, some individuals may still decide to consume GM foods, and that is their decision to make. However, without labeling of GM foods, opponents of genetic modifications cannot make the same decision. GM labeling is about providing consumers with the right to make informed decisions about what they are eating. A label is not a prohibition—it is a warning. Consumers should have the right to know about the truth about the food they are purchasing. Labeling provides consumers with that right, and is the first step towards easing the uncertainty on GMOs.

ABC7. (2014, October 14). Chipotle backs Colorado GMO label proposal; CEO: Prop 105

opponents put profits ahead of consumers.

Borlaug, Norman. 2007. “Feeding a Hungry World,” Science 318: 359.

Kannal, E. (2014, February 4). Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Food. Livestrong.

Stone, D. G. (2010). The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops. The Annual Review of

Anthropology, 39, 381-400.

Ignorance as a Hindrance to Environmental Protection

Photo credit: Martin Sensmeier 

Awareness of environmental issues has continued to rise over the past several decades, as well as awareness of the human impact on the current state of the Earth and our environment. Naturally, with this heightened awareness, comes a more vested interest in protecting and conserving resources due to their endangered state, accessibility for future generations, or because of inhumane practices of capturing these resources. Though efforts at conservation and preservation can be rooted in honest intentions, complications arise when there are disconnects between the West and its goals of conservation, and native populations and their cultural practices.

This disconnect is especially evident with the rise of movements and efforts to end the hunting of a specific animal. This post will focus briefly on Western efforts to end Canadian Inuit seal hunting, in order to show that this disconnect, fueled by ignorance and a lack of understanding, must be addressed if conservation and preservation efforts hope to evolve and become less intrusive in the future. In order to help bridge this disconnect between conservationists and indigenous peoples, conservationists must seek to educate themselves about the cultural and lifestyle practices of these populations before seeking to impose bans and restrictions have the potential completely disrupt their way of life.

The above image is from the Instagram site of model, actor, and Native activist Martin Sensmeier in response to anti-seal hunting efforts led by famous talk-show-host Ellen DeGeneres and the Human Society of the United States in the spring of 2014. During this time, DeGeneres vocalized her opinion that “seal hunting is one of the most atrocious and inhumane acts against animals allowed by any government”, immediately outraging members of the Inuit community. This initiated the posting of hundreds of online protest pictures with the hashtag “SEALfie”, like the one pictured above, by Inuit people and supporters expressing their disgust with DeGeneres’ ignorance about seal hunting and a lack of understanding of the importance of seals to their entire way of life. These vivid and passionate postings help to convey the often strong disconnect between individuals in the West and native and indigenous peoples across the globe in regards to cultural practices and conservation efforts.

Though it is not explicitly stated that the attempted banning of seal hunting was intended specifically for preservation or conservation efforts, the intended banning of resource hunting by the West against natives in other countries clearly parallels some of the actions and responses of the Maasai people of Kenya during the onslaught of external pressures from Western conservationist groups and big game hunters during the 1960’s. In “Coercing Conservation”, Nancy Peluso details the clashes between the local resource users, the Maasai, and the government, over the conservation of animals commonly hunted in the area. In this case, the “colonial government” gave into external pressures from big game hunters and Western conservation groups to set aside land specifically for wild game (GPB, p. 329). As Peluso goes onto describe, in doing this, the government also wanted to settle the Maasai people into fixed locations, which effectively would have brought an end to their traditional methods of migratory cattle raising (GPB, p. 329).

The forced conservation efforts upon local environments that Peluso describes occurred around the 1950s, but it is clear that this pattern has continued over fifty years later, as demonstrated by the attempted banning of seal hunting. In both instances, the seemingly beneficial efforts at conserving and limiting the hunting of particular animals would have required the local populations to drastically alter their practices, and ultimately, their way of life. As Martin Sensmeier pointed out in the case of the Inuit people, seal meat has been used for thousands of years and is a traditional staple to the Inuit because of their ability to use it for food, clothing, shelter, and even transportation. When local people feel the pressure of external forces who do not understand, or seek to understand their way of life, they can choose to respond to these pressures in ways that they believe will send a strong message. In the case of the Maasai, they chose to physically lash out at the reserve authorities by killing the rhino’s and elephant’s that the conservationists sought to protect. Conversely, the Inuit people and their supporters chose to take advantage of current technology and the power of the social media to vocalize their grievances and opinions to a worldwide audience.

Arguably, whether there is physical resistance or verbal resistance sparked by social media, individuals want their voices to be heard, and their opinions and livelihoods to be taken into account when the government or outside conservation groups seek to enforce conservation measures on their native land. Because it doesn't appear as though true efforts have been made to understand the cultures and lifestyle practices of native people before seeking to implement conservation action, conservation efforts have taken a slightly negative turn. If conservation efforts hope to improve in the future, those seeking to conserve must actively choose to integrate indigenous and native peoples into the conversation, rather than seeking outright bans on resources critical to their survival.

In order to help remedy this disconnect in culture and lifestyle, I believe that conservation efforts must seek to talk less and listen more. Now, it would seem as though efforts mainly focus on informing indigenous people of the lack of humanity in their practices and the detrimental effects of these actions on the environment. An equal amount of effort must be placed into creating a dialog with populations in or near the areas of conservation, in order to help conservationists better understand the actions and world view of these groups. This can help provide them with a better understanding of why they hunt and act the way that they do, and arguably, this can help them create more appropriate and practical conservation efforts that do not totally infringe upon the ancient cultural practices and survival techniques of these societies.

Sources:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/11/inuit-sealfie-campaign.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/03/28/sealfies-ellen-degeneres-seal-hunt_n_5046394.html 

http://www.ellentv.com/2011/04/06/stop-seal-hunting-in-canada-now/

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/mar/28/inuit-seal-sealfies-selfie-degeneres-oscars

Effects of Western Dominance

            Throughout the semester, there has been a recurring theme in the course readings: the way in which Western actions impact and influence issues in the Global South. There have been interesting perspectives involving Western influence on the topics of colonialism, the resource curse, and conservation. The efforts of the U.S. and Western powers that attempt to help states in the Global South with poverty and development issues are widely known. International organizations and non-governmental organizations act to enhance situations in developing states in various ways from giving loans to tangibly providing relief. With this in mind, we often do not stop to think about the ways in which actions of the wealthy Western world dominate the decisions made regarding environmental issues and development outcomes. The way that the international system is structured allows for Western states to control many aspects of states in the Global South.

            The roots of this Western dominance can be traced back to colonialism. Colonies were used for production of raw materials or places for cheap labor and were never given the chance to use the resources in an effective way that would allow them to develop markets that could compete with the markets of powerful Western states. Mitchell's take on the resource curse also emphasizes the exploitative structure that the West has created within the international environmental context. He asserts that without oil and industrialization, Western states would not be where they are today. He places blame for the problems that come with resource wealth not on state governments but on the Western producers and consumers that create the demand for them. He concludes that developing states are simply not given the opportunity to diversify their economies and create new industries because they are heavily dependent on revenue from resources. The reading by Tamara Giles-Vernick about the Mpiemu people of the Sangha River basin of the Central African Republic also brings Western influence on developing states to attention. It talks about the way that the views of the people were influenced by colonizers, missionaries, and others that they came into contact with. The Mpiemu people exploited rubber and game for the economic benefits such as exchange and consumer goods that Western states provided.

            These are only a few examples of situations in which developed Western powers exert influence and control over outcomes of states in the Global South. Formal institutions within the international system also contribute to this unequal structure. For example, the United States is the country that always appoints the president of the World Bank. In addition, vote shares of the World Bank are based on how much money a country contributes. This inevitably leads to policies that favor Western interests because the wealthy countries of the Western world are able to contribute more to the World Bank and therefore have much higher voting power. The organization of the UN Security Council is also structured in a way that favors the West. There are 15 members of the Security Council, all of whom have veto power. Five of the 15 members are permanent members. The permanent members consist of the states with the largest economies, states with nuclear weapons, and the states that won World War II. This gives more decision-making power to the world's wealthiest and most powerful states, which can be problematic considering that member states always have their own domestic political interests as well. The structure of the international system clearly favors Western interests and allows for Western domination of environmental, political, and economic aspects of developing states.

            The course readings thus far have sparked my interest in this issue and I think it is important to keep it in mind when discussing global environmental politics, especially in modern times. It seems unfair to me to expect that developing states adhere to a set of restrictions or requirements in the name of environmental protection or conservation when it is undeniable that the West is highly responsible for the problems to begin with. Additionally, the standards for industries regarding emissions and other environmental problems are much higher now than they were when the United States and other current powers were beginning to industrialize. If industrialization is necessary for the economies of underdeveloped states to grow, it does not seem right for the West to have such a large influence, not only because of colonialism and dependency but also through formal international institutions. These are very controversial issues which must be further discussed in order to come up with an effective solution.

Sources:

Giles-Vernick, Tamara. Cutting the Vines of the Past: Environmental Histories of the Central African Rain Forest. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue Canadienne des Études Africaines, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2003), pp. 160-162.

Mitchell, Timothy. "Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil."Verso, 2011.